Carving Out EQ Niches

[DarkFriend]

I've got a song completed and fully mixed. The mix sounds great, but I know the song could benefit from "carving" out EQ niches for the instruments. For example, ensuring the heavy crunch guitar doesn't step on the bass guitar, etc.

What is the best way to visually see the EQ characteristics of various tracks, so I can see if other tracks are stepping on each other sonicly? Or, is there a better way to carve out EQ niches?

I use both Reaper and nTrack 5.0, and have the Waves Native Gold bundle.

Thanks for any help you can provide to point me in the right direction.

 

[Seafroggys]

The mix sounds great

Then don't do anything with it

 

[DarkFriend]

I knew that reply was coming! No seriously, I think the mix can be improved and sound more professional with some minor EQ help.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

What is the best way to visually see the EQ characteristics of various tracks, so I can see if other tracks are stepping on each other sonicly? Or, is there a better way to carve out EQ niches?

Seriously, the best way to see something like that is with your ears, not your eyes.

What I'd personally recommend first is to perform a parametric sweep on each track to ID and remove the most unpleasant resonances and formants from each track. If you're unsure how to do this, just search this forum for "parametric sweep"; you're bound to find many references and descriptions of this technique.

While doing the sweeps, I'd also pay attention to which frequencies on each instrument seem to define it the best; i.e. which ones you wind up not notching out that in fact sound almost better when boosted. Then, instead of boosting those frequencies on that track, gently cut them on the other competing track(s) to give the first track more room to shine at those freqs.

Third, you may then want to reconsider your panning scheme. Maybe it's just fine, I don't know. But sometimes one of the most effective ways to keep instruments from stepping on each other is to physically seperate and balance them a bit ang give them room to breathe.

The same can be said for the overall arrangement. Less is often more. Give each instrument it's part in the song, and don't be afraid to use occasional muting and volume automation to use and highlight the different instruments dynamically throughout the song.

I use both Reaper and nTrack 5.0, and have the Waves Native Gold bundle.

Mixes almost always sound better when created with legal software than they do with cracked bundles.



HTH,

G.

 

[noisewreck]

What is the best way to visually see the EQ characteristics of various tracks.

Why would you want to do that with audio? This is the worst thing you can do.

Use your ears. Solo a track, put on a parametric EQ, increase the gain and slowly sweep it. Pay close attention while listening intently, and try to describe what the EQ is doing to the sound, whether it's bringing out some characteristic, perhaps making it sound more solid, or irritating, edgy or round... do this with a lot of random tracks. In fact, do this with full mixes too, this is how you train your ear to hear what EQ does.

Next, take a break from your tune for a couple of days, come back to it and listen to your mix. Listen and note areas that you don't particularly care for. Don't overanalyse, just note that something isn't "right".

Then listen to it again, concentrating on different instruments and note what characteristics you like, what you'd want to bring out, and what irks you.

Once you've noted the characteristic you want to bring out, the first reaction is going to be to put an EQ on it, and around the particular frequency that accentuates the characteristic. But, instead, listen to other tracks and hear what they could do without...

 

[Seafroggys]

I always EQ before I pan. If you've already panned your instruments, set everything back to mono and start from scratch.

Yeah, find the fundametal range of one instrument, and cut a little bit from some of the other instruments.

 

[DarkFriend]

Glen - thanks for the comments.

I will research parametric sweeps and check it out. I'm actually happy with the panning arrangement, and consider my panning abilities farily strong. I do listen in mono occasionally to ensure everything sounds right.

Oh and I WISH (kind of) that my Waves bundle was cracked. I still find it strange that I paid more for that software than most of my other equipment. $975 at Zzounds.

 

[mrhotapples]

I wanted to chime in and instead of reiterating, say that another way to do it is to find frequencies that make things sound bad and then to, for the hell of it, see what their octaves up and down as far as you can go sound like boosted or cut to an extreme. Sometimes you won't notice them unless you deliberately try it out.

Oh yeah. I did the same damn thing. A grand on software when I've only put that much into microphones at this point, only because I didn't and still do not know if you can get L2 by itself. I hardly use any Waves stuff since I got the URS bundles.

 

[chessrock]

... and consider my panning abilities farily strong.

That's good to know.

I happen to consider myself pretty strong with the gain knob. I can turn volume up and down with the best of 'em.
.

 

[Ford Van]

Seriously, the best way to see something like that is with your ears, not your eyes.

What I'd personally recommend first is to perform a parametric sweep on each track to ID and remove the most unpleasant resonances and formants from each track. If you're unsure how to do this, just search this forum for "parametric sweep"; you're bound to find many references and descriptions of this technique.

While doing the sweeps, I'd also pay attention to which frequencies on each instrument seem to define it the best; i.e. which ones you wind up not notching out that in fact sound almost better when boosted. Then, instead of boosting those frequencies on that track, gently cut them on the other competing track(s) to give the first track more room to shine at those freqs.

Third, you may then want to reconsider your panning scheme. Maybe it's just fine, I don't know. But sometimes one of the most effective ways to keep instruments from stepping on each other is to physically seperate and balance them a bit ang give them room to breathe.

The same can be said for the overall arrangement. Less is often more. Give each instrument it's part in the song, and don't be afraid to use occasional muting and volume automation to use and highlight the different instruments dynamically throughout the song.Mixes almost always sound better when created with legal software than they do with cracked bundles.



HTH,

G.

Can I hear ANY music that you have mixed? ANY?!?!?!?!?! I gotta tell you, I don't think your eq advice is very spot on, so I really need to hear something you have done, using that advice, so I can be proven wrong about your hair brain idea of........


"What I'd personally recommend first is to perform a parametric sweep on each track to ID and remove the most unpleasant resonances and formants from each track."

And to my knowledge, cracks don't sound any worse than non-cracks.

 

[Ford Van]

Why would you want to do that with audio? This is the worst thing you can do.

Use your ears. Solo a track, put on a parametric EQ, increase the gain and slowly sweep it. Pay close attention while listening intently, and try to describe what the EQ is doing to the sound, whether it's bringing out some characteristic, perhaps making it sound more solid, or irritating, edgy or round... do this with a lot of random tracks. In fact, do this with full mixes too, this is how you train your ear to hear what EQ does.

Next, take a break from your tune for a couple of days, come back to it and listen to your mix. Listen and note areas that you don't particularly care for. Don't overanalyse, just note that something isn't "right".

Then listen to it again, concentrating on different instruments and note what characteristics you like, what you'd want to bring out, and what irks you.

Once you've noted the characteristic you want to bring out, the first reaction is going to be to put an EQ on it, and around the particular frequency that accentuates the characteristic. But, instead, listen to other tracks and hear what they could do without...

This is a little more "spot on" Glen.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Which part of the word "NO" is too long for you to understand, walters? You have heard my stuff three times already and trashed it. That's good enough for me.

Get it throuh your thick skull and into that vacuum inside that I DON'T CARE what you think. You constantly trash some of the finest people on this board. If you want to include me in their company, I'm perfectly OK with that.

G.

 

[DarkFriend]

That's good to know.

I happen to consider myself pretty strong with the gain knob. I can turn volume up and down with the best of 'em.
.

Chessrock - any idiot can turn a knob. Knowing what sounds good, interesting, balanced, etc., is another story..

 

[Ford Van]

Which part of the word "NO" is too long for you to understand, walters? You have heard my stuff three times already and trashed it. That's good enough for me.

Get it throuh your thick skull and into that vacuum inside that I DON'T CARE what you think. You constantly trash some of the finest people on this board. If you want to include me in their company, I'm perfectly OK with that.

G.

3 times? Glen, you have posted exactly ONE SONG, which you made a bunch of excuses about.

I want to hear the FINISHED PRODUCTS. You know, the one's that your "clients" have paid you to engineer for them.

If I "bashed" it, it probably deserved it! It probably didn't sound all that hot.

Do you have SO little confidence in your work? I mean, come on man. Does my one little opinion mean THAT much in your life? Unless................unless nobody else really thought that much about it!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Do you have SO little confidence in your work? I mean, come on man. Does my one little opinion mean THAT much in your life?

If your opinion meant anything at all, walters, I'd be throwing MP3s at you left and right.

Your question has been asked and answered more times than you can count on your fingers. Get over it and move on.

You want to make another post in this thread, how about actually providing a useful answer to the OP for a change? Or maybe explain just how mine and noisewreck's posts actually differed in content, other than that he added the bit about stepping away from the project for a while and giving his ears a rest. (of course, if I added that to mine, you'd just bitch that my post was too long.)

But if you just want to keep asking the same tired OT question over and over again, just so you can make yourself feel better by calling me a liar, a dumbshit, a tool, or any other name you can find in the urban dictionary yet one more time, try it on someone who gives a shit. The rest of us are tired of you disrupting otherwise perfectly good threads with your act.

And so I am not guilty of the same thing, this is my last response to your childish hijack of this thread. If you want the last word just to make an even bigger ass of yourself, it's all yours.

G.

 

[Ford Van]

If your opinion meant anything at all, walters, I'd be throwing MP3s at you left and right.

Your question has been asked and answered more times than you can count on your fingers. Get over it and move on.

You want to make another post in this thread, how about actually providing a useful answer to the OP for a change? Or maybe explain just how mine and noisewreck's posts actually differed in content, other than that he added the bit about stepping away from the project for a while and giving his ears a rest. (of course, if I added that to mine, you'd just bitch that my post was too long.)

But if you just want to keep asking the same tired OT question over and over again, just so you can make yourself feel better by calling me a liar, a dumbshit, a tool, or any other name you can find in the urban dictionary yet one more time, try it on someone who gives a shit. The rest of us are tired of you disrupting otherwise perfectly good threads with your act.

And so I am not guilty of the same thing, this is my last response to your childish hijack of this thread. If you want the last word just to make an even bigger ass of yourself, it's all yours.

G.

Well, I certainly don't need your permission to post!

Glen Glen Glen Glen Glen...........Just admit you are poser and can't engineer to save your life! Otherwise, PROVE YOU CAN!

If you don't know how your's and noisewrecks posts differ, well, I don't even know what to say. You obviously know ever LESS than I originally thought!

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

To the OP, the only way to visually analyze anything related to EQ is with a spectrum analyzer. Voxengo has a free one called Span. However, this is generally of little use when making EQ decisions. Sometimes it can be of some use in looking at a kick drum vs. bass guitar to make sure there's not a lot of conflicts below 100Hz for example.

If you watch a pro doing a mix, you will not often find them referencing any kind of spectrum analyzer. If they make an adjustment, it's because they hear something.

Really making eq decisions comes with practice. Sweeping around to learn what the different frequency ranges sound like is definitely good practice. But sweeping to find offensive frequencies and just destroying them is a very dangerous method. If you sweep around a guitar sound or drum overheads or something, pretty much everywhere you go will have some ugly component (too much rumble, too much honk, too brittle, too harsh, etc).

Also, you should take any specific frequency boost/cut advice that you get on these boards with a grain of salt because it really does all depend on the source sound. One person will tell you "I always high pass 60 Hz and boost +8dB at 400Hz on the bass", and another will say "I generally add +5dB at 60Hz and take out -3dB at 400Hz on the bass". So which one do you do? Probably neither - it depends!

You will also notice that the mix veterans will all say that it depends. Conspiracy theorists will say that they are just hiding secrets. Some of them definitely do hide secrets, but in general they're just telling the truth. They cannot tell you what to do with your guitar sound because they haven't heard it.

I would love it if there were a simple formula for applying eq but it just doesn't exist.

 

[chessrock]

I want to hear the FINISHED PRODUCTS. You know, the one's that your "clients" have paid you to engineer for them.

I'd give that one up.

I'm very confident that I will hear any one of the following in my lifetime before I actually hear anything that Southside has engineered ...

* A Yeti mating with the Loch Ness Monster inside a UFO

* G. Bush saying something really smart and politically insightful

* Jessica Alba pleading with me to be her lover

* Thom York begging me to produce his band's next release

* A really great-sounding vocal track cut with an MXL microphone

* Me being nice to someone on this site

.

 

[Ford Van]

* Me being nice to someone on this site[/I]

.

LOL...I HAVE to give you good rep for that one.

 

[Ford Van]

LOL...I HAVE to give you good rep for that one.

Crap. Maybe next time around.