11 replies to this topic

[Marky]

Hi folks

I'mputting some finishing touches on my Tim Allen remix for itm, an dit's the first time I've really delved too far into EQing.

Got me wondering - do any of you have a preferred order of channels you go through when setting eq (i f necessary)?

Like Kic then Tom then Snare then Bass then...

Mark

[neo]

It's really important to get the kick and the bass working together before thinking about anything else. Especially in dance music.

[Blinky-Live-]

It's a bit of a balance thing. It'd be awesome if you could set the Kick and then move on but because all the emements in your mix are going to overlap at some frequencies when you adjust one it effects the balance of your whole mix so you will constantly have to go back and forward between your channels.

The two most important aspects of your mix will be the kick and the bass so I guess the easy answer is to get these two right and than fill everything else in around them in order of their imporance of the mix.

[askii]

I speak from the perspective of dance music production, and agree with the above - usually EQ kick 1st, and use it to sidechain compress the bass... then EQ the bass if you need to. A lot of people EQ the crap out things that are in competition... Sidechaining the bass pushes it back for the kick to punch thru, but the texture is still there for the times there's no kick.

One of the best tricks I have learned is to tune your kick with the track you're working on. Keeps everything in phase, and tightens up the entire mix... which stands to reason, as the fundamental frequencies create harmonics which affect higher frequencies.

The way I do it is to tune my kick up an octave or two until it sounds like a note itself, fine-tune it to the bass line, then drop it back down to where it was - but leave the fine-tuning in place.

EQing having done this will, generally, be far more effective. Many mix problems arise when parts are out of phase, or out of phase due to tuning.

[rhythmboy]

^ Welcome askii - cool nerd-name

My two cents for Marky (good luck with the remix comp!) - mainly just EQ what needs it, but if there was a method, it would loosely be:

- kick and bass to sort out bottom end
- hi-pass EQ on all pads, with cutoff frequency somewhere just above the bass freq's. This really clears up space in the lows for the kick and bass
- remove some lo-mids from vocals and other lead sounds to remove 'the woolly blanket' from the sound and improve overall clarity
- hi-shelf boost on hats and other metal percussions like tambourine, shaker, crash, etc.
- little notch eq's as needed on anything else
- if needed, a hi-shelf boost on the tops of the whole mix as it goes into a mix-bus compressor*

Not necessarily in that order all the time, mostly driven by what I'm concentrating on at the moment.

* whoa, let's not get started on that delicate little matter! Look what it did at you-know-where

[Jay Parker]

So when we talk boost and shelve... what are we talking about.

Boost - how much? or just enough to get the sound peeking out of the mix.
Shelve - Exactly what are we doing here?

[rhythmboy]

^ The shelf EQ is used for both highs and lows:



Basically you select a cutoff frequency and for hi-shelf the EQ boosts or cuts all frequencies above the cutoff. A lo-shelf EQ boosts or cuts all frequencies below the cutoff.

When used to cut they're a more subtle version of lo and hi-pass filters. Shelf EQ's raise and lower the level of the freq whereas hi/lo-pass EQ's completely remove them.

When using them I'll trust my ears more than anything - I think of them as a 'broad brush' I can colour the highs or lows with. When using them to EQ a whole mix, I'll sometimes throw up a well mastered track I know well and A/B my EQ against that of the reference track.

[Spectrum]

Quote

the whole mix as it goes into a mix-bus compressor*

* whoa, let's not get started on that delicate little matter! Look what it did at you-know-where

Hehe...

Now if you'd not been cutting corners, you lazy ass, and gone back and re-recorded your parts properly, you wouldn't be resorting to such crude, band-aid patches to your mix!

We're sooooo going there! Go on, start a new thread! You know you want to! ;D

[Spectrum]

Yeah, I'm a big fan of the high/low EQ shelves. Really helps clean things up.

Having said that, I find I can get a bit carried away at times and be left with a thin, lifeless mix lacking body and sparkle.

I think its important to consider that it's acceptable that not everything will stand out clearly while everything is playing together.

[timothyallan]

I don't think there is really an 'order' for EQ'ing things. If you feel that you could make X sound better by EQ'ing, then go ahead and do it

I EQ the piss out of my basslines as they are usually low and siney, which means I have to filter out a lot of rumble and excessive lows. Then lower the main frequency and it's harmonics which are usually too loud, and it goes on and on

I also never boost when using an EQ in the low end, mainly because my troubles are always having too much bass, never too little.

...and yes, hipass everything else within reason.

[v904]

My question; when shelving, do you usually use a low or high Q?  The higher Q I use the more I think I should just use a filter... but I dont have a filter with LP6 or HP6

[rhythmboy]

Quote

My question; when shelving, do you usually use a low or high Q?  The higher Q I use the more I think I should just use a filter... but I dont have a filter with LP6 or HP6

Hey 904 welcome! Didn't see you arrive at punk central, feel free to pitch in and ask away...

Re your question, it's a matter of degrees, and in some ways quite similar to the Q on lo/hi pass filters anyway.

Low-Q ~6dB/8ve in shelves will obviously make a gentler slope at cutoff - I tend to use for subtle, less noticeable transitions around the cutoff. Eg. if I was losing some dull bottom end out of real string pads with a large interval range I'd go gentle low-Q so the strings still sound reasonably full and natural, and if the lines they play go into lower registers then they don't lose too much level as a result of drastic frequency removal.

Hi-Q ~24dB/8ve will clearly create a steeper slope at cutoff. I use this for more obvious and drastic EQ'ing, like thinning out hi-hats or making uber-subby basses. Often these parts will have a limited interval range (eg hi hats may only have one or two 'pitches' rather than span several octaves) so the drastic EQ slope won't really affect the frequencies outside the cutoff that I want to keep. I.e. with a steep slope I can set cutoffs close to the 'edge' of the sound's frequency range, without actually killing any of the frequencies within its range. In this case it's perhaps more about klilling noise/hum/rumble/etc.

In theory, low-Q filters with gentle slopes tend to keep good phase coherence and frequency integrity around the cutoff frequency itself, whereas very steep slopes can cause some phase drift and hi-freq. distortion at the cutoff region. In practice, you may never hear a problem though - the filter has to be really really steep (near-perfect brick wall) to cause major problems.

Does any of that make sense?  :