Return FAQ: Share what you've learned

[andygabrys]

I'm finding that about 80% or more of my EQ settings are cuts. And a LOT of them are 250 or below on things that just don't need to be down there. Is that what you call "Low Mid" Andy?

yeah I am calling low mid like 100-800 hz.

(I'm still holding on to my notion that "normalization" isn't musically accurate the quieter the signal of the original file, Andy .. but I use it anyway when I'm a couple db off )

IDK. I guess it depends how much you are raising the gain.

[jonnybutter]

yes there were a couple [threads about this] and I was one of the more long winded posters.

That you were 'long winded' about it would be a *good* thing, Andy.

It has taken me a few years to get to the point where I even know how to *start* dealing with the low midrange. Sometimes I've done a piece that was arranged in such a way that the low-mids just worked sonically without much eq, but that's not usually the case.

Just today I 'saved' a mix that had had a low-mid range like the Tokyo subway at rush hour - impossibly crowded and ear-splitting. I pulled some out here and there in the 220-480hz range and now I can say that at least it is no longer really bad. (I don't have the worse mix online, so you can't A/B, but the improved one - trust me, it is improved - is "The Look for 1956" on my taxi page).

There's another thread about this topic too, but it bears repeating: arrangement is everything. You can mix and fool around till you plotz, and a bad arrangement will still sound bad. It's hard when you have thrown a lot of good time after bad, but sometimes no amount of polish will save a badly designed shoe.

[Paulie]

Would this be the thread in question?

http://forums.taxi.com/topic125811.html

/hijack

[jonnybutter]

Would this be the thread in question?

http://forums.taxi.com/topic125811.html

/hijack

This is a very interesting and useful one!

sorry for contributing to the thread-jack.