Andy's guitar EQ when mixing

holy nut sacks!
After reading this thread, I decided to play with the guitars on my bands current recording project. I've had some problems with them lately. So, about a month ago, I tried Colin's EQ "starting points" and shit started sounding cooler, but not QUITE there. I went in just now and flattened everything, then added about 3db at 6k, with a 1.00 on the Q. I spread that out over all 4 guitars... one word... B R U T A L .

It's the sickest thing. I knew we tracked a great tone, and I couldn't figure out why the hell I wasn't hearing it in the mix... It was because I was EQ-ing the piss out of it. I was over thinking it by LONG shot.

Thanks Andy... you are indeed the MAN.
 
what puzzles me here is how, lets take colins eq thing for example, or my c4 setting, people are thinking this will work with their tone. I always just sit back and just ask myself does that need anything? It might be ok totally flat.
 
Andy Sneap said:
what puzzles me here is how, lets take colins eq thing for example, or my c4 setting, people are thinking this will work with their tone. I always just sit back and just ask myself does that need anything? It might be ok totally flat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, personally I just think if something does need pulling into shape its interesting to hear what others including yourself have a tendency to do, alongside using the ears to decide for yourself what if anything needs shaping up.

Speaking of was Testament's Formation guitars pretty flat?
 
One thing that I often have to be wary of is my old nemesis, sounds-"better"-because-it's-louder syndrome. I don't often eq guitars, but for anything else, since boosting is increasing the gain of a certain frequency, when comparing the track between boost-on and boost-bypass, I'll almost always go for "boost-on" at first, because it's louder, only to come back later and discover it was better without it.
 
Andy Sneap said:
what puzzles me here is how, lets take colins eq thing for example, or my c4 setting, people are thinking this will work with their tone. I always just sit back and just ask myself does that need anything? It might be ok totally flat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I went ahead and tried it flat first. TBH, it sounded fucking great! But... I thought it needed to be brighter, hence the 6k boost. Tomorrow, I'm going to rethink my EQ on every track. I'm going to solo out each instrument and just ask myself, "what does this need, if anything?" I know we get great tracks at our studio. That's why we get the business we get. But, I think OVER mixing things has become a problem. Maybe I lost sight of the "less is more" theory. Maybe I got side-tracked with learning more techniques. Either way, I'm going to get raw and as organic as possible, starting tomorrow.
 
Tommy Gun said:
Tomorrow, I'm going to rethink my EQ on every track. I'm going to solo out each instrument and just ask myself, "what does this need, if anything?"
Click to expand...

Be very careful with soloing tracks, once you start tweaking it you can take it completely out of context. I only solo if there is something very odd about a track. What I would do in your case would rather be to mute out certain things and see how the different instruments are interacting.
 
ive always used flat eq until coming on this board, maybe a little hi mid boost or summat, but thats about it. recently ive been using colins principle, and applying eqs to certain areas depending on the setup, sometimes the results are horiffic, sometimes they are great. ATM im just using a slight touch of curve eq before fine tweaking it with a separate eq
 
I think the most importent thing are the mids. I´m recording bands about 6 years and I did the worst mistake over and over again. I was standing in the recording room and turned down all the mids of the guitar amp and thought:
cool it sounds like fear factory;)
After recording I was sitting on my ass about 24h a day and asked me why my guitar tone has no balls!!!

For me I found out some rules:
1. Always use a good cab like marshall vintage with V/30´
2. turn as much mids as you can ON!!!the sound must be good but some kind of to middy;)
3.Use 2 mics infront of one (in the best case the best sounding) speaker. the first on axis the second 45° off axis. (fredman style I think)

recording each guitar two times (double tracking)
First guitar:
On axis 100% left
of axis 100% left
first guitar double
on axis 75% right
off axis 75% right
Second guitar
on.a. 100% right
off.a 100% right
second double
on.a. 75% left
off.a. 75% left

Use a good EQ and cut out frequenzes the other instruments need (with looking into a analyser)

and now the guitar tone is some kinda GREAT
sometimes I use the c4. Sometimes I use the waves R. Axx comp
but I use this tools only if the sound needs to be compressed.

Many times I didnt need anything but the eq. For example when I was recording a Peavey 5150 with an old marshall vintage V/30´
the sound was so perfect after cleaning for the other instruments when playing it all together, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR MORE!!!

And I realy love andys, colins or Zeuss work but they have other recording stuff and other recording-rooms...so I realy thing its helpfull to see andy´s C4 settings or colins EQ settings to learn but I cant work with them for me with my Setting.

It needs expierence, talent and a lot of time to find your way with your gear.
so dont ask andy for the holy EQ Setting. there is nothing like that out there.

I´m at collage and learning audio technics and I only get tips and theories but NO SPECIAL KEY for good sounding productions
 
Metaltastic said:
One thing that I often have to be wary of is my old nemesis, sounds-"better"-because-it's-louder syndrome. I don't often eq guitars, but for anything else, since boosting is increasing the gain of a certain frequency, when comparing the track between boost-on and boost-bypass, I'll almost always go for "boost-on" at first, because it's louder, only to come back later and discover it was better without it.
Click to expand...

That outlines the importance of correct gain structure. In digital people tend to overlook in, but back in the analogue days I gather it was paramount. Whenever you boost with an EQ make sure to turn down the output level to match things, so when you compare you're getting a better reference.
 
I wish I had his ears.
Click to expand...
You can...
_1949073_mouse_ear300.jpg


:lol:
 
Don't know about the particular mouse but they do grow ears on mice and in south park even other stuff ;)
Sorry to go off-topic, though, and sorry for the disturbing pic, I think the thread's better off without it.
 
As an amateur looking to learn and have better mixes, I think it's easy to get caught up in the trap of hearing the results of pros and then learning how they did it and trying to duplicate the process yourself.

What I've tried to do with my last few projects is to look at the way and why the pros do what they do and apply that mentality to what I do, not literally taking the same steps, using the "preset", etc. I've found my mixes are the best they've ever been (still not "pro"), and I've been able to finish a mix in much less time.

It's just so hard NOT to just exactly duplicate settings when you hear all this great work.

The "why" as to why Andy uses the C4 instead of EQ, or "why" Colin's guitar EQ's seem to work for him are the keys that helped my mixes, not literally punching in those parameters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mendel
Mixing Equalizer Article
Replies
8
Views
2K
Andy Sneap
Genius Gone Insane
G
S
5150 : Typical EQ on guitars when mixing
Replies
9
Views
6K
F.O.H.
abyssofdreams
A
S
Andy, how do you treat your guitars when mixing ?
Replies
6
Views
3K
F.O.H.
-J-
J
K
Looking for advice on taking my mixes to the next level.
Replies
5
Views
1K
Andy Sneap
chesterfieldblues
chesterfieldblues
S
Agressive bass disto, think Meshuggah - Chaosphere
Replies
12
Views
5K
Andy Sneap
Soundlurker
S
Top Bottom
Back