>"sitting well in the mix."
hopefully by definition something that is put out has had those problems dealt with...
>I can understand conflicts,-- two sounds in
>roughly the same frequency band that clash with eachother. In my week of >eq-ing in Logic, I've learned to deal with this using subtractive eq; I >sweep a notch filter over the frequency spectrum until I identify >frequencies that have a dissonant beating in them- a result of sounds >clashing in pitch- and invert the notch and attenuate the frequency. I can >also understand flat eq over the hearing range, even if I have to fall back>on SoundJam's spectral analyzer rather than trust my own ears.
you should just trust your ears....compare with a good recording, but bear in mind that recording has been mastered and the average level will be quite a bit hotter than what you're working on. use the soundjam analyzer witha grain of salt - when it shows the response of a commercial recording you are seeing the effects of mastering/multiband limiting and that can be very misleading if you are trying to mimic that kind of response.
>Is there
>more to "sitting well in a mix" than this?
well...that term can also refer to a part having too wide a range of dynamics (especially a vocal) that's too loud one minute, and not loud enough another. but sounds in the same frequency range have a tendency to mask each other. another way of dealing with that is to pan them apart a bit, especially in the mid/hi range. it's best to leave things like kick drum and mono bass panned in the middle.
especially with digital EQ, it's almost always better to cut than to boost. if you need to boost anythign at all, using a broad, shelving type surve will usually work the best. where you are trying to make room frequency wise for two or more sounds to co-exist peacefully, using a parametric or notch curve is the way to go. "flat" EQ is a misnomer, the best mixes are very often not flat at all EQ-wise, but they contain a good balance of lows, mids and highs. if anything, limiting tends to even things out more than EQ'ing if you have a good mix. dynamics play just as crucial a role as EQ does. don't worry about making things flat - make them sound good.
so how something "sits in a mix" is a description of how balanced/clear it is in the mix, whether it's made to work by using EQ, dynamics, or effects, or just by being arranged well. tracks that have a lot going on in them are much harder to balance out than simple tracks, more parts = more sound competing for the same limited space.
>Has anybody ever been in the
>position I'm in, new to production eq and unsure of what's expected of
>them?
if it ain't broke, don't fix it. use as much EQ as you think you need to get the job done, but if you have to really dig away at something with multiple bands of EQ, you might want to re-think your strategy. is there so much going on that nothing is going to help that part? does it jsut need ot be louder/quieter in relation to the other parts instead of having hte life EQ'ed out of it? can you use an effect to better enhance the part without EQ? does it have too much effect? do you need to change the sound, or have it play differntly? that's the kind of thinking you will probaly develop along the way once you realize that EQ has it's limitations and you'll be able to recognize that point when you get to it.
>Will I gain the ability to identify sounds not sitting well in the
>mix over time?yeah, you'll be able to figure it out. it's not too hard, and the longer you work at it, the more you'll realize that having a good arrangement is every bit as important as EQ or dynamics control. there's no better sounding mix than one that needs little or no EQ. like the old saying goes..... "a good song mixes itself".
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
---
Drum&Bass Arena Producers Discussion List http://www.breakbeat.co.uk
You are currently subscribed to dnb-prod as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
