Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wwittman]

In poking about in the CP Panning thread (C.P. Panning, late of the 12th Northumberland Fusiliers), I came across this quote which seemed to go largely uncommented upon.

compasspnt wrote on Mon, 04 December 2006 12:28

Thanks for mentioning this.  The proper method of panning (or non-panning) does indeed let one "get away" with less of this silly notion so many seem to have of "carving out frequencies" in a mix.

And I don't know how I missed it back then, but I think it's worth discussing.

It seems to come up with some regularity (said the actress to the bishop) on the internets... this notion that mixing is about "carving out" frequencies to make "space" for the instruments with EQ.

and that one HAS to do this.

That everything needs 400 rolled all the way out.
That everything needs a high pass filter WAY up near its musical chin.
That everything simply needs to be EQ'd up the wazoo to sound "modern".
That it's up to the mixing engineer to assign each track its unique frequency range 'space' and that nothing else should intrude into this frequency range. (as if this is even POSSIBLE when more than one person plays the same NOTE, but...)

I was recently told on one internets forum that basically I was just old fashioned (well, OLD) and that "heavy guitars" or "heavy music" HAS to be done this way.

I'm not at all a purist and I have NO objection to EQ, sometimes a LOT of EQ, if it's called for.

But I don't at all get this sonic real-estate approach to mixing.
It strikes ME as unmusical.

I tend to think more like an arranger or orchestrator.

I might decide to double the flutes with the violins because the combination is an appealing texture.
If I double them again with the violas, at the top of their range, that's yet ANOTHER sound. Yet they're all in the same frequency range.
If I decide to put one up or down an octave, that's a DIFFERENT sound.
But the idea is that the combination of instruments on a part or in a range is what gives the music its texture and flavour.
Separation of the parts isn't the idea. Even if it WERE possible.

I think there is SOME point to thinking about not piling on all the same frequency boost on everything, but that's an extreme in the OTHER direction.

I wouldn't add 3k to EVERYTHING, but I also wouldn't make it a rule that only ONE thing can have 3k added to it.


So, I'm free associating a bit, but I think it's worth discussing.

so?


oh, and I ALSO think that the axiom that "it's better to roll out than to boost" is complete bollocks.

discuss.

or not.

I don't care.

really.

[rollmottle]

in short: see forum title.

[Version]

Wouldn't "carving of frequencies" be better left as a function of arrangement and instrumentation?

[compasspnt]

Thanks, W, for starting this subject.  I was actually thinking about it as a separate thread myself.

"Carving out" is for those who cannot balance properly.

It is an excuse to claim that you are "mixing."

To me, and I have used this reference several times before, it is the same thing as a drummer playing toms throughout a song, or a lead guitarist soloing all the way from count off to end of fade.  It means nothing.  Yet properly placed toms rolls or a perfect solo in just the right spot can lift and separate a song from mundanity to mountaintop.


Equalise the things that really need it...properly.


Leave the things that do not alone.


If every track in your song need "carving out," then you're not using your microphones very well.


Or your brain.

[rankus]

Great topic.

It seems like the more I learn, (on here) and the more my ears develop, the less I need to use EQ.

I will spend a half hour tweaking a snare drum EQ, and then lean back in the chair... really "listen".. then turn off the EQ and you know what? It sounds better, almost every time.

Terry has mentioned in passing that "all we have is volume".  And having taken this to heart I can say my mixes have taken another leap forwards.  (This and the CPPL

[flanger_folly]

People get so religious about this. One of the web arguments that left the foulest taste in my mouth was about wantonly rolling off lows... the guy that ran Studio Forums was encouraging people to wantonly roll off lows, and I piped up, and was bitten for it. It just made me say "I am done with audio board b.s" for quite awhile.

People want some gear that will add "warmth" or "wallop" or whatever, when it is pretty much all in:

-The actual sound you are recording.

-Mic choice and placement.

Having a good sound, and recording it well is kind of under-rated in recording today. It is the last thing people actually think about. Well, the performance is the last thing.

[John Ivan]

Yeah,,

I agree with what's been said so far. Having said that. I don't "avoid" carving if I think I need to. I like printing the band as whole as I can {of course} and this allows for working on the tones and mic placement so that the least amount of EQ is used. I rarely have to EQ Electric Guitars at all when I mix. I rarely have to EQ Kick drums. Because of my crappy room and quite limited mic collection, I do end up cutting some where around 600 hz- to 1-k on toms but If I had a better room, I would use fewer Mics and place them so I would have a great Drum recording. I do what I have to and end up with a pretty convincing stereo drum recording. I don't use gates very often. {almost never}..

As for making space, ie. bandwidth space for everything, I do this via arranging for the most part.{to the extent that I ever think this way}

With EQ in General, It's a combo of boosting and cutting and I do this by ear {duh} and if I think the piano in a rock arrangement needs all the 100-hz cut out thats what I'll do.

I don't have a method really other than trying to get good sounds and turning knobs {or not} until I like it.

I admit I like the high shelving on this old console of mine. I abuse it less these days {high end IS over rated..}

So, cut if you hear it. Boost if you hear it. Don't lock your mind into the idea that instruments NEED their own space. Ensembles share sonic space both in bandwidth and amplitude, and in 'space' of course..

I rambled...

Ivan.............................

[rankus]

Yes, sometimes you do need to get aggressive with say a background Acoustic Gtr or Piano in a dense mix...

Do Terry and William agree with this line of thinking?

[trock]

oh man, how did i miss this today? this is my weakest area subjectively speaking of course, eq. i do remember terry saying that and got kind of bummed because i wanted to ask about this "carving" out of eq since i was reading everywhere that this was applied and used but i really didn't want to sound dumb once i read that.

i had actually just read a GS interview with an engineer for Mutt who had described how he would sit with an EQ in his lap and Mutt would go thru and make sure everything sat perfectly in the mix, how they would eq each word or phrase etc (i am paraphrasing here) and i thought, well there you go i now have to go thru every note everywhere and start applying what everyone is saying about EQ and carving things out in the mix etc.

i was honestly a little floored when terry said what he did because i thought for sure all of you guys just did this and knew all kinds of magical frequncies for things.

thanks william for your info and starting this.

this may sound dumb but since i have been around here i have found that if i play correctly first, record it well with mic placement and proper pre settings or a little comp if needed, pan hard L and R, i am using far less eq then ever before.

but it would be nice to read anything you want to post on what you do for problem times, not matter what that might be or what instrument.

thanks!

[Vertigo]

I find that I tend to boost a LOT more than I cut. Getting your sounds right and removing unwanted frequencies is something I think you should really work on at the tracking stage. If you can't make a mix start to "happen" with the faders alone then something probably went wrong at the tracking stage.

I also try to avoid low and high pass filters, unless they're necessary. Removing a frequency that's not interfering just because you think you don't need it can cause problems later. I also find that overfiltering makes for mixes that don't translate as well outside of the control room.

As for "carving out" frequencies, for me it's a matter of "Whatever Works". Sometimes the situation does call for a bit of carving. I was working on a song the other day that had a bass line with a lot of the fundamental notes in the 60-80hz range. So I notched a bit of 60 out of the kick and gave the bass a bump at that frequency (maybe 1db of change on each instrument). They locked together nicely and sounded great. This notching wasn't necessary on any other songs in this project.

Carving is sometimes necessary, but I think mixing is more about "layering".

-Lance

[flanger_folly]

A turkey was born to be carved.

[stevieeastend]

It´s a matter of experience, really. I cannot remember Andy Wallace
mentioning "carving out" in one of his interviews. But I do remember that he metioned how important it is to find the right balance and how automation saved his life for doing so. I am talking Wallace not to disrespect any user but as far as I know he is know for a "modern" rock sound..

As mixes go by, I notice that I am using EQ less and less these days. It definitely improves the quality of my mixes, as well as printing -10... btw

cheers
steveeastend

[Version]

a t*rd was meant to be flushed.

[stevieeastend]

Btw

With those new microphones from Neumann people will pray to have at least SOME 400 to work with in the future.

cheers
steveeastend

[rollmottle]

FWIW, all the stuff i mix is 95% electronic in origin and i find that it certainly requires a lot of "carving" to make everything sit well. there's no mic placement or room to consider in my case.

in dance/groove oriented electronic music, it is critical that the kick and bassline be mixed "big"...so in my case there is often a LOT of carving out space on the bottom end of the spectrum so the low end can sit clear and strong. it gets especially tricky when there's a lot of lush pads or big synths who's full frequency range piles up on the kick & bass spectrums.

i've got no set rules about mixing, but in my world, my first move is to usually make some space for the kick and bass and from there: whatever works, works.