EQ and mixing

[Farview]

I wish there were some place that we could hang Fletchers post where everyone would have to read it. It would serve to dispell alot of the 'mystery' and confusion over this subject.

 

[volltreffer]

Funny enough I was almost grilled when I stated that subtractive EQ and additive could (at least theoretically) alternatively be used when I came here...

There's one thing that IS true on subtractive EQ: narrow banded subtractive EQ is psychoacoustically less audible, as the brain is used to materials that absorb/deflect certain freqs, while there are none that absorb/deflect all but a certain frequency (except room modes )

Other stuff may be the nonlinearities (e.g. toobs, transformers) that make additive and subtractive EQ sound different. Maybe this is a myth from the toob area?? I dunno... I don't care. I always used both, but often found out that subtractive EQ is easier to handle (imagine to create a wide subtractive with a narrow additive in it when only using additive EQ...)

aXel

 

[Sonixx]

Wow... no shortage of idiots here today... I'll be damned...

ouch...

Cloneboy Studio, I surely don't know your level of understanding of Op Amps, active filters, negative feedback and passive filters, but you really left yourself open.

and...

Because that's the way it is!

Is not a very good technical answer... since the rest of your post lacked any technical savvy.

Having received my EE degree twenty five years ago, I read so much bullshit here on electronics, it's amazing... I often wonder where this stuff comes from... and this was one great example.

 

[acorec]

ouch...
".....Having received my EE degree twenty five years ago, I read so much bullshit here on electronics, it's amazing... I often wonder where this stuff comes from... and this was one great example.

I too have an EE degree and work as an electrical engineer. The electronic urban myths are impossible to erase. I did some posts to correct some of them only to have a pile of people post the same myth and argue about it over and over and............again.

Tough to kill legends.

 

[hitman_I_A]

me i'd just write my settings down and tweak from there till i find a good sound

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Cloneboy Studio, I surely don't know your level of understanding of Op Amps, active filters, negative feedback and passive filters, but you really left yourself open.

None. It's how it was explained to me by an electrical engineer friend of mine that was simplifying it down to my non-engineer level. Maybe I misunderstood him.

I never claimed to be an electronics genius. I thought I had the answer and I stand corrected--albeit rudely.

Is not a very good technical answer... since the rest of your post lacked any technical savvy.

I highly doubted he wanted a circuit diagram and rash of physics formula though. If he did I would have kept my mouth shut.

Having received my EE degree twenty five years ago, I read so much bullshit here on electronics, it's amazing... I often wonder where this stuff comes from... and this was one great example.

Probably from the fact that if you had two EE's in here they'd never agree on which wazoo has the lowest SMCYMF, and whether or not a low SMCYMF is relevant to music, or actually ADDS to the 'analogyness' of sound, and so forth.

However on this issue I stand corrected.

 

[earworm]

just like robert george 'joe' meek said:


if it sounds good, it is good !

but people say that that Meek-dude wasn't that technical, and he received lots of critics,
and i noticed the same thing, when i first record something it can sound OK,
a week later it can sound like shit to me,
so if you don't know how to make it sound good at the first place (thanx to technical education) then it just won't be good!

lest all go to school