Megin
Member
The one you like the best. There's no such thing as the best EQ.
That's what the amp is for and not EQ
Systematic Mixing Series #1: Poking Holes in High-Gain Guitars
- Thread starter Ermz
- Start date
The one you like the best. There's no such thing as the best EQ.
That's what the amp is for and not EQ
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
Pro-Q is one of the best general-use EQ's I have tried. Not aggressive enough? What do you want it to do, yell at you? 
Megin
Member
Most digital workhorse EQs sound interchangeable. There's only so many ways they can be coded. The biggest difference between most of them is the workflow and UI. Pick whichever feels best to you.
Wohma
Hearing sounds and voices
Inseminator
Member
- Mar 15, 2010
- 125
- 0
- 16
Ermz: when you do some equalizations to your miced guitars, do the guitars lose its natural recorded "room sound" and "3d feel"?
You can't EQ 'room sound' out of recorded guitars, no matter how much you try.
Really depends how you quantify '3d feel'. There are many factors which can contribute to this... mostly they tend to revolve around the quality of performance and the quality of the recording chain. Those things also can't be processed into nor out of guitar tracks. You do, however, tend to heavily bandwidth limit guitars in a mix. So if your idea of '3d feel' includes having them thumping in the subs on mutes, with all the hair on top left intact, then I suppose you would lose some of that. Above all you're looking for quality in the midrange. Only a small combination of guitars/pickups/amps/mics have the ideal mid dispersion in order for a tone to be heard in a mix clearly, without cutting into the critical presence region where vocals and other elements tend to live. The better the raw tone, the less you need to cut into it later, thus leaving more of the original feeling intact. Once again, I can't stress this enough... 95% of the quality of a guitar tone comes from the tracking. There is absolutely no replacement for this.
Really depends how you quantify '3d feel'. There are many factors which can contribute to this... mostly they tend to revolve around the quality of performance and the quality of the recording chain. Those things also can't be processed into nor out of guitar tracks. You do, however, tend to heavily bandwidth limit guitars in a mix. So if your idea of '3d feel' includes having them thumping in the subs on mutes, with all the hair on top left intact, then I suppose you would lose some of that. Above all you're looking for quality in the midrange. Only a small combination of guitars/pickups/amps/mics have the ideal mid dispersion in order for a tone to be heard in a mix clearly, without cutting into the critical presence region where vocals and other elements tend to live. The better the raw tone, the less you need to cut into it later, thus leaving more of the original feeling intact. Once again, I can't stress this enough... 95% of the quality of a guitar tone comes from the tracking. There is absolutely no replacement for this.
I think that the tutorial is ok, but in my opinion all these type of tutorials lack something... and that is samples and concise examples. It doesn't matter if every situation is different, I'd like to be able to not just only see this in words but to listen to it also. An example with all the settings used (even how much gain you used when EQing the guitars for the clips and the C4 settings used) would make this a thousand times more clear to newbies/amateurs.
crillemannen
Member
^
agree. Charles Dye's video tutorial is excellent. With both explaining and showing actual sessions and mixes. It tends to get to subjective and to substantial. Helped me allot a couple of years ago
agree. Charles Dye's video tutorial is excellent. With both explaining and showing actual sessions and mixes. It tends to get to subjective and to substantial. Helped me allot a couple of years ago
crillemannen
Member
well reading is always good but what was really good with the Dye video was that you got to see how he mixed and i remember how good it was to see the settings and how he routed things in a Pt session. Remember that people that are new to mixing won't know how to dial in a good reverb and delay on vox for example. So just to see and hear what a doubler and delay can do to with the width to vox was truly a mind opener.
You can always do a Waves exclusive mix that way people can always download their bundles in trial mode to see how you mix. If you are willing to share your secrets haha.
Doing this you could get allot of publicity over at GS, people would probably love to get their hands on a metal mix if you are willing to put down the time and effort that is
You can always do a Waves exclusive mix that way people can always download their bundles in trial mode to see how you mix. If you are willing to share your secrets haha.
Doing this you could get allot of publicity over at GS, people would probably love to get their hands on a metal mix if you are willing to put down the time and effort that is
Emdprodukt
Member of Dude Castle 69
How much EQ do you guys use for guitars? I know it depends... but just a pointer would be nice!
Lon
smash that.
I prefer reading to videos, videos are obnoxiously bothering and absolutely unusable to re-read small snippets of information, i would prefer a solid well formated pdf for printing / reading! And i would pay money for it because your 2 Systematic Mixing tutorials were a great help for me!
I don't, I agree with Lon's opinion
I just would like some examples in between the text. I like concise examples, that is to say if you are talking about EQ in an example clip, please mention the frequency, gain and Q. BTW, I loved the frequency summary. Actually, summaries are great if you wrote a lot of info and we want to check something fast.
RaDiKaL
Member
Virgil.
¯\(°_o)/¯
Reading is great. You can highlight parts you like and can jot down notes for quick referencing later when working on a mix. A video is harder to do that with considering you would have to go back and re-watch the whole damn thing just to find one part you forgot or needed to remember how to do. I think a combination of reading and video examples is good, but not necessary. I'm very much looking forward to the printed copy of this book! 
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
Ermz have you ever tried really really extreme low passing?
I know you mentioned 7khz but I was scrounging around for mixing info and saw Dan Korneff, who works with Bendeth and I believe does most of his guitars, mention that he typically low passes at 5-6khz, I tried going as low as that and I can't say I miss any of the crap at all up there, although it does seem really extreme to be doing away with half your frequency spectrum.
I really do hate guitars though, they are a royal pain in the arse, with everything else its mostly about how good you can make it sound, with guitars its about how much shit you can cut so that all the rest of the awesome isn't lost completely. I really have trouble with the 500-800hz area in particular, it's a real struggle trying to shift that cloudiness whilst not making the tone fall apart.
I know you mentioned 7khz but I was scrounging around for mixing info and saw Dan Korneff, who works with Bendeth and I believe does most of his guitars, mention that he typically low passes at 5-6khz, I tried going as low as that and I can't say I miss any of the crap at all up there, although it does seem really extreme to be doing away with half your frequency spectrum.
I really do hate guitars though, they are a royal pain in the arse, with everything else its mostly about how good you can make it sound, with guitars its about how much shit you can cut so that all the rest of the awesome isn't lost completely. I really have trouble with the 500-800hz area in particular, it's a real struggle trying to shift that cloudiness whilst not making the tone fall apart.
Brett - K A L I S I A
Dreaded Moderator
Low pass, high pass, and such filters don't mean much on their own if you don't know the slope.
