Helpful ReplyHow, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush.

Author
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 18001
  • Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
  • Status: offline
2016/01/29 13:25:05 (permalink)

How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush.

Hi Techniques doods and/or dudettes. Been occupied with various music and not so music related ventures lately so haven't been around to pick your brains (aka... annoy the big boys) lately.
 
Since my last round of questions I've been trying to ease myself into the concept of "mirrored EQ" as recommended by many based on my last, extremely busy/congested mix. I've been tracking a lot lately and studying some semi related software so haven't had a ton of time to screw with this but am getting ready to take a good swipe at it all.
 
I've been looking around a bit and I see some conflicting ideas of what exactly "mirrored EQ" means and how/when it should be applied. I get it... mostly but it seems to be a much more complex phenomena than simply "turn a freq down on one track then turn it up on another". Like it depends on the instruments, what's trying to be acheived, the density of the mix, etc... and of course there are tons of internet goobers likely mangling the concept and claiming it's fact.
 
Soooo... just looking for tales of success and general thoughts/opinions on the subject to pontificate and test out as I bumble through more practice mixes. Ya'll never steer me wrong.
 
I do think my general mixes are getting better though so all this great info you guys provide isn't being squadered (I hope).
 
Thanks... and I hope everyone has been well.
#1
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 5694
  • Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
  • Location: Richmond Virginia USA
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/01/29 16:38:31 (permalink)
I've played with this to give a sense of space/width in an instrument which was single Mic recorded.

Mostly, I don't bother. Wasn't there like a cool plugin we all loved called vc64 or something that allowed multiple compressors and eqs with various configurations?

http://www.soundonsound.c...les/sonartech_0107.htm

StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen.
I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
#2
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10037
  • Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
  • Location: SL,UT
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/01/29 16:47:44 (permalink)
do you mean 'complementary EQ"?
 

Bats Brew music Streaming
Bats Brew albums:
"Trouble"
"Stay"
"The Time is Magic"
--
Sonar 6 PE>Bandlab Cakewalk>Studio One 3.5>RME BFP>i7-7700 3.6GHz>MSI B250M>G.Skill Ripjaws 4 series 16GB>Samsung 960 EVO m.2ssd>W 10 Pro
 
#3
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 18001
  • Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/01/29 17:12:05 (permalink)
This may not be the best article on the matter but one example of one of the explanations I've encountered....
 
http://mixing101.wikidot.com/equalization
 
Scroll down to the "Yin Yang" section and they go into, what they refer to as mirror eqing... but I've seen other examples.
 
And yeah, I guess it would/could be complimentary EQ... or maybe that's another concept.
 
Pretty much why I'm asking because of course a lot of the lingo and concepts seem to fluctuate as I look around.
 
I do (and have been experimenting with) some of these ideas based on Danny's advice and others here but I think hearing various people's ideas on what exactly this type of EQing means and how it's best applied.
 
I've posted some of my stuff before which obviously has everything smashed at once (heavily distorated wall of guits metal) and could use this type of approach but I know other tunes/ideas I have that are more open would not need it to such finite extremes.
 
Like 6-8 guits (rhtyhm doubles, dual rhythm part doubles, doubled or single leads, doubled or single nuances) jammed in amongst bass, keys, drums etc vs just drums a bass a single kit and a vocal coming in/out.
 
On the latter I know you want to kind of gently nudge things out of the way but the former could use much more EQ surgery.
 
...
 
meh... as I said, just picking everyone's brains to see if I can get some things to try and maybe nail down what "mirrored" actually means (if anything definitive at all).
 
Sorry... got kept up half the night and my brain is fried.
 
Cheers.
#4
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 13933
  • Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
  • Location: NYC
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/01/29 19:11:58 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Beepster 2016/01/29 20:59:54
It has two main uses for me - making clashing instruments work better together, and stereo widening. 
 
I'm always of the opinion that EQ should be used as a last resort. Sound choice is first and foremost. Sometimes you get two sounds which work perfectly good together without any EQ needed. The arrangement is also important - if you can intertwine parts so that they step on each other as little as possible, again little to no EQ is needed. But for those times when you're really set on the sounds you have and they need some separation, I always try the following in order:
 
1) Using high or low shelves to boost or attenuate the "general lows" or "general highs." Shelves just seem to have less of a detrimental effect on the sound than bell curves, and sometimes when two instruments clash you can put it down to "too much bass" or "two much treble" in one of the sounds. If this is the case, and a shelf works, then great. No need to go any further. 
 
2) If that doesn't work, try mirror or "complementary" EQ. When trying to separate two instruments with mirror EQ, I always try and decide which instrument is more important to the mix. I then look for a good frequency to boost in this instrument - an area which seems to bring out the best in the sound. Then I cut this same frequency in the other instrument. I usually cut by more dB than I boost, and a narrower Q. If this achieves satisfactory separation then great - if not, I do the same with the other instrument, i.e. find a frequency which brings out a good part of the sound for the mix, boost it, and cut it in the other sound. If this still doesn't work (and I really really want to keep those sounds) then I may even try another round of mirror EQ'ing, i.e. find a second frequency in each instrument to boost, cutting the same frequency in the other. But at every step it's important to sit back and listen to what you've done so far - if it sounds good then there is no point going any further with more cuts and boosts. The less EQ the better. 
 
For stereo widening, I use exactly the same principles as above. If it's two hard panned mono instruments you're trying to widen in the mix, apply mirror EQ to them both. If it's a stereo instrument you're trying to widen, find an EQ which supports left/right channel EQ'ing, e.g. Waves Renaissance or Native Instrument's Passive EQ, then mirror EQ the left and right channels as if they were two separate instruments. Not much more to it than that. 

James
Windows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
#5
dwardzala
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1470
  • Joined: 2008/05/26 19:18:33
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/01/29 21:18:34 (permalink)
I tend to use complimentary EQ on Bass & Kick.  I won't call it mirrored EQ because I don't usually boost frequencies, I just cut them to compliment the other instrument.  I might cut the base below 80 Hz and then notch out the kick at 100.

Dave
Main Studio- Core i5 @2.67GHz, 16Gb Ram, (2) 500Gb HDs, (1) 360 Gb HD
MotU Ultralite AVB, Axiom 49 Midi Controller, Akai MPD18 Midi Controller
Win10 x64 Home
Sonar 2017.06 Platinum (and X3e, X2c, X1d)
 
Mobile Studio - Sager NP8677 (i7-6700HQ @2.67MHz, 16G Ram, 250G SSD, 1T HD)
M-Box Mini v. 2
Win 10 x64 Home
Sonar 2016.10 Platinum
 
Check out my original music:
https://soundcloud.com/d-wardzala/sets/d-wardzala-original-music
 
 
#6
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 18001
  • Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/01/31 12:28:13 (permalink)
Thanks, guys.
 
@sharke... That is very good info and gave me a buttwad of ideas. I'm guessing those concepts are probably much more what the term(s) mean than some of the crud I've been reading but even if not it makes sense and will be used soon on something I'm working on.
 
The way I've been orchestrating a lot of my rhythm guits lately is two separate but similar/complimentary parts on four tracks. There is a "low" rhythm that is meant as the bottom end chunk which is mostly fifth chords and "stacked" or "inverted" fifth chords (so essentially power chords but played in the most chunky way possible... I'm sure you know what I mean). Those may also contain triads played on the top (lowest) three strings if I'm trying to make a serious chord distinction. All played as low as possible.
 
Then there is the "hi" rhythm which meanders about the neck and strings much more and is more the actual rhythm guit. That's where I definitely defined chord qualities and that usually plays out higher up the fretboard and across the 5th to 2nd string. It's not a complete 1+8ve double of the lo rhythm. Just a completely twist up of the same thing (that sometimes branches off into little riffs and whatnot).
 
To me those are my two virtual rhythm guitarists (both me of course).
 
I create doubles of both parts that I pan left/right to varying degrees (the lo parts are usually panned harder left/right... like 80% or more and the hi parts about 70-50%).
 
There are LOTS of competing frequencies here and I don't like straying TOO much from my amp sim sound (whenever I try one guit or the other will disappear due to the high gain nature of my sim choices/settings).
 
If I pan the hi and lo rhythms left and right (like one guitarist to a side) it sounds very unbalanced because the chug is all on one side and the nuance is on the other.
 
I have tried setting levels so that on one side the lo rhythm is more prominent and on the other the hi rhythm is more prominent... and that kind of works but still not quite the definition between the two I'd like.
 
So... based on what you've presented I think what I will try is a 4 tiered EQ setup.
 
Like maybe keep all the levels even but instead...
 
Lo rhythm Left and Right have a high shelf turned down.
 
Hi Rhtyhm Left and Right have a high shelf turned up.
 
Low rhythm left will have a bandpass boost and low rhythm right will have bandpass cut (at the same frequency).
 
Hi rhythm left and right will have a similar bandpass boost and cut scheme as the lo rhythm except at a different frequency to separate it from the lo rhythm guits.
 
This would hopefully distinguish the two parts from each other AND give a bit of distinction/flavor between the panned doubles.
 
Then all those get sent to a bus where I can notch out a frequency or two to allow the bass and kick beater to pass through or even use a sidechain compressor (maybe even multiband set to specific freqs to just affect where thos instruments exist) so that separates ALL the rhythm guits from the bass/kick in the low-lowmid range.
 
Of course bass and kick are tuned out of the way of each other and the solos will generally cut with some more extreme high pass (and it's easier to change guit tones on leads anyway).
 
...or something like that.
 
Mostly typing up ideas based on your post. Close to what I was already conjuring up but way more refined.
 
Thanks... and of course if I'm being an idiot everyone feel free to point it out (well about this topic anyway... lol).
 
Cheeeers.
#7
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 5321
  • Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
  • Location: Maryland, USA
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/01/31 13:12:40 (permalink)
As most mixes are only panned center on the low end, the bass/kick is the most common application for me simply because there is a lot more leeway to mid/side and or pan as you go up the frequency spectrum.
 
Also bear in mind that frequency masking occurs in a close amplitude range (within a few dB), but another trick commonly used is to compress and lower gain on something repetitive after it is introduced to the listener. The listener becomes accustomed to the "repeating" factor, so actually embellishes (or completely fantasizes) that them self so long as a remnant remains audible (hence the compression so it can be low gain without fading in/out). Similar to being in a loud venue talking to a friend... once you know their voice, you can still pick it out at a much different volume than ambient.
 
As an aside... you had asked about the term "SONAR" a short while ago and that application is called "directivity index," meaning simply a dB advantage (on the noise side) because you "know the material." The "Noise" part of S/N ratio in underwater SONAR applications is actually (ambient noise - directivity index). A portion is "straight up engineering" (i.e. true filtering/enhancement) but the flip side is how the "listener's mind works" as well (i.e. can focus very well on its own even with competition) - the mind can actually create directivity just from knowing the signal to listen for.

ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
#8
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 13933
  • Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
  • Location: NYC
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/01/31 15:46:53 (permalink)
Beepster
Thanks, guys.
 
@sharke... That is very good info and gave me a buttwad of ideas. I'm guessing those concepts are probably much more what the term(s) mean than some of the crud I've been reading but even if not it makes sense and will be used soon on something I'm working on.
 
The way I've been orchestrating a lot of my rhythm guits lately is two separate but similar/complimentary parts on four tracks. There is a "low" rhythm that is meant as the bottom end chunk which is mostly fifth chords and "stacked" or "inverted" fifth chords (so essentially power chords but played in the most chunky way possible... I'm sure you know what I mean). Those may also contain triads played on the top (lowest) three strings if I'm trying to make a serious chord distinction. All played as low as possible.
 
Then there is the "hi" rhythm which meanders about the neck and strings much more and is more the actual rhythm guit. That's where I definitely defined chord qualities and that usually plays out higher up the fretboard and across the 5th to 2nd string. It's not a complete 1+8ve double of the lo rhythm. Just a completely twist up of the same thing (that sometimes branches off into little riffs and whatnot).
 
To me those are my two virtual rhythm guitarists (both me of course).
 
I create doubles of both parts that I pan left/right to varying degrees (the lo parts are usually panned harder left/right... like 80% or more and the hi parts about 70-50%).
 
There are LOTS of competing frequencies here and I don't like straying TOO much from my amp sim sound (whenever I try one guit or the other will disappear due to the high gain nature of my sim choices/settings).
 
If I pan the hi and lo rhythms left and right (like one guitarist to a side) it sounds very unbalanced because the chug is all on one side and the nuance is on the other.
 
I have tried setting levels so that on one side the lo rhythm is more prominent and on the other the hi rhythm is more prominent... and that kind of works but still not quite the definition between the two I'd like.
 
So... based on what you've presented I think what I will try is a 4 tiered EQ setup.
 
Like maybe keep all the levels even but instead...
 
Lo rhythm Left and Right have a high shelf turned down.
 
Hi Rhtyhm Left and Right have a high shelf turned up.
 
Low rhythm left will have a bandpass boost and low rhythm right will have bandpass cut (at the same frequency).
 
Hi rhythm left and right will have a similar bandpass boost and cut scheme as the lo rhythm except at a different frequency to separate it from the lo rhythm guits.
 
This would hopefully distinguish the two parts from each other AND give a bit of distinction/flavor between the panned doubles.
 
Then all those get sent to a bus where I can notch out a frequency or two to allow the bass and kick beater to pass through or even use a sidechain compressor (maybe even multiband set to specific freqs to just affect where thos instruments exist) so that separates ALL the rhythm guits from the bass/kick in the low-lowmid range.
 
Of course bass and kick are tuned out of the way of each other and the solos will generally cut with some more extreme high pass (and it's easier to change guit tones on leads anyway).
 
...or something like that.
 
Mostly typing up ideas based on your post. Close to what I was already conjuring up but way more refined.
 
Thanks... and of course if I'm being an idiot everyone feel free to point it out (well about this topic anyway... lol).
 
Cheeeers.




 
Tbh I would maybe try mirror EQ-ing the two low parts and then mirror EQ-ing the two high parts rather than using shelves to mirror EQ the high parts from the low parts. I would guess that any masking issues would be happening mostly between parts in the same register, so you wouldn't need to do much (if anything) to separate parts which are in different registers. But mirror EQ-ing the left and right parts of each register would give you a greater sense of separation and therefore width. 
 
Another thing to consider is that you don't necessarily have to be going for maximum separation, especially when you're layering sounds. Sometimes it helps to think of parts as a single wall of sound. For example, imagine you were some kind of freak with more than two hands who could play both the low rhythm part and the high rhythm part on the same guitar at the same time. Would you be worried about separation if it was all being played on one instrument? Do engineers mirror EQ the left and right hand parts of a piano track? No, it's all just mushed together as one sound. Having said that, they may mirror EQ the left and right channels of a piano track to get width. I guess it all depends on what you're trying to achieve - width, separation or both. Personally though I don't have much experience with layering lots of rhythm guitar parts so I might be talking abject bollocks 

James
Windows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
#9
Danny Danzi
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 5810
  • Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
  • Location: DanziLand, NJ
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/02/04 16:10:36 (permalink)
Hey Beeps!
 
In a nutshell, you should eq each guitar part as its own entity. If one part is to be the bass leader, you have to treat it that way while always keeping in mind that as soon as you feel that guitar whoomf or rumble, you have too much low end in it. In the same breath, less EQ is better. The sound selection tells all. I barely eq anything these days other than little things here and there.
 
The same with mid guitars and high end guitars. The mid guitars can sound congested and muddy which will fight with certain keyboard lines, vocals and even snare drums. Add a lead guitar in and you'll wonder why you can't hear it.
 
The high end guitars can sound so razor sharp that they sound like little bees buzzing about. That said, that may be just what you want if they are in orchestration with other teams of guitars.
 
Guitar layer orchestration is challenging. I stay away from it unless I really need that type of production. Can I do it? Definitely....there just isn't much of a need in the stuff I write as well as the stuff my clients record with me.
 
The one thing you have to keep telling yourself with layers is....just about nothing will sound good on its own. As soon as you tweak for that "good all alone sound", you lose. The idea is to make the entire stack of guitars sound like a wall of "dear Lord, that slays!".
 
Another thing to keep in mind that gets said on here constantly is the arrangement. I can't stress how important that is. As you probably know with your theoretical background, you can't just glue a bunch of great ideas together. What happens there is....certain parts technically walk on top of other certain parts and you may NEVER be able to eq that stuff out of each others way.
 
I just completed a Deep Purple tune (Perfect Strangers) just for my head while testing some stuff out. It's scaled down and simple, but man, every time I hear it, I couldn't be happier with my sound selection as well as my performances. 2 rhythm guitars, one lead guitar, 4 keyboard instruments, one lead vocal, one back up vocal, bass and drums. I'm stoked about it as it is my own take and it just really moves me.
 
Here's how I record my stuff these days both for vocal stuff and my instrumental stuff:
 
There are times when I'll layer 6 backing vocal harmonies on something for effect purposes (high mid and low harms 3 left, 3 right)....but most times you'll hear two-part or three-part vox with an occasional 4 or 5 part. I have never and will never double my lead vocals. One and done.
 
On guitar, just about always 2 independent rhythms or one with a HAAS effect and then maybe one or two more to make a chorus part hit a little harder.
 
Lead guitars....always one and at times 2-3 for harmonies. I never double my leads for thickness. 1 because I never play the same thing twice, and 2 I've never felt the need.
 
Bass, always one track...or sometimes a DI and an amp or totally different signal. But just about always, one solid bass track.
 
Drums...I'm a hybrid whore. I love mixing and matching kits. But even there, it's usually kick and snare that are the choices for the hybrids. I have a great assortment of toms and cymbals both real and in sample format.
 
Keys, I play what's needed. Piano, strings, pipes, Hammond....special effects.
 
My REAL feelings on the above....I don't want to hide my raw/human capabilities behind massive orchestration production any longer. I did that in the 80's. Though I'm still a product of the 80's and proud, I don't miss the production pains I used to go through back then. I mean seriously.....do I really need to layer 10 guitar tracks? If you do, God bless you brother. LOL!
 
The point is, don't stress out with stuff that you might not be ready for right now. If you never stress over this stuff, then hey, you are a better man than I with more control. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to hang it up mixing to the point of frustration!
 
The more you have to work with, the thinner the mix (you have to make room for all that stuff) and the more headaches you can have. I just don't want to see the hard stuff deter you from being really good at the more simplistic stuff....and trust me, it CAN happen!
 
Record some cool stuff and post it up. There are guys that sit in their rooms messing around while reading....testing, and they might do 1 song in a year. Some never show anything because all they do is read, experiment and bite off way more than they can chew. This field is way easier than people lead you to believe. To really see that part, we have to get the basics down. THEN you can grow and move into other areas.
 
But don't let me discourage you. Do what you feel is best man. Like I've said before....if you can do a basic mix that sounds great everywhere that others give you props on as well and it gives you "wood".....do that 30 more times to see if you really know your stuff. THEN tackle the the bigger beasts. :) As always, good luck brother...always pulling for you and here for you. :)
 
-Danny
post edited by Danny Danzi - 2016/02/04 16:25:19

My Site
Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
#10
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 18001
  • Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/02/04 17:25:33 (permalink)
Hiya, Danny. How ya been, man? Busy rockin' as usual I'm assuming.
 
Thanks for that and yeah, it's pretty much all the direction I'm heading in general. I've been moving at a bit of a snail's pace in general for a plethora of reasons but I'm definitely getting better and better at the simpler "quick dialing" of stuff now that I'm more familiar with the tools and techniques.
 
As you can tell though this is a bit of a more advanced and finite query and the answers are hard to come by (due to the exact thing you've said to me before... there is a lot of bad/misleading info out there) and I was having a hard time really nailing down exactly what people meant by "mirror EQ". I understood the general idea of just getting things out of each other's way as we've discussed at length and is always brought up in regards to general EQ but the real "mirror" thing doesn't really seem to be about just that.
 
sharke definitely nailed a few things down for me and made an apt description of some of the stuff I want to try in regard to layers by saying guitar parts where you simply don't have enough fingers (and I'll go further and include not enough strings). For me that's usually these thick, chunky metal rhythms where I want the two distinct parts to work together as a unit but also make sure all the notes are heard and if the parts veer off a little into their own thing they are defined.
 
I don't want to do that all the time (because I do need to branch out in my writing/production style... I was never "just" a thrasher) but I do it often enough that if I can really make my rhythms smash through I'll be happy.
 
Think Master of Puppets type guitar depth... but without thinning out the other parts (bass, drums, vox) as much. I'm definitely getting close (I think) but just need that little bit of extra clarity between the guits so they don't smoosh together TOO much.
 
The little minute EQ games will help I think and produce what I want. Like I want it to more "imply" one guitar part in one side and the other on the other side but not actually have either "quieter" than the other on either side. Just draw the ear to different nuances/frequencies on either side... if that makes sense.
 
I've been inching towards this for a while anyway and now doing a couple prelim tests while messing with other stuff (I've actually been screwing around with some silly vocal magling experiments before mixing my current work in progress) and it's working. I just really needed to understand how to do it more surgically to drive it all home.
 
I was doing things maybe a little backwards or not as complex because I thought I was getting TOO finicky and weird but now I realize I should go just a nudge more in that direction and back off some other things I've been trying.
 
So I guess it would translate into more diverse (but reflective and precise) EQing across all the guit tracks but using less drastic settings.
 
We'll see. Been feeling like arse lately and dealing with other stuff but hopefully some material will start getting finished soon.
 
Cheers buddy. Take care and thanks...
 
and thanks to everyone else too.
#11
Lord Tim
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 837
  • Joined: 2003/11/10 10:33:43
  • Location: Australia
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/02/08 09:38:41 (permalink)
A couple of ideas from a guy who DOES still do stupid amounts of layers of... well, everything! 
 
Rhythm wise, you're not really gonna get too much thicker than 3 or 4 layers at best. Anthrax found their "fatness" point back in the day was L / R / C guitars. Modern death metal is usually 2 guitars on either side, and played suuuuppeerrr tight so it may as well be just one on either side.
 
90% of the time, I just go a L and R rhythm and occasionally I'll do a centre one either as an effect so when the outside layers come in, they sound huge, or it's something simple like chugs while the main guitars are playing the riff.
 
The real trick to this is midrange being pumped so you're not getting too much in the abrasive highs and the mud that always builds up in the low end when you layer a lot of rhythms, and there being less distortion than you really think you need. When you start building up a lot of rhythm tracks, unless your picking is crazy tight (or you quantize them, which is really getting into modern tech death territory), it goes to mush really fast.
 
Metallica is an odd one since they forgot they even had a midrange dial between 1984 and 1990!  But they did have a bright upper mid that had a lot of cut inherent in the tone, and if you listen to their tones carefully the chords decayed pretty fast, so it was really only that initial attack that had the distortion and "bark."
 
Now don't get me wrong, sometimes it's nice to do a lot of layers with inverted chords over the top of chunky power chords - I've certainly done that on some of my albums - and in that case, panning and complementary EQ is definitely your friend, but I'd really suggest stripping back the rhythms and seeing what's important to the song first and foremost. The less stuff going on, the less chance of it turning to mush from the human element bringing in timing variations.
 
Now bear in mind the guy giving you this advice to keep it simple is looking at a song in front of him right now with 22 guitar tracks in it!  But the great bulk of even that one is at heart 2 rhythms, bass and drums, and a LOT of embellishment where it needs it rather than it being a constant thing that's acting as the bed of the track.

WWW: www.lord.net.au  FB: www.facebook.com/lordtimofficial
Bandlab: www.bandlab.com/lordtim
 
Cakewalk by Bandlab / DAW: i7 M620 @ 2.67 GHz, 8 GB RAM, Win10 64 Bit [eng], TASCAM US-16x08 @ 5.8ms (22.7ms RTL) ASIO, Behringer UMX61 Keyboard Controller.
#12
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 18001
  • Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/02/08 14:31:18 (permalink)
Good stuff, Tim.
 
And yeah, I always just considered my stuff "metal" or "thrash" but apparently the nomenclature has become "extreme metal" which I find a little humorous (and some of the bands that apparently fall under that are kind of... not very extreme to me... lol).
 
Anthrax has a great sound but I think mostly due to the drums and bass being so up front (comparitively of course... most thrash from back in the day just buried the bass which sucked because I love bass).
 
I found their guitar tones a little too clinical and scooped but Scott Ian's right hand made it work.
 
Necrophagist guits seems to be a good sound I'd really like to nail.
 
Anyway... I'm REALLY lucky to have Danny and you taking an interest. Every snippet of advice gets hoovered up and applied and it's having a very positive effect I think. I'm doing a lot more precise frequency hunting and compression and it's making things pop a LOT better (and more importantly representing the material as it's intended).
 
All the general advice I get here is brilliant but you guys are specialists in these styles which I'm slowly learning are very finicky and kind of need special techniques that aren't necessarily in the usual "textbooks".
 
I've also got my own bent ear on how I like things to sound (due to the punk/hardcore years) so learning the specifics helps me dial that type of thing in with some actual insight instead of just twisting dials willy nilly hoping to luck into what I want.
 
Basically... you guys are awesome. Thanks a million.
 
Cheers.
#13
Danny Danzi
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 5810
  • Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
  • Location: DanziLand, NJ
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/02/08 15:58:25 (permalink)
Beepster
 
Anyway... I'm REALLY lucky to have Danny and you taking an interest. Every snippet of advice gets hoovered up and applied and it's having a very positive effect I think. I'm doing a lot more precise frequency hunting and compression and it's making things pop a LOT better (and more importantly representing the material as it's intended).
 
All the general advice I get here is brilliant but you guys are specialists in these styles which I'm slowly learning are very finicky and kind of need special techniques that aren't necessarily in the usual "textbooks".
 
I've also got my own bent ear on how I like things to sound (due to the punk/hardcore years) so learning the specifics helps me dial that type of thing in with some actual insight instead of just twisting dials willy nilly hoping to luck into what I want.
 
Basically... you guys are awesome. Thanks a million.
 
Cheers.




Never a problem beeps. Just please understand, though I didn't really answer your question about EQ and sort of gave an opinion over an actual answer, I'm glad Tim made a mention about being basic also. At the end of the day, if the sounds you choose aren't very good....you then have multiple layers of crud.Not saying that's your case...just saying, it's important to know good sound selection.
 
My whole thing that I continuously try to ram home to you is to grasp the concept of getting good mixes with less instruments before you jump to massive amounts of instruments that can bring on massive headaches too.
 
I never want you to stop learning and experimenting. But with this stuff it's like the guitar player that goes too fast too soon....he picks up bad habits and is never clean. Some of those habits are hard to break. The same with this stuff....though you don't even realize it, you ears are training themselves each time you mess around. If what you think is a good sound really isn't and you times that by 8, now you're 8 times the bad sound.
 
Granted, sound/tones will always be subjective. Who am I or to tell you "those tone aren't very good" if you like them and believe in them? I've heard albums that sold millions where I would have never settled or tracked those sounds. Heck, I am astonished some of the producers are granted god status for some of the stuff I've heard.
 
Does it make me wrong for not agreeing with the masses or the producer/critics? Probably....or maybe it further proves my own opinion that I simply do not belong in this world as I will just about always be in the minority with everything and everyone. Each day of my life, I find this out more about myself. From what I believe in politically, to my religious beliefs, my way of communicating with others vs. their way of not giving me the same common courtesy, my consideration for others vs. them being inconsiderate, and of course the music I think that is poorly performed and sounds like crap vs. what I believe to be well done and performed in all aspects.
 
A little off topic there, but that's how subjective everything is. Realistically examining my above paragraph, it's actually a good thing because it shows there is no right or wrong other than what YOU consider right or wrong. Subjectivity opens up a totally new dimension. You can create something totally new and fresh and 12 million people may love it....so never stop creating or experimenting. The point again....create and make your core sound incredible. Once you have a great track record for yourself and get continuous feedback from others that your stuff is good, you know you have a handle on it.
 
For example, I know not everyone likes my stuff, how I play, how I write, how I produce. But I don't think my mixes or sound selection would be so bad people would bash me into the ground. I've gotten "not for me, but good for what it is" which is not negative really. You need to get to that place man. And it can take quite a few songs.
 
If you don't have a full grasp on making 10 instruments in a mix sound good, don't have the magic to make a kick drum and a bass sound like a match made in heaven, lose your rhythm guitars behind vocals or keys and keep riding faders and can't control a mix to where nothing is buried by another, why move on to massive layering? See my point? When you layer so many instruments and are learning at the same time, it's easy to forget what a core of "good" is.
 
To answer your mirror question now that I've played daddy Danny.....
 
Each mix needs different stuff as you know. If I boost something on a bass, I'm going to cut a little of that on a kick drum and boost something else on the kick. For guitars....each time you run a slightly different eq, it makes the sound change. Ever record two independent guitars and have the same eq? At times, you will literally hear those guitars phase and go center because you played the exact same part at the exact same time! Yep...even while hard panned this can happen.
 
With the eq being different, you limit the chance of noticing this. That said...
 
I always do my main guitars first. These are the ones you hear the most of. I call them the core guitars or the mid range guitars when layering. I want these to hold precedence over everything and sound the best. They will have a bit of everything but will have the nice mids I need.
 
I'll high pass all the way to whatever it takes to totally get rid of any low end "whoosh". Sometimes I may have to go all the way up to 180 Hz. It depends on the sound. I don't want much low end in these...not much high end. A really good neutral sound in case I have to sweeten them a little. Slightly different eq's but nothing drastic. One may have a bit more mid and the other a bit more high end sizzle etc....experiment until you get it right. I may boost from 640 to 860 Hz for thickness. You gotta be careful here though as too much of this will congest the mids. Watch 250-350....you can lose a guitar in mud in 2 seconds adding too much of that!
 
Your bass foundation guitars need to have some girth in the low end, but that low end whoomf/whooosh I spoke about before can kill everything. I can't tell you where to remove it because every sound is different. Listen to a single guitar and pan it up the middle while you tweak it. Run a high pass and sweep it until you hear a "whooosssh" type sound disappear. When it disappears, roll a little of it back in. Once that is done, you now know how low your lowest guitar frequencies can be.
 
You want these guitars to be thick, but you don't want them to whoomf if you chug chords or walk on the bass guitar. Frequencies to watch....anything under 200 Hz because guitar players always seem to boost those freqs. It's ok to boost them if you need them, but you have to determine if too much of them exist. Some guys just cut because so and so said to. You can't cut a freq that doesn't exist or isn't dominant enough to cut.
 
Watch mids and highs because though you need some, you don't need them to be too dominant here because your other guitars are orchestrating those parts. You want meat on these guitars, but you have to be careful. Make sure you don't have the mids you boosted in the core mid range guitars accentuated. This allows us to maintain a voice for everything. Now here, you can push a little 160-320 IF you don't have much of those in the tone. I know...it sounds a bit contradictory....but again, the tone you have will dictate your options.
 
For the high guitars, you need them to cut through. Eliminate any low end and if you have to high pass to 300 Hz do it. We want these to sound thin and almost lo-fi. The high end they add, if done right, will make you smile. Watch mids here and try to think of that Stryper type tone you messed with without any low end. That sizzle can be just what the doctor ordered for stuff like this.
 
You're going to get sizzle from 3k to 6k that makes a huge difference. From 7 k to 10k you start adding in some air....from 11k on up, you basically add hiss....but you can add some of this "super air" as I like to call it, and sometimes it can make a difference for the better.
 
From there, you just mess wit things until you get the results that you are looking for while constantly monitoring whether your changes are burying things, or exposing things to where individual voices are being heard. Slightly different eq settings without going crazy for each guitar should be enough to make things stereo enough. Too drastic, and then you worry about offsets in volume. One has too much bite, that is the one you hear the most. One has too much mid....it may appear too thick. I'm not saying don't do that, but those are some of the issues you may encounter.
 
The tough thing to explain here is....the starting points I've given are all crap if your sounds:
 
1. Have too much of those frequencies
2. Have too little of those frequencies
 
This is why starting points are so bad and the worst advice you can ever live by no matter who the engineer is. The reason being...each tone if so different, you'd need the engineer to literally hear your tone before they could give you the right advice. I can't tell you to add 860Hz if your tone is already loaded with that. I can't tell you to high pass severely if your tone doesn't have low end garbage in it to begin with.
 
Example....my guitar tones in my opinion, need just about nothing for the songs I do other than a light high pass and a light low pass depending on the song. Sometimes I need a little cut, so I won't low pass at all. Other times for say, country rock or a ballad....you don't want the extra sizzle so I'll low pass from 7-10k just to nip the top off a bit. Sometimes I may need a little mid or low mid bump...other times, the tone is fine the way it is. I just about never have to high pass much because none of my tones have anything boosting in the low end area that would become a problem. Most times I'm HP'n 80 and below or 120 and below depending on the sound and the material. But for layering, I'd treat the low end differently as I mentioned above.
 
So hopefully while keeping some of this in mind, it may help you to get a better understanding. You can do other methods as well....but those are good starting places to at least experiment with. One day at a time bro. And remember, there's no right or wrong way if something sounds good....the only "way" that IS important, is keeping instruments out of each OTHERS "way". :)
 
-Danny
post edited by Danny Danzi - 2016/02/08 16:06:11

My Site
Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
#14
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 18001
  • Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
  • Status: offline
Re: How, when and why do YOU (yes you) apply "mirrored" EQ? Open query. No rush. 2016/02/11 14:06:30 (permalink)
Followup:
 
I've finally gotten a chance to try some of this on my guits today. It is working extremely well at ripping them apart from each other and defining things how I ACTUALLY want them to be heard.
 
Sooper pumped.
 
Gelling/separating that with/from other stuff is another matter but that's the more general mixing I've been trying to learn over the years and kind of have a handle on (kind of).
 
Thanks, all. Gonna keep slammin' at it, as always.
 
Cheers.
#15
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1