EQ- Are you a Cutter, or a Booster?
- inflatable
- pushin' record
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:31 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- bplr
- takin' a dinner break
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:49 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Contact:
personally, i'm a cutter most of the time during tracking (if at all). if i'm boosting, it's usually because i ran out of juice to drive a ribbon. sometimes i'll add a little presence to help it poke through.
during a mix, i tend to cut, but i really don't think too hard about it, unless it ain't sounding right.
during a mix, i tend to cut, but i really don't think too hard about it, unless it ain't sounding right.
Bipolar Production
-
- alignin' 24-trk
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:05 am
- Location: washington, dc
-
- carpal tunnel
- Posts: 1563
- Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:01 am
- Location: The Oldest Town in Texas
- Contact:
Ah. The old "crank and pull" method of EQ'ing. Good stuff. I still do it even though I mostly know what frequencies different instrument produce.I like the parametric boost the shit outta a freqency range about > . < big, sweep it back and forth til you hit the partial you wanna nuke, and then cut as neccesary strategy.
lightandmind-yeah, I agree that the terminology is not that important. Although sometimes our friends here at TOMB just wanna have a reason to join the conversation. It didn't sound like anyone was the "proper terms" police there. They were just sharing I think. Proper terms and the right way to do things are meaningless here though. It is art after all.
Now, I usually cut more than I boost. I will boost some low mid on a vocal to warm it up or make it intelligible within a dense mix sometimes. I have been known to boost upper mids on bass to make it cut through a little more. EQ is fun!
-
- speech impediment
- Posts: 4270
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
- Location: Norman, OK
- Contact:
- shedshrine
- deaf.
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:47 pm
- Location: sf bay area
born again cutter here..
spent a weekend remixing 4 track cassette recordings through a bigger mixer with all three bands parametric on all channels. Thought I was being "rock n roll" by running up the bass and upper mids. Wrong. Playing it back on other systems, almost all the tracks sounded predictably fizzy, shrieky and boomy and ......I'm starting over. I'll save the attitude for the performance.
spent a weekend remixing 4 track cassette recordings through a bigger mixer with all three bands parametric on all channels. Thought I was being "rock n roll" by running up the bass and upper mids. Wrong. Playing it back on other systems, almost all the tracks sounded predictably fizzy, shrieky and boomy and ......I'm starting over. I'll save the attitude for the performance.
-
- george martin
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:00 pm
- Location: philly
haha.......... i know exactly what you mean! "oh, i guess i'm supposed to boost the kick at 60...." nope, i need to cut an assload out of 80-100. whoops.shedshrine wrote:b Thought I was being "rock n roll" by running up the bass and upper mids. Wrong. Playing it back on other systems, almost all the tracks sounded predictably fizzy, shrieky and boomy and ......I'm starting over. I'll save the attitude for the performance.
- trodden
- on a wing and a prayer
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 8:21 am
- Location: C-attle
- Contact:
I still have that problem!thethingwiththestuff wrote:haha.......... i know exactly what you mean! "oh, i guess i'm supposed to boost the kick at 60...." nope, i need to cut an assload out of 80-100. whoops.shedshrine wrote:b Thought I was being "rock n roll" by running up the bass and upper mids. Wrong. Playing it back on other systems, almost all the tracks sounded predictably fizzy, shrieky and boomy and ......I'm starting over. I'll save the attitude for the performance.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests