Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2024
- ▶︎▶︎ Free 5-Step Mix Guide: www.5StepMix.com
*****
CONNECT WITH ME:
Instagram: / joegilder
Facebook: / joegildermusic
Twitter: / joegildermusic
Home Studio Corner: www.homestudiocorner.com
Music: www.joegildermusic.com
#Mixing #HomeStudioCorner
Here's followup podcast episode on what words like BOOMY, HARSH, and MUDDY mean: www.homestudiocorner.com/episode-250/
Can you mix and master my song
That part begin at 19:50 of the podcast after the musicianship question.
@@OnTheLeftHandSide thanks
I love your videos, man. Thank you!!! I'll try to remember to check the website with 5 steps to mix.
@@emmabmusic if your in Nigeria I can do a great mixing.
Boomy, Muddy, Boxy, Harsh and Strident. You’re missing two more dwarves. 😂😂
Scratchy and Whiney!
I get a strong sense that no one really knows what those words mean.
@@cisium1184 i have my 2 cents on those
boomy: a lot in the bass department without the high end to balance it out
muddy: can be read multiple ways, but i would go for: "long sustains bleeding into one another" first and foremost
for EQ in particular would say "not giving each instrument their own frequency pocket to live in, which results in fighting for attention"
but general lack of dynamics and/or attack curves could be considered muddy too i guess
and since attack usually comes in the higher frequencies (at least higher than the fundamental usually), making things boomy is a recipe for making them sound muddy
boxy: a small cabinet/room which makes sounds extremely dry and small, also kills off sympathetic resonance and the such
harsh: very tiring to the ears high pitches, generally with a very strong attack.
strident: never heard of the use of the word before, i wouldn't know
(i just found out it kind of means harsh aswell lol)
Clippy
Mike Roberti *dwarves
Rule 2 is genius simple explanation and "Hooting" is exactly the right word/sound
Indeed
Finally, a proper video about EQ that actually teaches you the logic behind things, not just tells you what to do!
Many thanks Joe, looking forward to your next video. :)
Great video...finally understood how eq works and what is the aim...Can u also do a video that explains which instruments typically falls in which freq...
My first day as a trainee sound tech at my local venue the guy training me said something that stuck with me forever "EQ is really simple, usually you want boost something in its weak range and cut it in its peak range" whenever something sounds off, thats my goto solution.
@@gauravpandey2037 a lot of instruments fall across multiple ranges. Drums run the entire thing, kick on the low to cymbals on the highs.
Guitars cross 2 or 3 ranges, depending on the type of guitar, the style being played, lead or rhythm etc.
Pianos run the entire range.
Really whats more important is worry less about what instruments fall where and rather focus on the actual music being played. I have guitar solos that only use the high notes and if you are eqing that, you are going to do it differently than a guitar part that is moving up and down the fret board a lot.
@@kaigreen5641 so I am someone who has just started getting into the production world...I play guitar but when composing on my own for arrangement point of view my mix dont sound that good.....some instrument is always overpowering others...So I want to understand how to use EQ on different instruments to make the overall mix sounds good...
Pushing 70, life long live performing musician, thousands of gigs, big and small... many gigs were loud, and frequent enough to cause damage... the joys of being an exuberant youth.
I have tinitus, a constant couple of notes at between 4 to 5k are always there... it isn't debilitating, and actually, it comes in handy when mixing, as a reference... but I'd rather not have it...
I recently had my hearing checked... my upper end drops off after 6k, It is difficult to hear the car's turn signal clicking when driving... so... I'm one of those old guys with the blinker on, going down the interstate...
Music is still amazing to me, the learning process NEVER ends, and music is always challenging... we musicians are eternal students until we die... If you aren't learning, you're probably dead...
Since the live scene for me is waning, its time for me to learn studio... I've rarely recorded... it's time... gathering gear, learning.
Recently, I've been given a studio comission... humble beginnings, and a trial by fire... the pay offered is good... maybe when I finish the project, I can afford hearing aids....
I used to have hearing aids, but lost one... and since they work in pairs, the remaining one is useless. I really miss them for playing music.... the hearing aids I want cost $6k+... I tried them out, it was like the whole world opened up... wow!
I've still so much music to do, record, play out, jam...
Thanks for your labels of EQ. I'll add them to mine...
Peace
Keep it up, Thomas! Hope you're having a blast doing what you love!
0:35 1) balance the frequencies - if there’s a bump of frequencies, its going to sound muddy ; use eq curve to balance
2:30 2) five frequency ranges
4:15 50 Hz - deep low end ; good = punch, kickdrum hits you in chest, bass drum is huge and full, deep low end; bad = boomy “you find that low boost and maybe on your tiny speakers it sounds good but on real speakers it sounds boomy.”
4:53 100 Hz - ~100-200 as high as 300 and 400 Hz; ian shepherd calls the hooting frequencies ; good = warm ; bad = muddy ; i do a lot of work in this range, taking frequencies down that sound muddy.
5:44 500 Hz - ~300-800 every instrument, including vocals, occupies these, so you tend to have a lot of buildup here ; good = full (whereas warmth has to do with lowend, fullness has to do with how big); bad = boxy (like recorded in a hard room); oftentimes with room mics recorded in home studios, i’ll make a big cut in the 400-500 range
6:45 1000 Hz 1000-3000 high-mid frequencies ; good = clarity / nasal ; bad = harsh
7:30 10000 Hz good = crisp airiness ; bad = strident, "ice-pick" ; people with hearing loss tend to have brighter mixes because boosting highs so much but for the rest of listeners its too much
8:13 3) Think like a sculptor - you remove a large chunk of the marble ; do cuts (-) before boosts (+) ; remove the offending frequencies
GOAT
🕶
Annie you are ok, you are ok, you are ok Annieeeeee
Thaaaaaanks🙏💕
Thanks for this
This is insanely helpful. Thank you.
noi
I'm actually trying to teach other, non technical folks about EQ during streaming. But them self-tuning the EQ for their voice will be hard
Thank you for this breakdown, very helpful
It's a legend talking to another legend woah
Morsomt å se deg her 😅 Lykke til med vidunder maskinen 🤩
Ah, my favorite musicianeer finding similar resources. I feel I'm on the right path lol
marble machine
Joe is a truly gifted communicator. This is one of the clearest explanations of EQ I've ever heard. Actually, it's one of the clearest explanations of ANYTHING I've ever heard. Kudos!
Balance. “EQ” stands for Equalisation.
you have to equalize to achieve balance.
@@Radical_Middle He should know that
"Equalization"
@@ramboooo23 it depends UK/USA English have different spelling
@@spanellaful I think they spell taxez with a z now, but I could be wrong.
Joe's voice has a lot of "punch" and "warmth"
“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
this quote surpasses the video ;)
Greatest mixing quote ever!
Woow
My ex used to say that I have "teflon brain" where nothing would stick. I do find learning theory much harder than the hands-on approach. Consequently, some teaching/instructional videos just go right over me and I go glassy-eyed and frustrated at my own inability to grasp what is said. However, this video is perfect for ppl like me and I ACTUALLY know more for having watched it. Cleverly simple yet usefully informative. I also liked the paper discards keeping a light approach. I'm a musician not an engineer so videos like this really help. Much appreciated.
Bro, I'm an old, OLD, cat who, with and without a band, has been sitting in corners of tiny venues, with bad wiring, throughout my career! I am not well-schooled in this recording stuff, in which I find myself immersed as of late (bought a little interface and Cubase Pro). EQing live is one thing! Your video has explained the basics of the "recording" side of EQing in a manner that even I can grasp!!! THANK YOU!!!!
You gave us a major rule that you didn’t call a rule: “Don’t go off the visuals, go off what you hear.”
Excellent. Those characterizations of the ranges are great. In terms of cutting, I guess that’s why some companies used to make cut only eq’s.
The only wording suggestion I’d give you, and it would just save you about a minute, is to tell us that the frequencies you’re suggesting in those ranges are center frequencies.
koshersalaami And listen to the "Room" not just your headphones.
Visuals can be useful. It's hard to have decent bass monitoring in an ameteur studio, so maybe checking bass visually is a good idea! Or those air frequencies, like will it sound good until it sounds dull when compared with other tracks? Look at how the highs roll off on a graph then. But no 'mixing' but checking visually of course.
i thought eq was going to be such a complex thing to learn like calculus, but this video helped me realize how simple it was
You rock, Joe. Thanks!
That third rule is key. It's the biggest thing that has made me a better producer and engineer is both understanding what I want the outcome to be and how to make it happen both in the music creation and then in the engineering phase as the one doing the mixing and mastering in my own studio. To add to that as the current top comment says you say things in such a way that is so easy for people to understand and I'd add to that you do it in a way that is valuable for not only new musicians and engineers to understand but for people who have been in the game and are looking for that new piece or that new little trick. Love your stuff man and keep doing what you do
I really could’ve used this 20 years ago when I started home recording. Still helpful now!
Thanks Joe you rock man!
ABSOLUTE GOLD THANK YOU
Liked the visual of this - made it entertaining and fun to watch!
“Take this piece of marble and turn it into a dinosaur”...
For $200: “What is things never said in music production Alex”
Ronnie Parfait I dig it. Although I’ve never heard Making a Dino from Marble, we joke that our engineer can certainly make Chicken Salad out chicken sh!*. I was told that good photography isn’t taking the right picture but rather taking a whole bunch of pics and knowing which ones to throw away. Taking a wall of sound and crafting it into the vision of the artist IS an art in itself. I’ve tried mixing my own work to moderate success but conceded to let a professional do anything I want publicly distributed. (Still... I can’t help watching these videos and think I’m going to get better Chicken Salad in my home studio 🤣)
steelman774 HAHAHHAHA
ok boomer
Have never found a clearer EQ video
Thank you, Joe!
Going over the "good and bad" of the 5 frequency ranges was very useful. Thank you!
Hi there! First time on your channel and I must say: this one of the most clear, no-BS, audio instructional videos I've seen here on UA-cam. I'll check out your other videos! Cheers
Thank you Joe!
Brilliant! Thank you Joe!
Hoping all is well with Joe and Pam. Take care Joe!
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR!
THANK YOU!
I have not much experience with EQ and i tried a lot and looked for many explainations. But none of them was so perfect for me like yours!
Sorry for my grammar. I´m from germany if something is written wrong. I
thank you Joe
I've been looking for this for years
In 10 mins you taught me more than what i learnt in 1 semester of audio editing lesson from my school which cost me $1400.
LOL I agree, awesome teaching!
Now i just want a shirt that says "Boosting is the devil"
Jake Below
Me too!
well it is... and the shirt needs to be made.
As long as the back says "And the Devil is Your Best Friend"
MixDOWNNN
The Waterboy
Love. This. So. Much.
I'm gettin' very cosy vibes from this video, makes it really comfortable to watch.
Damn!,..this has just confirmed what I always believed when it comes to mix down and individual track EQ!
Damn spot on to get a better result from your recordings!!
He gets it right here folks👍🏾,..and it’s also a nice guideline to use when setting up your instrument tone 🎶🎸for a live performance!!☝🏾
To each their own tastes but basically you can’t go that wrong with this info!!...So,..give it a try!!..🌍children!!..and see how you’ll smile when your 👂🏾👂👂🏽ears get a listen!!
Your tracks will SHINE!..☀️😃
🎶🎈🎉👏🏾
A lot of this came naturally to me after a while, for me at least. Beautifully explains what I'm hearing and very spot on. Nice way to present what I'm hearing.
What I found beneficial here was the separation and categorization of the Frequency ranges. I'm sure that with some practice, I'll be able to spot troublesome ranges a lot easier in the future. Thank you so much for this, saved it for later reference.
Clear as glass, thank u so much!
You are amazing! Thank you!
+1 for using that bizarre pencil. I found one in my desk at my new office job and honestly, I dunno, something about it, I enjoy those weird little things.
Joe this video was INCREDIBLY helpful. It really took my understanding of EQ and multiplied it. I also love the camera angle and illustrations man, this video spoke to me. Thank you!
Did it multiply your understanding? Or did it "boost" it? :)
Thank you Joe.
Absolutely Awesome!!! Thank you!
As a Sound Arts major, I thought this was very digestible. Cool breakdown on EQ!
You forgot a gold one:
Cut narrow, boost wide.
i know this is considered good practice but could you explain why it is?
@@emilyschmanks I have always understood this to be with relation between a parametric eq and a graphic eq. With a parametric you are selecting a range of frequencies and with a graphic you are honing in on a tighter more specific range. Boost the wide (para) as that will help all of the frequencies in the specified range, but then cut in the narrow (graphic) as then you can pin-point which specific frequencies are causing the most trouble. I hope this helps
@@tonytygielski3703 that's an excellent explanation, thank you!
@@tonytygielski3703 I don't get this logic. If you boost wide when you only need some of those frequencies you'll have to make a bunch of narrow cuts afterwards to compensate for it. I think the only reason for this rule is that it helps keep live instruments natural sounding to not make narrow boosts. But for anyone who is working with sounds that aren't all live recorded or not trying to work in a traditional live genre mold, this is bad advice. You don't always need guitars in a pop or EDM song to sound "natural", often you just want to fit them into a busy mix.
If you have to boost anything you are probably not compensating for the room first. Be very careful when using boost for that way lays distortion.
Just what I needed, thanks for posting.
You're the man !!! Thank you thank you thank you
The EQ of your voice is soo good I wish I could see the Waves on the screen D:
Hi Joe. At first I though, oh no, just another awkward "rules"-advice video. But I was positively surprised and liked the content as well as the presentation. I took something with me out of it. Thank you. Take care, stay safe and sound.
Joe Gilder, You Rock
Much respect for this. Thanks
Hi, this video showed up in my recommended and I learned a lot from it. I’m a videographer and I never really mess with EQ in editing but this video gave me a few ideas for fixing my audio. I’m going to try to fix some muddy voice audio I recorded recently. Thank you.
Dude this is a game changer!
Thanks. Share it around!
Thanks a lot Joe! 👍
I’m getting into producing my own music and this video has helped me understand EQ so much better. I’m so grateful that you made this video!
Is he talking about using eq for mastering or for mixing? It seems like he's talking about mastering. I say this because when mixing instruments or vocals, you usually want to get each instrument to sit in the mix so it can be heard without popping out. That sometimes requires the individual track to sound strange when soloed. The eq of each track is dependent on the other tracks.
I agree
He's definitely still talking about mixing, he's just referring to balancing the overall mix (of the main output), rather than individual instruments. Mastering usually involves extremely small EQ changes because it should already be well balanced in the mixing process. Mixing is not only to make sure each instrument/track is heard, but to make sure the whole frequency range is balanced and to position each track on the stereo spectrum (which can also affect the balance of frequencies on the main output).
Lol, that instantly occurred to me as well!
Well, its the same.
You should be thinking about EQing in terms of the whole as well as the part.
EQing isnt the primary job of mastering- either they fix what the mix eng failed to do, or its like an enhancement, or correction to limiters removing certain things. Ideal is mastering engineer would just use a limiter to make the volume standard then go home. But things arent ideal, and its evolved a lot more especially since ameteur mixers send them imperfect mixes.
I’m glad I came across this and the compression rules. I’ll defiantly watch more of your videos!
God bless you !
Must be 50 years ago, when I could detect 20k
You may not hear it but you will miss the fullness of sound. No matter what anyone tries to tell you Harmonics go down as well as up frequency. When two frequencies interact you get the Sum and the Difference all the way down and up. I am a Sonar and Physics of Sound guy who has over 50 years of experience. This effect is measurable.
Im 35 and still hear up to 20k luckily. But honestly, whenever I hear speakers that are prominent above 15 16khz I cant stand to listen to them long. I prefer a roll off at the high end so those super high frequencies are still there but really really quiet.
@@richb313 when you say a sum and a difference between two frequencies are you referring to constructive and destructive interference?
I can generate some sounds played at high frequencies, amp them, distort them, play them through some speakers, record it reflected back from a room, and plop it into a spectrum analyzer, you're not going to have significant sub harmonics from that, I've been doing it a ton lately to learn about room resonance and the air transfer function - though depending on the room you may see inharmonic frequencies coming back. another thing you might see is higher frequencies resonating with your ears frequency detectors to some degree, I'm not totally sure about the exact physics of that but I'm somewhat skeptical that lower frequency range detectors in your cochlea are going to be activated by high frequencies. can you say more about what you've seen generate subharmonics from high frequencies?
It's called psychoacoustics, you don't need to hear it but it will change the whole mix.
If you find yourself boosting frequencies, turn down the overall volume to flatten the EQ curve. That would cut down on everything else that you didn't boost.
Hristo Hristov thank you
Life changing! Feels like that satisfying click of the perfect Lego piece fitting into place. Thank you, good sir!
Most comprehensive video on mixing I’ve seen! Thanks
I've just started mastering some of my "music"😂 and I'll tell you what it is super confusing and I've looked around for advice and couldn't find and suitable info and then the UA-cam gods brought me back to your channel. I really appreciate the help man and love the content keep up the nice work!!
From: @linxus2020
Ive been " producing " for almost 20 years and my music sounds so....flat in comparison to commercial tracks. I still adore to produce once in a while and meddle with music, but yeah, unless you study and practice a LOT or have communication with other musicians and engineers ( of which i have ZERO, nothing, ive been completely isolated in this sense since day 1 ) you wont get that far.
clyp.it/4mjzzrmd
I did this track like 1 month ago. I can´t get it to sound how id like.
@@positronikiss i have far less experience than you, but my guess is either your drum levels are a bit high or there could be a little extra compression to bring up the other elements - feels like some elements aren't as prominent as others if you know what i mean? cool progression though.
only other thing i could think of would be to maybe find a reference track that has a similar instrumentation / genre to your track, and compare the frequencies and levels of the various elements between them.
(just my opinion though, and i could missing the mark you're aiming for.)
@@WiresDawson Thank you kindly for your input and I believe it's very valuable feedback. Will take it into serious consideration. Best wishes Wires!
“Warm” is such a difficult description since it for some people means less high end frequencies, and for some apparently means the “good” 100 hz sound.
Tricky to find another word but personally I never use it because of the lack of precision : )
I watched an Andrew Scheps video interview somewhere where he said a band once asked him to make the vocal 'warmer'. He did so, they said it was now muddy. Turned out they wanted reverb.
Chris Norris
lol exactly
Awesome thank you Joe!
Love you sir
I like your discussion of rule #2. But your "bad" row always referred to too much energy in that frequency range. What about when there's too little-what adjectives would you use then? I think this table deserves 3 rows (like the 3 bears!): too much/just right/not enough. -Tom
Too little of one is too much of the other...so its just all the "too much" of the other freqs.
Thats important, so if you eliminated too much "harshness" its now "muddy and boxy" then rather than cut low mids, why dont you dial back the high-cut used to eliminate harshness.
Good tips: Less is more when it comes to frequency balance.
This is truly awesome. Insanely helpful!
thank you for explaining this in detail and visuals and not by being showed an EQ in a DAW like every other damn video on youtube
Why your voice sounds like James Hetfield's.
He even has the pronunciation down lol. I can't unhear it now.
@@ThatOtherRaccoon Dude, what have you done?? All I hear is James Hetfield now. xD
He was James Hetfield's vocal coach. Duh. Noobs....
James Hetfield: "I am the table".
We can hear him, but what you didn't notice, - we can also see him.
Cause the EQ is perfect.
As Mr Burns would say..”excellent”
Brilliant Joe - what lovely perspective 👍🏼
Great teacher !! Thanks so much .
Of course radio just adds their brickwall compression and destroys everything you just talked about 🤣
I know this is done by ear, but when you say 'big cut' how many decibels are we talking roughly? To me, I swear sometimes the tiny changes engineers do don't change anything... until I hear the overall thing and I get blown away by the difference 😂 Also thanks for this, making much more sense to me now!
I think you've answered you own question there! There's a million ways a track can be recorded and mixed and that's why the "rules" should be used as guidelines. "Boost the 1K range for clarity" but like he said that could be 1kHz to 3kHz and you have to listen to the whole mix to find out. Cutting less is more. The different between and -1dB and -1.3dB reduction could make a huge difference. Each track has a personality, you just have to find it. Being a recording engineer can take years to get to a proficient level so the more you mix the better you get :D
RR19996 in my opinion. Take 500 hz and 4500 hz with the smallest Q and about -6 to -12 bro ong😭
I usually up or down by 3 db for reference, its a good starting point and later you can do more for a clearer change
Thanks for the help guys, much appreciated!
Joe , thanks for this super concise mini masterclass. Wonderful.
Crystal clear, many thanks for this great video!
thought this was another THIS ONE SIMPLE TRICK YOUVE BEEN DOING WRONG ALL YOUR LIFE LEARN MIX SECRETS SOUND LIKE GRAMMY ONE SIMPLE TRICK video but i'm glad i clicked on it, i was already vaguely aware of these principles but the way you explained them made something really click. thank you
For real
Everyone has different hearing and as a person ages the natural ability to hear higher frequencies disappears ... as proof I'm sure most people have heard of the classic "V" after EQs became popular in home HiFi... to me that's proof that most have different tastes in what that individual perceives as really good sound
Ah yes - the old "Disco Smile" as it was known :)
Yanni...Laurel...yanni...laurel. Honestly thought, what's a V? A scooped EQ? I'm net to this stuff.
"If you want something to sound better, but similar, you cut. If you want something to sound different, you boost. Very General, but mostly true. Great Video!!!
thanks Joe!🙏
Your handwriting is a lot like my dads and he’s the smartest man I’ve ever met so I subbed...also very good info
solid logic
I'm pretty sure I have hearing loss and I find a lot of mixes too bright/harsh and too bassy.
try dropping down in the 1-4k range a couple db that usually smooths it out.
Robbie maybe im wrong but I think if you had hearing loss the high frequencies would go first. Everything would sound dull. I think what youre experiencing is crappy speakers. Most speakers these days even studio monitors are boosted at the lows and highs. Its really annoying because its obvious theyre just worried about the initial audition so they can sell them faster. All the best speakers Ive heard and owned always sounded dull and boring when I first heard them.
Love your explanation, Thanks Joe
Thank you so much! This is sooo helpful!
It sounds like EQ is a repair tool.
Why do so many recordings need to be repaired?
I would imagine that studios should know how to position singers and instruments, such that the microphones record realistic sound that needs no repairing.
Every piece of gear adds its own character, its own coloration, its own distortion to the once pure signal, and the effect is cumulative.
Even if the EQ box were left 100% neutral, the act of running the signal through that box would degrade the signal.
The extra interconnects going in and out of the EQ box is best avoided, and the EQ box is an "active" processor, and that type of processor should be avoided whenever possible.
If the EQ box could be deleted from the signal path, then the purity of the voices and the instruments would be less degraded.
So when a drummer is drumming, and she is recorded,
and when a trumpet player is blowing his notes, and he is recorded,
and when a singer is sharing her exquisite voice, and she is recorded, etc...
...what goes wrong with those stems that then requires them to be processed via an EQ box?
The vast majority of songs have between poor to mediocre sound quality. Perhaps 10% sound very good, and only 2% sound fantastic.
Labels release remaster after remaster after remaster, and they usually sound worse than the original release.
The same exact hit song is usually available on its original release, greatest hits, best of, anthology, and numerous compilations -- and more often than not, they all sound different.
By different, I mean it is the exact same song in every way, but they just all sound like they were processed differently, and most (sometimes all) are not good.
This is why I am questioning whether or not the level of mixing that takes place is necessary?
I would rather hear the performers, and not hear the after-the-fact engineering equipment.
Cheers!
ERROR. Eq is the way to make every instrument not fighting with the others.
Nothing goes wrong. You don't know what tracks you are going to use and you might collect all kinds of takes with various mics, amps and what have you. Unless you are irrelevant you are going to want to try new things as you make music and who knows what can happen.
There are good mixers and bad mixers, but to question the level of mixing that takes place doesn't compute.
As previously stated, EQ on the one hand is, as you say, to _repair_ sound (which could of course be done with the mics, too, but you don't know how things are going to sound when coming out of speakers together, you know? And you have to adjust pan and all that anyways... the "repair" is there to compensate what was lost when going from being in a room with the musicians to hearing it after it was recorded and converted to just data), but it's also there to make things go together well. When you simply record a drum set and a bass and put those signals over one another maybe the bd will always knock down the bassline because they share frequencies, and that will just sound shit. Now you can either cut out certain frequencies of both so they have their own ranges or seperate them via panning the bass a little or something like that, same for other instruments. That's something that maybe wouldn't be a problem live but definitely is when recorded.
I appreciate the replies. I know that they come from people that honestly believe that EQ makes music sound better. But their replies reinforce my contention that EQ mostly ruins the realism with sound quality.
Instruments fighting with each other?:
Then pick different instruments, or change their placement on the stage, etc. But why use instruments that sound bad together, with the idea of making it less bad with a mixing board?
You don't know what tracks you are going to use?:
What does that have to do with EQ?
Use a mixing board to combine whichever tracks sound best. But why send any of that through an equalizer?
Cutting out certain frequencies?
There is no way to do so without affecting the surrounding sound.
If you record your voice, then that recording is as good as it can be. When played back through quality, neutral equipment, it should sound exactly like your voice, because it is your voice, captured and preserved without alteration. If you then apply EQ to that recording of your voice, then it will no longer be an accurate representation of your voice. When played side-by-side with the original, it will sound colored and degraded.
The replies to my original comment explains why so many top hit songs sound wrong; sound crushed; contrived. What gets released to the world is the sound of the gear, not the sound of the talented artists. Like having the best food ingredients and a master chef, and then someone adds ketchup and salt to everything before serving the meal to the customer. Of course the chef's creation will end up getting buried in the mix, under a pile of additives.
This is why labels such as AIX, 2L, MA Recordings, Reference Recordings, Water Lilly, Chesky, and others having policies against EQ and all other superfluous processing and anything that will harm the pristine sound on the master tapes. And their recordings sound glorious.
@@NoEgg4u It kinda depends on the type of music. If you are talking about acoustic genres then i guess there's nothing wrong with you wanting as close to the real timbre of each instrument as possible. I would argue that there isn't an objective ideal to the setup (the acoustics of the room and particulars of each instrument and play style) of a live performance or studio recording. Enjoyment of music, especially on the level of timbre, is a very personal thing.
Ok with the chef analogy, sometimes a meal needs more salt, salt isn't always bad and neither is EQ. On top of that EQ is not additive, you can't EQ in a frequency that isn't there, so unless the chef is already using ketchup it's kinda a weak analogy.
A musician will not usually know exactly what their signal sounds like, as the acoustic sound will interfere with playback (and noise cancelling headphones will impart their own colour on the sound, quite different to a hifi system) so if they were a chef, they would be one with quite a stunted sense of taste. An audio engineer might have a more advanced understanding of timbre than the musician and in that case the 'meal' might be undersalted. I'm pretty sure a kitchen doesn't just have one chef per meal doing everything, one chef might make the stock, another chops and another fries, each imparting small variations on the final taste. There might be a master chef in the kitchen, but if anything he would be the one tasting the work of less experienced chefs at the end once the cooking (performance) is done and adding the salt/pepper (EQ). Similarly I would argue that a master musician may not have as good an understanding of timbre as a mixing engineer, whose job it is to colour a mix. Neither is totally in control of the final product, as in most kitchens, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worse or that the artistic vision of the musician has been betrayed.
If you are talking generally and not specifically about acoustic genres then i hate to break it to you, but lot of guitarist use pedals to make their signal sound 'better'. Even if they play clean, it's unlikely they will have the tone pot on full at the bridge pickup (which picks up the most harmonics) if they use a single coil because pure, unfiltered sound isn't always good sound. And as soon as you have hum cancelling (either from joint single coils or a humbucker) the signal is not longer as true to the string's vibrations and from your standpoint is not longer 'pristine'. Most variations and settings of electric instruments could be argued to count as 'degraded'. The line between good realistic signal and degraded bad signal is kinda arbitrary to me at that point, and EQ is just another variation that has the capacity to improve or worsen the final signal. Someones whose job it is to mess with the tone of a mix is probably as good at messing with tone as a musician is (Mayer can take at least some responsible for how good Hendrix sounds, even though by making pedals all he did by your metrics was 'bury it in a pile of additives').
EQ is good when used well and bad when used poorly, like any effect, like any component of musical expression.
Not even one eco-terroristic comment over the waste of paper? What happend to you internet?
@Flat Eric I haven't been eating for three days to reduce my carbon footprint.
I guess its recycled paper
I was about to comment about that, sych a waste wth
Collateral damage :)
sensing some serious boomer energy here
Fantastic breakdown of the frequencies, completely opened my eyes about eq and balance in my mixes - thank you!!!
MMM over the 10.000 videos of EQ ive ever watched this might just be the most helpful one. You just earned a new subscriber! Thanks for the video
Rule of EQ №4: There is no rules (if it sounds good).
Very clear and concise summary. Well done as always Joe!
This is stuff that I was mostly familiar with, however your graphics and explanations helped me to further explore my knowledge EQ's and I genuinely appreciate what you do on this channel.
Bloody great video - thanks Joe.
This is definitely one of the more valuable explanations that I've seen on EQ. Great stuff.
You’re a hero
Thanks Joe, Great minds agree with your "Cut, more than Boost".
Love the lesson - and the pencil & paper.
Thank you so much for this!! Love how simply you explain things!