The Song Fight Bulletin Board

I keep reading that I'm supposed to cut frequencies, but it's so tempting to just boost a yummy one.

Home stereo systems don't count.

i only ever use EQ for rolling off at the top or bottom, or trying to notch out problem spots. i feel like i probably could use it a bit more for clearing up space for parts to fit within different ranges, but i'm still learning... i've never boosted freqs (in the car doesn't count either, right?)

I suck cos "more is better" and "red onez go fassstaaaa!" so additive is the answer...always

Its a nasty habit and one I am trying to kick so I was reading about Har-Bal's Harmonic Balancing program (see here). ANyone else heard of this. Sound on Sound gave it a very nice review and although I have only used it on one track so far, it was pretty good at takin my normally pretty woody sounding mix and making it sound more....commercial is the only word I can use.

Any other Har-Bal izers out there?

I basically only use additive EQ to get weird effects or to boost the fundamental of a thin instrument. Otherwise, it's all low/hi passes and shelves. And BBE. Always BBE.

As for Har-Bal, I'm terrified of auto-mastering programs. My mastering process is probably similar to what it does, only very manual. I guess I also tend to use one wide EQ boost for the mids when mastering, to compensate for my monitors.

Puce, your mastering rocks, so stick with the manual method.

I picked 75% but it's more like 90%. I only use the additive for effect. I cut to make room in a mix or whatever.
-bill

Mostly the same as Puce, for me. Except I always need some kind of high EQ boost on piano. But otherwise, it's roll-offs and notches. Depending on the arrangement, I usually bus all the non-bass instruments, and roll them off below ~120Hz.

Plat wrote:but it's so tempting to just boost a yummy one.

Something to consider: Boosting a specific frequency is the same as cutting the rest and turning the level up ... So it's always possible to accomplish what you want with subtractive EQ.

i have no idea what any of this stuff means.

deshead wrote:

Plat wrote:but it's so tempting to just boost a yummy one.

Something to consider: Boosting a specific frequency is the same as cutting the rest and turning the level up ... So it's always possible to accomplish what you want with subtractive EQ.

Not really. Most EQs have fixed Q widths for their high and low shelves, making it impossible / extremely difficult to simulate a boost with a non-standard Q using just subtraction. Also, it will take two cuts to simulate one boost; if you're worried about artifacts like phase shift this is a step in the wrong direction.

Ya, I agree Puce. I was mostly giving Plat some (poorly worded) food for thought. I'm not sure if most folks realize "subtractive EQ" doesn't have to mean "taking something away from the sound."

Stueym, I've played with Har-Bal, but I have a hard time committing to the advice it gives, propbably 'cause I've read so many "mix with your ears not your eyes" admonitions. I'm always more comfortable with a final result I arrived at by A/B'ing my mix against a commercial reference.

Tangentially related, here's Bob Katz's CD Honor Roll, and John Vestman's list of reference CDs: http://www.johnvestman.com/commercial_cds.htm .. Well mixed and mastered stuff to use for the aforementioned A/B'ing

Puce wrote:...And BBE. Always BBE.

Uhmm, looking at my shoes and mumbling in shame - what's "BBE"?

pegor wrote:what's "BBE"?

Bass Boost Extreme

Puce wrote:if you're worried about artifacts like phase shift this is a step in the wrong direction.

I'm probably missing something stupid here... how does the phase shift come into play? I remember reading something about when you boost frequencies (or maybe change EQ in general) you're introducing some sort of phase or delay in the chain.

Is this an issue with software EQ'ing? If so, how does the phase shift get introduced?

Phase shifting is at the very heart of how an EQ works. EQs take the incoming signal, delay it a certain amount, and then mix it back in with the original signal. This produces a phase shift that will cancel out certain frequencies. The more of the delayed signal you mix back in, the more pronounced the frequency attenuation (technically speaking I'm describing a comb filter here; EQs use allpass filters instead, which are similar but harder to explain. The theory is basically the same).

To work through an example, if you want to cut the 5 khz band by 3 db, you'll want to use a 100 microsecond delay, which is just the right amount to produce a phase shift of 180 degrees at 5000 hz. If we mixed these two out-of-phase signals together at equal volumes the 5khz band would be completely cancelled out; to get just 3 db of attenuation we'd mix in the shifted signal at only 1/8th strength.

The result is a) frequencies near 5khz are shifted partially out of phase, and b) a tiny, quiet echo is introduced to the whole signal. At the microsecond level it is utterly impossible to hear the delay itself, but repeated EQing can compound it, causing a sort of "smearing" that sounds indistinct and phasey, and can wreck havoc on the signal's transients.

All good EQs will use some tricks to reduce the artifacts produced by the process. Also, there are some EQs that do phase compensation to avoid the artifacts altogether, but these always have a certain amount of built-in delay, which can make them impractical for anything other than mastering.

Math!

I like to boost the QE2 whilst filtering out the excess "stalfos" frequencies. Depending on the sound I am going for, I also try to amplify the freshkes, but only up to one three-hundredth of the QE2 variable, unless I am going for a "Cher" sound, then I reverse everything and pass it all through the lower quadrant of the mandingo filter. I have all this worked out on my talking graphing calculator, which features the voice of St. Elsewhere star/hybrid car enthusiast Ed Begley Jr.

I cut so much you thought I was a DJ.

stueym wrote:so I was reading about Har-Bal's Harmonic Balancing program (see here). ANyone else heard of this. Sound on Sound gave it a very nice review and although I have only used it on one track so far, it was pretty good at takin my normally pretty woody sounding mix and making it sound more....commercial is the only word I can use.

Any other Har-Bal izers out there?

It's a neat program. I use it for visualization, though not actually in final mixes anywhere. It basically shows you how and where your mix differs from a typical "commercial" production (or whatever reference mix you want to use).

I wouldn't call it "automatic mastering." It is just a parametric EQ with a very useful interface. Deshead's point about mixing with your ears is good but you shouldn't neglect your other senses either. Using your eyes can help get you where you want to go more efficiently sometimes.

bzl wrote:

stueym wrote:so I was reading about Har-Bal's Harmonic Balancing program (see here). ANyone else heard of this. Sound on Sound gave it a very nice review and although I have only used it on one track so far, it was pretty good at takin my normally pretty woody sounding mix and making it sound more....commercial is the only word I can use.

Any other Har-Bal izers out there?

It's a neat program. I use it for visualization, though not actually in final mixes anywhere. It basically shows you how and where your mix differs from a typical "commercial" production (or whatever reference mix you want to use).

I wouldn't call it "automatic mastering." It is just a parametric EQ with a very useful interface. Deshead's point about mixing with your ears is good but you shouldn't neglect your other senses either. Using your eyes can help get you where you want to go more efficiently sometimes.

Thanks Ben...I think it will help me as my ears apparently suck

I honestly don't know anything about mastering or EQing. Maybe that's why everybody complains about my songs clipping. What can I do to fix that?

When you record, don't let your levels(the pretty green-yellow-orange-red bars) go into the red. That means it'll clip, because it's way too loud and horrible sounding. Turn stuff down basically. (And now someone will come along with technical skillz and describe it exactly.)

Bjam wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:Clipping!

(And now someone will come along with a misquote and schmuckily suggest to search for "clipping" in the "Help and How To" thread.)

Wheeee!

I do everything with massive compression, close to stereo - but not too distinct, almost no realistic EQ, filter by hand on the fly and entirely with headphones. Viola, my bitches! Do these things and you will have a Cheap Bastards-sounding mix. The red lines mean RIPE!