Hey guys! I published a video on EQ mistakes a few weeks ago but it was pretty poor, so I decided to delete it. Today I'm giving it a second shot. This time, I'm sharing mistakes that I've personally made in the past, and still make today. I hope that sharing these mistakes will save you some time! Thanks for being here :)
For finding trouble frequencies using your eyes can be extremely helpful! Sometimes in a full mix it's hard to tell when a sound is being ruined by weird resonances and getting a quick visual aid for fixing this can be super super useful. But generally for character and sound shaping purposes, trusting your ears (and the ears of others) will always be the way to go.
The only time I use visual help is when something is annoying me in the mix. Makes it super easy to remove. I came from tape though and had to do it by ear. Left recording came back with digital.
Man....... I followed your tips and it was like i am a different producer......... I m not exaggeration...... These tips are super super important for mixes and some people pay like 50 dollars per hour for learning these stuff and you are giving these tips for free....I'll always be thankful to you.....
I have tried mixes using no eq at all. And just playing with the room acoustics, tuning, mic placement... Once that was accomplished nearly everything I have made is amazing. I will use a little here and there now, but with my recording environment being a lot more cooperative it is not as needed.
@John Siket I have been also finding myself using almost no compression either as of late. Usally just a touch on a couple of things to to trim some excessives on some sounds. But I use it more as an effect than anything to accentuate some punch or attack on percussion or a "plucky" guitar sound for some things. How the streaming systems normalize music has sort of driven me to this, and I like it alot. I feel like I have tonnes of space in the music now. Minimal eq, minimal effects and minimal compression. It makes mix downs actually rather pleasant these days.
I been mixing for a few years on a very small scale. I got discourage and stopped but you expired me to start learning again and mixing again if I ever get big. I want to say now I really appreciate you.
Thanks Rob, very helpful - especially your key insight about having an intention and strong motivation for each EQ decision, and if that isn't there then to leave well alone.
I would reccomend doing subtractive and additive eq on two different eqs. It makes for a much more efficient eq process and cleaner mix in my experience
i really appreciate how much you stress about not getitng lost in the details of things. I'm pressed for time and keeping that in mind is really helpful. great video!
all these things are for sure the best way to understand many parts of the sound. i was always told. "does it sound better?" another really good part about EQs is using linear phase. also mid and side. gaining control of the full stereo-field i think is amazing.
Try flat tilt EQs on a voice first. If the vocalist and the room are on point, you will need just a bit of tilt, probably a high pass, and the rest will be up to the compressor.
thank you so much, i always started just messing with the EQ and using only my ear to get the perfect sound i wanted but i always told myself it was the wrong way to do it thinking it was more technical. guess a good sound is a good sound no matter whatever anyone says
Referencing is also really important. Import a song of a similar sound you’re after and listen in to what they’ve done on the kick, vocal etc and try emulating the tone of that particular track. It might not sound exactly the same, but if you can get it close it’ll really enhance the mix. Great video though! Love your work :)
A trick about mistake no. 6. Sometimes it's a lot easier to identify a problem with the whole, as opposed to finding a problem with individual parts. Sometimes playing around with eq on the mix bus can reveal problems earlier on in the chain. If you find you have to cut or boost a certain frequency in the main mix, pay attention to which tracks are improved and which suffer. Then go back to the those tracks and fix the issue there. So for example, if you find a big cut in the lows improves clarity a lot but makes the bass too thin, go back and make the same cut on a boomy acoustic guitar, vocals, or other tracks. Try making the same edit on any track that doesn't suffer or loose any character from it. Same concept can be applied to other elements added to the mix bus, especially compression. A multi-band compressor can be very useful as well. If compressing a certain frequency works well, explore making changes to the tracks that dominate those frequencies.
I am really new to recording music. I spent all day today writing midi bass, coming up with a few other guitar parts, and writing midi drums, and I am really still finding out how to do all of this. Thank you. I really appreciate you sharing your wisdom with me!
Rob!! You are as ever a genius! You've just enunciated in this video a whole cupboard-load of 'growing misgivings" I've been feeling for some time, but didn't dare to do anything about!!
you're hands down my new favourite thing. i only use FabFilter's ProQ and ProQ2 and until I saw this video I had no idea I was still using those in exactly the same way I'd use a fully parametric EQ. I've been doing this a long time and nobody has ever pointed this out. Class, I really appreciate it.
Always have a clear end in mind when it comes to mixing. I think it is important to get out the mind set that we need to add all of these processors to make the mix great. Less is more, 90% of the time. Some really good points made in the vid! Understand your plugins and processors and understand how to achieve what you want, and you are on to a winner :)
Hey Rob! Great to watch you again, and fabulous lessons on the dos and don'ts! I've just had a day of total obsession about my George Michael tribute track, completely lost the plot and an entire day sat in front of the screen wondering what the hell am I doing here! Which is why I had a look around and saw this video! Training your ears IS so important - I've been doing this as a hobby, then semi-pro now pretty much pro for 12 years, and it's easy to become distracted or start to worry and lose sight of the overall intention. Also fatigue played a part today I realise now! Forgive the blatant self-publicity grab here, but "In Memoriam George Michael" is probably the best thing I've written so far, which is why I'm fussing about the mix. Also - it's conceived as a song FROM George, not TO him, which would be foolish unless the composition can withstand that degree of critical scrutiny! AND - it's the first singing I've done in 16 years, after having to relinquish my opera career for health reasons, so I'm massively self-conscious of how my voice sounds these days. Anyways - here's the link. There's also a 'complimentary' remix of "Careless Whisper" - done in a way that fits nicely with "In Memoriam." I'm trying not to have to re-record the vocals is I think the bottom line, we'll see how things go. It'll be out this summer. Here's the link: soundcloud.com/classicalbanksy/sets/in-memoriam-george-michael Hope married life is suiting you both. Great to touch base, and I do still have your course details on file. There are a couple of possible 'bigger' projects coming up next year, including a BBC documentary if that gets the go-ahead, in which case I'll be in touch! Much love to you both, Simon
You do understand that slickeq is semi parametric, right? The difference is you can’t manually adjust the q-factor, but the main reason for the difference in output, apart from the switchable hardware modeling, is that the bands are interactive and the q increases with the gain. Good advice to use your ears rather than visual cues but also good to know how things work.
Yawn.. I know, I'm being a prat.. Actually it's cool, thanks for the video. I really don't agree with #9 - in part. For along time, most EQs were the same basic algorithm with minor variations. Recent advances in modelling and processing power have given rise to a variety of EQ implementations. There are still plugin manufacturers using the same old algorithms, matching the curves to some 'classic' EQ and slapping a GUI on it; but it's snake oil (I am specifically referring to Waves). Universal Audio, brainworx, DMG and a few others have created some unique sophisticated interactive EQ models in recent years. I agree it is a mistake to buy a bunch of EQs that do essentially the same thing, but there are some unique alternatives available of late. For the ultimate in clean, the DMG Equilibrium or Fab Filter Pro Q3 are top class hi resolution EQs capable of running in IIR & FIR modes. The MAAT thEQorange (updated Algorithmic Orange LP EQ) is an outstanding time domain LP EQ. Although it won't do Linear Phase, the bx-digital V3 is an excellent L/R - M/S mastering & mixing EQ. The UAD Pultecs have a full modelled circuit path, including the tube amp stage, providing the warmth and unique behaviors of the original hardware. The UAD Manley Massive Passive is a modern take on the putlec approach and full of character. The UAD API 550 & 560 both model the entire circuit path, including the op-amps, clipping and band interactions (way beyond the Waves versions). If you prefer channel strips, the UAD SSL is the pinnacle of channel strip modeling (the API Vision & Neve 88RS are okay, but they don't have the detailed behavior and color of the SSL). For a slightly different take, the brainworx plugins that employ TMT (tolerance modelling technology) provide the analog '3-D' sound most plugins don't have, due to the slight variances between channels in a stereo or multi-mono configuration. Last, the dynamic EQs, which the Sonnox Dynamic EQ is probably the best right now (the brainworx dynEQ is no slouch, but it is limited). And the Voxengo Glisseq & Harmoni EQ both employ dynamic behavior (the Harmoni EQ also adds subtle dynamic saturation). The Waves Factory Spectre is an interesting eq / saturation plugin worth checking out. Not saying you need all these, but a really good hi res clean EQ, preferably with Minimum Phase & Linear Phase modes (The DMG or Fab Filter), a well modelled tube Eq (the UAD Pultecs or MMP), A console EQ for both workflow and unique clipping points (SSL - or, if dynamics aren't required, API 550 / 560, Helios, Neve 1073) and a dynamic EQ (preferably with sidechain capability - one nice Waves EQ is the F6 -Dynamic - it has sidechaining, so one can open up space for other instruments). And perhaps a brainworx plugin with TMT to get some '3-D'. 6 - 8 EQs should be good for almost any need, from clean, to color to dynamic, plus one or two with special features. Again, don't be fooled by the hundreds of plugins that have pretty GUIs but really do the same thing.
Great and honest tutorial! I did also some of them, especially "too wide and too high eq filters on voice", so that I eq'ed hours and hours to reverse false decisions I made (p.e. using a deesser to minimze side effects of too much high gain lifting. With smaller bell filters it's quite easy if you concentrate on tonal balance and hear at the focused band (in fabfilter, just press the little headphone button). Needed years to realize this ...
Also, there are various types of EQ, which are appropriate for different things. Take a 'static' EQ vs a 'dynamic' EQ. Say there's some dissonance with your piano recording, and you want to remove or tone down a sharp frequency in the higher register; instead of using a static EQ, where the affected frequencies are constant, you can use a dynamic EQ, and you can trigger it to only affect the frequency at a certain volume peak, which leaves the remaining frequencies untouched. You could also sidechain this if you want to use it with a bass that masks the kick drum, for example. By using the kick signal as a sidechain trigger for the bass' EQ notch, with fast attack and release times, the frequency will only be altered during the second that the kick drum is played, bringing it forward in the mix, while keeping the overall sound of the bass.
Subtractive EQ is important, especially for cleaning up the tracks, but think about this: I have a guitar that I really like, but I never noticed one little detail - when I put it through an EQ-pedal, on which I slightly pushed 1.6 kHz, 3.2 kHz and 6.4 kHz, it sounded so much better!! Now the guitar sounds kinda dull and muddy without that slight boost on those frequencies. So, use your ears, don't hang up on "rules" or ways you do things.
Personally..I get into this .. -0- roll of the low end.. 1- surgery (subtractive parametric EQ) 2- compression (sometimes colored ) 3- makeup (analogic EQ) 4- send (FX) For most of tracks except keyboards which I just put an EQ if I have a frequencies struggle with other instruments ..
Don't forget complimentary EQ: when two or more instruments conflict in the same frequency range, cut one and boost the other in that range, then do the reverse at a slightly different frequency to allow the other to cut through. If you do this you may not need to boost/cut extreme amounts because you're subverting the masking effects that might otherwise require more drastic EQ -- this seems to work for me to get clarity amongst competing tracks.
Great video! It always feels good to know that other peoples' secret is that there is none. Quality tips, and even though I like to work pretty much the same way it's good to have a reminder! thanks!
Great tips, as usual!! Thank you. I think it's more important to choose the EQ that's going to give you the right sound for what you want rather than avoiding parametric EQs as a rule of thumb. Believe me, I'm not afraid to be bold with a visual curve. No EQ is gonna scare me. But if I want the kind of clean, surgical, transparency, and dynamic power that something like Pro-Q3 or Pro-MB gives me so I can make room for something without cutting a frequency on another track through the whole song, I'm gonna go for that. If I want warmth or colour, I'll use something from UAD. It's good to train your ears, but a parametric EQ can really help do that, too. Visual cues like the masking highlight in Pro-Q 3 and in iZotope's Ozone/Neutron can save a lot of time and frustration as you're training your ears.
Not buying a lot of unnecessary plugins is a good tip, but remember that most of the time you find which plugins become your go-to plugins by trying out loads of different ones. I think every producer or musician is at least a little bit "guilty" of this, and while you can look back at it later and go "Oh man, that was money I'll never see again" I think you sometimes need those plugins to find out that you in fact don't need them, and to find which ones you do. If that makes any sense. I hope you know what I mean.
I made the exact same mistake with parametric. I downloaded a few analog style EQs from Waves on a trial basis (their API and Pultec styles) and found the benefits of these plugins. The low mid band on the Pultec sounds great on my voice, and the API's upper midrange band is perfect for electric guitars.
About the 2nd mistake, I'm able to recognize frequencies, have an idea, how 2 kHz sounds, how 500 Hz sounds etc. and know, when the bass guitar wants the typical Rock sound, I boost 500 Hz, for Reggae I cut it and boosting 2 kHz can help the piano (when the band isn't too narrow) or if the piano kills the vocals, I cut the mid range.
Great tutorials. My grain of newbie wisdom: EQ fast and instinctively. Think about the whys after you discover that it sounds good. Because so many variables are there, trying to learn hard and fast rules from the outset is a failing gambit...
Before I watched the video: I remember the biggest EQ mistake I made. Band gig, we hadn't enough microphones, I put the microphone for snare and Hi Hat between the lower side of Hi Hat and top of snare. I bossted treble, for snare drum hasn't enough treble and gotn't the wanted effect, Hi Hat became too sizzling. I remembered, that if something sounds wrong, it could also help to cut frequencies. So I tried to cut lower frequencies - and the sound was fine, as would I have used two different microphones. I heard, that a frequency range sounds balanced, when it has the same number of octaves above and below 1 kHz. This describes, why AM radio on the small portable sounds acceptable and on HiFi equipment boomy and muffled. When I dislike the clean sound of a humbucker guitar, I can't add treble or maybe a little by using an exciter or boosting higher frequencies and feed an overdrive, so that the boosted frequencies may be a bit distorted. But the right way is, to cut low frequencies. Maybe the guitar can do the 4 kHz, these are 2 octaves above 1 kHz, 2 octaves below 1 kHz are 250 Hz, so I set the low cut there or when I want a brighter sound, I set the low cut maybe to 400 Hz.
Nice video, I would have liked to seen this some years ago. I would have learned a ton from it! I still tend to only use parametric EQs, but I've started adjusting band value sliders with my eyes closed. It helps! One thing though: there IS a big secret to EQing... the Fletcher-Munson curve. I explain it to new producers quite often and it tends to majorly improve their EQing skills. Even more experienced producers sometimes don't know it. I feel like this should be mentioned more in these types of videos.
Ken S The Fletcher Munson Curve is a graph that illustrates an interesting phenomenon of human hearing. When listening to music through your studio monitors or headphones… As the actual loudness changes, the perceived loudness our brains hear will change at a different rate, depending on the frequency. Thanks for mentioning that, Ken👍🏻
Nice video, all mistakes meet in one point so there could be only one advice - THINK AND LISTEN! :D BTW man, what monitors do you have? You turn down so much upper mids/presence that it sounds really weird. I love how the record sounds at it's own, the only thing i'd eq is the snare and vocal. Plus add some compression to vocals and mix buss and the record is done :)
I'm no expert and only been mixing for a couple of years but personally I find it much easier and makes more sense to me to cut nasty frequencies in solo, but boost with the whole track running.
Know how your EQs work. Are they 'circuit modeled' EQs? How good is the implementation? Are they component modeled, or do they just have some saturation (and/or perhaps noise) added (common with many Waves plugins)? Do they have some kind of analog phase matching? Do they employ an algorithm to keep the high frequencies from hitting 0 dB at the nyquist frequency (sometimes called 'decramping' or 'decramped')? If so, does the phase & group delay also match an analog EQ? (Fabfilter Pro Q has some group delay anomalies near nyquist; DMG's Equilibrium, Slick EQ & bx_digital V3 all behave well near nyquist). Do they employ oversampling to avoid warping in the high end? If so, do they have a nyquist filter on the output? If so, does it radically cut the high frequencies (which defeats the purpose of oversampling EQs)? Some saturation (hair) might be the ticket to bring a track out without over EQing. Try the UAD Pultec, Manley Voxbox, Neve 1073, API 550 or 560; the Plugin Alliance Lindell TE-100; the Wavesfactory Spectre; they all have unique harmonic structures to bring a track to life. The UAD SSL Channel Strip is also a tone gem. The Voxengo Harmonieq is interesting for it's subtle harmonic enhancement and its smooth curves up to nyquist). An excellent 'clean' EQ for cuts along with an excellent circuit modeled EQ for boosts will usually do what you need; the added harmonics from the boost on a well designed circuit modeled EQ will often help avoid over-EQing, since the added subtle saturation brings out the boosted frequencies. The DMG Equilibrium for cuts along with one of the 'saturation' Eqs listed above might get you in the ballpark without overdoing the EQ boosts. Sometimes, a compressor might be a better option (the UAD 1176 collection, the UAD La2a series and the UAD Distressor are all excellent, along with numerous other compressor plugins; the Distressor has the added advantage of a mix knob and controllable harmonics); in other situations, a multiband compressor or dynamic EQ might be just right (try the Oxford Dynamic EQ, the DSM V3 from Plugin Alliance or the Waves F6 RTA dynamic EQ). If your mix sounds too 2 dimensional, try some of the TMT plugins from Plugin Alliance (the SLL & Neve Channel strips are nice, and the SPL Iron is a gem). If none of the above works but you know you have an EQ problem, try a linear phase EQ (DMG Equilibrium, Fabfilter Pro Q, MAAT Orange or Red if you can afford one - I prefer the Red, but they haven't ported the old Algorithmix Red yet - the PSP Xeon or the DDMF LP10 V3 will work if your budget is tight). If you recorded through a plain jane converter, a tape emu might bring some spark to your mix; the UAD Studer, Oxide and Ampex are gems, as is the Softube Tape plugin); or perhaps a tube or hybrid 'box, like the UAD Culture Vulture, the Plugin Alliance VSM-3, the Phil's Cascade, SPL Iron or TwinTube, Black Box Analog Design HG-2 or the Soundtoys Decapitator.
Recently I've discovered the only way I can achieve loudness that competes on Sound Cloud is to employ Pretty fierce EQing on the master bus especially around 2 to 5k. You can only go so far with your limiter before there's pretty obvious issues even to the untrained ear.
I read in a good mixing book some years ago (the title escapes me) that it is better not to sweep while trying to find the target frequency but rather mute, choose a frequency, boost or cut, unmute, evaluate then repeat until you have it. Not as quick but is supposed to be easier to hear the best frequency. I think this probably works best for cosmetic EQ. What you were doing to find room resonances makes sense and is how I would find them too - unless I leave it to Neutron my new mixing sidekick ;)
Hey guys! I published a video on EQ mistakes a few weeks ago but it was pretty poor, so I decided to delete it.
Today I'm giving it a second shot. This time, I'm sharing mistakes that I've personally made in the past, and still make today.
I hope that sharing these mistakes will save you some time!
Thanks for being here :)
Hi Rob - well done! I sent you an email about possibly working with some of our clients. Did you get it?
Musician on a Mission v. V. V
Thank you so much, I love all of your tutorials!!!
You can be forgiven for the first one - you were on Honeymoon!! How's married life? :-)
Hi, what's the name of the song and where can I find it. I really want to hear the entire thing
"You made a bad man out of me..."
{Walks away sadly but with great EQ knowledge}
Beware, if you give your snare more crack, it’s gonna keep wanting more and more of it.
Daniel Walker 😂
lmfao
you gotta be really careful. if the crack gets too loud, you lose the rest of the snare in the mix of druggies. FIGHT DRUG ADDICTION
Nothing sounds worse than a pranged out snare.
Crack is incredibly moreish, you've got a point
I tend to preffer using subtractive EQ first, and once I finished cleaning and making space for all the instruments I'll start boosting.
exactly
I’m a relative beginner, but I figured that out for sure, makes perfect sense...clean up then shine
Same.
EQ each channel with 0 being max then final EQ on master
Don't cut too much tho. I made a chart for each key and the frequencies it hits and go from there in my eq process.
I cut out unpleasant stuff with parametric eq than go with "analog" style eq for tonal balances and flavour
you made a batman out of me.
And I kinda lost my mom
🤣🤣🤣
Dude I’m ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️. I thought that was a saying you use to compliment the video guy, but I get it now. That’s hilarious.
How do we mix a song we find terrible? - that's my question now.
@@mazely give it to someone else who is begging for work lol
The Number One Mistake: EQing with your eyes rather than your ears.
WAX BEATS cowab? sure
what colour??
For finding trouble frequencies using your eyes can be extremely helpful! Sometimes in a full mix it's hard to tell when a sound is being ruined by weird resonances and getting a quick visual aid for fixing this can be super super useful. But generally for character and sound shaping purposes, trusting your ears (and the ears of others) will always be the way to go.
The only time I use visual help is when something is annoying me in the mix. Makes it super easy to remove. I came from tape though and had to do it by ear. Left recording came back with digital.
i listen to colour
and see sound
You made a better mixer out of me.
Franco Elicabe i can hear that comment
Man....... I followed your tips and it was like i am a different producer......... I m not exaggeration...... These tips are super super important for mixes and some people pay like 50 dollars per hour for learning these stuff and you are giving these tips for free....I'll always be thankful to you.....
I have tried mixes using no eq at all. And just playing with the room acoustics, tuning, mic placement... Once that was accomplished nearly everything I have made is amazing. I will use a little here and there now, but with my recording environment being a lot more cooperative it is not as needed.
@John Siket I have been also finding myself using almost no compression either as of late. Usally just a touch on a couple of things to to trim some excessives on some sounds. But I use it more as an effect than anything to accentuate some punch or attack on percussion or a "plucky" guitar sound for some things.
How the streaming systems normalize music has sort of driven me to this, and I like it alot. I feel like I have tonnes of space in the music now. Minimal eq, minimal effects and minimal compression. It makes mix downs actually rather pleasant these days.
You just have send your positivity and your awesomenes around the world ! We all appreciate your help soo much !!
I been mixing for a few years on a very small scale. I got discourage and stopped but you expired me to start learning again and mixing again if I ever get big. I want to say now I really appreciate you.
Bruce Wayne’s favorite song ;)
Ooooh that works
Thanks Rob, very helpful - especially your key insight about having an intention and strong motivation for each EQ decision, and if that isn't there then to leave well alone.
Allan Gildea Thanks Allan, glad you liked that one!
I would reccomend doing subtractive and additive eq on two different eqs. It makes for a much more efficient eq process and cleaner mix in my experience
If your a mix engineer these tips will really refresh your memory about EQ! Nice channel overall and thanks for sharing !
Thanks man!
i really appreciate how much you stress about not getitng lost in the details of things. I'm pressed for time and keeping that in mind is really helpful. great video!
all these things are for sure the best way to understand many parts of the sound.
i was always told.
"does it sound better?"
another really good part about EQs is using linear phase.
also mid and side.
gaining control of the full stereo-field i think is amazing.
SISKIYOU what's up James!
Oh mate, excellent video. The last one about EQ secrets often had me thinking "am I doing this how a pro would do".
Thanks so much mate for this video...🙏🙏🙏 I think I did learn something from you
ozone neutron helps with compression on each EQ freq and I love it, helps balance out things.
EQing vocals is definitely something I have trouble with. I'll try and take it easy on the boosts and cuts and see where that takes me!
Try flat tilt EQs on a voice first.
If the vocalist and the room are on point, you will need just a bit of tilt, probably a high pass, and the rest will be up to the compressor.
thank you so much, i always started just messing with the EQ and using only my ear to get the perfect sound i wanted but i always told myself it was the wrong way to do it thinking it was more technical. guess a good sound is a good sound no matter whatever anyone says
This video was soo helpful! Can you do it with compression too? :)
Sure! I have a video about common mistakes that I see, which is similar - th-cam.com/video/t3zq8U1jdYY/w-d-xo.html
I second that ;)
@@masteringcom yes please do a compression mistakes video
I never thought after all these years id need to watch an eq tutorial again, but here i am 🥲
Referencing is also really important. Import a song of a similar sound you’re after and listen in to what they’ve done on the kick, vocal etc and try emulating the tone of that particular track. It might not sound exactly the same, but if you can get it close it’ll really enhance the mix. Great video though! Love your work :)
Mistake #11 for 5 years. Nice reminder video, thanks for the great content.
Thanks once again mate , vital video 💪🏼 your tips on eqing made a BADMAN OUT OF ME
A trick about mistake no. 6.
Sometimes it's a lot easier to identify a problem with the whole, as opposed to finding a problem with individual parts. Sometimes playing around with eq on the mix bus can reveal problems earlier on in the chain.
If you find you have to cut or boost a certain frequency in the main mix, pay attention to which tracks are improved and which suffer. Then go back to the those tracks and fix the issue there.
So for example, if you find a big cut in the lows improves clarity a lot but makes the bass too thin, go back and make the same cut on a boomy acoustic guitar, vocals, or other tracks. Try making the same edit on any track that doesn't suffer or loose any character from it.
Same concept can be applied to other elements added to the mix bus, especially compression. A multi-band compressor can be very useful as well. If compressing a certain frequency works well, explore making changes to the tracks that dominate those frequencies.
I am really new to recording music. I spent all day today writing midi bass, coming up with a few other guitar parts, and writing midi drums, and I am really still finding out how to do all of this. Thank you. I really appreciate you sharing your wisdom with me!
Our pleasure!
Rob!! You are as ever a genius! You've just enunciated in this video a whole cupboard-load of 'growing misgivings" I've been feeling for some time, but didn't dare to do anything about!!
Simple and helpful. Great video. Thanks for this.
Main vocal sounds fine without EQ. It is recorded nice.
i think it was a little boxy, but definitely solid on the high end didnt anything extra
SlickEQ has been my go-to eq for almost anything as long as it has existed. Very nice
I just found your channel yesterday, and I've really been enjoying your videos! You've pinpointed a bunch of things that I totally do.
you're hands down my new favourite thing. i only use FabFilter's ProQ and ProQ2 and until I saw this video I had no idea I was still using those in exactly the same way I'd use a fully parametric EQ. I've been doing this a long time and nobody has ever pointed this out. Class, I really appreciate it.
Glad to help!
One thing I do, I set two parts on, one of them is more important, so I set the less important, that it doesn't hide the important one.
Glad I’m here right here right, before you hit a million subs. That’s what you deserve!
Amazing tips and they're all true!
Also, it takes time for your ears to get better.
Only way to know what you want is to keep trying and keep going.
I’ve watched a couple of your videos very valuable information sir thank you
Great video man! Really helped me with a few things...keep em coming :)
Awesome, glad to help
"You made a Batman outta me" thats what im earing lol nice vids tho :D
If you overdose on SoundGym and start hearing over 20k, you will be in all your right to sing that !!
Awesome!! This is so wonderfully helpful. Thanks!
As always very much to consider and learn. Thanks!
Always have a clear end in mind when it comes to mixing. I think it is important to get out the mind set that we need to add all of these processors to make the mix great. Less is more, 90% of the time. Some really good points made in the vid! Understand your plugins and processors and understand how to achieve what you want, and you are on to a winner :)
Hey Rob! Great to watch you again, and fabulous lessons on the dos and don'ts! I've just had a day of total obsession about my George Michael tribute track, completely lost the plot and an entire day sat in front of the screen wondering what the hell am I doing here! Which is why I had a look around and saw this video!
Training your ears IS so important - I've been doing this as a hobby, then semi-pro now pretty much pro for 12 years, and it's easy to become distracted or start to worry and lose sight of the overall intention. Also fatigue played a part today I realise now!
Forgive the blatant self-publicity grab here, but "In Memoriam George Michael" is probably the best thing I've written so far, which is why I'm fussing about the mix. Also - it's conceived as a song FROM George, not TO him, which would be foolish unless the composition can withstand that degree of critical scrutiny! AND - it's the first singing I've done in 16 years, after having to relinquish my opera career for health reasons, so I'm massively self-conscious of how my voice sounds these days.
Anyways - here's the link. There's also a 'complimentary' remix of "Careless Whisper" - done in a way that fits nicely with "In Memoriam." I'm trying not to have to re-record the vocals is I think the bottom line, we'll see how things go. It'll be out this summer. Here's the link: soundcloud.com/classicalbanksy/sets/in-memoriam-george-michael
Hope married life is suiting you both. Great to touch base, and I do still have your course details on file. There are a couple of possible 'bigger' projects coming up next year, including a BBC documentary if that gets the go-ahead, in which case I'll be in touch!
Much love to you both,
Simon
You do understand that slickeq is semi parametric, right? The difference is you can’t manually adjust the q-factor, but the main reason for the difference in output, apart from the switchable hardware modeling, is that the bands are interactive and the q increases with the gain. Good advice to use your ears rather than visual cues but also good to know how things work.
Yawn.. I know, I'm being a prat.. Actually it's cool, thanks for the video.
I really don't agree with #9 - in part. For along time, most EQs were the same basic algorithm with minor variations. Recent advances in modelling and processing power have given rise to a variety of EQ implementations. There are still plugin manufacturers using the same old algorithms, matching the curves to some 'classic' EQ and slapping a GUI on it; but it's snake oil (I am specifically referring to Waves).
Universal Audio, brainworx, DMG and a few others have created some unique sophisticated interactive EQ models in recent years. I agree it is a mistake to buy a bunch of EQs that do essentially the same thing, but there are some unique alternatives available of late. For the ultimate in clean, the DMG Equilibrium or Fab Filter Pro Q3 are top class hi resolution EQs capable of running in IIR & FIR modes. The MAAT thEQorange (updated Algorithmic Orange LP EQ) is an outstanding time domain LP EQ.
Although it won't do Linear Phase, the bx-digital V3 is an excellent L/R - M/S mastering & mixing EQ.
The UAD Pultecs have a full modelled circuit path, including the tube amp stage, providing the warmth and unique behaviors of the original hardware.
The UAD Manley Massive Passive is a modern take on the putlec approach and full of character.
The UAD API 550 & 560 both model the entire circuit path, including the op-amps, clipping and band interactions (way beyond the Waves versions).
If you prefer channel strips, the UAD SSL is the pinnacle of channel strip modeling (the API Vision & Neve 88RS are okay, but they don't have the detailed behavior and color of the SSL).
For a slightly different take, the brainworx plugins that employ TMT (tolerance modelling technology) provide the analog '3-D' sound most plugins don't have, due to the slight variances between channels in a stereo or multi-mono configuration.
Last, the dynamic EQs, which the Sonnox Dynamic EQ is probably the best right now (the brainworx dynEQ is no slouch, but it is limited). And the Voxengo Glisseq & Harmoni EQ both employ dynamic behavior (the Harmoni EQ also adds subtle dynamic saturation). The Waves Factory Spectre is an interesting eq / saturation plugin worth checking out.
Not saying you need all these, but a really good hi res clean EQ, preferably with Minimum Phase & Linear Phase modes (The DMG or Fab Filter), a well modelled tube Eq (the UAD Pultecs or MMP), A console EQ for both workflow and unique clipping points (SSL - or, if dynamics aren't required, API 550 / 560, Helios, Neve 1073) and a dynamic EQ (preferably with sidechain capability - one nice Waves EQ is the F6 -Dynamic - it has sidechaining, so one can open up space for other instruments). And perhaps a brainworx plugin with TMT to get some '3-D'.
6 - 8 EQs should be good for almost any need, from clean, to color to dynamic, plus one or two with special features.
Again, don't be fooled by the hundreds of plugins that have pretty GUIs but really do the same thing.
Great video and explained brilliantly. Thanks
Glad we could help!
Loves these videos. Always learn a little something from them. Thanks.
Good to hear!
Great and honest tutorial! I did also some of them, especially "too wide and too high eq filters on voice", so that I eq'ed hours and hours to reverse false decisions I made (p.e. using a deesser to minimze side effects of too much high gain lifting. With smaller bell filters it's quite easy if you concentrate on tonal balance and hear at the focused band (in fabfilter, just press the little headphone button). Needed years to realize this ...
Great suggestions, buddy! #6!
Also, there are various types of EQ, which are appropriate for different things. Take a 'static' EQ vs a 'dynamic' EQ.
Say there's some dissonance with your piano recording, and you want to remove or tone down a sharp frequency in the higher register; instead of using a static EQ, where the affected frequencies are constant, you can use a dynamic EQ, and you can trigger it to only affect the frequency at a certain volume peak, which leaves the remaining frequencies untouched. You could also sidechain this if you want to use it with a bass that masks the kick drum, for example. By using the kick signal as a sidechain trigger for the bass' EQ notch, with fast attack and release times, the frequency will only be altered during the second that the kick drum is played, bringing it forward in the mix, while keeping the overall sound of the bass.
PPP
Subtractive EQ is important, especially for cleaning up the tracks, but think about this: I have a guitar that I really like, but I never noticed one little detail - when I put it through an EQ-pedal, on which I slightly pushed 1.6 kHz, 3.2 kHz and 6.4 kHz, it sounded so much better!! Now the guitar sounds kinda dull and muddy without that slight boost on those frequencies. So, use your ears, don't hang up on "rules" or ways you do things.
Great video for pros and beginners
Personally..I get into this ..
-0- roll of the low end..
1- surgery (subtractive parametric EQ)
2- compression (sometimes colored )
3- makeup (analogic EQ)
4- send (FX)
For most of tracks except keyboards which I just put an EQ if I have a frequencies struggle with other instruments ..
why not eventually....i'm open to any proposition...
Your videos are absolutely superb. Glad to have discovered this channel. Thank you!
Thanks for the kind words! Glad we could help :)
After this video, I feel like I don't need to watch another eq tutorial on youtube. Thank you for this.
Wow, thanks! Glad to help.
This is experience versus technicality
This is a treasure! Thank you!
This has helped me a lot on my song that was recently just uploaded, you kan tell there is a big difference between the old ones
Some of these were pretty helpful. Subbed for more.
Thanks!
Don't forget complimentary EQ: when two or more instruments conflict in the same frequency range, cut one and boost the other in that range, then do the reverse at a slightly different frequency to allow the other to cut through. If you do this you may not need to boost/cut extreme amounts because you're subverting the masking effects that might otherwise require more drastic EQ -- this seems to work for me to get clarity amongst competing tracks.
I didn’t even know what subtractive and additive eq was until I watched this lol… thanks for all the tips :)
Wow what a difference it made when applied these tip. We could actually hear a significant improvement
Amazing!
beautifully made, beautifully edited, beautifully structured. Good shit, got my sub !
Very helpful video. I could use every single lesson
Great video! It always feels good to know that other peoples' secret is that there is none. Quality tips, and even though I like to work pretty much the same way it's good to have a reminder! thanks!
Great video! I'm quite experienced, but you ALWAYS learn new tips and tricks ❤️
Tank you for sharing your experience with us 💓💞💓
Love your mindset! Thanks for sharing all these tips.
EXCELLENT points, man.
Love it!
Great tips, as usual!! Thank you. I think it's more important to choose the EQ that's going to give you the right sound for what you want rather than avoiding parametric EQs as a rule of thumb. Believe me, I'm not afraid to be bold with a visual curve. No EQ is gonna scare me. But if I want the kind of clean, surgical, transparency, and dynamic power that something like Pro-Q3 or Pro-MB gives me so I can make room for something without cutting a frequency on another track through the whole song, I'm gonna go for that. If I want warmth or colour, I'll use something from UAD. It's good to train your ears, but a parametric EQ can really help do that, too. Visual cues like the masking highlight in Pro-Q 3 and in iZotope's Ozone/Neutron can save a lot of time and frustration as you're training your ears.
Not buying a lot of unnecessary plugins is a good tip, but remember that most of the time you find which plugins become your go-to plugins by trying out loads of different ones. I think every producer or musician is at least a little bit "guilty" of this, and while you can look back at it later and go "Oh man, that was money I'll never see again" I think you sometimes need those plugins to find out that you in fact don't need them, and to find which ones you do. If that makes any sense. I hope you know what I mean.
Thanks rob you’ve put up a great resource for us all
Look forward to your posts
Glad to help!
I made the exact same mistake with parametric. I downloaded a few analog style EQs from Waves on a trial basis (their API and Pultec styles) and found the benefits of these plugins.
The low mid band on the Pultec sounds great on my voice, and the API's upper midrange band is perfect for electric guitars.
Thank you for this! Super cool video! A+++
About the 2nd mistake, I'm able to recognize frequencies, have an idea, how 2 kHz sounds, how 500 Hz sounds etc. and know, when the bass guitar wants the typical Rock sound, I boost 500 Hz, for Reggae I cut it and boosting 2 kHz can help the piano (when the band isn't too narrow) or if the piano kills the vocals, I cut the mid range.
solid video dude! subbed
One of the best tutorials I have seen on eq! Thanks
Glad to help!
Great tutorials. My grain of newbie wisdom: EQ fast and instinctively. Think about the whys after you discover that it sounds good. Because so many variables are there, trying to learn hard and fast rules from the outset is a failing gambit...
Great channel. I love your insights
Before I watched the video: I remember the biggest EQ mistake I made. Band gig, we hadn't enough microphones, I put the microphone for snare and Hi Hat between the lower side of Hi Hat and top of snare. I bossted treble, for snare drum hasn't enough treble and gotn't the wanted effect, Hi Hat became too sizzling. I remembered, that if something sounds wrong, it could also help to cut frequencies. So I tried to cut lower frequencies - and the sound was fine, as would I have used two different microphones.
I heard, that a frequency range sounds balanced, when it has the same number of octaves above and below 1 kHz. This describes, why AM radio on the small portable sounds acceptable and on HiFi equipment boomy and muffled.
When I dislike the clean sound of a humbucker guitar, I can't add treble or maybe a little by using an exciter or boosting higher frequencies and feed an overdrive, so that the boosted frequencies may be a bit distorted.
But the right way is, to cut low frequencies. Maybe the guitar can do the 4 kHz, these are 2 octaves above 1 kHz, 2 octaves below 1 kHz are 250 Hz, so I set the low cut there or when I want a brighter sound, I set the low cut maybe to 400 Hz.
"Mistake #7" is smart! Thanks so much mate!
Thanks for sharing this video!
Nice video, I would have liked to seen this some years ago. I would have learned a ton from it! I still tend to only use parametric EQs, but I've started adjusting band value sliders with my eyes closed. It helps!
One thing though: there IS a big secret to EQing... the Fletcher-Munson curve. I explain it to new producers quite often and it tends to majorly improve their EQing skills. Even more experienced producers sometimes don't know it. I feel like this should be mentioned more in these types of videos.
Ken S The Fletcher Munson Curve is a graph that illustrates an interesting phenomenon of human hearing. When listening to music through your studio monitors or headphones… As the actual loudness changes, the perceived loudness our brains hear will change at a different rate, depending on the frequency. Thanks for mentioning that, Ken👍🏻
If everything is mistake, what setting is fine ... for sure one that harmonizes with the whole :)
I´m producing for quite a few years now, yet I find your videos informative and very nice to watch! Keep up the good work :*
Thanks!
Nice video, all mistakes meet in one point so there could be only one advice - THINK AND LISTEN! :D
BTW man, what monitors do you have? You turn down so much upper mids/presence that it sounds really weird. I love how the record sounds at it's own, the only thing i'd eq is the snare and vocal. Plus add some compression to vocals and mix buss and the record is done :)
TarquamProduction I use headphones to avoid bleed into the mic, I'll have to check that out!
I'm no expert and only been mixing for a couple of years but personally I find it much easier and makes more sense to me to cut nasty frequencies in solo, but boost with the whole track running.
Solo can be good for getting rid of "objective" problems like room nodes or some weird resonances.
You're breathtaking !
Such a great video!!! You’re wonderful.
dope dope dope work and tutorial. thank youu
God bless these internet teachers
Thanks! As usually it was very useful and enjoyable!!
Awesome!
Know how your EQs work.
Are they 'circuit modeled' EQs? How good is the implementation? Are they component modeled, or do they just have some saturation (and/or perhaps noise) added (common with many Waves plugins)?
Do they have some kind of analog phase matching? Do they employ an algorithm to keep the high frequencies from hitting 0 dB at the nyquist frequency (sometimes called 'decramping' or 'decramped')? If so, does the phase & group delay also match an analog EQ? (Fabfilter Pro Q has some group delay anomalies near nyquist; DMG's Equilibrium, Slick EQ & bx_digital V3 all behave well near nyquist). Do they employ oversampling to avoid warping in the high end? If so, do they have a nyquist filter on the output? If so, does it radically cut the high frequencies (which defeats the purpose of oversampling EQs)?
Some saturation (hair) might be the ticket to bring a track out without over EQing. Try the UAD Pultec, Manley Voxbox, Neve 1073, API 550 or 560; the Plugin Alliance Lindell TE-100; the Wavesfactory Spectre; they all have unique harmonic structures to bring a track to life. The UAD SSL Channel Strip is also a tone gem. The Voxengo Harmonieq is interesting for it's subtle harmonic enhancement and its smooth curves up to nyquist).
An excellent 'clean' EQ for cuts along with an excellent circuit modeled EQ for boosts will usually do what you need; the added harmonics from the boost on a well designed circuit modeled EQ will often help avoid over-EQing, since the added subtle saturation brings out the boosted frequencies. The DMG Equilibrium for cuts along with one of the 'saturation' Eqs listed above might get you in the ballpark without overdoing the EQ boosts.
Sometimes, a compressor might be a better option (the UAD 1176 collection, the UAD La2a series and the UAD Distressor are all excellent, along with numerous other compressor plugins; the Distressor has the added advantage of a mix knob and controllable harmonics); in other situations, a multiband compressor or dynamic EQ might be just right (try the Oxford Dynamic EQ, the DSM V3 from Plugin Alliance or the Waves F6 RTA dynamic EQ).
If your mix sounds too 2 dimensional, try some of the TMT plugins from Plugin Alliance (the SLL & Neve Channel strips are nice, and the SPL Iron is a gem).
If none of the above works but you know you have an EQ problem, try a linear phase EQ (DMG Equilibrium, Fabfilter Pro Q, MAAT Orange or Red if you can afford one - I prefer the Red, but they haven't ported the old Algorithmix Red yet - the PSP Xeon or the DDMF LP10 V3 will work if your budget is tight).
If you recorded through a plain jane converter, a tape emu might bring some spark to your mix; the UAD Studer, Oxide and Ampex are gems, as is the Softube Tape plugin); or perhaps a tube or hybrid 'box, like the UAD Culture Vulture, the Plugin Alliance VSM-3, the Phil's Cascade, SPL Iron or TwinTube, Black Box Analog Design HG-2 or the Soundtoys Decapitator.
Recently I've discovered the only way I can achieve loudness that competes on Sound Cloud is to employ Pretty fierce EQing on the master bus especially around 2 to 5k. You can only go so far with your limiter before there's pretty obvious issues even to the untrained ear.
Thanks a lot for this amazing tutorial
Our pleasure!
I read in a good mixing book some years ago (the title escapes me) that it is better not to sweep while trying to find the target frequency but rather mute, choose a frequency, boost or cut, unmute, evaluate then repeat until you have it. Not as quick but is supposed to be easier to hear the best frequency. I think this probably works best for cosmetic EQ. What you were doing to find room resonances makes sense and is how I would find them too - unless I leave it to Neutron my new mixing sidekick ;)
I know you refer it to "Mixing with Your Mind" book from Mike Paul Stavrou. He insists the readers to not sweep and do as you say.
Yes readdict88 that's the book. Thanks for reminding me of the title.
I like the fact that the song is actually good!
big facts! Subscribed
Tnx 4 Ur effort and care Rob