| Author
|
EQing for loud mixes
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Apr 20, 2004 13:25
|
OK, I am assuming we all know the basics - that is, we need to get as many frequencies to a certain level, each sound sits in a frequency range, and when all are played together, the mix sounds full and loud.
Now, my major problem is that I work without monitors, and I can't trust my ears on doing this - if not for the system I use than for the bad acoustics in the room my computer sits in. I have developed a small system for this, but again, this gives me only partial results.
Here is the basic way of work I use:
1. Write the sequence you want to play with.
2. Edit and tweak the sound until you are happy with it. This is where you add distortion, choruses, ensembles and the such.
3. Cut off all the unecessary frequencies for it's role in the track (a post EQ). Usually, that will mean no sub/bass frequencies and lowering the treble a bit in order not to clash with the bassdrum, bassline or percussion.
4. Set the resonance and gain on a certain frequency to very high levels on an EQ, and start changing the frequency. You will hear a rise in volume and a squeek/screetch on frequencies that are at a very high level in the sound - and even if you can't hear it clearly, you will notice a spike in the volume on the channel's output (does not work with fruity plugins, as they don't use numerical meters). Once you find a frequency range which gives a significantly high volume, you move your EQ to the central frequency of that range, lower the gain to a negative one and adjust the resonanace until the sound is cleaner. Repeat as necessary.
5. Apply a noise gate (as needed, if at all), reverbs, delays and the such.
6. Play it as part of the track, adjust the settings on everything accordingly (most importantly steps 3,4).
Now, this system has it's advantages - it does not even require you to hear the sound to get the basic EQ work done - the errors in sound tend to be on leaving frequencies empty, not filling frequencies up too much, which is much easier to correct and sounds less horrid.
The disadvantages are obvious - first of all, it's a lot of work and therefor makes editing the elements a more complex issue, something very frustrating when you want to do complex stuff, and every time you add an element, making it fit into the mix will become harder.
If you have ways to perfect this system of work, tips in this line of thought, post them here, as I know that this system of work could use a lot of improvements.  http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Apr 20, 2004 16:40
|
i will say that again man: u must get monitors...
please do it for the love of music 
you can even take this way of work step further, and start bouncing every channel to a wav, then checking its RMS levels - for that certain frequency range.
with your speakers, you might not hear some freqs that you should. Looking at the amplitude peak of a frequency, doesn´t allways say much about its sound - that´s why ears are more percious than eyes in this situation.
cheers
Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
fuzzikitten
Annunaki
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
603
Posted : Apr 20, 2004 16:50
|
Go get Spectrum Analyzer (free) here: http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html
Use it to visually look at your track, see what frequencies are too dense, which are too thin.
You can then look at .wav outputs of your individual tracks to see where they are falling.
For example, I use this program to compensate for my Event TR8's poor bass response. After I've done a rough job of EQing my bass and kick I export to .wav and run it through this program to get a spectral analysis. Then I have a look at my low end and make sure I'm not too muddy, but that I have punch where I want punch. I look for parts in the song where either the kick or bass is soloed to make sure the two complete each other frequency-wise.
it takes about 10 minutes to feel out the program (most settings I leave at default) and how to use the brightness/contrast to focus on certain decibel/frequency levels. Well worth it though, imo, to make up for poor/no monitors.
Peace,
-Alex |
|
|
|
billy ambulance
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
43
Posts :
560
Posted : Apr 21, 2004 10:56
|
|
counting on spectrum analyzer are makin your mix too technic. a musician need to trust his instincts (and monitors..) desiging the sound he wanna hear. again, without monitors sound design is usless.
check out! www.soundclick.com/spasm |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Apr 21, 2004 11:21
|
|
fuzzikitten
Annunaki
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
603
Posted : Apr 21, 2004 16:05
|
I agree, monitors are an essential part of mixing, and can never be replaced by spectral analysis.
But if you don't have monitors, it can help compensate. And if you DO have monitors it's a great way to double-check your ears.
However, as always, the only thing that matters is how it sounds, and that we enjoy making it.
-Alex |
|
|
|
|
