80hinhiding
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2016
- Messages
- 97
.
Most tracks need some kind of dynamic control; it could be organic, like a singer with professional technique, a good sensitive guitar or bass player, it could be intrinsic, some instruments have actually a limited dynamic range (particularly winds), it could be the result of using a dedicated compressor or plug-in. The nice thing is that a compressor allows controlling the dynamics of a track that does not have this organic/natural control. Don't hesitate to use compression if you feel there's a need.80hinhiding said:Other than using a plugin, or the real thing, are there any EQ/compression techniques you guys use to calm your mixes and build an energy in the "midtones"?
abbey road d enfer said:Indeed, good EQ practice stars with boosting and sweeping for identification of the offensive frequencies, then cutting them as needed.
I use this method from the day I experimented with a variable-frequency EQ (actually an attempt at a wah pedal), and nobody told me how to do it; it just made sense to me, and it has worked so far.ruairioflaherty said:I'm all for removing the nasty stuff but I don't think this approach is good advice, despite the fact that it is ubiquitous and Sound on Sound seem to built their entire magazine on it!
I'm not subject to that neuronic effect; if I knew it existed, I wouldn't have suggested this method (or caveat'ed it).Boosting any frequency by 6 to 10dB and sweeping around will cause a temporary shift in your hearing that is not at all desirable and IME throws off any ability to make nuanced decisions.
This is a typical trial/error process, that in fact many beginners adopt because they don't know better. In order to make this method half effective, one has to have a good ear training, at identifying frequencies, which most beginners don't. Actually, I think this method is adequate for tone-shaping, but unsuited at eliminating nasty drum resonances (which is what I need to EQ out the most) or vocal nasalities.I suggest that a beginner should try to identify the frequency by guessing as closely as you can and doing a cut with a low ish Q (say 1), listen for 10 seconds, does it feel/sound better? If not try dropping your frequency, or raising it some until you get where you need to go.
This kind of wisdom comes only with time and experience. Before reaching that stage, one needs to learn; there is not one unique method of learning, but most of the times, a faster way to learn comes from having some kind of tutoring, with techniques, tricks and rules (that are meant to be broken only after they have proved being too restrictive).Now that I work in a room that is essentially perfect with gear that is beyond anything I could need I am by far the biggest variable and weak link.
I'm glad you have found a methodology that suits you, but I would not recommend to a beginner.not sweep around EQs, not listen to de-esser side chains etc etc.
abbey road d enfer said:I use this method from the day I experimented with a variable-frequency EQ (actually an attempt at a wah pedal), and nobody told me how to do it; it just made sense to me, and it has worked so far.
I'm not subject to that neuronic effect; if I knew it existed, I wouldn't have suggested this method (or caveat'ed it).
This is a typical trial/error process, that in fact many beginners adopt because they don't know better. In order to make this method half effective, one has to have a good ear training, at identifying frequencies, which most beginners don't. Actually, I think this method is adequate for tone-shaping, but unsuited at eliminating nasty drum resonances (which is what I need to EQ out the most) or vocal nasalities.
This kind of wisdom comes only with time and experience. Before reaching that stage, one needs to learn; there is not one unique method of learning, but most of the times, a faster way to learn comes from having some kind of tutoring, with techniques, tricks and rules (that are meant to be broken only after they have proved being too restrictive).
I'm glad you have found a methodology that suits you, but I would not recommend to a beginner.
ruairioflaherty said:Watching the very best working it is very much a feel based exercise, much less beating it into submission and more working with what's good about the audio. I feel this perspective is missing in online discussions about audio.
This subject has been debated to death. Almost inevitably, it turns out the reason is the analog parts of the signal path have not been designed for operation at the elevated levels that make the )digital meters move. -12dBfs (considered as a conservative digital operating level) corresponds to an analog level of +6 to +12 dBu, which is hot for most analog equipment (preamps, EQ's, compressors...). Only a fraction of currently developped analog equipment is ready for operating at such levels.Matt C said:it's already been mentioned, but +1 for keeping levels very conservative on the way into the computer. In my experience things start to sound really gross really fast if the levels get too high.
80hinhiding said:Hopefully this doesn't come across as bragging, but I had more positive reaction from a mix I did myself from a song I did entirely myself, with one crappy mic and a computer soundcard at 16 bit.... a year after being to a big studio with 2 dedicated engineers working on my stuff in great rooms and great equipment. Does that mean they weren't good engineers.. no. My songs weren't where I wanted/needed them to be, but I didn't know squat about the gear, or tone, or have the time in the big studio to pan for gold. When I'm isolated and alone working on stuff I fel more safe to just make something, and experiment... the song/mix I had a good reaction to didn't really have a proper production standard.. which I aimed to figure out.
abbey road d enfer said:Most tracks need some kind of dynamic control; it could be organic, like a singer with professional technique, a good sensitive guitar or bass player, it could be intrinsic, some instruments have actually a limited dynamic range (particularly winds), it could be the result of using a dedicated compressor or plug-in. The nice thing is that a compressor allows controlling the dynamics of a track that does not have this organic/natural control. Don't hesitate to use compression if you feel there's a need.
Same for EQ; many instruments/voices leave something to be desired, like nasality or unwanted resonances or parasitic noise; these need to be addressed soon in the recording process, not necessarily at the time of tracking, but as soon as the mix takes form, i.e. when you set up a monitoring balance. There is nothing more frustrating than listening to an ugly track when doing overdubs; bad for your ears and bad for your rep. Tone-shaping EQ can be refined later. Indeed, good EQ practice stars with boosting and sweeping for identification of the offensive frequencies, then cutting them as needed.
80hinhiding said:As I mentioned it's a concern for me that you can't perform live now and rely on a station to have tape. I'm actually to the point where I might turn the computer off completely and just do this as a passion project and not release it. Matching tone and vibe is very important to me and if that can't be done without tape I guess I'm gonna pack it in.
80hinhiding said:I have music on the radio, and I'm talented as an engineer too. What's the deal man?
I'm talking about something larger than myself and whether or not my music will be a loss to the world. I find your post insulting.
Matching tone and vibe is very important to me and if that can't be done without tape I guess I'm gonna pack it in.
Enter your email address to join: