how do i get a better EQ in my mix
- Thread starter Eazydwan
- Start date
Start by learning the basics. EQing is not just an EQ effect on a track, well in its most simple form it is, but the basics contain much more than that:
- Split channel
Maybe the most fundamental form of EQing
- Channel strip EQ plugin
Knob based for quick and musical access
- Parametric EQ plugin
Detailed with various filter types/Q settings. Get frequency spectrum analyzer behind your EQ curve
You get better EQing by using all of these methods in the right way to achieve your goals. I recommend that you get the MeterPlugs perception plugin to be able to judge your EQ moves without being biased by amplitude differences.
Last edited:
Eazydwan
Am good
Thanks DarkRed for your comment but I wish I can get a video on this program or even if it is a photo clip and one more last thing I use cubase 5 for my vocal recording so I use most pluggings that came with the software but is the internal plugging good enough to prove a better mix and a standard mastering....
I don't think the stock Cubase EQ filters are top of the line, but I do think you can do useful things with them. I recommend that you do at least some of your EQing in phase linear mode. I also recommend that you consider upgrading from Cubase to Pro Tools, because Cubase does funky stuff when it comes to phase.
I'mNoGuru
New member
You can apply EQ to every track you use in your song but IMO the key to a good mix is to use sounds that need little to no EQ in the first place.
Sound selection is so important.
If you use the right sounds EQing then becomes a simple subtractive process; it's easier to cut frequencies than boost them without making a pigs arse of your mix.
I always have an EQ on both sides of any compression I'm using too; post-comp is a time when I sometimes ignore my own advice and boost.
However, I go pretty light on compression as a whole (sound selection).
Sound selection is so important.
If you use the right sounds EQing then becomes a simple subtractive process; it's easier to cut frequencies than boost them without making a pigs arse of your mix.
I always have an EQ on both sides of any compression I'm using too; post-comp is a time when I sometimes ignore my own advice and boost.
However, I go pretty light on compression as a whole (sound selection).
I do overall agree, the earlier in the process the quality is achieved, the better. I think it's good during tracking to brickwall limit and then use expand mode on the problem areas to be able to dial in a sweeter sound. For instance the heavy ugly attack portion of the kick should be maximized, partly naturally by the monitors, but also with the help of expanders that can really kick those frequencies into your awareness so that you can fine tune the way you record the kick drum without having to do everything through processing. Also, the reason why you need to brickwall limit during tracking is because you need to be aware of how it will "kind of sound" when the master is done. This in turn allows you to improve what the final master "can sound like". Avoiding EQing as much as possible and also applying it very lightly on "residues" is probably good. It is also good to have at least one EQ plugin in your arsenal that can do EQing with great phase linearity.
When I start mixing I throw brickwall limiters and expanders on the stuff to see what I am working with, because either you get this sweet soft warm kind of sound to mix that is lovely to mix, or you get this incredibly sticky hard heavy kind of content where everything clashes. It's good to become aware of that as early as possible. It is good to have lots of perspective on what you can do with the original recorded sounds.
Last edited:
steffeeh
New member
To become better at EQing there are a lot of things that can help you improve your tone quality, but they all circle around a specific thing, and without this thing, everything else is pointless.
What is this thing? Experience.
Experience determines every move you make on your EQ, this is what makes you know what has to be done to a sound tonewise besides your ears.
Of course, a lot of other things helps a ton, such as getting real studio speakers and room treatment etc, as well as using different techniques to easier find bad spots, and using the right playback volume etc.
But all of this is pointless if you still make the wrong moves, even though you may use all these things. And if you have very little experience, you're very likely to do the wrong EQ moves.
So just continue producing and be patient, your skill with EQs will come.
Please DarkRed, motivate how some of the biggest DAW programs can have issues with such simple thing like phase? (not a Cubase user, just really, really curious)
What is this thing? Experience.
Experience determines every move you make on your EQ, this is what makes you know what has to be done to a sound tonewise besides your ears.
Of course, a lot of other things helps a ton, such as getting real studio speakers and room treatment etc, as well as using different techniques to easier find bad spots, and using the right playback volume etc.
But all of this is pointless if you still make the wrong moves, even though you may use all these things. And if you have very little experience, you're very likely to do the wrong EQ moves.
So just continue producing and be patient, your skill with EQs will come.
Please DarkRed, motivate how some of the biggest DAW programs can have issues with such simple thing like phase? (not a Cubase user, just really, really curious)
I think Cubase works as good as any other DAW when you have lots of power in your DAW hardware and by that I mean if you can assign 16 logical CPUs to the Cubase process. But in many cases you have less CPU power available and it appears that Cubase is overall more CPU intensive than Pro Tools is, so you need to run it at greater latency settings to do the same thing. And since it silently delay compensates without reporting how much it has done so and does so pretty much until the system cannot take it anymore and the peak load takes place during bounce, you are at risk of printing seriously delayed tracks that you have not even noticed during normal playback. Beyond this, I have not had any great success with the delay compensation for external effects with it. Pro Tools counters some of these issues in a better way in my view (it does not play on total delay amounts that are very bad), which leads to better sounding mixes, especially when it comes to the stereo image. A good DAW software should very early not play when there are system constraints that would force bad phase issues into the audio. This is at least my experience with Cubase 7 vs. Pro Tools 11... I hope this helps...
Last edited:
Eazydwan i notice you mentioned you wanted a video. I think you might like the pro audio files eq tutorial I haven't purchased it as of yet but I have purchased the mixing hip hop beats and vocals if going by what that tutorial was like then no doubt the eq tutorial will be just as impressive.
I hope that it helps if you decide to purchase it.
Also they have a great YouTube channel.
I hope that it helps if you decide to purchase it.
Also they have a great YouTube channel.
Cool
Synapsis
The Mepsyah's Dipsyples
Yea, your on the money mate... We learned all reductive EQ in the box.. because when you boost in the digital realm your boosting 0's and 1's... Its never good to boost with digital eq, unless its sparingly... We got taught to boost all outside the box... analogue eq's and compressors.. but limiting is better in the box, as it knows when those peaks are coming.... I don't know about cubase.. I would deffo run Tools though... Its industry standard
crimsonhawk47
New member
Digital EQ's are fine.
It's important to remember that phase-free eq's aren't really phase free, as an eq IS phasing the sound (not referring to DarkRed talking about plugin latency, which is a whole different issue).
DA TRUF. All this theorizing only goes so far. Some VERY talented mixing engineers don't even know what the **** they are talking about, and I know people that KNOW way more than them but make worse mixes. You just gotta mix. It's always practice in the end. Knowledge can expedite the process, but that's it. Knowledge is a microwave, but not mixing is like not having food to put in that microwave. You know how terrible metaphors go.
In fact, this is something weird I've been doing lately. I've been producing in mono from the get go. That helps me even more with arrangement decisions. I don't know how common it is, but I think people are too afraid of mono. There are a few new eminem songs that are almost entirely mono. Old records were mono. Most people don't even notice how mono something is until they get reference headphones with a wide stereo field. Not saying you need to make your stuff in mono, but I think learning how to make good mono tracks will help you down the road. There have been times where I've sent beats to people and I forgot that I left it in mono, but it still sounds good to them.
There is one thing to be said about this method though. If you are picking sounds while in mono, and you have a nice balance, you may find that one or two sounds are WAY LOUDER than they were in mono for some reason. This is because they folded to mono and phased in a weird way. This is common with wide sounds. This is where it's compromise time. You need to decide if this element will be too loud in stereo or too quiet in mono. This will depend on how important the element is to understanding the song. HOWEVER, there is a way around that compromise. You made this beat in mono, right? If the sound is too loud in stereo, you could always leave that specific sound in mono and when you bring the master track back to stereo, it will keep its balance. This is the magic of mono, and also the magic of making songs quietly.
And I can't stress enough, mixing/producing at quieter levels is one of the fastest things you can do to get a good sound. It's a really easy cheat code. I've been hearing this for years and everytime I tried doing my shit quiet I was like "naw I need to turn it up." RESIST THAT URGE. It's totally worth it. By all means, check your balance at loud levels, but don't lose focus and start producing loud again. Plus, your ears will thank you when you get older.
This is pretty spot on too. Trying to boost what isn't there usually sounds bad.
One last thing I will say about eq's and pretty much any plugin that modifies perceived volume: Level match your output.
LOUDER ALWAYS SOUNDS BETTER. If you boost 3k, you can very easily trick yourself into thinking what you boosted sounds better, when it could honestly be a terrible mistake in your mix. When I say level match, I'm not talking about meters. I'm talking about how loud you perceive something to be. You are the best measure of that. Next time you boost 3k, adjust your output so when you bypass the eq, it doesnt sound like it gets louder. It just sounds different. You will make much better judgements with eq and compression this way. The more you do this, the less you have to do it. You will start hearing problems before you even level match them, and that's when you start to get very experienced with hearing things.
I don't mean to say don't boost at all either, and I feel like we're getting on that track in this thread. Boosting is fine if it works. It's just usually more helpful to take something away in a mix. But sometimes boosting works, so don't be afraid of it.
It's important to remember that phase-free eq's aren't really phase free, as an eq IS phasing the sound (not referring to DarkRed talking about plugin latency, which is a whole different issue).
DA TRUF. All this theorizing only goes so far. Some VERY talented mixing engineers don't even know what the **** they are talking about, and I know people that KNOW way more than them but make worse mixes. You just gotta mix. It's always practice in the end. Knowledge can expedite the process, but that's it. Knowledge is a microwave, but not mixing is like not having food to put in that microwave. You know how terrible metaphors go.
You know, there's a weird amount of controversy around this, but I agree. There is something to be said about more people listening on headphones these days, and how a mix that is a little cloggy in mono might sound better and fuller in stereo then if we make it compatible for both. But, it's generally true that something that sounds good in mono will sound great in stereo, similar to how a mix that sounds great quiet will sound better louder (unless it just hurts your ears). And eqing in mono makes it much easier to focus on frequency balance. And when we say mono, we don't mean turn one of your speakers off. We mean actually setting your master bus to mono, which you can do in any DAW (but you still really should turn off one speaker, even after you switch your DAW to mono).
In fact, this is something weird I've been doing lately. I've been producing in mono from the get go. That helps me even more with arrangement decisions. I don't know how common it is, but I think people are too afraid of mono. There are a few new eminem songs that are almost entirely mono. Old records were mono. Most people don't even notice how mono something is until they get reference headphones with a wide stereo field. Not saying you need to make your stuff in mono, but I think learning how to make good mono tracks will help you down the road. There have been times where I've sent beats to people and I forgot that I left it in mono, but it still sounds good to them.
There is one thing to be said about this method though. If you are picking sounds while in mono, and you have a nice balance, you may find that one or two sounds are WAY LOUDER than they were in mono for some reason. This is because they folded to mono and phased in a weird way. This is common with wide sounds. This is where it's compromise time. You need to decide if this element will be too loud in stereo or too quiet in mono. This will depend on how important the element is to understanding the song. HOWEVER, there is a way around that compromise. You made this beat in mono, right? If the sound is too loud in stereo, you could always leave that specific sound in mono and when you bring the master track back to stereo, it will keep its balance. This is the magic of mono, and also the magic of making songs quietly.
And I can't stress enough, mixing/producing at quieter levels is one of the fastest things you can do to get a good sound. It's a really easy cheat code. I've been hearing this for years and everytime I tried doing my shit quiet I was like "naw I need to turn it up." RESIST THAT URGE. It's totally worth it. By all means, check your balance at loud levels, but don't lose focus and start producing loud again. Plus, your ears will thank you when you get older.
This is pretty spot on too. Trying to boost what isn't there usually sounds bad.
One last thing I will say about eq's and pretty much any plugin that modifies perceived volume: Level match your output.
LOUDER ALWAYS SOUNDS BETTER. If you boost 3k, you can very easily trick yourself into thinking what you boosted sounds better, when it could honestly be a terrible mistake in your mix. When I say level match, I'm not talking about meters. I'm talking about how loud you perceive something to be. You are the best measure of that. Next time you boost 3k, adjust your output so when you bypass the eq, it doesnt sound like it gets louder. It just sounds different. You will make much better judgements with eq and compression this way. The more you do this, the less you have to do it. You will start hearing problems before you even level match them, and that's when you start to get very experienced with hearing things.
I don't mean to say don't boost at all either, and I feel like we're getting on that track in this thread. Boosting is fine if it works. It's just usually more helpful to take something away in a mix. But sometimes boosting works, so don't be afraid of it.