| Author
|
EQ on leads, where to?
|
Brain Hacked
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
442
Posted : May 31, 2005 01:57
|
|
I have serious doubts on how to EQ my leads, wich frequencies to boost or wich ones to cut.Usually i cut around 500hz to give some clearnes but it´s not enough in most of the cases so any advice would be accepted. |
|
|
High Pulse
Darkpsy
Started Topics :
57
Posts :
1187
Posted : May 31, 2005 02:09
|
|
zebra-n
Zebra-N
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
95
Posted : May 31, 2005 11:51
|
the way i do it (which is not necessarily right btw): cut the lows till approx. 350/400 hz (experiment a bit here) and then slightly boost the sound of the lead where it is strongest, which can be around 1 mhz, you will hear it, and not to forget: get some of the highest frequencies out.
good luck
paul |
|
|
|
Top-down
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
119
Posted : May 31, 2005 15:50
|
I find most of the leads like to be cut below 350 - 500 hz (remember you are using -12/18/24/36 db per octave slope, so it won't affect exactly in 350 - 500 hz, but lower).
Some would be glad to have a lo shelf somewhere round 4 - 8 Khz. And the rest is just reducing 3 - 6 db in areas your other sounds would like to feel dominant.
|
|
|
|
YANTRA
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
66
Posts :
166
Posted : May 31, 2005 15:53
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-31 14:51, nolightatend wrote:
Harmonic fit technique
As you should know each band of eq is region of notes(tones and semi tones), so let's say your track standing on B#, so you can decrease all frequencies you not need...
So basically this technique means you cut things you don't need tonaly (needed harmonics stay).
|
|
SO, lets say that my track goes from b# to d#. I know that i am suppose to use frequencies that stay between those two notes. My question is: Should i use the frequencies of ANY octave related to this notes or to the specific octave to the notes that i am using? Do i never remove frequencies related to notes i am using in the track or i remove them too?
I hope i was clear! Thanks 
|
|
|
|
Top-down
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
119
Posted : Jun 1, 2005 19:43
|
That "Harmonic fit technique" sounds interesting as a theory, but not usefull at all. Hard work for what ? Isn't the whole idea of harmony (disharmony) is to create those complexed mixtures of harmonics ?
Plus it seems like sitting hours on EQing bad done mellodies .
Just an impression ...
|
|
|
|
Top-down
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
119
Posted : Jun 1, 2005 20:23
|
Let me correct myself - not effective. We have to consider time factor in the workflow.
Hearing whats wrong should do it without getting digged into those google tables and automating the EQ every note and chord change.
|
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Jun 1, 2005 23:19
|
nolightatend - i agree with some of what you say! and good pointers...
Top-down, when i write tracks im practising! so if something takes alot of time, i work more on it so it wont hinder my workflow the next time, or at least its reduced a bit.
if i jam, then i think like a musician, i just flow with the tones.. no need to think about Eq or anything that has to do with music production...(okej ill might tune the controlls of the instrument i got, but i dont count that to the complex process of music production)
you see the difference!
thats why there are different stages of music making! and different ways of expressing your self through music.
let me explain more
if something hinders your workflow in a early stage then you could just discard that thing and move on and find your workflow again..
if i would define workflow i would say that when it comes to lay down rhythms and melodies or choose sounds, workflow is about what you know and have experienced. If you make music then you dont try to make things that you dont know! cause then its bound to get jerky. but you should always experiment inside the frames that you got! or even outside the frames, im not saying that one should stick only to what they know, but its that, that defines workflow for me... what you know!
if i play piano for somebody i dont try to play things that i dont know, i play what i have practised and know... but of course sometimes it can be fun to push the bounderies, but it has a cost
musicians works from a state of what they know(if not its experimental), it might be a chord progression that they have learnd, or a structure, or a technique of some kind, or whatever it might be its worked from to shape and form music.. hence why lots of music from the same artist is sounding similar.
it would be fun to hear some stuff that is "searching" and "experimenting" from one artist, but as we most often only hear one part of a process of hard work, the story and experimentation has already been done, what we get is a practised version of those skills that they have acquired...we miss everything in between and maybe that is very good stuff. But to a artist its very sensitive to share art that the artist is not totaly satisfied with, and alot of that has to do with what the artist think that the people want, what they know about and are used to. its a fear of some kind, a fear of being judge from something that is just art. today everything has to be so well thought and well done. of course things should be well preformed but that is not everything.
The art it self can be just as interesting and rewarding to a listener or watcher, no matter if its worked on for 10 hours or 100 hours or if its refined 10 times or none..
sorry for getting out of topic..
|
|
|
|
Top-down
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
119
Posted : Jun 2, 2005 02:01
|
Quote:
|
...spent your time on music theory, synthesis and harmony...
|
|
If you do that there should be left no need for spending amount (I suspect double)of time on EQing harmonics to fit the scale.
|
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Jun 2, 2005 02:17
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-02 02:01, Top-down wrote:
Quote:
|
...spent your time on music theory, synthesis and harmony...
|
|
If you do that there should be left no need for spending amount (I suspect double)of time on EQing harmonics to fit the scale. |
|
Hahaha! true indeed..
|
|
|
|
