|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 2, 2021 10:20:19 GMT -6
I know, I know. Just stop…Ever start EQing something, go down the rabbit whole, then AB it to the original and think - I just made that much worse.
I certainly think sometimes I might focus so much on tiny “issues” - like on a vocal - if it gets a little wolfy on two words I might be inclined to start digging out some lower mids. Or de-essing the entire track instead of just the spot…
Here’s what I’m asking - am I trying to eq everything to some magical perfect balance to my ears and in the process losing the character of the mic and pres it’s going through?
I kind’ve arrived at this a while back with guitar tones. Trying to eq all guitars to this magical guitar tone place in my head. Well, an AC15 or Champ is gonna be boxy. That midrange is what makes it what it is. I need to stop fighting it and let it be what it is.
Has the ability to micromanage all this stuff so precisely been a net negative? If I go back and listen to Derek & The Dominos or Neil Young or - 60s, 70s 80s 90s stuff - you hear character. I think I would have called it limitations before - but now I’m thinking maybe everything is just too far from the (hopefully) magic in the room. Don’t know if this is right - just thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 2, 2021 10:54:06 GMT -6
I know, I know. Just stop…Ever start EQing something, go down the rabbit whole, then AB it to the original and think - I just made that much worse. I certainly think sometimes I might focus so much on tiny “issues” - like on a vocal - if it gets a little wolfy on two words I might be inclined to start digging out some lower mids. Or de-essing the entire track instead of just the spot… Here’s what I’m asking - am I trying to eq everything to some magical perfect balance to my ears and in the process losing the character of the mic and pres it’s going through? I kind’ve arrived at this a while back with guitar tones. Trying to eq all guitars to this magical guitar tone place in my head. Well, an AC15 or Champ is gonna be boxy. That midrange is what makes it what it is. I need to stop fighting it and let it be what it is. Has the ability to micromanage all this stuff so precisely been a net negative? If I go back and listen to Derek & The Dominos or Neil Young or - 60s, 70s 80s 90s stuff - you hear character. I think I would have called it limitations before - but now I’m thinking maybe everything is just too far from the (hopefully) magic in the room. Don’t know if this is right - just thinking about it. All the time. Sometimes I just rip out all the EQ/Compression and start from scratch. It's too easy to circle the drain sometimes. But then again, doing this kind of "going too far" also teaches us how to get to certain places. Sometimes going too far is exactly what you need, but the "don't eq too much" dogma that we see has almost zero context. Tons of forums and members will say "don't eq too much" but I'll see a video of some well known producer say "I'm just going to add a little top end to the snare" and proceed to add 15dB of 8K to a snare and that's what made it sound "right" in the mix while I would have NEVER added that much with the fear of "too much" instilled in me through years of conditioning by online experts. I've recently realized that going too far with certain things and using others to reign it all in is part of the sound. Snare example included.. Adding a ton of top end *into* the compressor makes it sound different than if I simply overdid the compressor and then added EQ after. Sometimes the process is more about the sum of the parts and the methods are unconventional, and to that end I've also made the realization that all too often we focus on the steps to get the results when those steps are counter-intuitive. More snare examples.. So my snare has a ton of top end, but the compressor saps some of that during compression, so it balances out. However, in the mix it's not poking out enough, but more EQ doesn't make it more prevalent in the mix. I added a little JST clip to trim off the transient some and now it sits well in the mix. You'd think that cutting the transient would be the same as using less compression, but it sounds completely different and doesn't work in the mix.. The method is unconventional but the sum of the parts works. I also think that the guys from the past would kill to get their hands on the gear from today. I don't think they thought about character, because they used what they had available. You have to remember that they were the folks who drove the industry to cleaner mixers, better tape decks, the move to digital, etc. They wanted what we have now. Personally I have no desire to have what they had back then. |
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Mar 2, 2021 11:17:38 GMT -6
For me I've curbed my over-EQing tendencies with self-imposed limits, tricking my brain, and working in iterations.
For example, I primarily do most of my EQ on tracks with a Console1 channel strip (could be anything with limited bands of course) and only allow myself a couple notches per source from a different EQ plug. Vocals will typically have something resonant in the 1.8k-3.6k region so now I'm only left with one other EQ notch if I need it. Guitars will often have something weird but going too far neuters them. Cymbals will often have something weird but going too far turns them into white noise. I have different limitations depending on the track and I'm always willing to break my own rules but INTENDING to keep them and then going above-and-beyond to do so most of the time has given me mixes now that I think are better than anything else I've done.
Making decisions in context is helpful, too - especially on vocals. I'm intentionally going for retaining the character of the vocalist so I trick my brain into ways of guaranteeing that. I'll have the vocal a little too quiet when doing things like eliminating problems (so I eliminate 90% of a problem if it's part of the "good" character) and a hair too loud when doing things like tonal EQ (so I don't just boost and get crazy with top end or warmth or whatever when the answer is probably "turn it up a little").
If I process a source to my gut reaction and I still hear a little of those tiny issues I'll move on. If I'm still bothered by it after making a million other decisions then I'll address it with some restraint. If I come back to it later and it's STILL bothering me I'll go further with the problem-solving.
Weird non-audio-specific thought but also a thing that changed my music production business for the better: I spent a lot of time REALLY sitting with and thinking about the fact that I don't have to believe everything I think and every thought I have is not necessarily true. REALLY spend some time with that. Just because I had a thought doesn't mean it's correct and doesn't mean I have to believe it. That pressure to stop living and dying by the tiniest thoughts has helped me move through mixes faster and get better results.
A person pulls out in front of you in traffic "You're a fuckin' moron!!!!" Is that true? Can you absolutely know it's true? What changes if it's true? What if the opposite were true?
"There's too much 326hz ring on the snare drum." Is that true? Can you absolutely know it's true? What changes if it's true? What if the opposite were true?
"That band should have had me producer their record with them." Is that true? Can you absolutely know it's true? What changes if it's true? What if the opposite were true?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 2, 2021 11:24:53 GMT -6
I know, I know. Just stop…Ever start EQing something, go down the rabbit whole, then AB it to the original and think - I just made that much worse. I certainly think sometimes I might focus so much on tiny “issues” - like on a vocal - if it gets a little wolfy on two words I might be inclined to start digging out some lower mids. Or de-essing the entire track instead of just the spot… Here’s what I’m asking - am I trying to eq everything to some magical perfect balance to my ears and in the process losing the character of the mic and pres it’s going through? I kind’ve arrived at this a while back with guitar tones. Trying to eq all guitars to this magical guitar tone place in my head. Well, an AC15 or Champ is gonna be boxy. That midrange is what makes it what it is. I need to stop fighting it and let it be what it is. Has the ability to micromanage all this stuff so precisely been a net negative? If I go back and listen to Derek & The Dominos or Neil Young or - 60s, 70s 80s 90s stuff - you hear character. I think I would have called it limitations before - but now I’m thinking maybe everything is just too far from the (hopefully) magic in the room. Don’t know if this is right - just thinking about it. All the time. Sometimes I just rip out all the EQ/Compression and start from scratch. It's too easy to circle the drain sometimes. But then again, doing this kind of "going too far" also teaches us how to get to certain places. Sometimes going too far is exactly what you need, but the "don't eq too much" dogma that we see has almost zero context. Tons of forums and members will say "don't eq too much" but I'll see a video of some well known producer say "I'm just going to add a little top end to the snare" and proceed to add 15dB of 8K to a snare and that's what made it sound "right" in the mix while I would have NEVER added that much with the fear of "too much" instilled in me through years of conditioning by online experts. I've recently realized that going too far with certain things and using others to reign it all in is part of the sound. Snare example included.. Adding a ton of top end *into* the compressor makes it sound different than if I simply overdid the compressor and then added EQ after. Sometimes the process is more about the sum of the parts and the methods are unconventional, and to that end I've also made the realization that all too often we focus on the steps to get the results when those steps are counter-intuitive. More snare examples.. So my snare has a ton of top end, but the compressor saps some of that during compression, so it balances out. However, in the mix it's not poking out enough, but more EQ doesn't make it more prevalent in the mix. I added a little JST clip to trim off the transient some and now it sits well in the mix. You'd think that cutting the transient would be the same as using less compression, but it sounds completely different and doesn't work in the mix.. The method is unconventional but the sum of the parts works. I also think that the guys from the past would kill to get their hands on the gear from today. I don't think they thought about character, because they used what they had available. You have to remember that they were the folks who drove the industry to cleaner mixers, better tape decks, the move to digital, etc. They wanted what we have now. Personally I have no desire to have what they had back then. True - but just like everything else, there are good examples and bad ones. Things like Fleetwood Mac Rumours, or The Beatles or Pink Floyd were pretty damn masterful. I can think of less examples from the 80s lol. You listen to an album like Sam Smith The Thrill of it All or Harry Styles Fine Line and it's what I would call high fidelity...I mean - it sounds fantastic but new albums tend to sound a lot more alike than different - sonically. |
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Mar 2, 2021 12:11:52 GMT -6
Are you eq’ing with the whole track playing, or are you working in solo trying to make everything sound good. Both will give me completely different results. I have a basic process now for mixing that hopefully helps me avoid the over eq thing. First is general balance. Like, just throw up the faders and get the mix to sit where it needs to. Then I’ll pan and start placing stuff where I feel it needs to go. I’ll also do some basic volume automation at this point to keep things balanced. Then I will start eq’ing but...only to enhance the balance and feel of the mix. At no point during this do I really solo anything unless I hear some weird issue. I might start adding compression next for some tone and transient shaping. Next it’s verbs/delays etc to bring some depth into things. Still...no major eq’ing other than balance issues. Once I feel I have a very simple, balanced mix done I walk away. Maybe an hour, maybe a day. When I come back with fresh ears I can usually hear whether it’s right, or it needs to go further. I might use a few references at this point. Like, this song reminds me of or feels like whatever. Then I can kinda mold the clay so to speak. If that requires more extreme eq I’ll do it, but I find that usually that’s only on a few tracks in order to give the mix some more character or space. This all really depends, but if you just stick to balance and feel, I think you can avoid the dreaded over eq’ing trap. Oh and stay out of solo!
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Mar 2, 2021 12:12:58 GMT -6
True - but just like everything else, there are good examples and bad ones. Things like Fleetwood Mac Rumours, or The Beatles or Pink Floyd were pretty damn masterful. I can think of less examples from the 80s lol. You listen to an album like Sam Smith The Thrill of it All or Harry Styles Fine Line and it's what I would call high fidelity...I mean - it sounds fantastic but new albums tend to sound a lot more alike than different - sonically. That's very true and a fairly loaded statement , that new albums sound more alike then different. IMO that's kind of a different topic then using or over using EQ, related for sure but ultimately it's own subject. The most obvious for one is that at least in mainstream music production there's been a shift to a sort of burger flipping mentality and elimination of the creative process. Like if your album doesn't sound like this, and fit into this neat little cutout then its not commercial enough and we can't sell it... so in turn everyone starts making things to fit inside the cutout. Any attempts to fit the square through the circle are frowned upon... Applies to label mooks, producers and also artists who desperately want to fit in and for various reasons don't want to do something different. Another side of that is simply everyone using the same tools and presets. Everyone has access to the same plugins, same presets and there's a whole lot less individuality on that end of the process. Need a flanger? Pull up waves preset #9... lay on the slate drum samples... SSL bus comp on the 2 mix... and before all that lets snap everything to the grid! There aren't too many people today making records that I find interesting & compelling from a sonic standpoint. Interesting would be taking some chances and leaving some rough edges on. Possibly a romantic thought but I always thought of album production as artwork... today sometimes it seems more like punching numbers into a spreadsheet. To draw that parallel... we could go to a gallery and look at a perfect CGI picture, something painted by hand, or maybe an orange square. But that orange square is 16 feet tall and has one blue dot in the upper corner. It's not random. There was intent there. For context I'd much rather listen to the Melvins Houdini then a Taylor Swift record. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 2, 2021 12:25:53 GMT -6
either nothing, or way too much, bold strokes seem to be most effective, stay out of micromanagement until some spot is presenting a real problem then just hit that.
HPF's is 90% of the job.
I'll also get people to rerecord instead, it's often faster and easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 2, 2021 12:36:36 GMT -6
I'll be the odd man out I guess. I'm kind of with Doug. HPF's a lot, tilt filters a lot. Neither is tweaky. Both are quick. Both help clean things up a lot.
Then...I have a bunch of hardware EQ's set up to how I generally tend to use them. "Hardware Presets" if you will. I know, kind of anti-EQ engineering, but it works for me. I'll drop them in and either they work or don't. If they work but are not quite there - say 80-90% - with HPF's and tilt (mostly using Chop Shop plugin for tweaking) I tend to get there quickly and efficiently without a bunch of A/Bing or endless tweaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Mar 2, 2021 14:08:34 GMT -6
Also, automate!
That's the best thing about ITB mixing. You can automate anything. So if you have one work that needs a bit of a De-ess or woofy part...automate it! Super fast and easy to do with Protools advanced automation tools.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 2, 2021 14:14:10 GMT -6
Also, automate! That's the best thing about ITB mixing. You can automate anything. So if you have one work that needs a bit of a De-ess or woofy part...automate it! Super fast and easy to do with Protools advanced automation tools. yup. When you really hit those problems, PT automation to the rescue!! <thumbsup> |
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Mar 2, 2021 14:31:49 GMT -6
Subtraction rather than addition
|
|
|
|
Post by superwack on Mar 2, 2021 14:33:26 GMT -6
Also, automate! That's the best thing about ITB mixing. You can automate anything. So if you have one work that needs a bit of a De-ess or woofy part...automate it! Super fast and easy to do with Protools advanced automation tools. Exactly! I know dynamic EQ is all the rage but it reminds me of wasting tons of time setting up a side-chain compressor to duck music so you can be "lazy" and avoid automating it. Obviously both ducking and dynamic EQ can be great but rather than bothering to try to find the compromise of what frequency to duck, i'll just pop a band on for that word. super fast and effective! |
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Mar 2, 2021 14:37:00 GMT -6
Using Console 1 is great for this. Also, just because you CAN do something, it doesn’t mean you NEED to do it  Also, when something just sounds right, I don’t go hunting for frequencies. I let it be or just do some big stroke moves. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Mar 2, 2021 14:54:54 GMT -6
either nothing, or way too much, bold strokes seem to be most effective, stay out of micromanagement until some spot is presenting a real problem then just hit that. HPF's is 90% of the job. Yeah. And I find the best way to avoid the micromanage scenario is to limit my options. Typically I gravitate towards EQ's with fixed points as I find they work better for me. Faster results & less phase smear. Hardware aside ITB I'll pick something like the UAD 1081 and use it on all the channels, at least as a starting point. With 4 bands, good range of fixed frequencies, high & low pass filters... there's generally more then enough room to whip something into shape or completely hang myself. Gimmie something like a 4-7 band fully parametric digital and I'll screw things up real fast! I'll turn to things like that when I need a surgical scalpel but never first. I'm more of a booster then a cutter. I also almost never EQ the 2-mix unless there's a real need. One of the things I miss most about mixing with a full bore physical console is the ability to quickly, visually scan the equalizers and see if there are any weird trends... Like if I look over the desk and see that I'm cutting 400Hz & boosting 6kHz on every channel then I know somethings up. Could be the way I'm hearing things. Could be a result of something that happened, or didn't happen in tracking... any number of things. So I'll have to stop and ask myself what's really happening here. Why am I hitting the same spot on all channels? What am I compensating for? Am I digging a hole? Or maybe that EQ really IS needed but I should bypass the channels and slap something across the 2 mix? Part of the reason I stick with one kind of ITB eq is to try and get back to that place... Long time ago, yakking with a friend he had a brilliant observation. Said that when he's working in a great room like Electric Ladyland the only EQ he has is the one on the desk. Sure, there's a few other things... pair of EQP, handful of Neve 10xx... but basically, if he needs to EQ something he's got the console. But back at home, mixing ITB he could pick from 50 different equalizers. Is that really better? Maybe I should just pick one and use it on everything. |
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Mar 2, 2021 15:26:13 GMT -6
When I'm working on a real desk I'm reminded just how much I love riding a fader while EQing and how it can help prevent me from going too far (and sometimes showing me I need to go extreme but with the volume wildly different) . A new level can completely alter how you're hearing your EQ moves.
I know there are auto volume adjusted EQ plugs and USB faders but I haven't gotten into them. Not sure why really.
Said that, I do tend to get a good balance and panning prior to getting deep into frequencies but even a couple dB +/- on the fader can alter how the part you're EQing is sitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Mar 2, 2021 15:27:20 GMT -6
Having more breaks help to avoid over EQ ing etc... but I am guilty too....
|
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Mar 2, 2021 15:33:57 GMT -6
Long time ago, yakking with a friend he had a brilliant observation. Said that when he's working in a great room like Electric Ladyland the only EQ he has is the one on the desk. Sure, there's a few other things... pair of EQP, handful of Neve 10xx... but basically, if he needs to EQ something he's got the console. But back at home, mixing ITB he could pick from 50 different equalizers. Is that really better? Maybe I should just pick one and use it on everything. YES!!! EXACTLY!!! That's why I "pick a console" with Console 1 and do the whole mix with it. It's on every channel. I don't mix and match consoles unless there's a very good and specific reason for it. I've gotten to know the default SSL 4000 better than the others, so that's what I use the most. So, in a way, it's like my studio has a SSL board and everything runs through it. And then there's outboard. I also run everything through Slate VTM, because my studio tracks "to tape", even if it's virtual. Works for me! I do eq the master buss, but only towards the very end of the mix - or the very start, if there's a good reason for it. Sometimes a song mixes itself with just some Pultec boosts! |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 2, 2021 15:39:34 GMT -6
I read some blurb from a big time mixer back in the day who said "boost to define, cut to fix" when EQing.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecolourfulway on Mar 2, 2021 15:45:41 GMT -6
Someone else mentioned this, and I definitely think fear of over-EQing can be just as dangerous. In Recording The Beatles Ken Townsend mentions frequently using the rs127 “presence box” set to +10db at 10k. And Geoff Emerick mentions how they would daisy chain EQs to get even more boost!
I’m guilty of trying to pull out mids too often and I’ve been slowly learning to correct this over the past few years, so yeah overEQ is a thing to avoid as well, but don’t fear aggressive EQ!
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Mar 2, 2021 16:12:57 GMT -6
A new level can completely alter how you're hearing your EQ moves. I know there are auto volume adjusted EQ plugs and USB faders but I haven't gotten into them. Not sure why really. Because all those automatic EQ/fader plugs suck. That's why. I mean, I guess they might be good for some people... newbies and/or people striving for the "paint by numbers" milquetoast mix... get to that point where the song is so balanced its boring. Otherwise right, bumping the level up or down 1.5dB will completely alter EQ perceptions and all other relationships. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 16:34:43 GMT -6
Mic less and mic better. Use betters mics on better musicians playing better instruments. You don't need two snare mics. Fix the SM57 placement. Use an RE20 on the kick instead of some pre-eqed mic. Get really good overheads and then... raise them in the drummer's headphone mix. Works every time.
Mix with mic choice, mic placement, and channel strips too. It works. You can often kill 2-3 birds with one stone with a wider eq than OCD notching out everything bad. And everything will have less phase shift because of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Mar 2, 2021 16:39:13 GMT -6
A new level can completely alter how you're hearing your EQ moves. I know there are auto volume adjusted EQ plugs and USB faders but I haven't gotten into them. Not sure why really. Because all those automatic EQ/fader plugs suck. That's why. I mean, I guess they might be good for some people... newbies and/or people striving for the "paint by numbers" milquetoast mix... get to that point where the song is so balanced its boring. Otherwise right, bumping the level up or down 1.5dB will completely alter EQ perceptions and all other relationships. That 1.5db spot is a really interesting space to work in. Small enough that it's not crazy but also large enough that you have a gut reaction to it. It's not squint-mode but it's not automatically destructive to the mix. I heard of a couple big name guys who've talked about finding the right level for a vocal/topline. They put two plugins on the vocal bus; one is a 1.5db boost in level and the other is a 1.5db cut in level. If they're fighting with themselves about what the right level is they'll activate one or the other of the plugins. If it goes down and it's too far down then you know down isn't the answer. If you click up and it feels like it jumps too far out in front of the mix then you know up isn't the answer. If you make an adjustment and it doesn't break your mix then adjust your level on that part by 1.5 db in the direction that didn't break your mix and go work on something else. After a few minutes repeat the process. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 2, 2021 16:43:37 GMT -6
I've been torturing myself with over-miking sessions lately, all I do is make more work usually. Many times the options I'm hoping for don't materialize, it's just more of the same....but now with micro-choices! Occasionally I create a 'save', but it's rarely worth it. More things to think about = more distraction = less focus.
Then there's the trend of live-to-mono with minimalist vintage equipment. At least interesting to reserve judgement and observe, for perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 16:49:00 GMT -6
A new level can completely alter how you're hearing your EQ moves. I know there are auto volume adjusted EQ plugs and USB faders but I haven't gotten into them. Not sure why really. Because all those automatic EQ/fader plugs suck. That's why. I mean, I guess they might be good for some people... newbies and/or people striving for the "paint by numbers" milquetoast mix... get to that point where the song is so balanced its boring. Otherwise right, bumping the level up or down 1.5dB will completely alter EQ perceptions and all other relationships. Yes they all totally suck. The best I've used are DSM v3 for applying a curve and the Tokyo Dawn smart ops for nailing the exact resonance of something you've already heard. Gulfoss, Toadsex, and DSEQ just suck. So does Master the Mix Bassroom.
Smart Ops is really good at nailing little annoying ringing and rattling things on drums that you hear but they might be only a couple db peaks and are hard to nail down perfectly. If you blindly trust Smart ops, it will just start removing fundamentals and character from an instrument and make it sound like robot music. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,971 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Mar 2, 2021 16:58:04 GMT -6
It’s so easy to reach for a great problem solver EQ these days. Maybe problem solver should be problem covering because 9 out of 10 your really not solving the real problem. A great tone EQ like a 550a will make you go back and work on mic choice or position.
JK I know you, little things that most of us will let slide by just seam to get under your skin. The thing with a vocal getting woofy on a line or 2 is where you have to ask yourself if what your doing for just a couple of words is going to be to destructive to the rest of the vocal? Now I will admit with the magic of automation and at times been way more like you than I care to admit, Set up a second vocal channel EQed a phrase and automated the cross fade.
|
|
