Carving EQ Holes

A

adam79

New member
I understand why carving EQ holes is important. I understand that cutting out a freq can be much more beneficial than just boosting. I understand that subtle changes go a long way. The issue I'm having is executing this process. What is a good dB level to sweep at? Am I listening for background noise (to cut) during the sweep? Am I listening to the actual sound of the instrument? Or is it both? If the dB is up high enough (or too high, I guess), something like the guitar always sounds bizarre to me all through-out the mids to upper mids to highs...that kind of in a boxed/wavy sound to squealish. This might be cuz I have the dB up too high, or is it sometimes necessary to cut a large chunk of this area out? Is it sometimes necessary to cut large chunks and just leave one or two specific freqs in the mix (per instrument, or atleast for certain ones)? Unfortunately I'm stuck doing this via headphones, or if I'm lucky, home stereo speakers, with are both unideal situations. I'd assume it's better than nothing, but could it be the reason why I'm having issues? I just don't have the money yet to buy monitors. I feel that this is super important to a mix sounding it's best.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
-Adam
 
What's important to a mix sounding its best is a good capture of a good performance of a good arrangement of good source sounds. If you have to carve holes at mix time, it means that you've failed at one or more of these tasks. The real secret that the pros don't often tell you is that the best mixes really just fall together without a lot of fucking around because the tracking was good to begin with.

Everything sounds fucked when you sweep a tight range of its frequencies with a big boost, and if you're just sweeping around for things that sound funny, you're going to be chasing your tail all damn night. Use this technique maybe if there's a noticeable problem with the sound without EQ, but if you're hearing it, you should have a reasonable idea of what part of the spectrum to sweep. You really shouldn't have to sweep more than an octave or so to pinpoint a frequency that is a real problem.

Even if there is a real problem, though, you'd be much bettèr going back and retracking if at all possible.
 
Ashcat's bang right. In the ideal world eq is there for taste and preference if even that.
In the real world of home recording, it's not always that simple.

I find myself using the same wide shallow cut because I'm recording everything in the same room and there seems to be an awful muddy bump there.

Sometimes I find myself using very extreme narrow cuts if something has a really pronounced ring that isn't nice.
Two recent examples are a snare drum which had a super strong fundamental ring and two strong overtones, and an acoustic guitar that had this high pitched whine that you'd swear was a sine wave.

I recorded and eqd them but the next time we used a different snare and nailed it, and new strings on the guy's guitar sorted out the whine.
The second go wins 100% hands down in both cases - no doubt.

I don't think you should be sweeping unless you already have a damn good idea of what you're looking for.
I only sweep if I hear something and need to pinpoint it.

Btw, post a clip of your guitar. :)
 
These two posts really helped answer my question. In the beginning of my og post, I forgot to mention that I also understand that getting it right during the tracking process and a good room/instrument sound is of paramount importance. What you taught me is that that whole sweep deal isn't done for every track, only if there's a noticeable problem that needs to be addressed.

I guess my issue is that I'm never gonna be able to afford almost any acoustic foam, and my room at my rehearsal space is all I got; it's a rectangle w/ maybe a 10-11ft drop ceiling (that's my estimate). All I really need to do in this room is get a few demos recorded so I can get a band together (no good musician will reply to an ad that has nothing for them to listen to). I guess I don't really have to nail any of these demos perfect in the least...just get the point across. However, I would like to get them to sound their best so I can practice the craft. I also have no real mic locker to speak of.. just two MCA SP1s and a SM57. I do have an Apollo Duo w/ four awesome preamps and some great plugins.

When I have something to post, I'll throw it up here.
 
ashcat_lt said:
Everything sounds fucked when you sweep a tight range of its frequencies with a big boost, and if you're just sweeping around for things that sound funny, you're going to be chasing your tail all damn night.
Click to expand...

Yeah...when you're looking where to cut, it helps to boost and find the most offending spot...but like ashcat says, everything sounds fucked when you boost/sweep with a tight Q. :D

It just takes time to learn what to listen to and get familiar with the typical problems your environment is creating for you to deal with.

Like Steenamaroo was saying...you'll start to find yourself doing the same cuts from mix to mix...because that's the sonic signature of your room...or your recording approach. So as you get more familiar, it gets a little easier to know what to do to fix it.
Best case is to try and minimize the obvious issues right from the start with some acoustic treatment....just to give yourself a fighting chance. Even if the room is not *perfect*...every bit of treatment helps...but don't get all foam happy.
You want to tame the lows first (foam can't)...and then it's OK to use a little foam to tame the high flutter stuff...but a bunch of decent broadband traps will kill two birds with one stone.
 
miroslav said:
Yeah...when you're looking where to cut, it helps to boost and find the most offending spot...but like ashcat says, everything sounds fucked when you boost/sweep with a tight Q. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, I forgot to say that. I boost to find and cut to hide/tame/fix.

miroslav said:
Best case is to try and minimize the obvious issues right from the start with some acoustic treatment....just to give yourself a fighting chance. Even if the room is not *perfect*...every bit of treatment helps...but don't get all foam happy.
You want to tame the lows first (foam can't)...and then it's OK to use a little foam to tame the high flutter stuff...but a bunch of decent broadband traps will kill two birds with one stone.
Click to expand...

True that. I have a few 4"x2'x4' rock wool panels that make a huge difference. I know all about it when I don't or can't use them.

The main problems I have to contend with are 800hz and below so, with my particular space, that's a case of learning how to get by and making do.
If you can corner trap and have a few wall panels, definitely go for it. :)

That's doubly true once you start monitoring on speakers in the same space.
 
ashcat_lt said:
What's important to a mix sounding its best is a good capture of a good performance of a good arrangement of good source sounds. If you have to carve holes at mix time, it means that you've failed at one or more of these tasks. The real secret that the pros don't often tell you is that the best mixes really just fall together without a lot of fucking around because the tracking was good to begin with.
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^^

EQ can be useful, but if you can't throw a mix together without it, you did some stuff that isn't as good as it could be. A little massage here or there is great, carving out holes is not.
 
I find EQing harder to manage than Compression & compression is difficult for me because i have no subtlety.
Same with EQ I suppose - sweeping with big peaks/cuts can work but it trains the ear to hear BIG rather than small.
EQ carving suggests that the mix is VERY busy with LOTS of instruments that belong in the same sonic space competing due to the arrangement or the MORE is MORE philosophy, (I'm guilty of that).
 
There is a big difference between sharing space and competing for space. An orchestra has a lot of instruments sharing the same sonic space, and it works because those instruments are supposed to reinforce each other and work as a group to create a specific feel. Nobody is trying to hear all of the nuances of both the third and fourth chair violin and the trumpets and oboes that are playing the same thing. The solo violin (or whatever) stands out because it's not playing the same thing - it finds a place in the mix by playing in a different range from the others, not because somebody we t in with an EQ and carved chunks out of the accompanying section.

Sometimes we do layer instruments playing in about the same range, but want their individual characteristics to shine through, and then you have to do some thinking about which characteristics you want from each. Maybe we want the percussive attack from the acoustic guitar, and a bit of the jangley upper mid from the piano and the organ and electric guitar are there to add a bit of girth. It's still better to focus on those aspects of those sounds at the tracking stage - instrument, amp, and mic choice and position - than to try to EQ it all to hell in the mix stage. If you find yourself trying to carve out areas of one instrument to "make room" for another, then you really need to re-evaluate each of those instruments' role in the mix.

I understand that we have to compromise a lot in home recording. We don't always have great rooms or even great gear to work with, and EQ can help to get things closer to acceptable, but I think a lot of people have the idea that you should sweep through looking for problems on every track every time, and end up finding things that sound like problems in this skewed context but really just aren't when it comes to the full mix. It's very much the same idea as hitting the solo button and getting the instrument to sound super awesome on its own. The full mix, the overall impression is all that really matters.
 
ashcat_lt said:
I think a lot of people have the idea that you should sweep through looking for problems on every track every time, and end up finding things that sound like problems in this skewed context but really just aren't when it comes to the full mix. .
Click to expand...

You're killing it in this thread.

Couldn't agree more. And worse, the folks that high pass everything just because.
 
Greg_L said:
You're killing it in this thread.

Couldn't agree more. And worse, the folks that high pass everything just because.
Click to expand...
I used to be one of those, and it worked for those mixes well enough. I have found that it works better and usually easier if you just don't record those low frequencies to begin with.

I still do add an HPF set as low as possible (usually 20Hz) in a lot of places when I'm working ITB to be sure that DC offsets and extremely low frequency "control signals" don't sneak through and steal my headroom or mess up my compression. Analog gear has this kind of high pass at the input and output of every box, and often between stages inside the boxes as well. Plugins aren't always so polite.
 
Ashcat is nailing a lot of goodness in this thread.

I veiw a mix like a freeway.
lots of cars moving fast, but what makes it all work is them staying in their own lanes, and not changing lanes without a space to move into. When everyone cooperates, you can move a bunch of cars down the road at 80.

Stupid analogy, but it works for me. :D
 
ashcat_lt said:
... I think a lot of people have the idea that you should sweep through looking for problems on every track every time, and end up finding things that sound like problems in this skewed context but really just aren't when it comes to the full mix.
Click to expand...

Right...it's not needed on every track as some necessary process.

That said...it can end up in some mixes that if there is a problem, it could be in the same area for a lot of the tracks.
Like...if one of your rhythm guitar tracks has too much low-end in the "mud zone"...most likely all of the other tracks that were recorded in that same space, and that have a decent low-end component, are likely to also have issues in the "mud zone". Same way for high-end harshness for all tracks that have a lot of high-end frequencies.
This may be more apparent the more room-sound your tracks have.
So...sometimes a touch of cut in those same problem areas, on all those tracks can yield a better overall result, than trying to just fix say....the mud in the mix...by more drastic cutting of only 1 track.

Of course....this is just "in general".
Each mix can have it's individual quirks that may not be found in another mix.
 
I suppose it's also worth mentioning that we're talking about mixing here. Start with good tracks and you shouldn't have to do all of this in the mix. This starts to get blurry, though, when what we're tracking is actually coming from inside the box.

For a lot of us the bulk of what we end up mixing was never a "real instrument" in a real space, and we don't have the chance to swap out or move a microphone in order to adjust the tonal balance. Arrangement - choosing the range of the instrument - is still important, and using the controls on whatever plugin is generating the sound should always be the first place to start for fine tuning tone, but sometimes we do need maybe some more heavy handed EQ to shape these things. I find it very helpful to think of that stuff as part of the tracking process, though. Dial those things in and commit to them before you go to the final actual mixing stage.
 
ashcat_lt said:
I suppose it's also worth mentioning that we're talking about mixing here. Start with good tracks and you shouldn't have to do all of this in the mix. This starts to get blurry, though, when what we're tracking is actually coming from inside the box.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I guess we all tend to look at things initially from our own perspectives based on our own situations.

I find myself sometimes commenting on things purely from my tape/analog/OTB perspective, or some hybrid OTB/ITB combination that I'm using...and then I realize that some of it may not all apply to the guys doing it just ITB.
There is always a common audio best practices thread no matter which way you work...but there are also a lot of specialized consideration that may mean nothing to one or the other.
 
There's a book some have recommended on the forum, Mike Service, Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio. He's the guy who does that Mix Rescue column for Sound on Sound. His philosophy is along the lines of what others on this thread are getting at, first setting up a raw balance with panning and levels that should get you 90% of the way there. EQ and compression are used to address problems that remain. I helped me a lot. I tend to use a lot of layers in my songs. Even if the individual parts sound pretty good to me, it's not always easy to make them play nice together. The temptation is there to try to shoehorn them with EQ and compression. That rarely works.
 
Yeah, it's also true that some folks are "just" mixing things. They have no say in the tracking and/or can't redo it for whatever reason. In those cases you just do what you gotta do. Still comes back to that "if it ain't broke..." thing. If there are problems in the mix, you'll hear them without having to go hunting. You'll say "There's something weird in the upper mids. I think it's that guitar. I'll try a cut somewhere around 1K." You won't go sweeping from 20 to 20K on every track.
 
Not sure if this is off topic, but how do you check for naturally occurring freq's in the room? Do you hook a mic thru a graphic eq, set all to zero and the slowly raise each freq until there's feedback? Then drop the slider down past 0 the same amount it was above when feedback occurred? I guess this would be more for setting up a PA in a given room. Right? I assume that the freq that've gonna cause the most problems will cause feedback very early on. Thanks.
 
adam79 said:
Not sure if this is off topic, but how do you check for naturally occurring freq's in the room? Do you hook a mic thru a graphic eq, set all to zero and the slowly raise each freq until there's feedback? Then drop the slider down past 0 the same amount it was above when feedback occurred? I guess this would be more for setting up a PA in a given room. Right? I assume that the freq that've gonna cause the most problems will cause feedback very early on. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I presume your question is aimed at getting a look into a room's resonances, their frequencies and such?
I'd offer these two things;
A room mode calculator here-
hunecke.de | Room Eigenmodes Calculator
Plug your dimensions, you get graphics for how they stack up' in different frequencies in the first few octaves.
You'll notice where you are in the room has a huge effect as to the peaks and nulls.
Just take a steady tone- say five hundred Hz or so, played over your speakers.. Move your head side to side and hear it modulate as you cross through them!
 
mixsit said:
I presume your question is aimed at getting a look into a room's resonances, their frequencies and such?
I'd offer these two things;
A room mode calculator here-
hunecke.de | Room Eigenmodes Calculator
Plug your dimensions, you get graphics for how they stack up' in different frequencies in the first few octaves.
You'll notice where you are in the room has a huge effect as to the peaks and nulls.
Just take a steady tone- say five hundred Hz or so, played over your speakers.. Move your head side to side and hear it modulate as you cross through them!
Click to expand...

How do you get this thing to work? Also, I'm in the crap position of only having headphones at the moment. I'm saving up for a pair of JBL LSR305's; I've only heard good things and they aren't too hard on the wallet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top