Which is more important?

[Ten Flew South]

so if stuff like this happens, consider the midi data and also look at the fine tune knob. Often overlooked but very useful.

Cool tip

[KartoffelPuffer]

I respect the continued advice and opinions of TFS, Delphine, JB and other major contributors (I'm still an amateur at some more complex technical bits), however I might also add, with regard to the original question - listen to some artists from labels that can afford to sound a little weird, due to their already established reputation in minimal/tech-house. KOMPAKT's Total 8 and Total 9 albums both have tracks where one might think "what the hell was the artist thinking", which reveals a psychological aspect too: althugh these tracks are mixed, compressed and EQ'ed at a top level, some sounds they chose (like the apparently mismatching car door slamming sound in the track "Mariposa", which you can stream) are simply brave moves. Provided that you satisfy the aesthetics of EQ'ing, you can just say "screw it - THIS is what I wanted to say with this sound, and you're free to interpret my emotion anyway you damn well please." Have you considered this possibility?

[*Noodles*]

In the case of electronic music (dance, and the sub genres of) usually there will be a singular "sound" which the track is based around.

I've found that it's either the bass line, or a vocal track.
If I'm honest, I don't really listen to much electronic music outside drum and bass - but it seems that some artists create a patch that's "wicked" for the bass, and work around that.

To answer the OPs question - no amount of EQ will fix a bad source, but without EQ you'd struggle to ensure everything is in balance and not fighting each other.

A lot of people who listen to purely older records say it's perfect - but disregard for the fact that the cymbals haven't been boosted (due to tape degradation) and usually the kick is buried in the mix. This is an artistic view, but with modern day recording techniques - you should aim to capture the sound as best as possible, but ensure that the life is still there - after all, that's what makes records great.

EQ can bring out the greatness, but it can't create it!

[Ten Flew South]

EQ can bring out the greatness, but it can't create it!

Spot on.

[speedy505]

Thanks for all the advice chaps. Been busy putting it into practice especially the Equing using filters to sweep the instruments. Has made so much room on my tracks I'm going back to some older ones to clear some space!!!!

Also a friend of mine has been remixing some tracks for Ulterior Motive. His name is Nifty and you can hear the remixes and originals here :- http://www.myspace.com/ultmotive

or if you have facebook there is a new remix added here :- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ulteri...ve/46814523925

Let me know what you think and join the facebook group!!!!

Shameless plug I know!!

[jim_branning]

whoah hang on



"EQ can bring out the greatness, but it can't create it!"


no!!, what? how can u say that - that is totaly wrong - baring in mind what KartoffelPuffer said, radical eqing and ONLY paying attention to the result, now "is this what i should do with an eq" is the key imo


we're in real danger with this continual onslaught of bullcrap 'pro' tutorial online of eq-ing ourselves into a boring cul-de-sac

trad' eq tutorials and opinion is based around exactly that... traditional use of eq, so you hear all this

"Be careful with eq" - "Use eq sparingly" and all this nonsense and noobs think they can only move the dial a few .mm or they will be struck down, lol



yes.. eq CAN be used like that in it's more traditional role, but especialy for dance and electronic music makers, thinking only 'traditional use' for your eq is the kiss of bloody death and the cause of most tediousl dance music that is too clean and clear and sterile.

go f*cking mad with it and see what happens! stop thinking so much and refering to these endless web eq 'tutorials'



what KartoffelPuffer said.

[*Noodles*]

whoah hang on
"EQ can bring out the greatness, but it can't create it!"
no!!, what? how can u say that - that is totaly wrong - baring in mind what KartoffelPuffer said, radical eqing and ONLY paying attention to the result, now "is this what i should do with an eq" is the key imo
we're in real danger with this continual onslaught of bullcrap 'pro' tutorial online of eq-ing ourselves into a boring cul-de-sac
trad' eq tutorials and opinion is based around exactly that... traditional use of eq, so you hear all this
"Be careful with eq" - "Use eq sparingly" and all this nonsense and noobs think they can only move the dial a few .mm or they will be struck down, lol
yes.. eq CAN be used like that in it's more traditional role, but especialy for dance and electronic music makers, thinking only 'traditional use' for your eq is the kiss of bloody death and the cause of most tediousl dance music that is too clean and clear and sterile.
go f*cking mad with it and see what happens! stop thinking so much and refering to these endless web eq 'tutorials'
what KartoffelPuffer said.

I think you'll find if you read my whole post, I understand most electronic music styles - and the techniques used to produce those records, but I think you're missing my original point.
Most of the producers / DJs I listen to have created a sound within a patch or instrument which sounds great by itself.
In my experience that will then lead onto how the other instruments are created around it. EQ can solve this by a lot of work, but so can careful choice of patch or soft instrument.

I understand what you're saying by not conforming to subtle EQ - but that's a waste of computer resources and will actually degrade your digital audio further than any tweak on the original patch. [and no, this isn't a "good" signal degradation]

I go by the understanding that in order to create a natural sound, and something which is the digitally clean of artifacts then you need to be within 15dB cuts and boosts [boosts especially, cuts with a minimal Q are generally pretty clean down to 30dB].
Anything more to me is just a waste of time - you could've just chosen a more suitable patch in the first instance, and not be using that EQ.

Most DJs that I know do experiment, and the ones I listen to use careful placement of EQ and samples (Danny Byrd, Chase and Status, Mistabishi etc). There's no point in continuing for me to reinstate my point, but those guys are professional and purveyors of new sounds and techniques - yet they still try to use the minimum amount of DSP and effects.
That's where I am basing my knowledge of electronic (DnB) music production on.

If you'd offer up some of your music, or some of the people you listen to - I'm sure this discussion could go a lot further, but just slating other people's opinions by saying that it creates boring music is just a blanket ignorance.

At the end of the day, I know people who use ProTools HD3 systems with giant SSL / Neve desks - but they still produce rubbish music.
If the song [also read; structure / instrument choice] isn't there, no amount of EQ will fix it.
Psychoacoustical masking is something which the professional artists and producers understand, and therefore is the crux of their production styles. The relationship between their sound choices are key to understanding how to achieve their sounds, and they do all of that without EQ in the first place.

[/end]

[Bokonon]

I think you'll find if you read my whole post, I understand most electronic music styles - and the techniques used to produce those records, but I think you're missing my original point.

If the rest of your post is anything to go by then he picked up the vibe of your post just right.

Most of the producers / DJs I listen to have created a sound within a patch or instrument which sounds great by itself.
In my experience that will then lead onto how the other instruments are created around it. EQ can solve this by a lot of work, but so can careful choice of patch or soft instrument.

Yup, that's great, most of the people you listen to do it your way, good, and, does that mean that everyone should?

I understand what you're saying by not conforming to subtle EQ - but that's a waste of computer resources and will actually degrade your digital audio further than any tweak on the original patch. [and no, this isn't a "good" signal degradation]

Who are you to say it's not 'good' signal degradation?

[QUOTE=*Noodles*;423867]I go by the understanding that in order to create a natural sound, and something which is the digitally clean of artifacts then you need to be within 15dB cuts and boosts [boosts especially, cuts with a minimal Q are generally pretty clean down to 30dB]

The notion of 'natural sounds' and dance music is risible, none the less the advice governing the amount of boost/cut on an EQ is really only of any worth in an analogue system - DSP mathematics doesn't add more artefacts because you use a higher value in the calculation. It might boost artefacts already in a signal, it also might distort a sound, and that might need to be looked at.

Anything more to me is just a waste of time - you could've just chosen a more suitable patch in the first instance, and not be using that EQ.

except if the patch you like as a starting point can't add the effect you want but the EQ can? There are effects that you can implement with EQ that are not possible and/or more difficult within a synth - e.g. some synth filters auto track the keyboard - if you want a (drastic) cutting effect that doesn't track the keyboard, then you need to use EQ - just one simple example off the top of my head. There might be a significant difference in the filter slopes or the available Q, the list goes on.

Most DJs that I know do experiment, and the ones I listen to use careful placement of EQ and samples (Danny Byrd, Chase and Status, Mistabishi etc). There's no point in continuing for me to reinstate my point, but those guys are professional and purveyors of new sounds and techniques - yet they still try to use the minimum amount of DSP and effects.

So what you are saying is because one group of people is working in a specific way, that everyone else should follow suit - well Jim is disagreeing, and I think he's got a pretty good point.

If you'd offer up some of your music, or some of the people you listen to - I'm sure this discussion could go a lot further, but just slating other people's opinions by saying that it creates boring music is just a blanket ignorance.

you have suggested that people just do what everyone else does and fall into line with the way they do it - I don't think you can occupy any moral high ground where ignorance is concerned.

At the end of the day, I know people who use ProTools HD3 systems with giant SSL / Neve desks - but they still produce rubbish music.

Indeed, but so what.

If the song [also read; structure / instrument choice] isn't there, no amount of EQ will fix it.

I don't think that is in dispute too much, but some misuse of EQ might lift a track nicely - or inspire the writer to move somewhere different and make the track better...

Psychoacoustical masking is something which the professional artists and producers understand, and therefore is the crux of their production styles. The relationship between their sound choices are key to understanding how to achieve their sounds, and they do all of that without EQ in the first place.

If "all the pro's" are doing all this great work 'without EQ*', then that leaves a nice gap in the market to make something different, surely.

*again, a risible notion.

[/end]

Well, yes your post was so definitive and your knowledge unmistakable, I think it might just be.

[Ten Flew South]

You're picking nits and arguing for the sake of it. And you're completely missing the point.

We're talking about general eq rules for those that are not experienced enough to even know those rules, let alone know when to break them.

There's no point going off on tangents describing esoteric ways of when the general rules are not going to apply.

The key is to understand basic eq theory and then to develop your own sense of when you can ignore that theory. This is the whole point.

And your theory about digital eq is way off. Large boosts especially at the higher end of the frequency spectrum will not sound very pleasant at all in the digital world with your average stock plugs.
Modeled eq can have a great result, but again, at this level, most people are not going to have lush modeled dsp eq plugs, they are going to be using what they have included with their sequencer software, which will not give good results when boosting that hard, it will sound harsh and unnatural, just like a filter.

[Bokonon]

You're picking nits and arguing for the sake of it.

That's rich coming from you.

And you're completely missing the point.

No, I don't think I am - encouraging people to be dull from the outset will set a precedent for the future, so I'm discouraging that.

And your theory about digital eq is way off.

Judging from what you have written you didn't even grasp my 'theory' on digital eq.

Large boosts especially at the higher end of the frequency spectrum will not sound very pleasant at all in the digital world with your average stock plugs.

Yes, right, great, no one is going to say that you'll like it, I'm still not seeing why or how this is yet relevant.

Modeled eq can have a great result,

Arguably due to the difference in the mathematics it would plausibly be adding artifacts to the signal, but do go on.

but again, at this level, most people are not going to have lush modeled dsp eq plugs, they are going to be using what they have included with their sequencer software, which will not give good results when boosting that hard,

Last time I checked (about a minute ago) some of the cheapest mainstream entry level sequencing software available came with a modelling EQ (of sorts), and you can also get them free of the net...none the less.

I've done a little diagram for you:



That is a pure sawtooth wave pushed pretty damn hard, with little or no additional artifacts on it (my speakers didn't like it, but thats a different issue.)

it will sound harsh and unnatural, just like a filter.

Is that that all filters sound harsh and unnatural?