Best practices when using DAW Eqs - advice for a new user

I probably ask far too many questions on here but I'm really impressed with people's helpful responses so thought I'd blast another one at you.

I have a good general idea of how to use EQ but want specific tips/time-saving tricks for ways you personally regularly work with eq on electronic dance music elements (Kick, snare, bass, pads, vocals etc etc)

My approach thus far using Ableton's EQ8 seems to follow a recurrent pattern and I wonder if I'm doing it right or could improve.

So I use the low cut/high cut filters to roll off the unnecessary low/high end and I 'listen' to the individual effect each node is having on the sound by selecting the headphone button which turns the waveform blue and then I deselect to hear what's changed.

Other than that I boost some mid/high frequencies using a notch/the other filters - but I'm weary to boost too much - and then I use the notch filter and sweep the frequencies at high gain levels and narrow Q to find sound elements I don't like and attenuate accordingly.

I can spend hours doing this and I wonder if I'm doing it wrong/missing knowledge to do it quicker.

To me it seems as though almost every sound can do with some degree of low/high cutting and lots of my eqs end up looking a similar shape, closing in around the sound in sort of a narrow bell shape with a high cut and low cut at each end.

So yeah - how do you work with EQ? Do you find yourself using certain patterns for certain types of sounds...I'm aware about being weary of the 250hz woodiness in kick drums and find it easier to remove frequencies like that than improve upon favorable parts of the sound - like boosting the bass/initial attack of a kick.

I don't really ever use the other EQ options on the right hand side either - the graph icon/mode/edit/adapt.Q/scale/gain. Do you?

Thanks a million.

What I do a lot is sweep a narrow peak across the spectrum to find the sweet spots of the sound I'm using. Emphasizing one or two narrow bands can make a pretty big difference.

Thanks. Interesting stuff :)

Oh and I mean bell rather than notch filtering.

I use EQ twice, one as an 'in' and the other as an 'out'. The 'in' goes right at the start of the chain and hp/lp's the signal as necessary; only ever cutting, never adding. Then whatever compression/fx. Then a second EQ as the 'out' which I largely use for attenuating a frequencies; basically adding/boosting frequencies and shaping the sound as needed for the mix.

That sounds exactly how I do it....I still find myself sweeping frequencies at the 'out' stage for bloody ages though.

It seems if you boost anything at a narrow enough q with enough gain you will always find something to cut out....so that part of the decision making process is kind of trial and error - hence the time required.

I very rarely sweep for 2 reasons.

1) if you have problem frequencies they should be noticeable at normal levels within the mix, without the need to stick a load of gain in and sweep through.

2) I personally like to think about what's going on. What's the point of this sound? Is it likely to be at a similar frequency of another sound? What's missing? What's too much? Just answering those questions will give me a pretty good idea of what EQ I need to put on and where.

Not an expert and it's been a while since I read up on this stuff, so I'm not sure I got all the physics and terminology down, but it helps to have some understanding of the basics of what you're actually doing, I'll try and walk you through it.

Physics and the way audio processing works prevent 100% foolproof accurate adjustments in the time and frequency domains simultaneously. All EQing works by a process called phase shifting, which is a type of distortion/offset in the time domain, completely different from typical distortion which only affects amplitude, but it's what allows frequency adjustment. The more you adjust a certain band, and the more bands and frequency-specific devices you use on a specific audio programme, the more you get that type of distortion. Small amounts of phase shifting will affect the sound very slightly, while severe phasing will actually cancel out large portions of the sound. Additionally, every band you activate splits the incoming signal in that section, and the device then has to sum the result - in the digital domain this is done by an algorithm of sorts, and no algorithm is perfect, they're all more or less arbitrary compromises and each developer makes their own decisions in this regard. All this means that EQing has a tendency to color your audio (even when you haven't adjusted any band), ranging from completely imperceptible to noticeable artifacts, from the detrimental to quite pleasing, and that different EQs affect your programme differently. It's a relatively small factor in normal audio processing and nothing to take too seriously, but in the long run it helps to be aware of this. Phase problems are abound in audio processing and generally undesirable for high quality purposes, and you have to draw the line somewhere - For beginners it's easy to imagine more processing will lead to a bigger improvement, but at some point you're going to audibly hear how excessive EQ, or using an inferior/unsuitable type of EQ, has affected the tone of your signal. This is most noticeable on delicate acoustic recordings like nylon-stringed guitar - it's easier than you think to lose depth and end up with a "flat" sound, and in a big track those little artifacts and phase issues add up.

Half-baked understanding of this process has lead to a widespread myth that it's better to cut than to boost on an EQ, because that would allegedly lead to less phase shifting, but it's not true, the effect is equal in both directions. If you increase the volume of a signal after aggressive cutting, you're going to get pretty much the same effect as boosting. The only reason to be careful with boosting is for psychoacoustic reasons, as every increase in volume has a tremendous effect on our impression of a specific sound (and can lead to a snowballing effect where you compensate by boosting all kinds of elements ad infinitum), but if you're working with a fairly low volume from the outset, you're going to be fine.

I tend to boost more than I cut but I have a decent understanding of when to stop. the point I'm trying to get at with all this technobabble is that less is more. The best advice I got from an engineer was to "paint in broad strokes" - use wide and gentle adjustments whenever possible, yet be precise. Don't adjust 3dbs if 2.5 is enough. It's fine to make precise and accumulative adjustments on things like bass in dance music, and every producer in the world goes through a phase of making wacky roller-coaster EQ adjustments, but above all, use your ears, learn to rely on them.

This leads to the next myth, all these fucking educational "EQ charts" and the ideas of "punch" in a certain frequency, "bite" in another... Or "woodiness". All of this shit is one big excuse to be lazy and not use your ears. Every sound sample had it's own recording conditions, every sample is unique and demands unique treatment with fresh undivided attention - not someone relying more on charts and screens than their ears.

So my advice to you is to practice a lot, train your ears, learn to recognize specific frequencies by ear alone. Before you know it, you'll be able to distinguish between a 3.25khz tone and a 3.5khz one without even looking at an EQ or spectrum, and you'll be able to hear exactly what's going on in your heroes tracks.

Paragraphic EQs like EQ8 are very useful for surgical adjustments but they can be quite 2dimensional sounding, especially in upper frequencies. I have used EQ8 more than any other EQ in my life, but I find it devastating on delicate audio in the upper frequencies. Try different types of EQs out, especially the ones without snazzy graphical interfaces with maybe as little as 2 or 3 bands locked in certain frequency ranges. High quality ones tend to sound more musically pleasing, even if they're digital software and inexpensive, they retain depth in the recording and bring out just the right elements with minimal effort when you know where and when to adjust. My favorite type is the passive EQs where each band adjustment affects other separate bands in an organic, sometimes unpredictable fashion, the result tends to sound great, especially on higher frequencies.

Anyway, just keep practicing, having fun and exploring, you'll do fine.

  On 5/31/2015 at 9:19 PM, chim said:

Not an expert and it's been a while since I read up on this stuff, so I'm not sure I got all the physics and terminology down, but it helps to have some understanding of the basics of what you're actually doing, I'll try and walk you through it.

 

Physics and the way audio processing works prevent 100% foolproof accurate adjustments in the time and frequency domains simultaneously. All EQing works by a process called phase shifting, which is a type of distortion/offset in the time domain, completely different from typical distortion which only affects amplitude, but it's what allows frequency adjustment. The more you adjust a certain band, and the more bands and frequency-specific devices you use on a specific audio programme, the more you get that type of distortion. Small amounts of phase shifting will affect the sound very slightly, while severe phasing will actually cancel out large portions of the sound. Additionally, every band you activate splits the incoming signal in that section, and the device then has to sum the result - in the digital domain this is done by an algorithm of sorts, and no algorithm is perfect, they're all more or less arbitrary compromises and each developer makes their own decisions in this regard. All this means that EQing has a tendency to color your audio (even when you haven't adjusted any band), ranging from completely imperceptible to noticeable artifacts, from the detrimental to quite pleasing, and that different EQs affect your programme differently. It's a relatively small factor in normal audio processing and nothing to take too seriously, but in the long run it helps to be aware of this. Phase problems are abound in audio processing and generally undesirable for high quality purposes, and you have to draw the line somewhere - For beginners it's easy to imagine more processing will lead to a bigger improvement, but at some point you're going to audibly hear how excessive EQ, or using an inferior/unsuitable type of EQ, has affected the tone of your signal. This is most noticeable on delicate acoustic recordings like nylon-stringed guitar - it's easier than you think to lose depth and end up with a "flat" sound, and in a big track those little artifacts and phase issues add up.

 

Half-baked understanding of this process has lead to a widespread myth that it's better to cut than to boost on an EQ, because that would allegedly lead to less phase shifting, but it's not true, the effect is equal in both directions. If you increase the volume of a signal after aggressive cutting, you're going to get pretty much the same effect as boosting. The only reason to be careful with boosting is for psychoacoustic reasons, as every increase in volume has a tremendous effect on our impression of a specific sound (and can lead to a snowballing effect where you compensate by boosting all kinds of elements ad infinitum), but if you're working with a fairly low volume from the outset, you're going to be fine.

 

I tend to boost more than I cut but I have a decent understanding of when to stop. the point I'm trying to get at with all this technobabble is that less is more. The best advice I got from an engineer was to "paint in broad strokes" - use wide and gentle adjustments whenever possible, yet be precise. Don't adjust 3dbs if 2.5 is enough. It's fine to make precise and accumulative adjustments on things like bass in dance music, and every producer in the world goes through a phase of making wacky roller-coaster EQ adjustments, but above all, use your ears, learn to rely on them.

 

This leads to the next myth, all these fucking educational "EQ charts" and the ideas of "punch" in a certain frequency, "bite" in another... Or "woodiness". All of this shit is one big excuse to be lazy and not use your ears. Every sound sample had it's own recording conditions, every sample is unique and demands unique treatment with fresh undivided attention - not someone relying more on charts and screens than their ears.

 

So my advice to you is to practice a lot, train your ears, learn to recognize specific frequencies by ear alone. Before you know it, you'll be able to distinguish between a 3.25khz tone and a 3.5khz one without even looking at an EQ or spectrum, and you'll be able to hear exactly what's going on in your heroes tracks.

 

Paragraphic EQs like EQ8 are very useful for surgical adjustments but they can be quite 2dimensional sounding, especially in upper frequencies. I have used EQ8 more than any other EQ in my life, but I find it devastating on delicate audio in the upper frequencies. Try different types of EQs out, especially the ones without snazzy graphical interfaces with maybe as little as 3 bands locked in certain frequency ranges. High quality ones tend to sound more musically pleasing, even if they're digital software and inexpensive, they retain depth in the recording and bring out just the right elements with minimal effort when you know where and when to adjust. My favorite type is the passive EQs where each band adjustment affects other separate bands in an organic, sometimes unpredictable fashion, the result tends to sound great, especially on higher frequencies.

 

Anyway, just keep practicing, having fun and exploring, you'll do fine.

Awesome post!

  On 5/31/2015 at 9:19 PM, chim said:

Not an expert and it's been a while since I read up on this stuff, so I'm not sure I got all the physics and terminology down, but it helps to have some understanding of the basics of what you're actually doing, I'll try and walk you through it.

 

Physics and the way audio processing works prevent 100% foolproof accurate adjustments in the time and frequency domains simultaneously. All EQing works by a process called phase shifting, which is a type of distortion/offset in the time domain, completely different from typical distortion which only affects amplitude, but it's what allows frequency adjustment. The more you adjust a certain band, and the more bands and frequency-specific devices you use on a specific audio programme, the more you get that type of distortion. Small amounts of phase shifting will affect the sound very slightly, while severe phasing will actually cancel out large portions of the sound. Additionally, every band you activate splits the incoming signal in that section, and the device then has to sum the result - in the digital domain this is done by an algorithm of sorts, and no algorithm is perfect, they're all more or less arbitrary compromises and each developer makes their own decisions in this regard. All this means that EQing has a tendency to color your audio (even when you haven't adjusted any band), ranging from completely imperceptible to noticeable artifacts, from the detrimental to quite pleasing, and that different EQs affect your programme differently. It's a relatively small factor in normal audio processing and nothing to take too seriously, but in the long run it helps to be aware of this. Phase problems are abound in audio processing and generally undesirable for high quality purposes, and you have to draw the line somewhere - For beginners it's easy to imagine more processing will lead to a bigger improvement, but at some point you're going to audibly hear how excessive EQ, or using an inferior/unsuitable type of EQ, has affected the tone of your signal. This is most noticeable on delicate acoustic recordings like nylon-stringed guitar - it's easier than you think to lose depth and end up with a "flat" sound, and in a big track those little artifacts and phase issues add up.

 

Half-baked understanding of this process has lead to a widespread myth that it's better to cut than to boost on an EQ, because that would allegedly lead to less phase shifting, but it's not true, the effect is equal in both directions. If you increase the volume of a signal after aggressive cutting, you're going to get pretty much the same effect as boosting. The only reason to be careful with boosting is for psychoacoustic reasons, as every increase in volume has a tremendous effect on our impression of a specific sound (and can lead to a snowballing effect where you compensate by boosting all kinds of elements ad infinitum), but if you're working with a fairly low volume from the outset, you're going to be fine.

 

I tend to boost more than I cut but I have a decent understanding of when to stop. the point I'm trying to get at with all this technobabble is that less is more. The best advice I got from an engineer was to "paint in broad strokes" - use wide and gentle adjustments whenever possible, yet be precise. Don't adjust 3dbs if 2.5 is enough. It's fine to make precise and accumulative adjustments on things like bass in dance music, and every producer in the world goes through a phase of making wacky roller-coaster EQ adjustments, but above all, use your ears, learn to rely on them.

 

This leads to the next myth, all these fucking educational "EQ charts" and the ideas of "punch" in a certain frequency, "bite" in another... Or "woodiness". All of this shit is one big excuse to be lazy and not use your ears. Every sound sample had it's own recording conditions, every sample is unique and demands unique treatment with fresh undivided attention - not someone relying more on charts and screens than their ears.

 

So my advice to you is to practice a lot, train your ears, learn to recognize specific frequencies by ear alone. Before you know it, you'll be able to distinguish between a 3.25khz tone and a 3.5khz one without even looking at an EQ or spectrum, and you'll be able to hear exactly what's going on in your heroes tracks.

 

Paragraphic EQs like EQ8 are very useful for surgical adjustments but they can be quite 2dimensional sounding, especially in upper frequencies. I have used EQ8 more than any other EQ in my life, but I find it devastating on delicate audio in the upper frequencies. Try different types of EQs out, especially the ones without snazzy graphical interfaces with maybe as little as 2 or 3 bands locked in certain frequency ranges. High quality ones tend to sound more musically pleasing, even if they're digital software and inexpensive, they retain depth in the recording and bring out just the right elements with minimal effort when you know where and when to adjust. My favorite type is the passive EQs where each band adjustment affects other separate bands in an organic, sometimes unpredictable fashion, the result tends to sound great, especially on higher frequencies.

 

Anyway, just keep practicing, having fun and exploring, you'll do fine.

Wow. Thanks so much you complete legend. Wonderful post :) I'll soldier on...I'm probably being too aggressive with it all...I deffinately use my ears though. I think I'm actually quite good at that but it's applying it practically.

What actual plugins would you advise as alternatives to EQ8 then?

Personally, I love Fabfilter's Q

Damn chim. Nice.

and yes, FabFilter is nice. I mainly use Fruity Loops parametric eq 2, that's only because it takes up little CPU so I can put them anywhere really, and does a lot for it.

Also, one thing to always keep in the back of your head is that good EQing and other mixing practices will never save a bad composition.

Don't cut so abruptly the "undesired" frequencies. Like bass stuff and shit, I used to cut them the fuck out but the sound became soulless... So I just lower the volume and it sounds ok

  On 6/1/2015 at 4:33 AM, logakght said:

Don't cut so abruptly the "undesired" frequencies. Like bass stuff and shit, I used to cut them the fuck out but the sound became soulless... So I just lower the volume and it sounds ok

welp wat Chatruse said.

I mainly use the 5 band eq in renoise and this:

http://www.overtonedsp.co.uk/download/download_ptc_2a/index.html

Hint:

If you do not want to loose the soul by cutting the lows and stuff, just cut them with m/s processing on the side bands. I sometimes even completly gate the side bands to have more room in the mix, but that depends on the sound.

Thanks all.

I second the thing Chartreuse and other ppl said to some extent. When you start mixing one of the firsts tips you're likely to hear is "hi-pass everything to remove the undesired bass frequencies because it makes your mix messy" (or something like that) and if you always do that it takes some time to recognize that you might go too far : removing too much is also a problem obviously. So as always it's a matter of balance : a great mix is a mix where sounds sound clear yet blend with each other nicely. But in the end it's also a matter of aesthetic. When I think about that I always have to remember how much I listened to the album Mosaik by Siriusmo when it came out and how I now can't bear it anymore because it now sounds so "cut" to me. Same with Plaid kind of.

PS: quite a post Chim, feel free to share your documentation if you have some links!

Some tips:

1) pick ONE EQ and learn it upside down. It's all about the perfect balance between workflow, curves and phase response. I swear by http://www.tokyodawn.net/tdr-vos-slickeq-ge/ (do yourself a favor and demo its free version, which is absolutely stunning too). It's limited yet immensely flexible, and sounds bloody gorgeous. It's damn hard to make it sound bad. On par with DMG EQuilibrium IMHO (often considered as the best ITB EQ), for a fraction of the price. And believe me, its limited set of band is a blessing.

2) if a sound needs more than a few dBs of cut, or if a narrow cut is required : go back to your instrument/synth/sampler and fix it there, whenever it's possible. Avoid surgical EQ whenever possible, it might create more issues than before (weird phase distortion, ringing etc...). EQ isn't only about fixing : it's also (and especially) about making everything work as a whole.

3) never solo a track you're EQing. Never! To fit in a mix, an instrument sometimes has to sound horrible when soloed.

4) check your mix in mono every now and then : super useful to check all kinds of freq cancelation, phase issues... You might also do all your EQing before panning : it's a bit tricky at first, but it works great, really. Panning can often hide overlapping frequencies issues.

5) 9 times out of 10, a very gentle broad cut in the mid and some cleaning in the lows and highs (be it with a shelf or a LPF/HPF) is all a sound needs. If it doesn't work : 2) ;)

6) oh and avoid spectrum analyser. Avoid mixing with your eyes anyway! Trust your ears!!!

7) and finally, as usual with audio, at least most of the time : less is more.

I sincerely hope it helps.

thats good advice.

i'll just say that all digital EQ's sound the same really, there is no scientific way to achieve a different sound out of 2 different plugin EQ's other than setting the parameter ranges more or less extreme.

the most expensive EQ should basically null with the worst freeware EQ if the settings are the same.

Bootsy's stuff usually has a super limited parameter range, which prevents the user from making extreme settings. This creates a focus in the user on the subtleties between settings as opposed to allowing a noob to go buck wild. IMO this could be construed as a gimmick by a cynical reviewer. But there is no difference between the EQ algorithms between the Tokyo Dawn EQ and any other EQ. State Variable saturation and other related novelties will however change the character of sound in the time domain, but we are talking about a proprietary fx chain and not an EQ proper.

as far as advice for a DAW eq, there really is no difference aside from psychological between DAW and 3rd party plugins.

I'm more curious about the difference between digital and analogue EQ.

Thanks again. I was clearly doing stuff wrong by solo eqing a sound when clearly it should be eqd in reference to other elements. I'm probably too harshly cutting frequencies too and being too surgical. All really good learning experience though so thank you. I'll refer to this in the future.

  On 6/1/2015 at 11:44 AM, lin said:

Some tips:

 

1) pick ONE EQ and learn it upside down. It's all about the perfect balance between workflow, curves and phase response. I swear by http://www.tokyodawn.net/tdr-vos-slickeq-ge/ (do yourself a favor and demo its free version, which is absolutely stunning too). It's limited yet immensely flexible, and sounds bloody gorgeous. It's damn hard to make it sound bad. On par with DMG EQuilibrium IMHO (often considered as the best ITB EQ), for a fraction of the price. And believe me, its limited set of band is a blessing.

 

2) if a sound needs more than a few dBs of cut, or if a narrow cut is required : go back to your instrument/synth/sampler and fix it there, whenever it's possible. Avoid surgical EQ whenever possible, it might create more issues than before (weird phase distortion, ringing etc...). EQ isn't only about fixing : it's also (and especially) about making everything work as a whole.

 

3) never solo a track you're EQing. Never! To fit in a mix, an instrument sometimes has to sound horrible when soloed.

 

4) check your mix in mono every now and then : super useful to check all kinds of freq cancelation, phase issues... You might also do all your EQing before panning : it's a bit tricky at first, but it works great, really. Panning can often hide overlapping frequencies issues.

 

5) 9 times out of 10, a very gentle broad cut in the mid and some cleaning in the lows and highs (be it with a shelf or a LPF/HPF) is all a sound needs. If it doesn't work : 2) ;)

 

6) oh and avoid spectrum analyser. Avoid mixing with your eyes anyway! Trust your ears!!!

 

7) and finally, as usual with audio, at least most of the time : less is more.

 

I sincerely hope it helps.

That's great advice too...exactly what I was looking for so thanks.

So would you be able to tell from this track below I'm working on that I'm going too heavy or cutting frequencies. Please bare in mind that this is just a jam and I haven't grouped tracks to eq them as a whole - just individual elements have been shaped. I tend to eq things as I go along as it means I've kind of freed up space for the next elements. It's also the fact that my laptop is crap so I like to get it right before I mix to audio to then progress with a track from there.

https://soundcloud.com/richard-russsell/jam-1

  On 5/31/2015 at 10:55 PM, Polytrix said:

Wow. Thanks so much you complete legend. Wonderful post :) I'll soldier on...I'm probably being too aggressive with it all...I deffinately use my ears though. I think I'm actually quite good at that but it's applying it practically.

 

What actual plugins would you advise as alternatives to EQ8 then?

It's hard to answer that, it really depends on your knowledge and personal preferences, the purpose of the EQ, and last but not least your budget.

There are plenty of cheap and freeware EQs that are great, Christian Budde's Electri-Q is one of my favorites with lots of modes and character types to choose from.

Fabfilter Pro-Q is pretty swell for an allround paragraphic, but don't put too much trust in the linear-phase mode (or any EQ using "minimum-phase" or similar buzzwords), it eliminates phase distortion by delaying the entire spectrum of the signal in tandem with the steepest band adjustment - the drawback is pre-ringing artifacts and potentially a LOT of latency with steeper curves. See how you just can't get around that time vs frequency discrepancy?

Waves API plugs are excellent for minor adjustments in narrow ranges as they've got a gentle curve, very suitable for harmonically rich material with a lot of depth, it's hard to go wrong even with drastic settings.

For passive EQs, Plugin Alliance's software rendition of the SPL Passeq and Softube's Trident A-Range are definitely two of the better I've had the opportunity to try.

The Passeq has one of the weirdest knob setups you'll encounter and demands that you know your frequencies by heart, but it's REALLY kind to upper frequencies on every imaginable kind of material I've tried it on, great for adding that elusive "air" without being fatiguing, which is usually a nightmare on material like string ensembles. The A-Range has a significant amount of color, with an inherent 14-15khz rolloff, but its harmonic distortion and the way its bands behave makes it really compliment stuff like lead guitar, percussions sweeteners like shakers (a godsend for a shaker-junkie like me) and most electronic synthesizer material.

If you want my honest opinion, the absolute best software EQ solution in my opinion would be a commercial Nebula license with a third party module like AlexB's Modern White EQ, a package that will set you back at least 100eur. This is a completely different technology from VST plugins, with a convoluted non-user friendly interface and very CPU-intensive processing that essentially "samples" the behavior of actual hardware components. The upside is that you get something that blows all other software plugins right out of the water. It's very hard to describe the sonic fingerprint of this stuff other than it's like putting a warm blanket on your cold harsh digital sample. There just isn't any comparison when judging sound quality alone, I almost fell off my chair the first time I heard it what it could do, and know plenty of engineers who have sold off large portions of their hardware studios in favor of this technology. Considering you get something that sounds 95% identical to a hardware component that costs about 30 times the asking price of this, and cheaper than most of the options I mentioned above as well as the rivalling UAD-audio's hardware-software plugins, if you're really a sucker for this stuff and have the patience to work with it, it's hard not to justify a purchase. But it's definitely not for everyone and I wouldn't recommend you to dive into this stuff at this point in your career, and most people will go for UAD or other options simply because it's much faster to work with... but it might be an option in the future!

Lastly, don't take some of the absolute statements in here too seriously, like "never solo EQ". It's Always good to EQ in a mix context, but sometimes you don't discover colliding frequencies between instruments until you've analyzed each separately and hear the difference after they're gone.

  On 6/1/2015 at 4:13 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

chim - great post dude. the cut before you boost thing isn't to do with phasing though, it's more so that boosting bands doesnt trick you into thinking it sounds better just cus its louder

That's true, I was just pointing out that I've heard all sorts of reasoning behind that argument.

  On 6/1/2015 at 5:50 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

yeah even down to the word soulless haha

 

makes me think of another eq tip: consider a shelf instead of a cut. maybe the frequencies don't need to be rolled off but just lowered equally?

Shelving is severely underrated and is one of the reasons I prefer wideband EQs with just a couple bands. People often underestimate the importance of the relationship between harmonics across the spectrum of a rich waveform - sometimes you can suck the life right out of a sound by surgically cutting just one of those harmonics.

  On 6/1/2015 at 12:09 PM, skibby said:

thats good advice.

 

i'll just say that all digital EQ's sound the same really, there is no scientific way to achieve a different sound out of 2 different plugin EQ's other than setting the parameter ranges more or less extreme.

 

the most expensive EQ should basically null with the worst freeware EQ if the settings are the same.

I couldn't disagree more - and I've ran plenty of these so-called "null tests". There's lots of snake oil out there but careful A/Bing will often reveal drastic differences in characteristics & coloration. Many of them will affect the sound differently even with all pots zeroed.

Thanks again :)

I think of EQ'ing kinda like how I think of photography: everything is right there, but the intention is to craft what you want the end-user to experience. This is the difference between a snapshot and a well-processed photo. Likewise, the difference between "snapshot quality" sound and well-processed sound, is that the final output of crafted sound should convey what is intended. Personally, anyway, I like to figure out what the fundamental frequencies for a given sample/synth are (achieved by boosting a high-q ting then freq sweeping to hear what really sticks out), then I try to cut what is not necessary.

But choosing the right synths in the first place, can be part of the pre-mixing process. Cuz imagine if you had 10 of the same type of bassoons all playing different melodies, and you EQ'd each of them the same. It would be mud city. So you have to designate certain freq to boost in one bassoon, to take away from the others, and so forth. But ideally, you would never have to work on projects that have hours of 10 bassoons going at it.

Despite everything I wrote in the first paragraph, I'm sort of into minimal mixing nowadays. I used to have good monitors and was able to clinically mix, but I think I went too far and removed a lot of harmonics that gave certain sections oomph. So basically I am concluding shit in this post.

Haha, thanks all the same :) Enjoy Japan

  On 5/31/2015 at 8:16 PM, Chartreuse said:

I'm not a fan of low cut/high pass filters on things unless its really needed, I like a separated mix but too much cutting just takes the soul out of it.