Found this little gem in a EQ users manual:

quote:

This type of problem-solving also underscores a key principle of EQ: It’s often better to cut than boost. Boosting uses up headroom; cutting opens up headroom. In the example of solving the classical guitar resonance problem, cutting the peak allowed bringing up the overall gain, which allowed mastering at a much higher level — without using any kind of compression or limiting. (If you do this while recording, you can also record at a higher level.)

The magic of the EQ cut was lost upon my productions for the most part until a one day session with Paul from Marscruiser shed some light on the subject - significantly clearing out some mud in my mixes (and if you've heard any of my stuff, you'd know that I tend to layer up a lot of sounds).

If you haven't gotten to know your parametric EQ, I suggest doing so pronto. Even the ones is Reason are serviceable (preferably the Masterclass EQ though). Play around with it, get to know it. It's your most useful tool - even better than moar sidechain!

___________________
DJMaytag @ Facebook
Tracks on Soundcloud
Paul Van Dyk - Today [DJMaytag's Dreamy Dub Mix]

Lately I've been reading a lot of tutorials/guides about various topics (e.g. CM's Essential Guide to...) and time and time again the literature emphasizes that it's almost always better to cut than boost when EQing.

Maybe your post will help shed some light for those individuals who are mistaken about this fact

From the mixing engineer's handbook - boost to make something sound different, cut to make something sound better. It's a good general guideline, if one sees it as a guideline and not as a rule.

quote:

Originally posted by cenik ...it's almost always better to cut than boost when EQing.

I'm still not convinced that this is true. No doubt that most EQ work done in a mix will be cutting (particularly bass and some mid frequencies) but it's also pretty common to boost the mids/mid-highs in leads, pads, stabs, snares, etc.

It's just a tool - you can use it well or poorly and I tend to be mistrustful of anyone who makes a statement with regard to production that has the word "always" in it.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by derail It's a good general guideline, if one sees it as a guideline and not as a rule.

I'd like to emphasize that as well. This should only be taken as a guideline as there are situations where it is useful to boost, such as bringing out the "sparkle" in the higher frequencies of a good reverb.

However, I almost always use boosting in a "creative EQ" type of a situation rather than a "mixing EQ" one.

I like to cut AND boost....am I a sinner?

___________________
-~-

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm still not convinced that this is true. No doubt that most EQ work done in a mix will be cutting (particularly bass and some mid frequencies) but it's also pretty common to boost the mids/mid-highs in leads, pads, stabs, snares, etc. It's just a tool - you can use it well or poorly and I tend to be mistrustful of anyone who makes a statement with regard to production that has the word "always" in it.

Give it time young padawan, you will learn that this is one of the few blanket statements that's correct.

i don't agree that it's common (amongst well produced tracks anyway) to boost frequencies in all those sounds, especially when those are all in the same frequency range. You can't boost them all!

___________________
DJMaytag @ Facebook
Tracks on Soundcloud
Paul Van Dyk - Today [DJMaytag's Dreamy Dub Mix]

quote:

Originally posted by DJMaytag Give it time young padawan, you will learn that this is one of the few blanket statements that's correct.

To be perfectly honest, I wasn't asking for opinions. Perhaps I didn't adequately express myself earlier, so let's try again: that statement is complete bullshit.

I don't even know what you're talking about in the second line. You can't boost them all if they're in the same frequency range? You can't cut them all either. There's no difference - if you have conflicting sounds then you can either cut some frequencies and raise the gain, or boost some frequencies and lower the gain. They both give you the exact same result, especially in the digital domain where EQ doesn't produce any significant artifacts.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut if you have conflicting sounds then you can either cut some frequencies and raise the gain, or boost some frequencies and lower the gain. They both give you the exact same result, especially in the digital domain where EQ doesn't produce any significant artifacts.

Agreed. I think the whole cut-not-boost mantra is really only relevant in the context of headroom maintenance. For the purposes of sound sculpting, whether you boost or cut should produce equivalent results assuming the overall level is maintained.

I use boosting more as a way to change the sound. But i see no problem with it at all. You are saying that boosting eq's takes up headroom. So, if there is already a lot of headroom then it wouldn't be a problem. And, when they say cutting is almost always better than boosting i think they mean if a sound isn't very loud in a busy mix then you should cut other things in the same frequency instead of boosting it so that the mix distorts.

___________________
k;,hj,mnbjbvnbvnm mytdjkdty

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut To be perfectly honest, I wasn't asking for opinions. Perhaps I didn't adequately express myself earlier, so let's try again: that statement is complete bullshit.

Well, there's a reason why it written in articles and books, time and time again.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I don't even know what you're talking about in the second line. You can't boost them all if they're in the same frequency range? You can't cut them all either.

Yeah, actually you can. I do and many others do too. You can take 4 sounds occupying roughly the same frequency range (and volume) and cut them all to carve out it's own space without adversely affecting their sounds. It's not always easy, but the result is pretty amazing.

___________________
DJMaytag @ Facebook
Tracks on Soundcloud
Paul Van Dyk - Today [DJMaytag's Dreamy Dub Mix]

quote:

Originally posted by MaxC Agreed. I think the whole cut-not-boost mantra is really only relevant in the context of headroom maintenance. For the purposes of sound sculpting, whether you boost or cut should produce equivalent results assuming the overall level is maintained.

The whole purpose of this tip was in regards to what seems to be the never ending problem of new producers having problems with their mixes sounding too quiet compared to a professionally produced tune. Where does it seem like the problem is? It seems (sounds?) to me that frequency heaviness and lack of headroom management are the most common problems.

Assuming equal results isn't quite the reality. But assuming a sound with a completely flat frequency response - that's the big kicker, why would you want to add a +12 db boost to 31 out of 32 bands (like on a graphic EQ) and then have to reduce your gain, when you can cut just one to acheive the exact same thing?

___________________
DJMaytag @ Facebook
Tracks on Soundcloud
Paul Van Dyk - Today [DJMaytag's Dreamy Dub Mix]