I know this is a very subjective question, but what is a good starting point for Q on your EQ? I usually start around 2 but am not getting the results I am looking for.
Say I boost the snare 6 dB at 3.5k, with a fairly wide Q. This sounds nice and natural, but the frequencies start running into the top end of the gtrs, if I am boosting them at 6 or 7k. Therefore I am not getting the seperation I want and things become muddy.
With a narrow Q, things don't run into eachother so much, but the individual sounds don't sound as natural.
Hopefully this makes sense. Thanks.
jonyoung Recording Org Pro Audio Forums
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Posts: 777
Location: Nashville, TN
The rule is: There are no rules. You're absolutely correct, it's a very subjective thing. When you say the snare sounds natural with a 6db boost at 3.5k, are you listening to just the snare? The trick (IMHO) to getting things to sit well in a mix is not to dial in a sound on any given track by itself, but to throw up a bunch of tracks flat, and start EQing from there. I used to mix by picking through the tracks and getting what I thought was a good sound on each one, but I typically had the same problems you're facing. Since I started using the "clean slate" technique, my mixes have improved a bunch.Think about how different snares can sound, ie: Bill Bruford's highly tuned ringing sound to the almost kick drum sounding snare on Tom Petty's "Refugee". I'm a bassplayer, and it's not unusual that the EQ I put on bass tracks makes them sound somewhat thin by themselves, but in a mix they're punchy, and combine with other stuff in the low end so they sound full in the mix. As to Q, in general I find myself using a wider Q in the upper mids, tighter in the mids (400-500Hz) on down, tightest at the bottom. Hope any or all of this helps somehow.
It's soooo helpful to get a bunch of different views on things. I think the fact that there are no rules is what keeps me going; seems like there's always a new tip or technique to try.
iznogood Recording Org Pro Audio Forums
Joined: Nov 12, 2001
Posts: 705
Location: Copenhagen ,DK
When I start EQing I start with a wide Q on the mids and shelving on the highs and lows. I always wanted 4 band PEQ. Now I have that on my 01v96, I seldom use narrow Qs.
Narrow Qs can be helpful if there's a disturbing thingy somewhere, so they are usually to correct something. Overall I find that wider Qs sound more natural indeed.
the closest thing I've heard of for a 'rule of thumb' is to use narrower Q when cutting, and broader Q when boosting. These are, of course generalities, but a good basic idea.
_________________ If the band can build a fanbase by urinating in the ears of its audience, they will be successful.
bigtree RO Admin
Joined: Mar 20, 2000
Posts: 4831
Location: BC Canada
I found this site on google, Click Here! and enjoy! I am about to read it myself and it may help you decide what do to when EQing things.
Me personally I dont have a specific thing that I do with each sound and I attack each project differently. One song might sound better when the snare is EQ'd as another song's snare might not need EQ at all. I use the EQ as a carving tool to sort of "cut out" spaces for each sound to sit in.
_________________ I dont have time to
read long posts... Please get to the
point!
Davedog Moderator
Joined: Dec 10, 2001
Posts: 3420
Location: Pacific NW
The only rule I have in mixing is this...If it sounds good solo'd then it probably sucks with the rest of the mix....
Capice?
_________________ da moderAtor....proprietor of drool'n dogg rekords...pope-of-recording, the spitboys church of freedom...everything in moderation including moderation
Massive Mastering Recording Org Pro Audio Forums
Joined: Jul 18, 2004
Posts: 1178
Location: Chicago area, IL, USA
One of many thing I have picked up is never EQ while solo'd, unless you are trying to kill a freq or noise, otherwise it makes no sense...not sure if this helps but it sure helped me when I learned it.
Typically the most natural sounding q setting is 1.
This applies to most real instruments,
However, this is again subjective.
(1 is also known as the magical q) Hocus Pocus
Now, visualize how you'd achieve that SAME curve, if you were using subtractive (cut) EQ instead of boost.
Then, when you've done that, come back in with a VERY slight boost and a VERY narrow Q, just to put the "cherry-on-top" of the snare's "snap".
While you contemplate the fact that all instruments use all the frequencies, and there just is no way to duck them away from each other by frequency carving, let the notion of how different compressor attack/release times affect a track's "poise" in the mix.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
For more information on advertising, investing ,
merging
or any other ideas you may have for this community" Feedback
Pro Audio forums, Pro Audio Dealer, audio reviews and all the moderating here is
volunteer. Please remember no-one is being paid to be here or deliver
hot coffee. Play Fair, be polite, patient and considerate to others. Title your
topics properly and do not slander anyone, ever online. Read this before your post here:Recording
Org Disclaimer
This site can be translated into 13 languages. 錄音工作室幫助下，新聞和信息，數位專業音頻論壇, Opname studio helpen, nieuws en informatie, digitale pro audio forums, Studio d'enregistrement à l'aide de nouvelles et d'information, forums de l'audio numérique pro, Tonstudio helfen, Nachrichten und Informationen, digitale Pro-Audio-Foren, Estudio de grabación ayuda, información y noticias, foros de audio digital profesional. help, pro tools, cubase, nuendo, DAW, AD/DA, microphone, preamp, compressor, equalizer, Music Education, Arranging, Composing, collaboration des musiciens,
professionelle Musiker und Ingenieure,
colaboración de músicos profesionales y los ingenieros lo que pensamos acerca de una banda
Our new beta site is now online for testing The New Recording.org CMS
