Effects of Over-EQing

  • Thread starter Thread starter 5stringer
  • Start date Start date
5

5stringer

New member
I know that the amount of EQ applied to any audio track is first - subjective, and second - depends on the quality of the recorded track (mic, mic placement, instrument, player, signal level, etc..)

My question is... At what point does EQing take away from the overall sound? I mean, you could have eq's on every track as an insert, eq's as sends, eq on the master fader and eq at mastering. Does everyone use that much EQ? Is it necessary to do so at times and not at others? It seems to be kind of like a crutch to reach for the EQ when mixing. :confused:
 
The short and obvious answer is, you should be able to tell by listening. How do you know when you've added too much cumin and pepper to your chili, or whether it even needs it? By tasting. It's no different with sound; you gotta listen and decide. Like you say, it's subjective and it changes with every recorded track.

G.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Why would anyone put an eq on a send?
Click to expand...

i eq fx sends sometimes. whatever sounds good, i suppose.

as far as eq being a crutch, i don't see it like that. bring the faders up and pan. if the sound isn't where you want it to be, what are you going to do? grab the tools that will get you there. what else can you do?
 
If you are recording "purist" acoustic types of genres, say certain types of jazz and classical music, you'd most likely avoid it on the individual tracks.

It would be considered rude to mess with a jazz drummers snare sound with eq, whereas as in pop and rock it's normal. I use the term "jazz" in reference to, say, groups like "The Modern Jazz Quartet", not fusion/confusion electronic stuff.

Probably lots of your favorite songs had eq at every available stage, and then was eq'd a few times after that. Part of it is that the expensive eq's are better.
 
Thebigredhotdog is correct! I meant sending channels to an FX channel w/ EQ.

Is there a cumulative effect in building up so many channels with eq, comp, fx sends, plugins etc...? I want a clean sounding mix with depth and didn't know if there was a
negative outcome to so many processes stacked on top of each other. But if (in the digital world) this is not only necessary at times but more commonplace than I'm thinking - I might not be that far off in my approach.
 
5stringer said:
Thebigredhotdog is correct! I meant sending channels to an FX channel w/ EQ.

Is there a cumulative effect in building up so many channels with eq, comp, fx sends, plugins etc...? I want a clean sounding mix with depth and didn't know if there was a
negative outcome to so many processes stacked on top of each other. But if (in the digital world) this is not only necessary at times but more commonplace than I'm thinking - I might not be that far off in my approach.
Click to expand...

There's only 1 thing that matters, and it will answer all these questions: does it sound good?

If it sounds good, it doesn't matter if you eq'd it up the yazoo. If it sounds good, it also doesn't matter what anybody says.

I think it actually is very common to have lots of things stacked and use multiple stages of eq and effects. If it sounds right, it's right.

You need to arrive at a place where you trust your ears and don't give a shit what anybody else says because you know you're right... because in the end it's art and it's all subjective.
 
Point well taken dintymoore! I've read soooo many posts and articles where evryone and their mom tries to tell you it should be done their way - when really, there are many approaches to mixing in general. Thanks for your input!
 
You could think of mic choice as another form of EQ. You use a kick drum mic because it scoops some of the mids and adds highs and lows instead of another mic that you would have to EQ to get that sound.

Everything you do will change the sound of the source. As long as you end up with something that sounds like you want it, it's all good.

That said, I EQ the crap out of drums. I normally just use hi and low shelf on electric guitar. Vocals tend to just need a little boost in the upper mids.
 
5stringer said:
Point well taken dintymoore! I've read soooo many posts and articles where evryone and their mom tries to tell you it should be done their way - when really, there are many approaches to mixing in general. Thanks for your input!
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Imagine a guy drawing a picture and the whole time he's looking up asking "is this good? Am I doing it right?".

You can't make art that way.

Something people don't talk about much here is that it is all about art. There's lots of artists who don't really have a clue what they are doing. You could make a great album and not really know what you are doing and only have 1 thing going for you - that you are being genuinely artistic.

Being artistic is really what it's all about.
 
Last edited:
dintymoore said:
You need to arrive at a place where you trust your ears and don't give a shit what anybody else says
Click to expand...
This is the single best answer to probably at least half the questions asked on this BBS.

G.
 
5stringer said:
Thebigredhotdog is correct! I meant sending channels to an FX channel w/ EQ.

Is there a cumulative effect in building up so many channels with eq, comp, fx sends, plugins etc...? I want a clean sounding mix with depth and didn't know if there was a
negative outcome to so many processes stacked on top of each other. But if (in the digital world) this is not only necessary at times but more commonplace than I'm thinking - I might not be that far off in my approach.
Click to expand...
First, to clear up it doesn't matter whether you're recording/mixing in the digital or analog world. EQ is EQ. Some units (analog, digital hardware, digital software) are designed one way, others some other way.

One thing to keep in mind is if you apply EQ to the same track at various points (for example you have an EQ insert, followed by compressor, then another EQ insert, then some other insert, followed by another EQ and yet another processor), the cumulative phase shift may make the overall sound of that track indistinct. This is highly dependent on what EQ unit (hardware or software, digital or analog) you use.

So, while I personally see nothing wrong with stacking up a bunch of stuff on top of the other, it is something to keep an eye (ear?) out for.
 
dintymoore said:
Thanks.

Imagine a guy drawing a picture and the whole time he's looking up asking "is this good? Am I doing it right?".

You can't make art that way.

Something people don't talk about much here is that it is all about art. There's lots of artists who don't really have a clue what they are doing. You could make a great album and not really know what you are doing and only have 1 thing going for you - that you are being genuinely artistic.

Being artistic is really what it's all about.
Click to expand...

That’s my take on the situation. I was thinking how it would’ve been if someone had said to Picasso, “Hey dude, you have too much yellow on the left side of your painting.” It’s art. There’s no rules. We don’ need no steenkin’ rules! :spank:
 
Corvette said:
There’s no rules. We don’ need no steenkin’ rules!
Click to expand...
Of course there are rules. Even Picasso had rules to follow such as the layering of dark and light in order to maintain contrast, the need to use thinner paints on top of thicker ones (or is it the other way around? I forget), etc.

Yes what he did was pure art, and what we do is pure art, but it's art that built using a foundation of media and nature that has rules. We have things like the 3:1 "rule", the constraints of frequency masking between similar tracks, the circle of fifths, etc. What we *do* with those rules is up to us, just like what Picasso did with the rules of perspective was up to him, but rules is rules and at the base of everything, there are just some things that Mom Nature will never let us get away with.

G.
 
5stringer said:
My question is... At what point does EQing take away from the overall sound?
Click to expand...

Well, I tend to generally go by this...

There's too much EQ when it stops sounding good, and starts sounding bad.

Yeah, I know. Sage advice. :D
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Of course there are rules. Even Picasso had rules to follow such as the layering of dark and light in order to maintain contrast, the need to use thinner paints on top of thicker ones (or is it the other way around? I forget), etc.

Yes what he did was pure art, and what we do is pure art, but it's art that built using a foundation of media and nature that has rules. We have things like the 3:1 "rule", the constraints of frequency masking between similar tracks, the circle of fifths, etc. What we *do* with those rules is up to us, just like what Picasso did with the rules of perspective was up to him, but rules is rules and at the base of everything, there are just some things that Mom Nature will never let us get away with.

G.
Click to expand...
Well duh! :rolleyes:
 
Corvette said:
It’s art. There’s no rules. We don’ need no steenkin’ rules! :spank:
Click to expand...
There are no rules as far as deciding what you want to create. As soon as you define what you are trying to do, you automatically limit yourself to doing the types of things that will give you that result...or you will fail.
 
I think the word "rules" is somewhat severe in what we're doing. "Best practices" might be a better way of thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top