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.

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

do you mean 'complementary EQ"?
 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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 

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