Rules of thumb for EQing?

[benherron.rrr]

Except for the part about being easily distracted, which I am, I think I'm the opposite. I like to concentrate intently on complex things for hours on end. I like being in that zone. If something doesn't pose an adequate challenge that will put me in the zone, then it seems to me not worth doing. I guess it comes from recognizing that idleness has a way of putting me in a sorry state.

Im in no means trying to put across that im lazy. You know what its like when you lose somthing, and you look all over and cant find what your looking for, untll you stop looking for it? I suppose I seem to be more productive and learn more when I have a relaxed attitude. When I try to concentrate to much productivity stops and turns into fustration instead of usefull time. I suppose I am alot better at writing music, and recording it because I have chance to mess around with things actively. opposed to mixing which I have to do in small doses.

 

[diggy_dude]

Im in no means trying to put across that im lazy.

I wasn't implying that at all. Idleness for me means that I'm not constantly doing something. There's nothing wrong with taking a break, I'm just too compulsive to do it.

You know what its like when you lose somthing, and you look all over and cant find what your looking for, untll you stop looking for it?

I go through that a thousand times a day. It's quite frustrating. So frustrating that I don't stop looking for it until I find it. Compulsion again.

I suppose I seem to be more productive and learn more when I have a relaxed attitude.

Same here, except that it takes me longer than a weekend to unwind enough to get that relaxed. I essentially don't accomplish anything on the creative side between vacations. Compulsion is self-defeating. I suppose I need to convince myself I'm under no real compulsion to produce music, and just do it for snorts and chuckles.

 

[miroslav]

As life turned out, I had to get into IT for sanity.

I also do IT work for my day gig...but sanity is NOT the reason!
Actually...that's the last reason I would do IT work!

I only do it for the $$$....otherwise if I could find something else that would pay as well for the same amount of work, I would get out of the IT and never look back.
It's not hard or overwhelming...just a total bore!
There are days I would rather be shoveling horseshit on a farm instead of doing IT work (but I make up for it by posting on the forums ).

 

[diggy_dude]

I also do IT work for my day gig...but sanity is NOT the reason!
Actually...that's the last reason I would do IT work!

I only do it for the $$$....otherwise if I could find something else that would pay as well for the same amount of work, I would get out of the IT and never look back.
It's not hard or overwhelming...just a total bore!
There are days I would rather be shoveling horseshit on a farm instead of doing IT work (but I make up for it by posting on the forums ).

There are days when I feel the same way about IT. Then I remind myself how much shittier some of my previous jobs were, and everything is cool again.

 

[miroslav]

Then I remind myself how much shittier some of my previous jobs were...

Yeah...I've had my share of those too...which is why I stay with the IT...
...but I still keep looking for a way out!

I use to do pure multimedia work for awhile...which was same pay as the IT...
...but then due to dramatic changes at the workplace, the multimedia was going away (or being reduced down to nothing)...so I switched over to IT work, as that was certainly more lucrative.
I manage to still do some multimedia work too...so it keeps me a little sane.

 

[diggy_dude]

Yeah...I've had my share of those too...which is why I stay with the IT...
...but I still keep looking for a way out!

I use to do pure multimedia work for awhile...which was same pay as the IT...
...but then due to dramatic changes at the workplace, the multimedia was going away (or being reduced down to nothing)...so I switched over to IT work, as that was certainly more lucrative.
I manage to still do some multimedia work too...so it keeps me a little sane.

I work for a media company. They wised up early on that the old 18th century print model's days were numbered and have been innovators in online and mobile media ever since. I think they're one of the few firms that were hiring developers hand over fist at a time when everyone else was laying them off. It will be interesting to see which strategy proves to be the right one.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I cannot believe this thread went on so long. There are two rules of thumb to using eq:

1. Make it sound good.

2. Don't make it sound bad.

If that is too hard you need more practice or another hobby.

 

[guitaristic]

I cannot believe this thread went on so long. There are two rules of thumb to using eq:

1. Make it sound good.

2. Don't make it sound bad.

If that is too hard you need more practice or another hobby.

Can't......understand.....

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Well, there's no arguing that, but you're putting the cart before the horse. The ear doesn't come first when one is starting out. If it did, there would be need to train one's listening faculties.

...What? The ONLY thing you need to know, the ONLY thing you need to train, is your listening faculties. The in's and out's of actually pushing the buttons and setting crap up is almost trivially simple. And if you don't know something, look it up. 15 minutes. Solution. Bam.

How do you tune a drum? Technical side: Turn this key. Rest of it: Listen to know when to stop turning.

How do you set a mic? Technical side: Shove this wire into the mic. Rest of it: Listen for the right gain and placement.

How do you EQ? Technical side: Twiddle these 4 or 5 knobs. Rest of it: Listen to know where to put the knobs.

There is nothing to recording outside of being able to listen. Eh, make that outside of being able to listen and people skills for interacting with the talent.

The ear has to come first when you start. There is nothing else to start with and nowhere else to go from there.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Just one more illustration, and I'll give it a rest.

Let's say you give me some raw tracks, a rack full of gear, and a blindfold. I adjust pots in total darkness and produce a beautiful record. (I'm not disputing that this is possible, nor even that it's ideally how things should be done.)

That's how you're supposed to do it! I mean, not total darkness. It helps to see what channel you're grabbing. But when I'm done a mix, I honestly couldn't tell you a single frequency value for any of my EQ settings. Well, I mean I could because I know what the frequencies sound like and I hear them cut or boosted...but...you know what I mean. I don't actually look where the knobs fall. I simply have no use to actually pay attention to where that tick mark lands on the EQ pot and all of my computer monitors are turned off for the duration of the mix.

Your eyes do worse than not help. They get it wrong. Almost every time.

Without looking at the markings on the pots, how do I know what it is I've just done? Do the settings I've chosen suggest a technique that can be employed again on other projects, or is blindly adjusting settings based on hearing alone the only technique?

You know the technique you used because you were the one that used it. There is nothing blind about it. The whole mix is laid out in very plain "view"...only it's not a view for your eyes. It is a "view" that you hear. It is a very real object that you can "look" at with your ears and "walk around" it with your ears. You know how you made it.

Any visual indicators on the mixing board are alien and of no connection to the mix. They are only useful for mix recall at a later date if everything isn't automated.

The predominant line of thinking in this thread, if I'm not mistaken, seems to be that it doesn't matter if I can see what I've done, that such knowledge is irrelevant.

It's exactly like wondering what the baseball bat smelled like when you hit the home run.

I think it is relevant. The markings on the pots translate what I'm hearing into something more-or-less quantifiable and therefore more accessible to the rational mind.

And that is the hurdle all of us must overcome. In order to mix, record, produce, or anything in between, the sound itself must be quantifiable and accessible to the rational mind. Anybody can learn to do it. Everybody will struggle while learning. And like I said before, once you do learn it there really isn't anything of significant difficulty left to learn.

 

[Emerson Maningo]

Beginners often think EQ in mix is all about boosting to achieve the sound they want.

Supposing you find vocals getting drown in the mix because of a guitar. A common beginner approach is to boost the vocal frequencies (around 2Khz to 3Khz) by several dB. Boosting adds volume and being loud is not a mixing objective but it is clarity.

Instead, the best practice is to cut guitar frequencies at around 2Khz to 3Khz to give way for the vocals to shine. My rule is that whatever possible, I favored cutting frequencies more than boosting to achieve overall mixing clarity.

 

[NYMorningstar]

This is exactly why I don't do the MP3 clinic. Who am I to tell someone what I think they should do with their mix, if they don't even know themselves what they want? They are the ones who started the engine and threw the thing into drive.

That's pretty lame especially in light that you're so opinionated here, sorry I digress.

If knowledge isn't at least as or more important than your ears then why don't we use monkeys to mix? Hey, is that a nit in your hair...lol.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That's pretty lame especially in light that you're so opinionated here, sorry I digress.

I just love how opinionated you always are about my being opinionated. At least I'm opinionated about relevant topics.

If knowledge isn't at least as or more important than your ears then why don't we use monkeys to mix?

You do know that "ears" means far more than those flappy things on the side of your head, right? It means having the brains to consciously *listen to* what you're hearing and be able to critically analyze it. Why do you think they call it "critical listening" and "analytical listening", almost always followed by the word "skills"? It's because it requires having more than two brain cells to rub together and the skill to rub them intelligently in order to interpret the sound coming into those two little holes on the side of your head.

What is in that chart isn't knowledge, it's just simple data.

Knowledge is the ability to discern how and when to use and not use the data, and not just blindly follow it as if it were knowledge itself. And that knowledge comes from using your head like a rational human being or better, not in acting like a monkey and just automatically doing what some chart of simple data suggests.

G.

 

[legionserial]

Might???


No. What you're describing is a graphic EQ.

AWWW man!!!! Just when I was begging to think I had the right Idea.

*hangs head in shame*

You were halfway there. A paragraphic EQ combines the features of both a graphic and a parametric.

 

[legionserial]

This is exactly why I don't do the MP3 clinic. Who am I to tell someone what I think they should do with their mix, if they don't even know themselves what they want? They are the ones who started the engine and threw the thing into drive.

I can pretty much tell you don't do the mp3 clinic, because your post here suggests that you've merely formed an assumption of how it works.

Sometimes people just want general feedback. If I post a mix in the mp3 clinic, I'm already pretty much happy with it, I just want to get some second opinions on it. I think that's the case for most people. "What do you think?" is a pretty commonly uttered phrase. People like a second opinion, regardless of how informed it is...I play my music to my friends and ask what they think. None of them are musicians or engineers. Sometimes the layman's opinion is the most useful.

Anyway, very few people post in the clinic wanting to know what frequencies to cut or what ratio to use on their compressor. Occasionally you'll get someone who is struggling with something they want to achieve, so they explain what they're trying to achieve and post a clip. Either way, in a vast majority of cases, by the time someone's tune appears in the clinic, they already have an idea of what they want from it.

It can be helpful from many aspects. Feedback I've received helped me to see where the room I was mixing in was lacking, for example.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If I post a mix in the mp3 clinic, I'm already pretty much happy with it, I just want to get some second opinions on it.

I'm being sincere here, legion - an honest question. If you're already pretty much happy with it, then what do you need second opinions for? You're the boss, you're the driver, you're that artist. You're there to create, to make physical something you have imagined and wanted to create. If that's what you did and you're happy with it, then what does what I think even matter?

Now I can see if you're not happy with something, and you know why you're not happy with it, but you just don't know how to proceed in order to correct it. In that case maybe I or someone else has an idea or three that may help you. That's helping with the "how", which is cool, IMHO.

But you know, I've been to the clinic, and that's NOT what 90% of it is there. Most of it is either someone asking the "what" (How should my guitars sound and where should I pan them) or - far more likely - others suggesting that they change the "what" to something they personally would prefer: "I think your snare is too loud". "I think the snare is not loud enough". "I'd double track that vuvuzela if I were you." "More reverb would sound awesome." And so on.

It's 90% people saying what they would change if they were in charge of the mix, not recommending techniques for the OP to actually do what THE OP WANTS to do.

Besides, I don't know what you and NYM are complaining about. You guys should be glad that me and my over-opinionated ass of a self stay out of there and leave you guys alone. There's in fact a whole boatload of forums on this BBS that I do not frequent. Among many other reasons, I just don't have the time. That should make you guys very happy.

G.

 

[diggy_dude]

I cannot believe this thread went on so long.

That's just me being dense again. I don't know why I try to make a simple thing more difficult than it is. I guess when I see a guy getting paid big bucks to do something, I assume there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. Or ear, in this case.

How do you tune a drum? Technical side: Turn this key. Rest of it: Listen to know when to stop turning.

How do you set a mic? Technical side: Shove this wire into the mic. Rest of it: Listen for the right gain and placement.

How do you EQ? Technical side: Twiddle these 4 or 5 knobs. Rest of it: Listen to know where to put the knobs.

There is nothing to recording outside of being able to listen.

In short, save the technical knowledge for programming synths and sequencers, right? Got it.

 

[RAMI]

I guess when I see a guy getting paid big bucks to do something, I assume there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. Or ear, in this case.

But that's just it. There is more to it than meets the eye/ear. But that "more" has little to do with what a chart can tell you.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I guess when I see a guy getting paid big bucks to do something, I assume there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

You mean like, "Because his sister slept with the A&R guy" ?

G.

 

[diggy_dude]

You men like, "Because his sister slept with the A&R guy" ?

G.

Either that, or he belongs to a union that owns a shitload of Congressmen.