TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- another EQ question
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

another EQ question

hey guys . i was wondering how much low frequency needs to be cut from a synth to make a mix sound good?. heres an example. i have an arrpegeo that is EQed on 0db and declinesfrom 1.2KHz down -16db to about 312Hz. i generaly do something similar with most synths. the lowest i can go with 1 EQ is -18db. should i go that far to leave as much possible room for the kick and basses?

im getting the feeling that i should cut it lower because if it doesnt negetivly effect the sound of the synth i may as well cut more so i can leave more room for the kick and bass?. this brings me to another question.

what do you guys think about using a low-mid to low freq cutting EQ as a global effect?. i already EQ pretty much everything, but i was thinking to use it lightly as a global on my synths. the reason for this is because its kinda tough to get the exact form of EQ i want from the MClass EQ in Reason.

so many what im curios of is how much of the low and of a synth should be taken off?. im guessing that as much as you can while keeping the synth sound desirable.

please tell me if i have the right idea here , or if im way off.

thanks

Generally speaking anything that is not your kick or bass should be EQed on the lower end anywhere from 50 to 200 range depending on your sample (sometimes more).

sometimes working with already made samples you could get away with "not EQing" but in 95% of the cases you should still take some of lower end out to give more room..

you'll get the hang of it after doing it a few times and listening to the overall sound of the track.

P.s. watch the video tutorial that was posted a few days ago. you might have to watch it a few times because the guy has a really bad russian accent. It's defiantly worth to watch though.

yeah i ve seen the video and i learned a fair bit. but what im asking is how much low end should i take out cuz im already cut and average of -16db from the low end on a synth. i think my mixes are sounding pretty good as is but was just curious if i should be cutting as much as possible, or if it even really matter to cut anymore after cutting over -14db from low end? you know what i meen?

also i see in the video that the eq plunges of the screen in the lower end on some cases. should i be doing that to?

quote:

Originally posted by lowski what im asking is how much low end should i take out cuz im already cut and average of -16db from the low end on a synth. i think my mixes are sounding pretty good

My advice to you is to go by ear. its the best way you could learn EQing and pinpoint your problems. everyone have their way of EQing, so no one can really give you an exact digit that works with your synth.

asking people, books and tutorials can only help you so much. experience comes with the good old "trial and error" method.

Yes, the best answer to your question lies in experience. When I started cutting the lows out of my leads, I frequently cut too much out and they sometimes sounded incredibly thin as a result. It took me a little bit of time to know how much to cut in a particular situation.

And there is no "one size fits all" amount of cut. Sometimes I'll use lead synths which have a nice bit of lower mids, which contribute a lot to the character of the sound. It then becomes a decision of, do I cut those frequencies anyway or do I cut away some of the bass elements in that space?

It's a case by case decision.

Best piece of advice i've gotten lately is that, during EQing, don't be concerned so much with how the part sounds by itself, all that matter is how it sounds in the mix. So it may sound like crap by itself, but once all the other elements are there, it fills in that frequency gap and fills out the sound.

That's not to say you should ditch the main character of the sound. If that's IS the case then some tweaking of the synth may be in order. (This has become my newest challenge.)

With this is mind my mixes sound better. Smoother is the word I'd use actually.

I hope I understand your question. Like said here already, try EQing by ear, that's what I do. You generally don't want to go lower than 80hz with your synths, pads, and arps. Start at 10hz as you slowly roll the low end off the synth, keep going up in frequency till you hear the low end drop out of the synth. Now, slowly take it down in frequency until you hear the bass end of the synth. Repeat the process until you find a happy medium for the synth, enough bass end, but not so much that it interferes with the kick.

just play around and cut as much as you can before it has a detrimental affect on the sound of the whole mix. i think its nice when you hear a mix where synths share some space with eachother at the same freqs. i use a high pass on lead synths at about 150hz as a starting point and then adjust depending on the track. and maybe cut as much as 15db sometimes. cutting too much off the low end will make a lead sound thin and weak so i try to do minimal high passing if i can get away with it.

ok thanks for the advice guys what most of you have are explaining im already doing. i just was a bit unclear of weather or not there was a point in a synths freq were it can be cut as much as possible with out effecting the over all sound of the synth in the mix.

i am aware not to cut too much off , as to avoid a thin sound. but i also thinking that once you get below, um i dont know say 80Hz there really isnt anything below that freq area that a mid range synth is really contributing so i figure to cut it?. so on average the shaoe of EQ would look like this. slow rolling down -6db from 600Hz and then ok 80Hz- 60Hz do a highpass filter. these measurements are just off the top of my head, but in a general area. thats also kinda leads me to the other question in this thread.

once im finished my song, would it be safe to use and EQ as a global effect to take off just a little bit more from the mid range and high freq synths?. like maybe at 60Hz-80Hz, take off a few db. im not yet at this piont but i think im gonna give it a try once ive arranger and laid out my current songs.

oh yes one more thing, ive been finding that taking a bit off the highs of a synth can help out the mix to. specificly helping the leads and high end percussion. do you guys notice this as well?

hahah so many questions, i should just have an on going thread to ask questions from start to finish of a song. hahaha

anyway thanks for the advice , much appretiated

how would u completly cut say 200hz??

i high pass but its not a full cut but more of a gradual cut!

quote:

Originally posted by jey how would u completly cut say 200hz?? i high pass but its not a full cut but more of a gradual cut!

yeah its not a complete cut like at a 90 dergree angel but say from 300Hz down to 180-200ish. I can drop it down 18db. This is in the MClass EQ though , i dontknow what others are like. i find im using 2 EQs for most of the lead sounds to get the right shape im looking for though, but the above cut i was just talki9ng about can be done with one Eq.

i usually set up a high pass on everything but my kick and bassline with the rolloff starting at 250hz...i usually cut the rumble out of the entire mix too at around 40-50hz...for hi hats i cut out ALOT more.

if you are having problems with synths clashing try widening one extremely with a stereo imaging plugin...this sounds good especially repetitive and rhythmic synths that really should take a back seat to your leads melodies and chords. great example of this is prydz remix of 1983 with the arp he has widened from beginning to end. sounds great.

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell i usually set up a high pass on everything but my kick and bassline with the rolloff starting at 250hz...i usually cut the rumble out of the entire mix too at around 40-50hz...for hi hats i cut out ALOT more. if you are having problems with synths clashing try widening one extremely with a stereo imaging plugin...this sounds good especially repetitive and rhythmic synths that really should take a back seat to your leads melodies and chords. great example of this is prydz remix of 1983 with the arp he has widened from beginning to end. sounds great.

Thanks, thats good advice but someone in an other thread was telling me about phase distortion? when you start high passing everything at the same frequency. Or do you meen at different frequencies but starting at 250Hz, cuz that im already doing. As for the rumble i always have an MClass mastering suite set to default with the 30Hz cut botton on. As for the stereo imaging i have been playing around with that and found exactly what you just said to do, working out fairly well for me. Although i haven't full grasped the concept of how wind and at what piont in the freq the widening should take place, but im still experamenting

quote:

Originally posted by lowski Thanks, thats good advice but someone in an other thread was telling me about phase distortion? when you start high passing everything at the same frequency. Or do you meen at different frequencies but starting at 250Hz, cuz that im already doing. As for the rumble i always have an MClass mastering suite set to default with the 30Hz cut botton on. As for the stereo imaging i have been playing around with that and found exactly what you just said to do, working out fairly well for me. Although i haven't full grasped the concept of how wind and at what piont in the freq the widening should take place, but im still experamenting

diff frequencies but starting at 250hz

you should just widen the whole sound all together, puts it in a completely different place in the mix from the other synths.

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell diff frequencies but starting at 250hz you should just widen the whole sound all together, puts it in a completely different place in the mix from the other synths.

Ok i understand the first part, about cutting. But with the stereo imaging do you meen widen the whole mix? or a whole sound including the lower freq of it?. As for doing it sound to sound, im gonna guess that the higher the octave the wider the stereo can be?

quote:

Originally posted by lowski Ok i understand the first part, about cutting. But with the stereo imaging do you meen widen the whole mix? or a whole sound including the lower freq of it?. As for doing it sound to sound, im gonna guess that the higher the octave the wider the stereo can be?

i mean to widen 1 certain synth sound that is clashing with another...and yes i mean widen all the frequencies of that one sound, im not sure how you could isolate the widening to just certain frequencies unless im missing something? im not sure how you are relating this to the octaves of the sound...im not sure that has anything to do with imaging?

I take widening to mean stereo placement/imaging. So i can see the confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell i mean to widen 1 certain synth sound that is clashing with another...and yes i mean widen all the frequencies of that one sound, im not sure how you could isolate the widening to just certain frequencies unless im missing something? im not sure how you are relating this to the octaves of the sound...im not sure that has anything to do with imaging?

In reason theres a X-cross over frequency, which you can set where you want the stereo to take place. Theres a lo width dial and a high width dial which you can either set to mono or stereo. Then theres a solo botton that lets you here either the lo band or high band.

As for the octave, I have no solid foundation of why i do this, but it just kinda makes sense to me. I usually always make my back ground sounds wider like airy pads and that sort of thing. I guess it really has nothing to do with octaves your right. But i meen for the back ground sounds, the ones in the mid range i make wider by like 16 and the higher ones i make wider by around 32. I dont know if that really makes sense if you don't use reason.

stereo placement should be a last resort in dance music. your music is played on mono systems

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV stereo placement should be a last resort in dance music. your music is played on mono systems

Stereo placement is NOT a last resort. Nothing is a last resort, really. True, your mix should be able to come across well in mono, but I do most listening at home on a stereo system or wiht headphones. It's noticable when stereo space has been paid close attention to. Don't rely on it to solve a frequency issue, but also don't deny its importance.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV your music is played on mono systems

Your perhaps, but don't generalize.

your professional medium is in a club with mono systems. Stereo imaging doesn't exist. Why would you even bother sacrificing playability so it will sound better on a soundsystem nobody will be using to listen to your music ?

i didn't say don't do it , but it should really be a last resort after methods that are more mono friendly.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV your professional medium is in a club with mono systems. Stereo imaging doesn't exist. Why would you even bother sacrificing playability so it will sound better on a soundsystem nobody will be using to listen to your music ?

Your medium is what you want it to be. I make tracks for the people who listen to them at home with a decent stereo system. If it gets more play on clubs then nothing wrong with that, but that wasn't my main audience.

Making stuff in mono is what is sacrificing imo.

Your audience is as many people as you can get to listen to your tracks. One is in clubs. Others will buy the record and listen at home on their hifi or on the radio. Others will download the mp3 and listen on their computer speakers. Others will listen on headphones on the way to and from work.

If you produce mixes only in mono, it will sound rubbish on everything but a PA stack and radio. When what you really should be doing is mixing in stereo and preserving some degree of mono compatibility so it doesn't fall apart when summed to mono. Its really not that hard.

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis Your medium is what you want it to be. I make tracks for the people who listen to them at home with a decent stereo system. If it gets more play on clubs then nothing wrong with that, but that wasn't my main audience. Making stuff in mono is what is sacrificing imo.

i never said your mix has to be mono. I was simply making a statement how panning things because you don't know how to eq is a bad practice.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.