| Author
|
FAT KICK
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 4, 2008 20:58
|
Good point
however.
1) Linear Phase
2) Not all phase issues are bad - in fact regular EQ could be entirely defined as a phase issue (and from the design perspective, often are)! The phase issue criticism is a weird one - but one I hear very often. 
This is why its so important to have a lot of different EQ plugins... they all have different designs, which may, or may not sound good for any given situation.
There is no such thing as a phase issue - its just EQ. So, to say, I don't want to use EQ on this, because it will will introduce phase issues is IMO not best practice - because it doesn't make any sense. Its not possible to know the phase shift will sound worse before listening to it, given that every filter model is different.
Its like saying "I don't want to use reverb, because it will add a tail to the sounds, and that will make the part sound different".
Isn't that why we put the thing on there in the first place? We wanted it to sound different?
As there are so many different filter models... there is only one way to be sure and thats to try them all until you get the one which sounds best for that exact material. It may be linear phase. It may not. But its impossible to know before slapping on the EQ and seeing what it can do.
Alot of people also incorrectly identify the ringing produced by a very tight cutting or notch filter as a phase issue. It isn't (although, obviously, it is  ), in the sense they mean. They just haven't really got to grips with EQ yet - probably the hardest thing to do IMO.
  .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Jun 4, 2008 23:44
|
|
humm yes if bad artifacts make things sound different and good why not tails of reveb is not a bad artifact ,it s not like transient smearing on a eq? but yes phase issue can be good ...but for me with hp filter most of the time it s not working as good as just cutting few db with a large Q, i think it s better to leave that job to the mastering engineer anyway |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 00:03
|
nah, don't agree at all.
How can you balance the uppers if the bass isn't right?
How can you balance the bass and the kick against each other?
Besides which, master engineers job should spit and polish, not remidial work
AND its not bad artifacts, its just the sound of the filter. They may or may not sound bad.
My comparison with the reverb is quite simple, and nothing to do with what the reverb is doing. Phase smear is EQ. IIR EQ [/i]is[/i] phase smear. To criticise a plugin for doing exactly what that plugin is meant to do is absurd. Would you criticise a 'verb for being a 'verb? No? Then why criticise an EQ for being an EQ?
Certainly, the mastering engineer won't think twice about applying it to your mix if you don't. But it makes a lot more sense for you to do it as you can apply it to individual parts.
And it doesn't follow that more expensive smears less!
As for transient smear... well, what do you think a LP filter is... if not something that affects rate of change in the signal. .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
Psytracked
Inactive User
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
424
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 01:48
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 01:52
|
|
Psytracked
Inactive User
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
424
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 01:55
|
|
Psytracked
Inactive User
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
424
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 01:57
|
|
for the record (for others who may stumble across this thread) A Mastering Engineer deals with the cutting/burning of the master disc. It's the pre-mastering engineer who prepares the track for the medium.
http://www.whatacunt.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 02:04
|
well.
Most of them start off having low bass elements.
But normally, just the kick and the bass as main things (when I'm writing trance), although obviously moments can have sub.
It all depends on what sounds right.
Normally, not much goes below 100hz apart from bass and kick, and the majority is around 200hz... although... where the cutoff is set depends entirely on the slope. And often I'll go for shelves in the lows too.
Can't suggest a spectrum analyzer enough after all the EQ. Its a quick process to figure out where the right points are with the emphasis firmly on using ears.
Its tempting to leave some drum sounds with some low, but I think this is a bit of a poison chalice, and ultimately, its all to easy to loose more then is gained.
Its all about determining the natural point in any sound where it starts to sound low - which isn't as easy as it sounds. .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
Psytracked
Inactive User
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
424
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 02:39
|
|
So with just 2 low bass sounds (generally) and lets say that you have good source sounds to begin with, after all why start with shit? you can get a balance with out resulting to EQ first, surely?!......and if the track is going to be mastered why not let the pro with the experience and the very expensive and flat monitors and properly treated room, not too mention big dollar outboard trim that bottom end off. Don't you think they are in a better position than Joe Blogs in his/her bedroom?
http://www.whatacunt.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 02:57
|
I'd suggest that, if not all, then at least many of the sounds in a track will need some kind of EQ to fit them into the mix, no matter how good the sources are or how well they're recorded. There's actually a fair amount of action below 300Hz on most hi-hat samples for instance, and many snares go all the way down to DC; lead lines made with even the best synths contain rubbish below the fundamental that you don't normally notice, but all the low-end clutter adds up in the mix. It's perfectly possible to get a 'balance' without using EQ; however the balance obtainable by using the 'correct' EQ for each sound will almost certainly be clearer and will transfer better than the no-EQ mix. The style of psytrance production in current vogue requires utter clarity in the bottom end and EQ (particularly high-passing) is necessary for this, although I'm sure some would say this isn't actually a good thing as it's all to easy for the warmth of a track to be lost if you overdo it.
Mastering - http://mastering.OOOD.net :: www.is.gd/mastering
OOOD 5th album 'You Think You Are' - www.is.gd/tobuyoood :: www.OOOD.net
www.facebook.com/OOOD.music :: www.soundcloud.com/oood
Contact for bookings/mastering - colin@oood.net |
|
|
|
Psytracked
Inactive User
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
424
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 03:03
|
I'm not saying not to use EQ...lol
get a rough balance of your tracks going first!!!!!!
I HP most things other than the bass and kick (psy-trance anyways). I'm just suggesting leaving the fine tuning of the bottom, trimming off, of the finished mix to the pre-mastering engineer.
http://www.whatacunt.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 03:22
|
Quote:
|
Don't you think they are in a better position than Joe Blogs in his/her bedroom?
|
|
No.
No I don't.
For all the reasons Colin said (and I would be one of the people who says there is a tendancy to overdo the HP, being an advocate of old skool sounds), but also;
Getting the bass right is the foundation to getting everything else right. Everything needs to be working with everything else, and having one element wrong throws everything else, because the ears perception of it is skewed. When the mastering engineer tries to correct it, everything else goes wrong too.
It doesn't matter how much high end gear the Mastering Engineer has they cannot get at the individual components as well as you, the producer can.
As I already pointed out, the expense of an EQ in absolutely no way ensures its suitability for a job - for exactly the same reasons its impossible to suggest precise EQ settings without access to the material. At the very best, it could hope to sound good in a potentially wider variety of situations.
Even with the very best sound source, there will still be the imparting of undersired characteristics from the main synth LP Res, possible sideband modulation from the envelopes, innaccurate windowing functions in the wavetable on a VA... a plethora of shit muddying the sound.
Ultimately, all I'm doing is offering knowledge on how EQ works, opinion on the correct way to use it, and my experiences of what works for me in getting things to sound better.
If you don't believe me try it. Filter just above the bass fundamental for the kick, and just below the fundamental for the bass... be subtle about it, and see if it sounds clearer as a result. If it does, great, if not, find something that does!
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
Psytracked
Inactive User
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
424
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 03:34
|
When I mix down I work through ATC's amd NS10 on an Otari 96 track with a HD rig or Tascam DAs and of course a good selction of outboard as well software in a professionally treated studio. The full works.......I still know that the mastering engineer will doing the final trimming of the bottom end better than me.
I am not saying don't EQ, I am talking about the final trimming of the bottom end which has become a fad of recent....this is the pre-mastering engineers job.
You reckon that this is best done in a home studio with little or no acoustic treatment and un-calibrated monitors?
Would this explain why so much music being released now is so poorly produced?
You may well have the experience and equipment to get away with it...many don't.......the production process is very much about quality control. Remove those layers of quality control and what is the likely outcome?
http://www.whatacunt.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 03:34
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 5, 2008 03:39
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-06-05 03:34, Psytracked wrote:
I am not saying don't EQ, I am talking about the final trimming of the bottom end which has become a fad of recent....this is the pre-mastering engineers job.
|
|
You are changing the topic, this was always about individual sources working with each other, and was nothing to do with the final mix.
I can 'get away with it' (the final mix that is(although I object to the phrase - I can do this would be much better)), and I don't even have monitors.
I do however, have ears, and know my rig. .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
