How do you give instruments their own EQ space?

[TheElement]

trying out Melda. but the collisions part of it doesn't really seem to help. Ok so I got a collision between the bass and the kick in a sub frequency. This is normal right? Its showing a collision but you sc, you cut frequencies to allow space when kick hits etc etc but it will still show a collision.

Their dynamic eq looks interesting. seems like an active eq? and bass frequency can be sc out of the way of the kick (even the harmonics can be sc out of the way when kick hits). seems like going that one step further that other simpler methods like just sc the whole bass out of the way or using a small kick and tuning it to work in with the sub bass. seems all this stuff would be more suited to an m.e.. I feel we should know all this but have some simple ways to work this.

I would rather concentrate on writing instead of getting too clinical? your thoughts? got to give the m.e's something to do..right?

[Len911]

trying out Melda. but the collisions part of it doesn't really seem to help. Ok so I got a collision between the bass and the kick in a sub frequency. This is normal right? Its showing a collision but you sc, you cut frequencies to allow space when kick hits etc etc but it will still show a collision.

Their dynamic eq looks interesting. seems like an active eq? and bass frequency can be sc out of the way of the kick (even the harmonics can be sc out of the way when kick hits). seems like going that one step further that other simpler methods like just sc the whole bass out of the way or using a small kick and tuning it to work in with the sub bass. seems all this stuff would be more suited to an m.e.. I feel we should know all this but have some simple ways to work this.

I would rather concentrate on writing instead of getting too clinical? your thoughts? got to give the m.e's something to do..right?

I'm not sure what sc stands for?? M.e = mechanical engineer?? mastering engineer??

This is strictly an analysis tool. Collisions aren't necessarily bad. You can use it for troubleshooting or information. In general when something collides it is going to bump up the gain in those freqs unless they are out of phase, then they attenuate. If you want to get rid of the "boom" or "mud" at that freq. the analyzer will show you where they collide or intersect, the db slope of your filter or eq will determine to what degree or the amount of effectiveness of a cut or boost. The intensity of the color indicates how loud or soft the signal is at what freq. If you use the "area" presets you made, you can see right on screen and lined up, where you can boost and cut, etc, and what freqs or harmonics, to ultimately give each instrument a space and add clarity to your song. Alternatively, you could use it as a tool to create better homogenizations for a smoother orchestral piece.

Once you learn the principles, it will become more intuitive and easy to use.

Usually when folks say they would rather focus on the writing, they don't want to be bothered with recording period

Isn't EDM your genre? Everything about a synthesizer is about the principles of sound. The same principles can be applied to every effect and process known to mankind,lol! An eq is the same thing as a filter on a synth. They are all inter-related. There are different controls and parameters, whether you are comparing one eq with another or one synth filter with another, but the principles are the same.

In the beginning, there was a sine wave! Additive synthesis is the foundation to all other forms of synthesis. Resynthesis, the obstacles and difficulties are probably what keeps it from the forefront of everything however. Technically you don't need anything but one gigantic additive synthesizer, everything would be accomplished by juxtapositioning the sinewaves around, a fundamental frequency and all it's partials dynamically in time. Wouldn't even need samples,lol! You could create every violin sound ever and some never before thought possible. To shorten the time and effort, there would be a need for algorithms, and by organizing a series of algorithms would require less programming, and quicker results by not having to adjust each partial every time.

Meanwhile, the only shortcuts I know are of learning the principles or basics and watching vendor tutorials for practical application of those principles. Melda does a really good job in their tutorials imo. If you learn what's on the x and y axis of the various -grams, scopes, fft, it will give you an overview of what you can and can't expect from them. Usually the x axis is volume or gain, but not on a spectrogram or sonogram, it's the color intensity, the x axis is usually the frequency, whereas y is usually the frequency on most other tools.

I rambled a little off subject.

I'm not sure you can equate fast necessarily with easy and simple. What I am saying, is that simple might just be editing one note at a time. It might not seem intuitive as most people I'm sure process a whole track with one eq setting, de-esser, ... and because generally one is looking for the best compromise across the whole track, yes you can also use automation and perhaps get closer to the compromise. I'm only saying, that if you put a stop watch to both methods, it might be surprising to find not much difference.
Giving credence to the old tortoise and hare fable??

[AhjayStelino]

I use Voxengo SPAN - it's good and it's free: http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/

Thanks Johnny, Its always great to have free plugins available. I think this one is only VST at present, so I'll keep watching their site, hopefully they'll release a PT11 compatible version soon.

[AhjayStelino]

Thanks Len. Having a first principles perspective is always useful. Sometimes I get lost in the world of effects and its handy to be reminded to step back and look at things logically before diving into the deep end again!

[TheElement]

Thanks for that indepth info Robert! Interesting how it all works behind the scene. I havent a clue. I'm just an end user.

sc just short for sidechain and m.e. for Mix Engineer..

Yes edm is my genre but that can cover a lot. basically decided to concentrate on edm as I figured that would allow me to get the electronic part of producing down better which is used a lot in today's pop hits. (although I started out producing guitar tracks) and I can't see electronic elements going away anytime soon. I think electronic music production will always be part of music in the future.

Thanks again.

[joyfrost]

[quote="andygabrys"D) make doubled parts sound wider by cutting a little on one side and boosting on the other size at the same frequency. EX a doubled guitar part, cut 2 db @ 1500 hz on Left, boost 2 dB @ 1500hz on the R.

note that every time you cut or boost on an eq, the level of the instrument might change. So tweak the output volume of the eq plugin. Try to make it roughly equivalent by ear with the plugin active / by-passed.

just my 435,647 cents.[/quote]

I'm definitely doing this on my next mix. Can't believe i didn't think of it before!!

[jonnybutter]

I use Voxengo SPAN - it's good and it's free: http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/

Thanks Johnny, Its always great to have free plugins available. I think this one is only VST at present, so I'll keep watching their site, hopefully they'll release a PT11 compatible version soon.

Sorry, didn't know you were on PT!

[Gator]

Paulie, I'll be straight up here and admit I am struggling to get good mixes so I am NO expert. But as some folks have already mentioned here start with your volumes as your first tool. Get a good balance volume wise between the tracks. Now use your panning as the next tool. Then (if needed only) grab an EQ.
I have never used that Melda but to be honest I wouldn't make any adjustments because some tool said there was a collision.
I use a normal frequency analyser on the tracks and simply make a note of the ranges of each track and their centre frequency.
Just because two instruments occupy the same range of frequencies this doesn't mean collision as it were.
One thing you will find is a huge help is knowing what the frequency ranges are and what generally goes in each. There are 7 ranges (or boxes if you will). Sub bass, Bass, Low Mids, Mids, High or Upper Mids, Presence and Brilliance. These cover the 20Hz to 20KHz which us mere mortals can hear. Our canine readers will now write into Taxi and lodge a complaint about me.
For 12 bucks go get yourself the EQ PDF booklet from Get That Pro Sound. It's only about 20 pages and a super read for guys like you n me who are not so good at this stuff. Apologies. That should read "For guys like ME who are not so good"
Xave

[mojobone]

Andy covered most of what I woulda contributed, (thanks, again, Andy!) but a couple of things I could expand on, a little (or a lot)

Arrangement is the first, most important step; you want a situation that doesn't need fixing, so you can get on with your next masterpiece, right? When you're choosing your sounds or setting up your mics, you should already be thinking about how things are gonna fit. This requires mindful practice and a good deal of experience, but listening to lots of well-mixed music in your mix environment will make it happen faster.

I'd suggest that you pan nothing until you get your mix working in mono, and the time-tested method for this is subtractive EQ; always cut first, because if you boost, you're giving away precious headroom. Jimmy Page said distance makes depth, but if you can't move a mic, you can simulate it by rolling off highs, pushing back mix elements that don't need to be featured. In this way, when you start moving parts out of the center, your mix will feel not just wider, but deeper.

The Melda thingy? Might be just the ticket, if either your ears or your monitors suck; preferably, you just stick a single band of the parametric EQ you undoubtedly already own on the 2-bus, boost 3-6dB with a relatively narrow Q (bandwidth) and sweep it up and down to see what kinda nasties pop out. Listen for conflicts. (go ahead, close your eyes and turn the knob while the music plays) If you think you hear some, solo the tracks in question and cut appropriately. You'll already have the frequency sussed out, so then it's a matter of adjusting the depth of your cut and the Q. Of course, there can be more than one frequency in conflict, but this is basically how you find them without visual help. You can do this on individual channels, too, but don't forget to listen to your edits in context, to make sure you didn't just bring your track or tracks into conflict with something else.

The other big reason to cut, rather than boost is a concept called masking; certain frequencies, usually low frequencies can mask the ones that provide punch and clarity. 400Hz (give or take; it depends on the individual instruments) is just a nasty, woolly hog that steals headroom and covers up stuff you wanna hear.

The classic example is balancing a kick drum against a bass, where you might use a resonant filter to bring out the foot of the kick and a low shelf to kill everything below about 50Hz, (trust me, on a kick drum there's almost never anything down there you want to hear) add another pointy boost to bring out enough beater click for definition and scoop out somewhat between to leave a donut hole for the bass, which might still get a cut of its own, around 400Hz to take the fur off, though if the arrangement (there's that word again) is sparse, you might want to leave some fur.


If you simply MUST buy another plugin, there's this: http://forums.taxi.com/topic131818.html

You might also find this helpful, though it's slightly off-topic.

[MattCurious]

I don't give instruments space through EQ. There isn't any EQ in a concert hall, for example - the musicians mix themselves through attack and level.

The pro mixers I've spent time with use EQ to enhance interesting parts of sounds (or remove bad elements) and then do the rest through level. My mixing has taken a quantum leap forward since I started doing that if Taxi and other feedback is anything to go by.