My EQ method, negative comments wanted

S

Soulgolem

Member
Just starting out in mixing, and I saw myself using EQ's on 90% of the tracks, helps create zones like mentionned, I don't have any EQ knowleadge, so I just move around with the a graphic EQ until I find a frequency which makes the instrument sound clearer without raising the volume, I keep this in mind while I do the same thing with cutting looking for frequencies that don't alter the sounds at all, after that, I cut what doesn't change the sound much and add a bit where it makes it come out of the mix easily, all that by listening to the track alone or with the other ones. I do this a lot, then I mix the faders.

Not sure if it's a good method, but that what I figured out so far. Any comments on my method would be appreciated.

Results ? Sometimes my unmix version seem to sound a little clearer (might have used too much unlogic eq-ing) but the mix sounds more alive after that so I'm satisfied.

Go to http://myspace.com/unitsofsixty to listen to my mixes, I would really want negative comments, they help me grow !

Francis.
 
My method is more or less the same using the whole search and destroy method but i have to question what you were saying about removing frequencies you felt were not needed... i more or less use the search and destroy method to boost frequencies that i like and cut frequencies that i dont like. also i feel its best to try and avoid soloing the tracks for the most part so you can better hear how it sounds in the mix as opposed to individually. if you mix all your tracks soloing them... when you go back and play them all together they may not work. so my opinion is to more or less eq each track to work with the others.
 
well what you are doing sounds about usual. The way you described it, it sounds almost like you're doing a frequency sweep to clear up your tracks. The problem is, unless you have a stellar monitoring setup (which very few people have), you're affecting fundmentals and harmonics that create that sound, but you could never do it accurately.

However, the way I've always looked at the matter is that EQ tends to complicate things. Even if you look historically into some of the more famous production techniques, you'll see that EQ can be done better before you even touch the knobs.

For example, Al Schmitt will testify to rarely using EQ, unless he's handed a project that he didn't track himself. Plus, you occasionally see the practice of mixing things dry (rough mixes), which ends up on the radio. Specifically cause they sound better. And I'm talking major releases, too. In fact, I was reading a short bio on the engineer who did the Ray of Light album for Madonna, and he states his dry approach to the matter (Mix Masters). Supposedly the rough mixes where what made the final cut.

So that means mic placement, instrument placement, instrument tuning, the room you're in, the type of room, the preamps you use, the materials that make up the instrument, the style of playing, the relationships of two or more mics, etc etc etc etc....

Those are incredibly related things.

All those essentially determine how something is EQed more than the outboard unit (or in the console) itself. But again, if it was a law, then it wouldn't be a creative process.


In my experience, I've gone with the uneq'd mix over the heavily EQ'd 9 out 10 times.
 
The only thing that caught my eye is that it seems you might be doing a lot of this before you get well into the mix, and maybe looking for fixes that might not be problems? :)
But that could just be the way it reads.
Bottom line though is the mixes are pretty cool. Good depth, nice balances of space and density. And the instrument/arrangements would tend I think to not need a ton of eq fixing. You could already be way ahead of the game because of it. ;)
Wayne
 
I'm no expert on this as I continue to struggle with my mixes. However, the idea of immediately and automatically reaching for eq I think is not the best policy. If you hear something that bothers you about a track, if there is a conflict, or if you hear a specific sound that eq will help you acheive, then it's probabably appropriate.

OTOH, you say you don't have eq knowledge and the best way to get it is through lots of experience so keep toying with the eq. Eventually you'll figure out what works and be able to anticipate the moves.
 
I usually end up doing more harm than good when using EQ, mainly because I have no idea what I'm doing. So, I try to get things sounding good while tracking, and very rarely end up using EQ. If I do, it's usually do get rid of bass rumble <20-30Hz.
 
Well I never use EQ with making things sound better in mind unless they really do need it, I aim trying to make a fit for other instruments on the same level. Or to avoid getting a riff hid by a crash cymbal or something like that.
 
That sounds about right, Soulgolem. A lot of very good and talented mixers do at least some variation of what you're currently doing ... so if it's working for you, then stick with it.

Word to the wise: if you ever find yourself making drastic cuts or boosts with something, then that's a good sign that you might need to alter how you go about tracking that particular instrument or voice. On the other hand, if you find that most of what you're doing is just minor adjustments and finessing ... then it probably means your tracking is pretty strong.

.
 
chessrock said:
That sounds about right, Soulgolem. A lot of very good and talented mixers do at least some variation of what you're currently doing ... so if it's working for you, then stick with it.

Word to the wise: if you ever find yourself making drastic cuts or boosts with something, then that's a good sign that you might need to alter how you go about tracking that particular instrument or voice. On the other hand, if you find that most of what you're doing is just minor adjustments and finessing ... then it probably means your tracking is pretty strong.

.
Click to expand...

Yep! If it sounds right in. It'll sound right out. EQ to fine tune. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top