Please can someone point me in the direction for somebody else (on this forum) on how to EQ a track properly or a link to a previous thread in regards to EQ'ing/mastering.
Yea its me with the issues. I have written quite a few tracks and i need to eq and master my tracks. Feedback on one is that i need to "make more space in the mix"
While i have written loads of music, i have zero experience in eq'ing and mastering and have no idea where to begin.
Is it possible to eq the wav itself or do i need to master every single component in the track?
I found the book Mixing With Your Mind helpful in this respect.
However, if it's something you've been struggling with for a long time then you may well want to look at your monitoring situation.
How are you monitors set up, how reflective/absorbent are the surfaces. What standing waves are problematic etc etc.
There's now one stop shop IMO, you need to read everything you can get your hands on and ignore everyone on the internet as 99% of people just regurgitate poorly understood information like they know wah gwan.
Except me of course, everything I say is fucking bang on IMO.
Yea its me with the issues. I have written quite a few tracks and i need to eq and master my tracks. Feedback on one is that i need to "make more space in the mix"
While i have written loads of music, i have zero experience in eq'ing and mastering and have no idea where to begin.
Is it possible to eq the wav itself or do i need to master every single component in the track?
Any advice is appreciated :)
quote:
ORIGINAL: STIMPY
it's called mixing, do it while you're making the track it's a hell of a lot easier than doing it afterwards.
Nail on the head from Stimpy IMO You're not going to create more space by eqing the finished audio file You need to go back and think about the eq and position of all the individual elements of the tune...see what elements are clashing in similar areas and use some careful eq to try and give them all the space to work....in other words, mix it down again
Concentrating on mixing can reduce your creativity in the writing stage and I've been training myself not to do it.
However, be sure a sound fits the arrangement when you work is my best advice, it makes mixing so much easier if you're thoughtful about what octave a sound is in and how that effects the arrangement.
I'm not saying don't EQ as you work, just that mixing is a job in itself and creative flows are precious things that demand your full attention.
Concentrating on mixing can reduce your creativity in the writing stage and I've been training myself not to do it.
However, be sure a sound fits the arrangement when you work is my best advice, it makes mixing so much easier if you're thoughtful about what octave a sound is in and how that effects the arrangement.
I'm not saying don't EQ as you work, just that mixing is a job in itself and creative flows are precious things that demand your full attention.
Agree...but its a finished tune innit Best thing to do is go back to the mixdown rather than trying to "add space" to a rendered wav by eqing it....which aint gonna happen IMO
I'm literally sat in a mastering studio as I type this.
There's pretty much fuck all point in mastering your own tune yourself unless you're doing it in a different room to the room you mixed it in. Otherwise, you definitely should have got it right in the mixing stage. To paraphrase Bob (top badman rudeboy) Olhsson, when using EQ, mastering engineers are usually correcting any discrepancies caused by lower quality monitoring/working environments at the mix stage, which is why it's near pointless mastering your own tune in your own studio (especially EQ) because you would have sorted it when mixing if you knew it needed sorting. It's much harder to EQ an entire tune and get it to work than it would be to sort out whatever element(s) in the mix are causing a problem.
So basically, either get someone else (preferably who knows what they're doing) to master your track or go back to the mix and fix whatever problem you've noticed.
I'm well tired so if none of that makes sense then do a fuck promptly followed by an off.
There's a difference in adjusting tone across a number of shared frequencies and adjusting tone on a single track - and in music production there's room for both -so don't get too caugt up in rules.
Thanks for all the feedback guys. I now have a lot of reading to do, but I think I'm gonna go back to the tracks themselves and have a go at eq'ing the individual components and see what I can do :)
Thanks for all the feedback guys. I now have a lot of reading to do, but I think I'm gonna go back to the tracks themselves and have a go at eq'ing the individual components and see what I can do :)
I'd suggest that was a better option than attempting to EQ the track as a whole. At least then you're only affecting the parts which need affecting rather than everything at once.
it's like a painting. the [canvas] painting might be exactly how you want it, and in the right proportions to itself / within itself - but it might still be too small for the wooden frame it has to be stretched over as a whole. so it needs to be stetched to fit. a good mixdown is not synonymous with a good master - though it helps the mastering stage.
you could do an accurate mixdown but your monitoring could still be innaccurate. so you have to "make up the difference", by stretching the canvas to fit the "wooden frame". this could mean adding *or* subracting (usually a bit of both).
having said that, a bad mixdown cannot be fixed by mastering. its possible to have a well mixed-down track which still does not fit the contours of the "industry standard standard", so to speak. and people *will* dismiss a track that does not fit the right contours.
therefore, seeing as mastering is a separate discipline and art, mastering is a separate industry altogether. that's why there are proffessional mastering engineers. if not, there'd be no need for proffessional mastering engineers.
it is a standalone discipline. nevertheless it is up to the artist to take the track as far as he can with a good mix beforehand. because you can't polish a turd, as the saying goes.
mastering is necessary even on a well balanced mix. the mix is judged by different criteria than the mastering. agree or disagree, i'm just relaying what i've learnt. take it or leave it. but i am adamant that a well mixed track reaches its full potential only through a solid master *after*. without which, it generally tends to sound flabby, or quiet, or painful, when tested over a range of different systems (of varying quality). the master merely aims to "normalize" the frequencies, or "standardize" the frequency ratios. so that the track sounds good and loud not only on your particular production monitors, but also in a car, over a small boombox speaker, on a PA, etc. but for that to happen, there's a general need for mastering. it is not automatic. it is a separate discipline to mixing. although similar. the difference being the presence of a "universal ideal". A well mixed track with lop sided bottom end (despite it being mixed well in and of itself) will be exactly that. A well mixed track with flabby lows. easily corrected with mastering.
nevertheless, mastering engineers themselves differ. doe a google search for some A-B, before-and-after, mastering comparisons. better still, work with a variety of different engineers, and go with whichever one's final masters most do the justice to the music over a variety of systems. a track might sound good over your monitors but the car stereo might highlight a fault. different systems perform differently. as do different environments. there is an infinity of combinations. you are aiming at a master which will fit best across as wide a variety of systems as possible. and sadly there is no substitute for experience, here.
this is an area where experience can't really be replaced. basically, in short: you need to be able to imagine, that your current listening environment *might not be to a universal standard*. it might not represent "THE archetypal system". so even if a mix sounds great, it might still need some subtle sculpting. beyond what you are presently able perceive. your environment can only go so far. it cannot represent all the other environments. a low-high ratio which sounds good on your system and in your room, might be exposed as lop-sided on another system. because it is possible that your room absorbs or misrepresents certain frequencies. therefore one needs good ears coupled with experience. good ears alone is not enough. why do you think producers like goldie and ray keith use engineers? if a track was ready on its own, there'd be no need for anything else but a producer.
you have to be able to imagine a wider range of outputs / systems / environments. something that sounds good in your room and on your speakers is not necessarily automatically aligned to every other system in the world. chances are, it exactly is not. hence mastering engineers as a seperate discipline. mastering as a separate art. it can be very subtle.
you have to be able to "see beyond" your own setup. you have to think about a broad range of setups. what this boils down to in the end is: mastering corrections to an otherwise seemingly faultless, finished track. it does hurt the pride, but thats the wrong attitude to have. the right attitude would be to admit you may have an inadequate finished product. that there may be other systems which will not flatter your mix at all and which thus need to be taken into account when weighing the frequency ratios and compression. that way, you create potential for your track to be seriously improved, a good notch or two - and to not fall flat as soon as it leaves your four walls.
it really does make a difference. a good mixdown is a seperate thing to a good master, they are not a synonim. this is why studios use A-B referencing monitoring (more than one set of speakers) - to reduce the "invisible" discrepancies which one set alone could not possibly highlight for you. A Yamaha NS10 gives you a different representation than, say, a hifi with a sub.
if your workstation speakers have a flattering character (flattering the lows and highs, and reducing the mids), then it'll tend to worsen the master, and sound flat on other systems. (hence the harsh nature of the NS10s. having the opposite effect. making the lows and highs brighter on other systems). it is all relative. you just have to be able to imagine a broad range of setups and aim for the "universal archetype". And the only way to know what that is, is via experience of many different systems; and experience of how different masters translate across a variety of systems.
i understand people will not appreciate yet another bunch of technical pains in the ass to stifle their production creativity (mixdowns can be a pain enough enough as it is); but that's why there are dedicated mastering engineers. it is part and parcel. you do yourself no favors - and a dishonor - living in denial of this side of the industry. your final track suffers. it is just stubboness. one should take all these things into consideration. there *are* more stages than just the production and mixing stages. there's at least two more stages: the cross referencing stage, and the mastering stage. truth hurts. as mastering takes years to ... well .. master).
but if one is concerned about one's finished product, one should never sweep the mastering side of the industry under the carpet. for what? That said, there is a "loudness" trend which exploits the effects of high frequencies to mimic a good master. In production, more high end makes an element appear "closer" - and less high end makes an element seem "further away in the background". There is a trend to basically push the high end and compress and excite the high frequencies and harmonics, thus making the master *appear* louder, and "closer". But this is merely a trick and an illusion - and results in fatigue. there is no substitute for a good master. it really does make all the difference.
you basically need to have good ears which not only can hear a good mix (the elements of the track balanced with one another), but also to have the experience to understand a good frequency ratio and overall normalization / compression / limiting, which not only is minimal and "legit" (i.e., not a cheap trick), but which also translates well across a variety of systems. a good mixdown does not necessarily mean a good master. a good mixdown does *help* to achieve a good master, post-production and post-mix, but a good master is not automatic. far from it.
one ought to make room in one's imagination for this extra potential - for these extra "corners" for which the "canvas" still needs to stretch, to fit the "wooden frame" (or, indeed, shrink). or one suffers injustice when one's track hits the ears of listeners, on their own hifi, and in their own preffered listening environment. which tends to be different to the one in which the track was made! highlighting different areas of the mix: i.e., potential problem areas - which might have been left unchecked if bypassing a good, professional master. you have to take into account your environment's inadequacies.
all that said, some people could not give a rat's ass, and will listen to anything. so really it just depends on wether you are anal or not. and wether you want the best.
have a look for some A-B mastering comparisons. And watch out for cheap, 'orrible mastering tricks.
I'm literally sat in a mastering studio as I type this.
There's pretty much fuck all point in mastering your own tune yourself unless you're doing it in a different room to the room you mixed it in. Otherwise, you definitely should have got it right in the mixing stage. To paraphrase Bob (top badman rudeboy) Olhsson, when using EQ, mastering engineers are usually correcting any discrepancies caused by lower quality monitoring/working environments at the mix stage, which is why it's near pointless mastering your own tune in your own studio (especially EQ) because you would have sorted it when mixing if you knew it needed sorting. It's much harder to EQ an entire tune and get it to work than it would be to sort out whatever element(s) in the mix are causing a problem.
So basically, either get someone else (preferably who knows what they're doing) to master your track or go back to the mix and fix whatever problem you've noticed.
I'm well tired so if none of that makes sense then do a fuck promptly followed by an off.
Hmm. Some mastering tools though, do something to the overal signal that will improve the track even if it is done in the same room that it was made in. As long as the room is pretty decent with it's acoustics and frequency response etc.
Things like a three band mastering compresser and certain sound enhancing tools. IMO. There is something about processing the whole signal that just lifts the music up another level and gels it all together that little bit more.
Ofcourse though if you have the money it makes a whole lot of sense to get the most professional mastering engineer with all the most impressive masting tools and enviroment.
etc. but this is another area where it's generally just a case of personal opinion and/or preference. main difference being how wide you cast your net in terms of potential listener satisfaction.
my ipod is filled with albums - and they are plainly not all mastered the same.
mastering has taken a back seat. there's a real vacuum presently, i think. an high demand. its logical. the digital explosion has changed perception and approach somewhat. but it'll settle back down
Printable Version
EQ'ing a finished track - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread