EQ sweep

I couldn't let it go. :) I use it with a pair of full range monitors (switching between them.) If a couple sources are fighting for room in the mids the mixcube makes it more obvious. Mid levels are pretty easy to balance on it too. I do need the full range monitors for lows though.

Exactly how these are designed to be used. They would NEVER pass for a complete monitor system. That's why I only had one and used it in mono to check mids. I kinda wish I had it back sometimes. I don't know what kind of monitors you're using now or if you even have a budget for them. The problem is there are a WHOLE LOT of budget monitors and they all sound a little different. For me, personally, they are all different versions of "Meh"
 
Including those, or...?

I see "those" as a specialty tool. They aren't made to be full range and they aren't made to sound "good". They are a tool to use when needed. For example....If you have a bunch of guitars with mid and upper mid frequencies "ringing" or sounding "harsh"........LOL!

My point about "budget" monitors is not to throw dirt on any of them, it's just that at a certain point, physics and the mechanics of sound reproduction takes over from the design tweaks of the PLETHORA of available monitors in the $199-$599 per speaker range, and they all start sounding very similar with very similar performance pluses and minuses. Fortunately for me, personally, I've been around long enough to have experienced lots of systems to mix on, and the one thing that has stood out in all of that has been this: the better quality your listening environment is, the better your product and the EASIER it is to accomplish your goals for the music you're working on.

I can use your original post as an example for instance. You're not hearing something in your captures that later takes you to what I would consider an extreme 'repair' method in order to fix it. Having to SWEEP the frequencies in a guitar sound in order to identify particular frequencies taking over isn't something I feel you or anyone else should have to do IF you're hearing things clearly from the beginning.

But thats just me. I find that I only have repair work to do when I get tracks recorded outside of my room by someone else. Whether this is from lack of experience or a lack in their environment is certainly reasons for this.

So for you to find what the solution to your problem is you'll have to ask yourself questions that only you can answer. Is it your monitoring? Is it your skill level? I've listened to several of your soundcloud tracks and you seem to have a fine handle on what you're doing. Sounds are good (even for soundcloud....which is the worst in my opinion) and the mixes seem to have all the elements they should have for the particular song.
 
haha. I dunno ? The poster could be out having ice cream !

Anyway, should he find the amp sim problem range, he might want to run some sweeps to see if there is bump in the monitoring that matches
 
So for you to find what the solution to your problem is you'll have to ask yourself questions that only you can answer. Is it your monitoring? Is it your skill level? I've listened to several of your soundcloud tracks and you seem to have a fine handle on what you're doing. Sounds are good (even for soundcloud....which is the worst in my opinion) and the mixes seem to have all the elements they should have for the particular song.

Well, I'm not happy with the guitar sounds, for the most part. What's there is what I get after about 2-3 weeks per song. That's including back and forth, one device to the next, asking opinions, refining, making more mistakes, applying new changes, re-listening, etc... I do appreciate the compliment in there, but I think we both know those mixes could sound much, much better. They are the product of 2-3 years doing this, and using headphones. I think monitors are the next logical step.

---------- Update ----------

haha. I dunno ? The poster could be out having ice cream !

Yeah, I was at the ice cream shop. Caught me.
 
Why do you think it's a digital issue? Unless he is clipping the signal I can't really see how it would be a digital problem. However, I'm interested in hearing your point of view.
 
I would humbly suggest reference track usage to help monitoring. Not to compare what is "Right" sounding, just to keep your ears honest when in a "difficult" monitoring environment.
 
Why do you think it's a digital issue? Unless he is clipping the signal I can't really see how it would be a digital problem. However, I'm interested in hearing your point of view.

Because he hates digital and finds blame there. lol!

I only assume you were replying to Garww post #2. You should quote who you are replying to BTW. I had to look back in this thread to figure out who you were replying to. And I may still be wrong...
 
Because he hates digital and finds blame there. lol!

I only assume you were replying to Garww post #2. You should quote who you are replying to BTW. I had to look back in this thread to figure out who you were replying to. And I may still be wrong...

Aah thanks for letting me know. I will do that the next time :)
 
As I sweep through my guitar tracks, looking for the harsh/piercing tones, I can truly say that there are a plethora of instances of this once I pass 1khz up to about 4khz. The most annoying/obvious seems to consistently be 2.11khz, but it barely surpasses 1.39, 1.49, 2.18, 2.42, etc... as being overly loud and obnoxious. Are there really supposed to be that many spots with extraordinarily loud tones? I can't clamp down on them all with EQ, so I choose the most annoying one, but really, they would all need it.
Run your compressor infront of your EQ.
I guess my question is, are there supposed to be, or are there frequently, a dozen or so spots in the upper mids that if swept with EQ will poke out obnoxiously? I feel like that many is too much; that I should only be finding one or two within that range.
Depends on how you're sweeping.
Is this a digital problem possibly...the analog vs digital thing?
No. Its a technique problem on your end.
 
Back
Top