200-500 Hz

[MessianicDreams]

Why add EQ on the master bus when mixing?
Best to use EQ on the tracks to make the mix as good as you can then use an ME to add the finishing EQ touches (if needed).

I sometimes add a comp on the master out if it makes the mix better.

Eck (G)

I found that in my mixing I often wanted to alter similar frequency ranges. It might have been a room acoustic thing, I'm not sure. Either way, it worked very well for my. Unconventional yes, but fuck the rule book, this is recording.

Also, I'm a firm believer of sending the ME the best sounding mix you can. If that means a bit of 2bus EQ, the so be it.

 

[ecktronic]

I found that in my mixing I often wanted to alter similar frequency ranges. It might have been a room acoustic thing, I'm not sure. Either way, it worked very well for my. Unconventional yes, but fuck the rule book, this is recording.

Also, I'm a firm believer of sending the ME the best sounding mix you can. If that means a bit of 2bus EQ, the so be it.

I totally get where you are coming from, but I have always thought that the first part of any recording or mix is the most important.
Get the first parts as good as you can then the next parts should be better.

A great mix shouldn't really need much mastering which saves a few pennies.

Eck (G)

 

[gcapel]

I know this may sound stupid but does any freq analyzer work? Is there an outboard FA that works? I myself have never used one.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I know this may sound stupid but does any freq analyzer work? Is there an outboard FA that works? I myself have never used one.

I'm not sure what you're asking when you ask if they "work". They all "work" (unless they're broken, of course ).

The higher the resolution - the more bands they split the spectrum into and the greater the resolution of the volume for each band - and the faster their response speed, the more accurate and more useful they tend to be. An little ol' consumer-grade 7- or 10-band LED frequency display with 5 LEDs per band may "work", but will be limited in it's usefulness.

But like *any* measurement device from a thermometer to a seismometer to an X-ray machine, they only provide you with a measurement of a specific property; they tell you nothing about what that measurement actually *means* or what you should or should not do about it. It takes a knowledge and an ability on the part of the person reading those measurements to interpret the meaning of those measurements.

In that respect, how well a spectrum analyzer "works" is as much up to the person reading it as it is up to the device itself.

G.

 

[dintymoore]

Recently I realized that most of the time I found myself cutting somewhere in the 200/500hz range in almost every source I track.

If I sweep the eq in that area I can´t find anything sound-wise worthy; only boxiness and hollowness...

Am I missing something or is just an unpleaseant range to boost or stress?

Comments/tips are welcome...

Thanks!

That's the typical "happy face" eq routine.

I think it's based on the fact that we hear mostly midrange and we go deaf towards either direction, so you're actually cranking the non-midrange.

Also, recording is only a partial of real life, and fundamentals never are present enough compared to real life, so we crank them in recording, and then you're cranking the 1st and 2nd harmonics too, which are generally in the 200 to 500 Hz range, so you need to dip that area as result... I could have said that better!

 

[ecktronic]

Forgot to mention,
the ME will add the right EQ to the Mix so there's really not much need for adding EQ to your stereo output at Mixing stage.

Eck (G)

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Forgot to mention,
the ME will add the right EQ to the Mix so there's really not much need for adding EQ to your stereo output at Mixing stage.

Eck (G)

Gotta disagree.

1.) His idea of "right" and your idea of "right" may not agree.

2.) while I too would advocate not throwing an EQ on your stereo mix to clean up a mix, I think more to the point if something sounds wrong in a frequency band to you when you've finished mixing, then you haven't finished mixing. Identify the problem instrument(s) and fix it in the mix, before sending it off to be mastered.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Gotta disagree.

1.) His idea of "right" and your idea of "right" may not agree.

2.) while I too would advocate not throwing an EQ on your stereo mix to clean up a mix, I think more to the point if something sounds wrong in a frequency band to you when you've finished mixing, then you haven't finished mixing. Identify the problem instrument(s) and fix it in the mix, before sending it off to be mastered.

I have to agree with you Drew and even more to the point, get the eq right before you record the track.

 

[ecktronic]

I have to agree with you Drew and even more to the point, get the eq right before you record the track.

Get the recording as good as possible then Mix as good as possible.

Then use an ME to check over the Mix to see if anything needs done to make the Mix sound good on the majority of play back systems.
A Mix can sound great to the Mixers ears, but might not sound good on different play back systems.

Eck (G)

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

A Mix can sound great to the Mixers ears, but might not sound good on different play back systems.

If that's the case, then there's something seriously wrong either with the mix engineer's ears or the mix engineer's monitoring chain. It should NEVER be the mastering engineer's job to fix a bad mix.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

If that's the case, then there's something seriously wrong either with the mix engineer's ears or the mix engineer's monitoring chain. It should NEVER be the mastering engineer's job to fix a bad mix.

G.

I totally agree with you on your first sentence, but.... If the Mix isn't that good, and that is the best the Mixing engineer can do then it is the MEs job to fix it, even if it is a bad Mix.
Some MEs (me especially) will give advice on how to get the Mix better before they Master the clients Mix.

Eck (G)

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I totally agree with you on your first sentence, but.... If the Mix isn't that good, and that is the best the Mixing engineer can do then it is the MEs job to fix it, even if it is a bad Mix.
Some MEs (me especially) will give advice on how to get the Mix better before they Master the clients Mix.

Well, I probably should have not used the word NEVER, there are exceptions.

But at the same time, if the mix engineer can't make a good mix, there are two possible results. Either the mastering engineer can make it better or he/she can't make it better.

If the masteing engineer can't really make it better, then the mix engineer can't really be faulted (and they can both blame the tracking engineer! )

But if the mixing engineer makes a relatively bad mix with the full palate of raw tracks at his/her disposal, and the mastering engineer can fix it simply by attacking the 2mix, then the mixing engineer has not done their job. And unless there are schedule or budgetary reasons getting in the way (e.g. the mix guy has been given a deadline that cannot possibly be met for legitimate reasons or the producer mis-budgeted the mixing), I don't see a whole lot of excuse for that.

Are there no more mixing guys with ears any more? And why does ME automatically mean "mastering engineer"? Does not the word "mixing" also begin with "m"?

We need less emphasis on mastering and more on mixing.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

And why does ME automatically mean "mastering engineer"? Does not the word "mixing" also begin with "m"?
G.

Yeah I kinda just got into the habit of using ME as Mastering Engineer short hand, I thought most folk used the short hand.
But then what could be used for Mixing Engineer? :S MXE

Eck (G)

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yeah I kinda just got into the habit of using ME as Mastering Engineer short hand, I thought most folk used the short hand.

They do, at least here. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was picking on you specifically, eck. Sorry about that. It just gets really old seeing the caterpillar do all the work and having the butterfly get all the glory.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

They do, at least here. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was picking on you specifically, eck. Sorry about that. It just gets really old seeing the caterpillar do all the work and having the butterfly get all the glory.

G.

Tis cool, no need to be sorry.
I'm just a bit lazy at typing sometimes.

Eck (G)

 

[JuliánFernández]

Update:

I was experimenting with eq´ing the 2buss (mostly a HPF around 60hz and a cut somewhere between 200-500hz) and almost every mix sounded better that way...

I tried to aplly that same eq to each track (same exact eq), then disable the eq from the 2buss, but it doesn´t sounded the same...

I don´t know exactly why, but I try to mix without compressing or eq´ing the 2buss, but it just seems to be easier to have a well rounded mix that way...

What are your feelings about this?

 

[dastrick]

If it sounds good...it is good.

 

[witzendoz]

Sometimes you can get a good mix that just needs a slight eq polish, like we do in mastering. There is no problem doing it with bus eq or in mastering.

What you are probably finding when you eq separate tracks is that that problem frequencies are not present in every track and that some instruments react different to the frequency changes, therefore the mix sounds different. You may find you need more cut on some of the individual tracks than others to get the same outcome.

Cheers

Alan.

 

[dintymoore]

That's the typical "happy face" eq routine.

I think it's based on the fact that we hear mostly midrange and we go deaf towards either direction, so you're actually cranking the non-midrange.

Also, recording is only a partial of real life, and fundamentals never are present enough compared to real life, so we crank them in recording, and then you're cranking the 1st and 2nd harmonics too, which are generally in the 200 to 500 Hz range, so you need to dip that area as result... I could have said that better!

That's 100% exactly what it is.

It's important to understand the harmonic series to be able to get some sense of what you're doing when you carve air.

They should teach bugle in school.

 

[witzendoz]

That's 100% exactly what it is.

It's important to understand the harmonic series to be able to get some sense of what you're doing when you carve air.

They should teach bugle in school.

Just like I was trying to say in an earlier post:

Reasons why cutting lower frequencies may improve mid range. All frequencies have a relative frequency (I think thats the term, old age getting to me), a problem with 120hz can sometimes be cured by cutting 60hz or 30hz, for example 15, 30, 60, 120, 240 and 480 etc etc are all related, so that a low mid problem could in fact be a low problem or an upper mid problem.

Don't know about the bugle though, maybe the Tuba?

Cheers

Alan.