Halleluiah, I'm no longer afraid of the EQ!

[Projbalance]

That's right dear friends, I have overcome my fear of actually USING the goddamn EQ for more than just skimming frequencies. That's right, I can now be persuaded to use 3, 4, even 5 whole decibels of EQ without sweating.



Alright, screw you! This is a real thing for me, so don't ruin my moment!

[SuicideNote]

Let us all rejoice and thank you for sharing this with us.

[Projbalance]

A pox upon your house for mocking me!

[Ford Van]

The EQ Gestapo will be along shortly to right you in your ways!

[boingoman]

Originally Posted by Ford Van

The EQ Gestapo will be along shortly to right you in your ways!

Hey Ford, things have lightened up a bit lately. There is actually a DIY mastering thread mshilarious started, for instance. It only drew minor and short-lived criticism that was shot down pretty quick.

[IronFlippy]

I've always avoided using EQ, unless tracks are clashing or I want to get rid of that nasally sound in my voice (or at least minimize it). It's always been a last resort thing because it destroys the sound, IMO. Maybe I just need to use a good EQ.

[pingu]

It is recommended not to sweep frequencies when eqing.

The prefered method is to set the qe in bypass to the desired settings and then unbypass.

repeat until good.

[IronFlippy]

I don't think I'm following you. Sorry to thread-jack.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by pingu

It is recommended not to sweep frequencies when eqing.

By whom?

There are some types of EQ techniques that require just the opposite.

It's just this kind of baloney that sets folks like Fletcher off (and rightly so.)

G.

[Projbalance]

I prefer to sweep when I can, it allows me to hear both the frequencies getting cut as well as the frequencies being emphasized by the cut. Course, I can only do this in post, as my recording deck using shelving eq on the high and low ends. Maybe one day I'll be able to afford something better, but I have doubts. As long as I can get it to sound "good", I'm alright with it.

[pingu]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

By whom?

There are some types of EQ techniques that require just the opposite.

It's just this kind of baloney that sets folks like Fletcher off (and rightly so.)

G.

Go and suck Fletchers Cock asshole!




BTW the guy who recommends this is Mike Stavrou
Author of Mixing With Your Mind

But yes its much more beneficial to sweep around like a deaf ass and do wonders for ear fatigue,confuse the ear etc.

But I'm sure we should listen to you while your sucking Fletchers knob.

[RedStone]

Wah ... wash your mouth out young man :P

how about if you are not a million dollar producer in a million dollar studio with million dollar monitors - OR what if you are just getting your listening chops together and can't find the problem with an instrument's relationship in the mix? I think it is much more 'productive' for lack of a better word, to sweep with a low Q (boosting), to find the general area that is causing problems, narrow your Q to find the specific problem frequencies and then start dipping and A/B'ing to make sure you've got it

A/B'ing definatley has it's place and is especially important, as I imagine Mark Starvou might suggest, for the final descision making process ... but it's how you get to the A/B stage that counts when you are learning more than the AB stage itself. Once you have your chops together, then you might be able to just A/B without going through the sweeping business, because you will already have a good idea of where your problems are as you listen.

[Projbalance]

I'm a big fan of the "fuck the rules as long as it works" mode of thinking. I am constantly amused and somewhat bewildered when people go from, "There are no rules to doing it" to "now this is the method you should use" in the same breath. Some do the A/B thing, some sweep, some just have a set of parameters they apply to everything and that's al lthere is to it; as long as it sounds good who really cares?

[bennychico11]

Originally Posted by pingu

It is recommended not to sweep frequencies when eqing.

The prefered method is to set the qe in bypass to the desired settings and then unbypass.

repeat until good.

what the....
how in the world does that work. You set the EQ in bypass and then EQ what you need, then unbypass it?? How are you going to know what you need? Just guess? That's like saying "Always use presets".
Sweeping EQ doesn't hurt anything. In fact it accentuates mistakes, and then you pull them. If your ear is getting fatigued after sweeping for only a few minutes, then you need to get them checked by an ear doctor.

[mixsit]

I can see where when you're trying to dial in on where just a few db cut is needed if you're making these wild swings to find it, it takes quite a while to get your ears back. There's a trap there. So once go through all that (if you do) it's good to take the eq out, get your ass back to fine tune mode..

[Halion]

mad props, great job dude

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by pingu

But yes its much more beneficial to sweep around like a deaf ass and do wonders for ear fatigue,confuse the ear etc.

Read what I posted:

"There are some types of EQ techniques that require just the opposite."

If one is using narrow Q sweeping to find resonant hot spots to notch out, they *have* to have the EQ active while sweeping, that's the whole point. And there's no other good way to do it other than active sweeping. This is an age-old technique used by every engineer at every level from bottom to top (I think I first heard about it from Bruce Sweiden in an interview article something like 20 years ago or so.)

To throw a blanket statement out there that "it is recommended not to sweep frequencies when eqing" is just plain boneheaded. There are times when sweeping frequencies is the whole point.

If you actually knew what you were talking about instead of just quoting the Dr. Atkins of audio engineering out of context, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

G.

[pingu]

You have more posts than i do, so im sure you are correct.





































































































Asshole

[boingoman]

Lighten up, dude.

[mixsit]

Originally Posted by pingu

You have more posts than i do, so im sure you are correct.

...So you don't see taking different ways for different chores?
Or this has gone past having anything to do with any logic at this point.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's a good thing he loves me. Imagine the names he'd be calling me if he didn't?

It's got nothing to do with the number of posts, pingu, and it's got nothing to do with me. The fact is every engineer who has been around the block at least once read your post with the blanket statement and shook their head with a '"tsk tsk" because they have been there, done that and know that such statements are the stuff that myths are made of.

If one knows what EQ he wants, then yes, *maybe* bypassing while making the settings can reduce some fatigue and cause one to rely more on their ears and mind. Sometimes. But often times one might be ready to EQ at, say, 200Hz and in sweeping to it he discovers that 220Hz is actually better in reality than what he had in his mind. Should he ignore that feedback, that input?

But even more than that, EQ's can be used in two different ways; as corrective devices as we all know them, and also just as powerfully, as test probes. There are often certain frequencies that act as "sweet spots" or "sour spots" in the sound of a recording. These hot spots do not always reveal themselves to the human ear at their current embedded levels, but by using parametric EQ sweeps with artifical boost and cut, one can cause these frequencies to reveal themselves like lifting otherwise invisible fingerprints from a piece of glass.

This is not rocket science, this is a basic technique that is fast, accurate, used successfully by thousands of engineers every day, rookie and veteran. And it's exactly the opposite of the blanket statement you quoted.

And if you are going to go around repeatedly calling me a cocksucker, anus licker, and asshole, don't expect me to pull any punches in pointing out when you make a fool out of yourself...then again when you act like that, it doesn't really need pointing out, does it?

G.

[peopleperson]

Congrats dude. I just got over my crippling phobia of microphones. My vocals sound so much better.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[pingu]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

It's a good thing he loves me. Imagine the names he'd be calling me if he didn't?

It's got nothing to do with the number of posts, pingu, and it's got nothing to do with me. The fact is every engineer who has been around the block at least once read your post with the blanket statement and shook their head with a '"tsk tsk" because they have been there, done that and know that such statements are the stuff that myths are made of.

If one knows what EQ he wants, then yes, *maybe* bypassing while making the settings can reduce some fatigue and cause one to rely more on their ears and mind. Sometimes. But often times one might be ready to EQ at, say, 200Hz and in sweeping to it he discovers that 220Hz is actually better in reality than what he had in his mind. Should he ignore that feedback, that input?

But even more than that, EQ's can be used in two different ways; as corrective devices as we all know them, and also just as powerfully, as test probes. There are often certain frequencies that act as "sweet spots" or "sour spots" in the sound of a recording. These hot spots do not always reveal themselves to the human ear at their current embedded levels, but by using parametric EQ sweeps with artifical boost and cut, one can cause these frequencies to reveal themselves like lifting otherwise invisible fingerprints from a piece of glass.

This is not rocket science, this is a basic technique that is fast, accurate, used successfully by thousands of engineers every day, rookie and veteran. And it's exactly the opposite of the blanket statement you quoted.

And if you are going to go around repeatedly calling me a cocksucker, anus licker, and asshole, don't expect me to pull any punches in pointing out when you make a fool out of yourself...then again when you act like that, it doesn't really need pointing out, does it?

G.

By whom?

There are some types of EQ techniques that require just the opposite.

It's just this kind of baloney that sets folks like Fletcher off (and rightly so.)

G.

You drew first blood.

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by pingu

Go and suck Fletchers Cock asshole!




BTW the guy who recommends this is Mike Stavrou
Author of Mixing With Your Mind

Well, then why don't you go suck Mike Stavrou's cock then?


Don't mind me. Carry on, guys. I was just jealous that there was a catfight going on and I wasn't a part of it.

.

[pingu]

Originally Posted by chessrock

Well, then why don't you go suck Mike Stavrou's cock then?


Don't mind me. Carry on, guys. I was just jealous that there was a catfight going on and I wasn't a part of it.

.

I have sucked his cock.

His credits are far more worthy than Southsides and Fletchers put together.