Question about Mastering EQ

[BushmasterM4]

Can I get a 35 and below ?????????

 

[StonedSunset]

i see

thanks waltz and glen, the whole tasting a picture to see how it looks makes a ton of sense. if it sounds right, it just sounds right.https://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

 

[Gizzmo0815]

In light of this thread, and the "low cuts" thread (yes...the one that turned into a fiasco) in the mixing section I was pondering the reasons why it seems to be common to recommend high passing so much of the mix. Whether it's a good idea to use that as a formula or not is almost irrelevant at this point, since the advice is so pervasive on all kinds of audio forums. How does an apparent myth like this get propagated so extensively?

One reason I could think of was related to the loudness war. Since most of the energy and volume in a track will come from the lower register it seems that cutting out a lot of that low end could potentially free up a lot of headroom (the average volume, RMS would be less than without those big cuts), which would eventually allow for MORE compression on the finished track thus raising the perceived volume more than you'd be able to without those cuts. And with some trickery you can add the punch you get back into the track in other ways. If this IS the case, it's somewhat manipulative...but I'm not experienced, or familiar enough with the why's and what's behind these decisions to be certain.

I don't know...just me thinking out loud...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I was pondering the reasons why it seems to be common to recommend high passing so much of the mix. Whether it's a good idea to use that as a formula or not is almost irrelevant at this point, since the advice is so pervasive on all kinds of audio forums. How does an apparent myth like this get propagated so extensively?

It's far from irrelevant; one should never just give in to the pervasiveness of myth and accept it. That is exactly how such myths become so pervasive.

But IMHO/IME, many people tend to love pseudo-science in the form of something that is simple and easy to understand - i.e. that is highly accessible - and has at least the veneer of scientific plausibility to the point where it seems to make "common sense" for as long as one does not actually try and check it for actual accuracy.

It's the junk food of the information world. It comes down to "Hollywood high concept", I think. If you can articulate it in one short sentence, people eat it up. "Low cut everything but the kick and bass" fits right in there.

This racket abounds with such junk food science oversimplifications that have only the most fleeting relationship with the truth. The whole mixing by real time analyzer frequency curve is a fine example of that; if Song A sounds good and looks like A on the RTA, then if we make Song B look the same way, it will sound good too. Sounds sensible, and there's a whole company that makes a living selling software based upon that principle. Unfortunately it's all fiction.

Other examples include such false, over-simplistic, high-concept "truisms" as "studio monitors are flat, consumer speakers are hyped", "condensers are better than dynamics",and "record as hot as possible/use every last bit". There are many others.

G.

 

[rayc]

TrevorQ,
I'd be really unhappy if I constantly had too much at 125Hz or any other specific spot in my recordings.
I went through a stage where I had a common excess at 11Khz (just where my tinnitus could disguise it too!) - I worked backward & found out where it was coming from & eliminated that piece of equipment from the signal chain. Life has been SSOO much easier since then.
I'm going to cut off everything above 15Khz so I don't overload my tweeters. I'll cut off everything below 100 so I don't overwork up my sub & I'll reduce everything to a 150 MP3 so I don't overload my harddrive & RAM then I can slam everything with a brickwall & run it through a couple of mastering presets & I'll have pro quality & when I play back I'll use an exciter & maximiser to get some booty & rack back. Can't wait to play it in my carpod.
Sorry - I became carried away with sarcasm - I'm sure there are preset mastering plugs aimed specifically at the download MP3 & earplug market.

 

[Gizzmo0815]

It's far from irrelevant; one should never just give in to the pervasiveness of myth and accept it. That is exactly how such myths become so pervasive.

I didn't really mean that "it's irrelevant". I was saying that whether it's a good idea or not is almost irrelevant to people who are newer at this because of what you're saying. "I don't care if it's not exactly right to high pass everything, it KIND of makes my stuff sound better (or at least different), so it must be working!" I did it myself when I first heard about the magical "low cut". It's entirely understandable to me.

It's easier to understand and apply a simple rule when you're inexperienced. I think that's a pretty common reaction when you approach learning anything. "Damn this is hard, but I want to be good." As has been made clear many times, the best way to do that is to learn. So the natural reaction is for people to look for a means to do that. And usually one of the first things you do when you're learning is find out what the general rules are. I think that's the frustration with anything artistic...rules are never really rules in an artistic endeavor.

Not that there isn't a lot of science involved in the audio engineering world, but people want to treat MIXING like science and they get frustrated.

 

[philbagg]

Not that there isn't a lot of science involved in the audio engineering world, but people want to treat MIXING like science and they get frustrated.

I wouldn't say all people, just some. I'm one of them. I love maths: I love numbers because they're completely logical and there's only one definite answer that's right, and everything else is wrong. My brain's kinda wired that way. So, while I also love music and mixing and recording, the process almost fights my brain because it's so illogical, experimental and open to all kinds of "answers", and I can get frustrated sometimes when it's not working, but when it does, I get a great feeling of accomplishment.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I didn't really mean that "it's irrelevant". I was saying that whether it's a good idea or not is almost irrelevant to people who are newer at this because of what you're saying. "I don't care if it's not exactly right to high pass everything, it KIND of makes my stuff sound better (or at least different), so it must be working!"

Agreed. The ironic thing is how that just serves to support the whole "you gotta have ears to use the gear" POV. Of course, if one doesn't have the ears, they can't tell whether something is actually working or not.

It's easier to understand and apply a simple rule when you're inexperienced. I think that's a pretty common reaction when you approach learning anything. "Damn this is hard, but I want to be good."

Not arguing, just stating why I simply can't/don't understand that. When I'm inexperienced at something, the less likely I am to take simple rules for granted because the more likely I'll be to ask questions for which the answers that the simple rules provide just don't make sense. For example, the whole frequency analysis never made sense to me from the beginning; how could the response of a Clash tune possibly look the same as that of a Stones tune and still sound good, when they sound entirely different and contain entirely different content? Or, if everybody is cutting or should cut the sub bass out, what's the point of having a subwoofer - or any loudspeaker that goes below 65Hz or so FTM? And so forth. With just what the platitudes tell us, there are no sensible answers to those kinds of first round questions.

This is why I come to the conclusion - not out of malice or prejudice, but rather as the only thing I can think of that fits the evidence - that many (not all) folks like the short platitudes because they want something easy to accept that they *believe* they don't have to think about or ask questions about. Because all it takes is just a little thought or a simple first principle question or two, and most of those platitudes fall apart pretty easily.

As has been made clear many times, the best way to do that is to learn. So the natural reaction is for people to look for a means to do that.

And I'd take the position that the best way to learn is not to look for simple answers, but rather to think about the simple first principles that a simple introductory knowledge should naturally come up with, and find the answers to the questions they raise that just don't seem to make sense.

That's the thing about science in general; science is not so much in the answers as it is in the questions. Every answer just brings up new questions. To just simply accept some one-sentence platitude as an answer is not science. It's no more science than it is art.

The problem is, IMHO, that there are a majority of people who just don't realize when they get into this that making music and recording it are both art and science combined. It's not much different than learning how to play a musical instrument, which is also a combination of art and science.

Very few seem to foster illusions that playing a guitar or a piano is a matter of learning a few simplistic platitudes, there is a "natural" (for lack of a better word offhand) understanding that it takes time and work to learn how to play an instrument with any kind of proficiency whatsoever, and not just learning a few simple rules.

But for some reason - one that I keep asking about and have yet to get even one single answer to - many of those just entering the realm of music production, whether as a hobby or in a more serious vein, have the idea that its magnitudes easier than playing the music itself, and that just a few basic rules or recipes or secrets or tricks or whatever you want to call them is pretty much what they need to make records like a pro.

And then when one decides that *somebody* has to break th news to them that it ain't that easy, they get all pissed off at the messenger.

G.

 

[Massive Master]

But for some reason - one that I keep asking about and have yet to get even one single answer to - many of those just entering the realm of music production, whether as a hobby or in a more serious vein, have the idea that its magnitudes easier than playing the music itself, and that just a few basic rules or recipes or secrets or tricks or whatever you want to call them is pretty much what they need to make records like a pro.

And then when one decides that *somebody* has to break th news to them that it ain't that easy, they get all pissed off at the messenger.

G.

Add to that a certain amount of natural aptitude -- Practice is one thing - Ability is another. The two aren't necessarily attached.

I don't care how much practice I could possibly have - I will never be as good a shot as Tom Knapp. There is something about the way his brain works that makes him the way he is. It calculates on another level from most people.

Some people hear on another level from other people. Some people aren't physically able to hear major differences between frequencies. Some people aren't physically able to hear above certain frequencies.

And even if one has reasonably sensitive and acute hearing ability, it can take years and years of listening practice to be able to apply that ability to the task at hand. Some will develop those skills faster than others, some will be much better than others. Some will practice listening for years and still be completely lost.

Being a technically proficient engineer doesn't necessarily have all that much to do with making a great recording. Being a great listener doesn't necessarily make a great engineer. Being a great engineer with great listening skills is the goal.

 

[mixmkr]

Being a great engineer with great listening skills is the goal.

not sure why a lot of people don't understand this.

Goes for being a musican too, producer, mastering engineer.

Now we'll just pass over columnists that write reviews.....

maybe the MP3 clinic could be divided into groups...

 

[NYMorningstar]

Can I get a 35 and below ?????????

Sorry for going against the grain of this thread but I'll give ya that.

I even give you 40 and below is a good idea to high pass as most speakers can't accurately reproduce at 40hz and below anyway and because most instruments don't produce that low either. This area is also the area that will heat up your speakers and cause them to fail so you have to be careful to say the least. I would be really pissed if someone blew out my speakers with their ignorant boosting below 40hz. This is also the first area that goes away anyhow when you turn things down.

Here's my tin-headed idea on an the EQ curve too:

Yeah, there is a common slope to follow in EQing. I always see eq's sloping down. Never up. It's because listening to alot of top end starts to get irritating real soon like. Like hearing nails on a chalkboard do we? How long can you sit there hearing a baby cry?

One of the great engineers here pointed out to me once that if you have volume boosts in the top end it indicates a problem right off the bat. (you know who you are ) So yeah I keep a general rule, as the frequency goes up so goes the volume down.

It's all relative and there's exceptions too but the magic word today for me is Balance. It's Friday!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yeah, there is a common slope to follow in EQing. I always see eq's sloping down. Never up. It's because listening to alot of top end starts to get irritating real soon like. Like hearing nails on a chalkboard do we? How long can you sit there hearing a baby cry?

That's not so much an EQ slope as it is Mother Nature just doing her natural thing. The lower the frequency/higher the wavelength, the more energy it takes to drive it at a relatively equal volume. E.g. it takes more energy to push a big woofer at 50 Hz than a small tweeter at 15kHz. That slope downwards is representative of this law of physics, and is part of the reason why if you have the high end pushed too high off that slope that it sounds harsh to us so easily.

One should not have to set an EQ slope to mimic or create that slope; something close enough to that general slope should arise through natural balanced mixing and not by force-fitting the slope shape via EQ. And at least some deviation from it is necessary, otherwise you're not listening to music so much as you're listening to pink noise.

G.