Any EQ adjustments that you *always* make?

[DM1]

Reading the Chuck Ainley article that middleman linked from this thread, one thing struck me: He didn't roll off the lows on anything. So unless the author of the article left out those details, I'm confused. How is the final mix not just mud? With a slide guitar, two acoustics, and 5 electric guitars, the low mids must be all piled up.

Which leads me to my question: are there any EQ adjustments that you always make, as a matter of course? Or do you always make the decision based on context?

For my part, I've gotten so used to rolling off the lows on vocals that I just do it automatically now. Same for acoustic guitar when there's also a bass in the mix. I don't even bother checking what they sound like together. The lows always have to come out of the guitar track?

Am I alone in this? That article makes me think so.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Chuck Ainley is an absolute monster when it comes to getting his tracking as precise as possible and keeping signal processing in the mixing to a minimum. He uses less EQ than most mostly because he tries to get his tracks to not need it to begin with.

For the Rest Of Us who are no Chuck Ainleys (myself included), I think it splits fairly even both ways. I personally do not automatically do anything other than flip on the power swicth. I let the conetnt tell me what it needs and try not to dictate to the content in reverse.

That said, though, there can be environmental conditions that color the tracking in a consistant manner. If one's recording room has some bad frequency modes or if consistantly one uses many of the same model of microphone on several overlaid tracks, etc. (e.g. they only have 2 SM57s and an SM58 in their inventory), there can be regular frequency buildups on the tracks that always require particular shelving or notching. But even that is the content driving the processing.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

I will regularly cut engage the low cuts (80, 100, whatever the pre or mic has) on tracks that don't have fundamentals that low. Then often I will low cut the mix at 20 or 30 Hz, presuming there is no 5 string bass etc.

 

[Massive Master]

I'm confused. How is the final mix not just mud?

Why would you cut lows that might not even be there? I very rarely cut lows on *anything* - If it isn't a problem, cutting just for the sake of cutting seems a little silly...

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

Yeah, I don't do anything automatically.

I often roll off or cut lows as mshilarious mentions. Frequently cut out low mids (card board) from the vocals and narrowly, lightly boost a sweet spot in the mids somewhere. Then I'll cut that freq from the guitars when they are competing with the lead vocals. The technique is common in my mixes- the values, and the decision to use it or not, are completely contextual.

I try to track the sounds the way they need to be in the mix so I can use the EQ creatively rather than just to make things fit. (I mix analog- the EQ's sound GREAT but I only have 20 so I don't waste them on crap I can cut out with mic placement.)

Its a fun game. I usually err on the side of too much stuff being recorded and end up having to tinker with the EQ later, anyway. I'm just not so good at it that I want to risk it. (shrug)

Then again, if I find myself getting too wild with the EQ at mixdown its usually time to take a break and get a fresh perspective on the song.

Take care,
Chris

 

[eraos]

Why would you cut lows that might not even be there? I very rarely cut lows on *anything* - If it isn't a problem, cutting just for the sake of cutting seems a little silly...

Quick thread-hijacking question:
Why do you say not to bother cutting the lows? What harm does it do?

I always assumed ((that's the operative word there)) it was good practice for headroom.
Thanks.

 

[phaqu]

I cut 200Hz on guitars to clear them up in a mix. It usually helps. But then again ,going to digital, on a lot of the other tracks,I sometimes boost a small 90-100Hz to give it......?........fuck I dont know how to describe it, it gives it something. Sometimes it works, sometimes it dont. Depends on how its tracked.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Why do you say not to bother cutting the lows? What harm does it do?

I always assumed ((that's operative word there)) it was good practice for headroom.
Thanks.

Cutting lows from stuff that has lows but doesn't need them can often be a good idea to help keep the instruments that do need that stuff from feeling crowded and to avoid excessive LF buildup.

But if there realliy is nothing - or so little as to not be worrisome - down there on a given track, EQing it out just takes extra time and recources for no purpose. In analog all you're doing is lengthening the signal path and adding more more noise and coloration. In digital you're eating CPU cycles and memory on extra plugs that aren't needed. In both realms, you're literally wasting time if it really isn't needed.

If you have, let's say, stereo drum tracks, a kick track, a bass track and two git tracks, stereo keyboard tracks and a vocal overdub track - a fairly normal setup for a rock combo - you have 9 total tracks. Of those 9 tracks, 4 of them are probably not going to qualify for that technique (bass, kick and the DI keyboards.) The vocal, being an overdub from a clean room rprobably won't need much rolloff unless the room or mic are wrongly booming. That leaves 4 tracks as candidates; the drums and the gits. Now the drums might likely get something, but the gits are a situational call, IMHO. So, out of 9 tracks there are only two that are likely to call for the rolloff and two that may only possibly ask for it.

YMMV, it depends on your tracking situation and technique. If one is a headbanger who throws 76 microphones on a drim kit, the there will probably be more drum tracks that will require extreme shaping. OTOH, if either of the gits are DI'd for reamping, they probably won't need the rolloff.

G.

 

[BRIEFCASEMANX]

As a home recordist who uses a ton of close miking with cardiod mics(proximity effect!) to cut out as much of the shitty sounding room as i can, i high pass most tracks. Many tracks where you think it wouldn't matter much to high pass, I try it anyway and can hear a slight improvement in articulation of kick and bass. High pass it until you start to hear it cutting too much low end from the track, then back off a little. There is likely to be *some* information down there, and the cumulative effect of cutting lows from many tracks is audible. OR MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE SHITTER!

 

[DM1]

Why would you cut lows that might not even be there?

Mostly because, in my experience, a high-pass on the acoustic guitar tracks always makes the bass sound clearer. But reading the posts above, I'm realizing this probably has more to do with my tracking technique than anything.

Cutting lows from stuff that has lows but doesn't need them can often be a good idea to help keep the instruments that do need that stuff from feeling crowded and to avoid excessive LF buildup.

I'm from the same school of thought as eraos. I've read so many posts on this board about "thinning out the guitars to make room for the bass," I've just started doing it as a matter of course in my mixes.

But if I understand your posts correctly, the low frequency clutter is really something I should begin addressing in tracking.

 

[mshilarious]

They aren't in the fundamental of the instrument, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. My recordings are usually remote, and often I'm doing the FOH & monitors too, so there is always noise, bleed, etc. to worry about.

 

[caryindy]

Reading the Chuck Ainley article that middleman linked from this thread, one thing struck me: He didn't roll off the lows on anything. So unless the author of the article left out those details, I'm confused. How is the final mix not just mud? With a slide guitar, two acoustics, and 5 electric guitars, the low mids must be all piled up.

From the article...


"Ainlay dialed in both low and high shelving filters on the main acoustic: a 3 dB shelving cut at 50 Hz and a 6 dB shelving boost at 16 kHz. Using the NSEQ's high-mid control, he also boosted 4 dB around 4.5 kHz using approximately a half-octave Q (bandwidth). On the high-strung guitar, Ainlay employed another 6 dB shelving boost at 16 kHz and positioned the low-frequency shelf (also with a 3 dB cut) at 34 Hz. Ainlay dialed in roughly the same high mids on the high-strung, but with a broader Q, close to an octave wide. (Note: These were the final EQ settings. Ainlay decided on them after returning to the acoustic guitars a number of times during the session, each time refining his tweaks according to the rest of the mix.)"

Unless this is a different tune, he clearly did do something to the bottom.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But if I understand your posts correctly, the low frequency clutter is really something I should begin addressing in tracking.

Weeellll...first let me say that if somethig needs EQing in mixing, then by all means, EQ it. the LF needs rolling off everywhere, then roll it off everywhere .

I was I suppose dancing around two different points. One was that some tracks just plain usually don't need any LF rolloff. A direct keyboard usually doesn't need much unless there's some extracurricular bass stuff coming from a synth patch or something, female vocal overdubs probably do not have much, if any, LF fat to trim off, etc. Taking the time and resources to roll off on that stuff if its not needed just seems like a waste of effort to me.

The other more general point I think is the whole "the job of the tracking engineer is to make the job of the mixing engineer as easy as possible" concept. The idea there is that the less the mixing engineer has to do to "fix" the tracks, the more he can to to get creative with them. In less-than-perfect home studio situations there are probably usually going to be more "fixes" required than in your average "pro" room because of room acoustics, grade of equipment used, etc. But doing what one can via good technique to keep such anamolies to a minimum and to keep the amount of "maintenance mixing" to a minimum is, to me, always a good thing. Chuck Ainley is one of the strongest pro engineers in this technique, I think. I think he might almost know more about miking guitar cabinets than most engineers know about everything else put together.

G.