+- Subvert Central (http://subvertcentral.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Main Forums (http://subvertcentral.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Audio Production and Engineering (http://subvertcentral.com/forum/forum-17.html)
+--- Thread: EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? (/thread-16100.html)
Pages:
1
2
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - DJFracture - 20th January 2005
from DOA's The Grid
http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread.php?&postid=3392313
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 20th January 2005
Misinformation.
Like that thread on here, 'the method to my madness'. Very poorly informed botched-together info from little snippets half read and a quarter understood.
Ask them how they'd fit the vocals in if they had vocals, or how they would fit sub into the mix if your kick is flat right to the bottom.
In fact, ask them how you'd fit anything else into the mix at all without it sounding like complete shite.
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dsp - 20th January 2005
well your post on there fracture says it all really why, its ok if the tune was just a break, anyway , there arn;t going to be to many breaks if any at all that would have a full frequency range anyway. theres some crazy talk on these forums, Could you imagine a break fully maxed out at bass, mid and treble freqencys , where would the rest of your tune go maybe in to the dog hearing band or the subharmonic for dolphins ?? LOL
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 20th January 2005
![[Image: dolphin_dance.jpg]](http://www.nomadasdebaja.com/sm_shots/dolphin_dance.jpg)
"Yeah, this tune's banging but those mids are killing my fucking ears."
"Too right man, I hope no-one plays this at Herbal"
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - 0=0 - 20th January 2005
subtractive eqing has saved my life.
j
0=0
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Logos - 20th January 2005
Are they confusing wanting a 'flat' techy sound (which I guess has more to do with controlling the mids and not using a lot of reverb etc) with a flat frequency response?
I only skipped through the thread though
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 20th January 2005
0=0 Wrote:subtractive eqing
cutting out the shit
jeez, thinking about it, a break with the same amount of energy at 5khz as at 100hz (for example) would sound terrible!
i wonder if these people do it all by numbers and not by using those flappy gristly things on the side of their bloated faces.
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dsp - 20th January 2005
Macc Wrote:I wonder if these people do it all by numbers and not by using those flappy gristly things on the side of their bloated faces.
stop it your killing me
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - batfink - 20th January 2005
could someone point me towards a good tutorial on subtractive eq? i don't really understand eq'ing tecniques so use little if any when i can. sometimes just use the bass treble controls on the tapebus to fatten breaks.
the only way i've had any other joy of late is by freq analysing the breaks i'm using, looking where there are any freq peaks and then trying subt' eq in those areas and tweaking by ear. then just searching for any other particular freq bands my ears don't like by sweeping around the eq. is that a bad way to do it?
help!
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 20th January 2005
Idiot-proof guide to subtractive eq (not you, batfink!
);1) Set band to q of about 6 or so, narrow but not toooo narrow.
2) Boost a lot and scan frequency range slowly.
3) Listen for changes in VOLUME, try to ignore the actual frequencies you hear, worry about the volume.
4) When you hit a nasty sounding area that is noticeably louder than the rest, cut it hard, then decrease the amount of cut a bit, widen the q a bit, decrease the cut a bit, widen the q abit etc etc until it sounds as good as you can imagine it sounding.
5) BYPASS BYPASS BYPASS and make sure you haven't totally fucked it
The above is very very general - remember you may have a very wide range that is only a little bit too energetic, but then you could have a very narrow range that is very energetic.
Basically though, bypass is your daddy.
I say again, BYPASS.Also remember some plugs have the A/B button, letting you try two different settings against each other. Very tasty.
Frequency analysers are handy tools, but your ears are the final judge.
Hope this helps.
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dsp - 20th January 2005
Macc Wrote:The above is very very general - .
But pretty right ,
I refuse to use the sx eq to do it tho, it sounds horrible to me , but thats why i have WAVES and the uad. still gotta get my wallet out to buy the cambridge eq
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 20th January 2005
SX eq is okay for minor cuts and stuff like rolling off hte bass.... Boosting is BLURGH though, although even that has its uses...
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dsp - 20th January 2005
Macc Wrote:SX eq is okay for minor cuts and stuff like rolling off hte bass.... Boosting is BLURGH though, although even that has its uses...
good for alrady limited channels for automation sweeps and stuff, im lieing saying i never use them but like you say it has its uses alot of them secret
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 20th January 2005
And most of them shite
Especially as it (the SX eq) is post insert
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dsp - 20th January 2005
Macc Wrote:And most of them shite
Especially as it (the SX eq) is post insert
not on sx 3 i believe i think you get the option
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 20th January 2005
Probably cos of my moaning about it!
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - jake - 20th January 2005
i think people should stop caring about being technically perfect with everything - just eq until it sounds good! this goes for more than just eqing too. my engineering has improved a lot since i stopped giving a shit about following these kinds of self-imposed 'rules'. i found that i ended up wasting my "track-making-flow energy" on living up to these kinds of standards instead of just getting on with making music.
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Hallifax - 21st January 2005
I have to agree, I spent way too many tunes trying to EQ things the way that is "technically correct" or whatever. Now I use my ears more than anything. I try to ignore what actual frequency is being boosted or cut, I ear it out instead. I also like to mix loud alot once I have a fairly full mix going. if something is unpleasent, you really notice it loud. As well, when things sound right, they purr when mixing loud. Lately I've found that not only do I listen to the sub I actually feel for it. Sometimes I put my foot on the sub enclosure and see how it feels as I listen to the mix. Also see what it feels like vibrating the floor while listening as well. it has actually made a huge difference for me. Sounds silly, but it works... at least for me
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dharma one - 21st January 2005
i blame parametric eq and lack of hands on control for a lot of confusion like this
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dsp - 21st January 2005
jake Wrote:i think people should stop caring about being technically perfect with everything - just eq until it sounds good! this goes for more than just eqing too. my engineering has improved a lot since i stopped giving a shit about following these kinds of self-imposed 'rules'. i found that i ended up wasting my "track-making-flow energy" on living up to these kinds of standards instead of just getting on with making music.
I think you will find none of us stick to rules but its good to atleast have a way of talking about these things and sharing the way things are done, if someone asks for advise, there are no rules in music anyway, on composition or production, But what do we do, not talk about it at all??
EQ until it sounds good will not work for everyone, hence why we chat about stuff, also everyone understands stuff in different ways its always good to put in the melting pot
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 21st January 2005
hallifax Wrote:i have to agree, i spent way too many tunes trying to eq things the way that is "technically correct" or whatever. now i use my ears more than anything. i try to ignore what actual frequency is being boosted or cut, i ear it out instead. i also like to mix loud alot once i have a fairly full mix going. if something is unpleasent, you really notice it loud. as well, when things sound right, they purr when mixing loud.
great post man
especially that red bit.some people seem to spend too much using their eyes over their ears. i'll only use a frequency analyser after sorting out the sound, as a kind of second opinion. occasionally i'll use them to make sure there's no inaudible rumble (sub 15hz or whatever) if i get something from vinyl or a potentially rumble-y source.
i wouldn't die if i didn't have a freq analyser to hand, i'd just use my ears. big fucking deal!
dharmaone Wrote:i blame parametric eq and lack of hands on control for a lot of confusion like this
yeah, it's true...... parametric eq was once the stuff of a lunatic's dreams
now it's bog standard everywhere, meaning people who don't even understand their hi fi graphic eq are using it. 
not sure what you mean about hands on though - you mean 'soft' eq'ing is a bad thing (not soundwise, technique-wise)?
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dharma one - 21st January 2005
what i mean is when you eq with the mouse you start looking at all the numbers and thinking rather than listening.. when youve got the knobs under your fingers you can even close your eyes and just listen until it sounds right
for me the main use for a spectrum analyzer is on the master channel so you get a visual clue of whats going on in your mix, which areas are too crowded and where there is still space
maybe you all know this one but the spectral overlay function in voxengos glissEQ is ace if you have two (or more) elements which are clashing. you use it as a channel insert and can see exactly whats happening with both and carve some space for each. its a great sounding eq to boot
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - Macc - 21st January 2005
dharma one Wrote:what i mean is when you eq with the mouse you start looking at all the numbers and thinking rather than listening.. when youve got the knobs under your fingers you can even close your eyes and just listen until it sounds right
closing your eyes (when drumming, fighting, eq'ing......)
in the words of ben kenobi; 'your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them'
Quote:maybe you all know this one but the spectral overlay function in voxengos glisseq is ace if you have two (or more) elements which are clashing. you use it as a channel insert and can see exactly whats happening with both and carve some space for each. its a great sounding eq to boot
i've never actually used that........ should have a go with it i suppose, i am aware of it and what it does, just seemed a bit like cheating to me
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dharma one - 21st January 2005
yeah most of the time you can hear whats going on, eg make room in the 1-3k range for vocals.. but for bass/bass drum balancing that thing can be wicked
EQing breaks for a flat frequency response? why??? - dharma one - 21st January 2005
Macc Wrote:Closing your eyes (when drumming, fighting, eq'ing......)
forreall.. if you do martial arts try sticking hands with your eyes closed...its hard but great practice