EQ Automation: do a lot of you cats do it?

[God]

When I used to work solely on tracks rather than biz side shit - I was indoctrinated by an AE that worked with me to view EQ as a literal artform. He was a British cat, and said that Americans have a different way of trying to correct mixes - whereas he used to sit down and try to fix mix problems with EQ.

Now, I know we all fix our problems with EQ. But he taught me early on (when PT wasn't the dominant thing) to listen to tracks at the SSL desk and literally turn the knobs to pull out offending frequencies ALL THE TIME while the recording was running to "print". So the EQ on one distinct track changed sixty times. If there was a multilayered chorus, we would sit there and fumble with multiple tracks changing the EQ's to what we had surmised were the "right" frequencies - for hours.

I remember him saying: "the 'eeee's' you have to notch that at 2050 Hz". And if there was a phrase where the singer would say "See you again." We would try to "automate" the notch for the "eee" in "see" at 2050Hz, the "oooo" in "you" at xxxxHz and the "gain" (which sounds like "ghen") at another frequency.

Each fucking phrase was eq'ed. We'd twiddle the knobs until it came out right in print (meaning 'recorded to tape.')

It was a laborious and crazy task, but it made the tracks sound stellar.

With PT it's a lot easier now -- but do any of you really overproduce your tracks and have your EQ automating in constant flux versus other tracks that are also being EQ'ed automatically?

I guess budgets are a lot smaller these days, so you didn't have the luxury of a year to work on 11 tracks and do some insane shit to the tracks.

 

[2GooD Productions]

In a word no, but I do spend a lot of time trying to get the eq's of the individual instruments/samples just right. It would pay to have automated eq'ing but the time it takes to do is a bit of a turn off. It is a wise thing to do as dynamics of a track change when certain instruments/samples come into or leave the mix, altering what sounded good before into something that doesnt sound so good in the changed section. I have automated volume levels on seperate tracks but not eq's. It is something I would consider for future tracks tho, its pretty easy to automate eq's in Acid and reason 4, I think Ill look into it.

 

[Relic]

Have not, I know the Bomb Squad used to do everything on the fly in their mixes!
Thats alot of work, thank goodness for automation! (which in itself is alot of work in a way)

 

[LDB]

I haven't and won't because I believe in the philosophy that you shouldn't "fix" anything in the mix. Go back and "fix" or change it before you get to that point. The mixing process for me is to "enhance" what you have, not to fix bad areas.

Now if you're "creating" at the mixing stage that's a whole diff't ball game. If you're using eqing etc etc to create a certain feel or sound at the mixing level that's a good thing imo. Since I'm in the midst of completing my album I've found that being creative at the mixing stage can take a good track and make it a great track!

 

[2GooD Productions]

I haven't and won't because I believe in the philosophy that you shouldn't "fix" anything in the mix. Go back and "fix" or change it before you get to that point. The mixing process for me is to "enhance" what you have, not to fix it bad areas.

Now if you're "creating" at the mixing stage that's a whole diff't ball game. If you're using eqing etc etc to create a certain feel or sound at the mixing level that's a good thing imo. Since I'm in the midst of completing my album I've found that being creative at the mixing stage can take a good track and make it a great track!

There is a whole new level of things you can change at the mixing level that can completely change a track, inspire a new idea etc. It is also good for taking something composed, and then chopping and using the composed peice as a sample to maintain the hiphop feel or create a hiphop feel if it was lacking already. And as for vocals, you have to be very lucky to get a vocalist to perform a peice exactly as you want it all the way through, so I can see where automated eq can be very useful.

 

[LDB]

And as for vocals, you have to be very lucky to get a vocalist to perform a peice exactly as you want it all the way through, so I can see where automated eq can be very useful.

Melodyne and many other programs and plugins take care of that. That's a song production issue...not a mixing issue. Eqing doesn't "fix" bad notes. It may help with presence and clarity it but won't change a notes or it's pitch.

 

[Ash Holmz]

I dont automate on the way in .. i leave evrything dry .. it doesnt make sense with todays technology to do heavy twisting of knobs on the way in unless u REALLY know what ur doing. Which I dont lol

but I automate the shit out of my mixes though.

 

[God]

Melodyne and many other programs and plugins take care of that. That's a song production issue...not a mixing issue. Eqing doesn't "fix" bad notes. It may help with presence and clarity it but won't change a notes or it's pitch.

There's a difference between a bad note - meaning one that is sung and is off-pitch. Melodyne or Autotune can fix that.

What I'm talking about is a good note - one sung in pitch - but has a harsh frequency footprint on it. For example, if you had a singer sing "Beeeee." What if the "eee's" are nasal and sound offensive in your monitors?

You can try to have the singer change the way they sing - or you can EQ the offending nasal frequency with a notch filter, pulling out the frequency range at xxxHz with a Q of X. I've also programmed de-essers to do this by focusing on the offending frequency, or I've automated it.

Sure - in Melodyne, I can have the cat sing a short "ee" and then stretch it out - but maybe there's an awesome inflection that you want to leave in (but you want to pull the offending nasal frequency in the "eee's" out of it.)

I guess what I'm saying is that I was taught to look at a mix as always changing. Meaning, EQ's can sound right in a certain position during the verse, but it changes when another instrument is added in. Sure this is going through everything with with a fine-tooth comb, but if a funk guitar is thrown in in bar 2 of the verse - and I hear it competing with the snare, for instance, I'm going to correct that EQ to make the guitar more transparent, and when something else, like a piano, is introduced in bar 3 of the verse - and that competes with the guitar and snare - I'm going to have to EQ the piano AND the other two instruments.

Most people aren't particularly keen or have the ears to want/try or even hear the changes. But they hear the track as "dude, that sounds awesome!" or "very polished, nice!" They don't know it's the automation- the average music listener certainly doesn't. But they'll play it over and over again (if the melody is good because it sounds so "professional" and "great."

But that's my drift.

Later,
God

 

[LDB]

I feel and know what you're saying G. (can't call you by your screen name homie...that's blasphemy to me) I was speaking more in terms of the music..not the vocals. Both are of course mixed with diff't care.

Ash,
I'm with you. If I do any automation it'ss in the same way that you do. It's more along the lines of creating things during the mix rather than fixing them. I believe we have the same philosophy when it comes to that. I've seen you mention that before.

 

[Relic]

Im definately gonna keep the technique in mind tho!

 

[God]

I feel and know what you're saying G. (can't call you by your screen name homie...that's blasphemy to me) I was speaking more in terms of the music..not the vocals. Both are of course mixed with diff't care.

The maxim applies to instruments too. My example of the snare w/guitar is evidence of this. But your qualifier of "diff't care" might ring true - if people don't automate EQ on vocals, what are the odds they automate the EQ on instruments? Slim.

 

[Shonsteez]

The only time i ever automate EQ, which is super rare - is to achieve an effect that you cant get otherwise, but not fix problems in that sense. Rather, its to create an effect, like sweeping through freq's with a slightly narrow Q.....It just depends but i really dont bother automating EQ. I only use EQ to cut unwanted freq's when masking occurs.

Seems like better mic placement or different mics for that matter or even a different room could help remedy such an issue rather then constantly EQing each phrase? I dunno. Doesnt seem very productive to me? Plus the studio hours gettin clocked in front of the board just doin that must have been outrageous!?....You could use that time to do comps and sub mixes.

 

[Formant024]

lol, we still do that in logic but through hardware mostly, best zonin in the disturbing ranges (always low and high midrange, low- and highrange) and that does work best / fastest through an analogue console. It is typical british indeed, not many engineer take the trouble of doing so but then again, i'd choose british mix/masterings over US ones anytime...