P
Pony!
New member
Recently I've found myself only doing subtractive EQ... rarely ever additive. Is this a good thing? Am I limiting my mixes doing just subtractive?
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I'd go to say that's 100% normal. Typical (cut:boost) is probably (10:1).
Dogbreath
Im an ex-spurt
Yup. 
And that kinda makes sense too.
If you're boosting freqs, you're munchin up the headroom you could have used at the mastering stage and, from what I've seen, some EQ's just aren't that good when ya start boosting and leave nasty digital artifacts in your mix.
Every once in awhile I'll boost but, like John said, that seems to be about a 10 to 1 ratio.
Merry Christmas y'all!
And that kinda makes sense too.
If you're boosting freqs, you're munchin up the headroom you could have used at the mastering stage and, from what I've seen, some EQ's just aren't that good when ya start boosting and leave nasty digital artifacts in your mix.
Every once in awhile I'll boost but, like John said, that seems to be about a 10 to 1 ratio.
Merry Christmas y'all!
witzendoz
Senior Member
Subtractive EQ almost every time, subtract the frequencies you don't want, turn it up slightly and the frequencies you do want are louder.
I.E not enough top end in Guitar, Subtract the low EQ maybe subtract the mids a bit, turn it up slightly, more top end with no EQ boost.
Does that make sense?
Cheers
Alan.
I.E not enough top end in Guitar, Subtract the low EQ maybe subtract the mids a bit, turn it up slightly, more top end with no EQ boost.
Does that make sense?
Cheers
Alan.
TheChikenMaster
I'm Unbalanced
I do it all the time. My mixes come out clearer when i subtract rather than add.
D
dintymoore
Guest
I remember Fletcher at Mercenary said one time that "eq is the work of Satan" or something like that. I agree.
The best tracks I've ever recorded are when I end up using no eq, so I always aim for that... and often don't get there.
With regular eq's, I subtract 99% of the time. Adding sounds funny to me. I have a Summit tube eq. It's an expensive passive eq with a tube make-up gain stage, and on that I can boost, but it's passive so it's not really a boost. That's the only eq I've ever been able to use boost on.
Passive eq is mega-cool and sounds the best. Only subtractive. I've built a few passive boxes to roll the top off of stuff like keyboards and I can't believe that nobody's selling those.
The best tracks I've ever recorded are when I end up using no eq, so I always aim for that... and often don't get there.
With regular eq's, I subtract 99% of the time. Adding sounds funny to me. I have a Summit tube eq. It's an expensive passive eq with a tube make-up gain stage, and on that I can boost, but it's passive so it's not really a boost. That's the only eq I've ever been able to use boost on.
Passive eq is mega-cool and sounds the best. Only subtractive. I've built a few passive boxes to roll the top off of stuff like keyboards and I can't believe that nobody's selling those.
antichef
pornk rock
Between these two:
a) boosting the overall gain on a track and using subtractive EQ for particular frequencies and
b) not boosting, or reducing the overall gain on a track and using additive EQ for all the other frequencies
is the only difference the shape (or "polarity" or "direction" if you will) of the 'Q' related peaks/troughs, assuming you're using a parametric-style EQ?
Does it depend on the devices being used? Digitally boosting/cutting and EQing versus a couple of particular analog methods, etc.?
I agree, I like it best when I don't have to EQ at all, and that's what I shoot for when tracking.
a) boosting the overall gain on a track and using subtractive EQ for particular frequencies and
b) not boosting, or reducing the overall gain on a track and using additive EQ for all the other frequencies
is the only difference the shape (or "polarity" or "direction" if you will) of the 'Q' related peaks/troughs, assuming you're using a parametric-style EQ?
Does it depend on the devices being used? Digitally boosting/cutting and EQing versus a couple of particular analog methods, etc.?
I agree, I like it best when I don't have to EQ at all, and that's what I shoot for when tracking.