How do you all EQ your mid range stuff?

[mixsit]

You gotta go by ear... who cares what the numbers say.

What sounds good? That's what matters.

Funny how a lot of home recording questions could be answered with that one specific answer. But I think its important everyone understands that.

I EQ it according to the sound that needs to be EQed. It varies.

And the sculptor says 'All you do is just chip away what you don't want.'



So basically we just alternate between collecting and perfecting all these tools' and techniques along the way- then pulling them out or our hat based on our best guess as to what's appropriate for the moment.

 

[masteringhouse]

It's true that the simple answer is often the most profound, but it is often above the heads of people who don't have the benefit of experience. After all isn't recording just about putting up a mic and hitting record?

I think discussing approaches, philosophy of approach, etc. is more beneficial than a blanket answer of "do what sounds good" even though that is hopefully the end result.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's true that the simple answer is often the most profound, but it is often above the heads of people who don't have the benefit of experience. After all isn't recording just about putting up a mic and hitting record?

I think discussing approaches, philosophy of approach, etc. is more beneficial than a blanket answer of "do what sounds good" even though that is hopefully the end result.

A big problem with entry-level in this field is the large number of people that can't "do what sounds good" because they honestly can't identify what sounds good or why something sounds good. They know what they like, but that's not enough. It takes more than just an appreciative ear, it takes an analytical ear.

Techniques without the analytical ear to select or guide them wind up being just painting by numbers or following canned recipes. The problem is that it is very difficult to teach someone how to listen (especially in an internet text forum ).

So we wind up with an interesting dichotomy: the big answer to everything is "use your ears". But when someone replies "but I don't have my ears yet, where do I get them", we have no good answer.

I think this is why newbs thing that the pros are keeping their secrets from the public. The only secret is that when you have the ears, everything else comes easy, when you don't it's impossibly hard. And almost no one teaches how to get the ears. It's not that the pros are keeping it a secret, it's that they don't know how to teach it.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Excellent points Glen. The class that I'm teaching at LVC this year is on mastering, a large part of which is geared toward critical listening. Some of this can be taught, but like anything it takes practice in "owning the material". At some point in the near future I plan on creating an ear training program online, but there are some things in Flash that aren't quite prime time for this yet. Flash 10 looks like it's going to be the ticket since they allow more functions for raw access to sound.

In the meantime, what are the best ears for under $300?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Excellent points Glen. The class that I'm teaching at LVC this year is on mastering, a large part of which is geared toward critical listening. Some of this can be taught, but like anything it takes practice in "owning the material". At some point in the near future I plan on creating an ear training program online, but there are some things in Flash that aren't quite prime time for this yet. Flash 10 looks like it's going to be the ticket since they allow more functions for raw access to sound.

In the meantime, what are the best ears for under $300?

There's this Sweedish bakery not too far from me that makes something we used to call "Elephant Ears" for maybe $7.95 a box. Lots of powdered sugar! Mmmmm OTOH, my mother's MBC-based hearing aid just cost me about $2500, and we had to return it and order another one because it didn't work right. So there's a wide range in price with no guarantee in quality.

And just to clarify a little, I didn't mean to say that folks won't or don't know how to teach critical listening skills, just that it's something that just can't be done in a simple forum post or three (even ones as long as mine ).

That on-line app sounds like a great idea. I know the feeling as far as the software tech. Of course you know the old saying about software technology: by the time it works, it's obsolete .

And re your class. Your college doesn't happen to have a syllabus online do they?

G.

 

[TyphoidHippo]

Hey soundchaser59, here's an interesting little tidbit for you (This is gonna be lengthy, but so was your OP, so I think you may actually have the patience to read it ):

Somebody once asked Michelangelo how he was able to sculpt an angel from a slab of marble and his response was: "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."

This eventually grew into the simplified, and more commonly heard tale of a man who was seen chiseling a rock into a beautiful horse was asked, "How do you make a sculpture of a horse?" The artist responded, "I simply chisel away everything that doesn't look like a horse."

It seems lame and hippyish to use such an 'artsy-fartsy' analogy, I will be the first to admit that. If there has ever been an anti-hippy/give-me-objective-tangible-advice-or-I'll-gouge-your-eyes-out person, it is me. The thing is, that this really is the closest to an objective way to 'EQ a mix' that there is. Sweep the full spectrum of each track, and find everything that doesn't sound like a guitar, and cut it out. (Or whatever the track may be, obviously)

Glen already linked to his article on the specifics of how to do this, but I'll link again just for emphasis - since I did, in fact, originally learn this unbelievable-in-it's-simplicity-and-fundamental-necessity technique from one of his posts on here years ago. http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/columns/gstep/index.php?id=69

It's also worth sharing, that when I first went to work in a 'real' studio, this is the only EQ that the producer used on anything....ever. If something didn't sound right when recorded, but did sound right at the source, he would have the engineers adjust the microphones and re-record it - if it still didn't sound right, he would adjust the microphones himself and re-record it. Google "Mack Damon" if you want to know more about him - he had 5 Grammy nominations, last time I checked... It wouldn't be too terrible of a stretch to say "he's kind of a big deal", I suppose - lol

 

[jndietz]

I agree with SSG that a lot of people just getting into home recording do not know what sounds good. Hopefully after a few years of playing around with it they get it figured out. I know thats what happened to me. I used to pay attention a lot to numbers and frequency analyzers. But, after I figured out how EQ affected different mixes for a couple years, I figured out what sounded good and what didn't and I didn't have to look at numbers anymore.

At this point, I just need to keep tracking and mixing and I'll get better at it... hopefully the OP is getting all of his stuff figured out It has taken me nearly four years to get where I'm at in recording and I'm still always learning LOTS of things. In comparison to what is out there today, I'm still considered a beginner, even after four years

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Somebody once asked Michelangelo how he was able to sculpt an angel from a slab of marble and his response was: "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."

This eventually grew into the simplified, and more commonly heard tale of a man who was seen chiseling a rock into a beautiful horse was asked, "How do you make a sculpture of a horse?" The artist responded, "I simply chisel away everything that doesn't look like a horse."

What this comes down to is knowing ahead of time what you want to wind up with. These guys had a "vision" of just what the angel or horse should look like - or at least what they wanted it to look like - long before they even picked up the chisel. Often it's even before they go to find just the right piece of marble or wood to use for it.

IMHO it's the same thing here. Composers do it with classical music, and it should in most cases be no different with metal, emo, country or gospel; when you start with an artistic vision (or whatever the audio version of "vision" would be) of what you want your song to sound like and how you want it arranged - BEFORE you ever hit the record button - that's when you'll find a lot of decisions like how to EQ or compress or whatever already made for you.

And just wanting to "sound like _______" (fill in your favorite band or album name here) isn't enough. It takes knowing WHY you like the way that album or band sounds. Everybody assumes it's because of the guitar tone or this or that technical production value, but often the answer is not as obvious as that. The guitar tone or type of compression may work for that album or band because of their writing style, or because of the guitarists particular personality, or because of the way the overall arrangement fits together, or any number of other underlying reasons. That's not to say that tone or compression isn't a big thing, but rather that concentrating on that rather than the real reason it works so well in that instance is often aiming at the wrong target.

I agree with SSG that a lot of people just getting into home recording do not know what sounds good.

I appreciate your agreement, jn. I just want to clarify for those who may not go back and read the first page of this thread that I thought there was a big difference between appreciating what sounds good, and understanding what sounds good. Everybody here appreciates music, or at least some segment of it, I think, and has their tastes as to what sounds good an what doesn't. They have an appreciative ear.

Being able to analyze why something sounds good and why something else not so much, though, takes an analytical ear. And that is something that does not come naturally to most people, and is a skill that needs to be developed.

The musicians here might like this analogy: It's one thing to say, "Oooh, I like what he's playing, and I know what I like," but it's another thing altogether to be able to recreate it because you can tell - or at least figure out - that he's playing such and such a chord inverted using this or that fingering.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

And re your class. Your college doesn't happen to have a syllabus online do they?

G.

I'm not aware of any public syllabi, just general course descriptions. The syllabus has a lot of non-relevant info like how the students will be graded, rules for studio use etc. A more relevant piece of info for this discussion might be the critical listening matrix that I've put together for evaluating mixes. I think that critical listening would be a very good thread in its own right rather than be buried here.

Wanna fire it up Glen?

 

[dualflip]

I'm not aware of any public syllabi, just general course descriptions. The syllabus has a lot of non-relevant info like how the students will be graded, rules for studio use etc. A more relevant piece of info for this discussion might be the critical listening matrix that I've put together for evaluating mixes. I think that critical listening would be a very good thread in its own right rather than be buried here.

Wanna fire it up Glen?

I Think that the problem with most schools is that they teach how to EQ, compress, mix, record, etc... but they give little importance to listening whats already out there, and also creating their own way of doing things; dont get me wrong, i have a Major degree in Audio Engineering i busted my ass almost 5 years, but let me tell you that my best teachers were George Massenburg, Al Schmitt, Frank Fillipetti, and i didnt had to pay a dime, just by listening to their work and analysing it was the best class i could ever have.

Also, what i've noticed in recording schools (at least from my experience) is that students are waiting for the "answer" or the "golden rule", they think this is like chemistry or math were 2+2=4, instead of applying what they learn and twist it, they think theres only one way... but sometimes, we know that in audio 2+2 may equal 5... (you get the metaphore). Also from experience and hours of work is were i learned the most.

 

[NYMorningstar]

A critical part in addressing the OP's question lies in what dualflip says and also in the room you choose. You have to have a decent product to EQ to begin with and even when you do, if the room you are working in sucks then so will your mix. I am still amazed at the differences in the rooms we play in and the effect it has to the overall sound. Get the source and room right to begin with, develop the other part to the equation (your ear), apply the tips and points listed(except the throw money at it one) and you are in

 

[rayc]

Ah, THE Golden Rule Rule
The Golden Rule #1:
There is no Golden Rule;
The Golden Rule #2:
The search for the Golden Rule is important - finding it isn't;
The Golden Rule #3:
EARS 1st (unless the tinnitus is so bad you have, like me, to cheat)
&
The Golden Rule #4:
If you don't ask they can't help you.

For all other rules please refer to The Rules sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus, (or ask Bruce, Bruce or Bruce!)
OR
As my old man was want to say:
"You know the rules!"
Which, patently, I didn't.

 

[masteringhouse]

I Think that the problem with most schools is that they teach how to EQ, compress, mix, record, etc... but they give little importance to listening whats already out there, and also creating their own way of doing things; dont get me wrong, i have a Major degree in Audio Engineering i busted my ass almost 5 years, but let me tell you that my best teachers were George Massenburg, Al Schmitt, Frank Fillipetti, and i didnt had to pay a dime, just by listening to their work and analysing it was the best class i could ever have.

Also, what i've noticed in recording schools (at least from my experience) is that students are waiting for the "answer" or the "golden rule", they think this is like chemistry or math were 2+2=4, instead of applying what they learn and twist it, they think theres only one way... but sometimes, we know that in audio 2+2 may equal 5... (you get the metaphore). Also from experience and hours of work is were i learned the most.

It depends on the school obviously, but I understand your point. Some audio schools are more like "tech schools" while others are geared to a more generalized approach. It's also not just about listening to work from historical recordings, but analyzing and understanding it. This only comes with time and experience not a single class, semester, or even 4-5 years. One could say that the biggest problem with schools is that they teach the inexperienced to believe that they are experts in a subject after they pass a class.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

my best teachers were George Massenburg, Al Schmitt, Frank Fillipetti, and i didnt had to pay a dime, just by listening to their work and analysing it was the best class i could ever have.

It was pretty much the same thing with me, but I think that folks like us are the lucky ones. I think we're lucky in that critical/analytical listening come more naturally to us. But I don't think it comes naturally to everybody.

This isn't to say that you and I are better than anyone else, or that it's a skill one has to be born with, or anything like that. I strongly believe it's a skill that can be learned and acquired by any one - those with a true hearing deficit such as tone or rhythm deafness, or outright deafness, excluded.

Tom, a thread on analytical listening sounds great to me. Are you talking about here or ATC? If you're talking here, go ahead, you can have the honors. It's your idea and your matrix. I've already taken my red pill...

G.

 

[thexflamesxburn]

i love reading threads like this so much useful information!

but i would like to stress an idea that would seem to go against a bunch of the thinking here.

first of all, i respect everyone here so much...with your years of experience, knowledge, and know-how, there is no better answer than your advice. so yes, in a sense, use your ears. but we (i) need to learn HOW to use our ears.

when someone tells me to "do what sounds good," what sounds good to me may not fit in the mix, because what sounds good to me may not sound good to everyone else, but what sounds good to someone who KNOWS what sounds good will sound good to everyone else.

so, in essence, i agree with what southside glen was saying.

but we youngins that are new to this game need to see numbers, and given explanations (such as the parametric sweep article) into the finest detail possible so that we can learn what sounds good and what doesnt, so we can one day stop relying on spectrum analyzers and start using our ears more.

its easier for me to visualize something. so i do still use a frequency analyzer quite often. i dont rely on it, but i pop it on to get a look, so next time i do something similar i already have a good idea of what to expect, and i find myself using it less and less.

but i also understand that for someone that only uses his ears to explain to a newbie in numerical terms where to cut, where to boost, etc. its a lot easier to just hear it in person, but again a forum doesnt offer us that luxury.

but seriously, thanks for an awesome thread.

 

[dualflip]

but what sounds good to someone who KNOWS what sounds good will sound good to everyone else.

Not necessary true but i get your point, im not saying going to a school wont help, as i mentioned earlier, i also have a major degree.. but what i was trying to say is that to become a real engineer you need more than a degree in audio engineering...

 

[The Black Circl]

Spending the last few hours toying with this idea of creating an "EQ niche" for each instrument in a mix got me wondering.

I started by running a kick drum thru a low pass filter while running my bass thru a bass EQ pedal, and watching both of them at the same time thru a spectrum analyzer. I put the kick spectrum on top, and just below it the bass spectrum, so that I could see them both at the same time, to see if they were peaking in the same EQ range or not. I got it to where the kick is peaking in the 30-60hz range, while the bass is peaking in the 50-200hz range. It seems like this has made it easier to hear the kick and the low bass notes at the same time.

The article I read also said to use a fast compressor attack on the bass so that the bass note attack would not hide or obscure the attack of the kick drum. This works because the kick drum basically has only it's attack to make itself heard, since it has little or no audible decay or sustain in a mix. At the same time, the bass notes usually sustain or at least have a much longer duration compared to the kick notes, so the bass can afford to sacrifice it's initial attack (just 1 or 2 ms is more than enough) in order to make room for the kick to be heard. This makes the kick and bass play together better in the same EQ sandbox. All of this, so far, seems to be working.

So I got to wondering if I might shorten this learning curve some by asking all of you if you have any special tricks for EQ'ing the midrange instruments and voices so as to allow them each to be heard individually within a mix rather than being heard as a mass of midrange mud like some of my mixes seem to do.

I figure most of the instruments that give a song it's "identity" by creating chord progressions and melodies are midrange sounds that have most of their energy in the low mid, mid, and upper mid EQ ranges. In particular, I notice the guitars, the pianos/organs, and the vocals all tend to be most powerful all in the same range, and hence they end up fighting with each other to be heard in my mixes. Most of the fundamentals of these three timbres fall within approximately the 100 to 500 hz range. If the guitar is playing chords and the keys are playing chords while the voices are singing chords, the mix gets fairly blurry there quick. However, listen to a hadnful of great classic rock albums and we know it can be and has been done. How did they do it?

Some of the reading suggests that an engineer need not EQ the fundamentals of an instrument or a voice in order to give that sound its own space in the mix. It is logical to assume that I cannot EQ those three parts all within the 100-500hz range or elses they will never stop fighting each other. The reading suggests that there are ways to EQ each of these parts differently so that each one can seem to have its own space without fighting the other two.

So instead of spending countless hours experimenting with EQ and spectrum analyzers by trial and error, I figured I would try to shorten the slope some by asking all of you how you EQ guitars, keys, and voices in a mix in order to make each one sound like it has its own aural space.

Thanks in advance for any info!

I didn't rad everything cause I didn't want to. However, thats how your supposed to EQ - by carving out holes rather then boosting. This is also how you deal with masking.