The most commonly used tool in an audio engineer's toolkit is the venerable equalizer (EQ). Over the years, EQs have become a powerful creative tool and the most fundamental mixing and mastering device every engineer has at their disposal.
In part 1 of the series, The Study of EQ Controls, Grammy winner Fab Dupont teaches you what each knob's function does, and in this tutorial, he dives even deeper to teach how and when to skillfully apply any type of EQ.
Learn tricks and techniques that will help form or refine the foundation of how you approach EQing your mixes and masters.
Over the course of this hour-long tutorial, Fab Dupont explains:
The history of EQ choices and how they've evolved over the decades
How to recognize the sonic differences between analog and digital EQs
Learn to master the subtle differences between types of EQ and know when to best apply
Compare several common EQ topologies including Pultec, Neve, SSL
The classic boost + cut trick on the Pultec
Strategies for using fully parametric EQs without getting lost in endless parameters
Using multiple EQs to achieve a clear and focused mix that doesn't sound like mud
How to compensate for the tone of pieces of gear with transformers, tubes, etc
Find and eliminate frequencies, remove masks from your tracks for clearer and more powerful sounding mixes
Should EQ come before or after compression? Learn to recognize which way is best suited for a mix
How to hear subtle changes in tone to be sure the settings and techniques you're using are helping and not harming your mixes
By mastering these fundamental skills and techniques, you can keep your focus on the music, not the settings.
00:00:00 Good morning children!
Today, we are going to talk
about EQ strategy
because,
if you are making music today,
and you're not Al Schmitt
(look him up)
you're gonna need to know
how to use an EQ
and have a strategy.
Here we go.
00:00:20 Compared to 10, 15, 20 years ago
30 years ago?
40 years ago?
We are using more and more EQ
Why is that?
Well, it's because the sound we expect
from our records is changing.
00:00:34 It's very important for you to go back
and listen to old records and see
how the instruments are represented
in the recording.
00:00:41 Today,
when you listen to a bass drum
in a modern recording
it goes "BOOM".
00:00:46 If you listen to an old jazz band record
it goes "puk-puk"
It's way in the back.
00:00:49 Today is way in the front.
00:00:51 If you go and listen to a real bass drum
in a real environment
it sounds nothing like
the recordings we're used to
especially in pop music.
00:00:58 The way we make those bass drums
sound supernatural,
frankly insane
(but beautiful)
is by using a lot of EQ
and a lot of compression
but this is a video about EQ,
so we're gonna talk about EQ.
00:01:09 Consequently we use more EQ
because the sound we are expecting
to come out of the speakers
from the culture of listening to
other's people music
is EQ driven.
00:01:21 And that happened over time.
00:01:23 One of the reasons why things changed
is the way things were miked.
00:01:28 Back in the day, pre-Beatles,
everything was miked far away
from people in lab coats.
00:01:33 Usually white lab coats.
00:01:35 Then the Beatles came around
and they said: "Hey we can do
whatever we want"
because they were the biggest
band in the world
and sold more records
than any other band
so, nobody could tell them not to do
what they wanted to do.
00:01:45 So, they took the microphones
and put them closer.
00:01:46 They found that more exciting
and probably closer to what they heard
when they were near the instrument
than what they had on the records.
00:01:51 So, you can go back
and listen to "Love me do"
and see how that sounds.
00:01:56 And then, go listen to "Let it be"
and see how that sounds.
00:01:58 Or maybe "Let it be" is a bad example.
How about anything from "Abbey Road"
That's a better example.
00:02:02 Those are two different sounds.
Same band
completely different miking.
00:02:06 But the end result is this:
when you put a microphone
so close to an instrument
(bass drum, snare drum,
vocal, guitar, whatever)
you're gonna create problems.
00:02:15 You're gonna have to compensate
for those problems.
00:02:16 Hence the Equalizer.
00:02:19 Also, the density of records
has increased drastically.
00:02:24 Density, dense. As in dense
with an E not with an A.
00:02:27 Meaning there's more and more
instruments. More and more layers.
00:02:29 And so, everything has to fit
into two channels of stereo.
00:02:33 And that's hard.
Especially when you have
one, maybe two bass drums,
a bass, a synth bass,
a really fat guitar.
00:02:40 How does everybody live down there?
It used to be that your
record was at a pride: bass
a guitar and a vocal.
00:02:46 There's no EQ needed there.
00:02:47 If you mic it properly
it's just gonna fit,
because it fits in the room.
00:02:51 If you have a string orchestra
electronic drums, real drums, bass,
you're gonna have problems to put
everything in the same box.
00:02:58 Namely the stereo field.
00:03:00 You're gonna tend to use EQ to do that.
00:03:03 The combination of close miking.
00:03:05 Evolving expectations
as far a the final sound of you record.
00:03:08 And denser and denser arrangements
means that you're gonna
have to learn how to use EQs.
00:03:13 So, let's do that.
00:03:14 Let's talk about the past.
00:03:16 It's always very interesting
to learn from the past.
00:03:19 Back in the day, I'm talking
50's, 60's, 70's,
up until the SSL console happened
you didn't have that much choice of EQ.
00:03:29 Very early on, if your console had EQ,
which was not a guarantee
maybe you had two bands
A high-shelf and a low-shelf,
at 10k and 60 maybe,
or 10k and 100.
00:03:41 And those were frequencies
that the designers of the console
said: "Hey, this is useful!"
But maybe he'd never made
a record in his life.
00:03:48 Maybe he was just
an electrical engineer.
00:03:49 But that's what he picked because
that's what he could do
or that's what the client asked for.
00:03:54 That's a long way
from what we have today but
that's what it was.
00:03:57 And then as taste and expectations,
as mentioned before, evolved
then, producers and engineers
needed more stuff so
the designers added more stuff.
00:04:07 And then, over time,
more and more stuff came on.
00:04:10 You could buy an outboard EQ
like the Pultec.
00:04:12 It gave you two bands.
00:04:14 20, 30, 60, 100
and then on the high-end
there was, like
1k, 2k, 3k, 4k, 5k, 10k
something like that.
00:04:23 Super-useful.
00:04:24 And you could boost and cut
some of the same frequencies.
00:04:26 Rock'n'Roll.
00:04:27 And then, as technology evolved
and people became smarter about it,
more and more features came together
Then some smarty-pants
named George Massenburg
invented the parametric EQ
and that made a big difference
So, what I propose we do
is take a quick look
at a couple of this boxes from the past
so you understand and really get
the feeling of what it was before
versus what it is now.
00:04:49 So, this is a 1974 Neve.
00:04:53 This are fixed frequencies EQs
and this is all they had
in a studio at the time.
00:04:59 So, a lot of the studios would have,
if they could afford it,
an external rack.
00:05:04 They would have a couple Pultecs
and maybe they would have
later in times a GML EQ.
00:05:09 And they would patch
those in for special cases.
00:05:13 Because they sounded a certain way.
00:05:16 Alright, let's listen to this stuff.
00:05:18 So, I have here a venerable Pultec EQH2
Equally venerable past EQ,
which is really a 31102
components pulled out of
the console, put into a rack
and not as venerable
SSL 4000EQ style also in a rack.
00:05:34 Because it would've been
very difficult to fit both
an SSL and the Neve
in the frame right now.
00:05:39 It just so happens that
these old boxes
have a sound of their own
despite the EQ
and I venture to say
and you could cut my head off
if you disagree
that a lot of the differences
between the EQs
that everybody reveres as the standards
are actually due to the topology
rather than the EQ circuitry.
00:05:58 But,
the proof it is in the pudding
Consequently, let's listen to
my bass drum
with nothing on it.
00:06:10 Boom, boom,
boom, boom.
00:06:12 Now, the way I have this setup
is if you look at my mixer here,
I have an insert.
00:06:17 Insert 7.
00:06:18 When it's off,
you're listen to all digital.
00:06:21 When it's on you're
listening to EQH2.
00:06:24 Right now the EQH2 is
all settings down to zero.
00:06:29 But it's on.
00:06:31 So, this is again without anything.
00:06:42 Listen to the very bottom,
the resonance, the "mmh" thing.
00:06:45 Now, don't expect an EQ sound
don't expect a lot of difference
but it's quite marked.
00:06:50 Again with the EQH2.
00:07:00 The morphology of the kick drum changes.
00:07:03 Listen to the attack, how bright it is.
00:07:05 And listen to the ampleness
or the width of the bottom.
00:07:08 How bouncy it is or not.
00:07:10 You may notice that without the EQH2
you have a more untouched sound
a more natural sound.
00:07:18 And with the EQH2 you
have a little more of
somebody-went-through-this
kind of sound.
00:07:23 Check it out. Without.
00:07:32 Feels a little bit compressy
kind of thing, right?
So, that's no EQ. Just saying.
00:07:39 And then you can add EQ. So,
your options are 20, 30, 60 and 100.
00:07:46 Those are your options.
00:07:47 And you have 1,2,3,4,5 up to 10.
00:07:50 That's it. So, let's listen to 100.
00:08:05 If you didn't hear that something is
very wrong with your system.
00:08:08 Let's go down to 60.
00:08:20 30.
00:08:24 20..
00:08:29 We started here.
00:08:51 Not the most subtle processing
in the history of processing.
00:08:55 But it's nice. It goes "boom", right?
I like 20.
00:09:05 30 starts to have a mask.
60.
00:09:15 100.
00:09:18 100 is too high.
00:09:20 Even if I lower the amount.
00:09:25 It's not working. Let's try 60 again.
00:09:31 Still brings a little
too much of the bottom.
00:09:34 It creates a mess. 30.
00:09:49 20 is the most useful
thing for me right now.
00:09:51 So, that's what this EQ
makes me wanna do.
00:09:54 Of course you can cut too.
00:10:04 Not super useful.
00:10:06 Unless your trying
to emasculate something.
00:10:08 But, with the boost
and the cut at the same time
you can carve out
a little bit of the extra fat.
00:10:28 And so consequently
you can probably go higher.
00:10:37 So in this case we could do
this.
00:10:46 Or what we had before.
00:10:58 I think I like the more
natural one better.
00:11:02 But that's the legendary trick
between having the boost
and the cut at the same time.
00:11:07 It wakes fun things up here
but still I like this better.
00:11:36 That's the Pultec.
00:11:37 Of course you have high-end
but we did it with the bass drum
so, let's focus on the bottom.
00:11:42 Now, let's move onto the Neve.
00:11:43 The Neve is the next level
of available technology.
00:11:48 On this box,
since it's younger,
(still pretty old but younger)
they were able to do more.
00:11:56 And so you get, here
you have a hi-pass filter
and a low-pass filter.
00:12:00 and then, you have 33, 56, 100,
180, 330 on this low band
and then 220, 270, 330, 390,
470, 560,
680, 820, 1000, 1200 on this band.
00:12:15 And then 1.5, 1.8, etc.
So you have a lot more choice.
00:12:20 Also, you could choose functions.
00:12:23 So for example, this band,
the bottom band
it can be either a shelf
or it can be a peak EQ.
00:12:30 Starting to be more useful.
00:12:32 You can't change your Q, though.
00:12:34 And then this shelf here
actually has a Q change.
00:12:39 If you hit this, your high Qs,
you get a narrow Q.
00:12:41 This band peak only, no shelf.
00:12:45 And this band up here, is a peak
and has a high Q choice
and the last band here is the shelving,
just like this guy,
but you can choose to make
it a peak if you want to.
00:12:59 Frequencies are 3.3, 4.7,
6.8, 10 and 15.
00:13:03 So that's quite a bit of flexibility.
00:13:06 4 bands, high pass and low pass.
00:13:08 So we're gonna focus
on just the bottom band
and turn it on,
and listen to it. So, this is off
and then you choose your frequency.
00:13:18 Here we like 20. So let's see
what 30 does on this guy.
00:13:22 And I left the setting here
so we can switch back
to it and compare.
00:13:34 So, of course the setting here is 4.
00:13:37 I have options 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
00:13:40 And here I have
whatever, whatever
whatever, whatever
or whatever makes your whatever
decision at any time.
00:13:47 I'm gonna just do it by ear so
let's see what this sounds like.
00:13:57 Noticed how different it sounds,
check it out.
00:13:58 This is Pultec.
00:14:10 We can hear the Neve is much fatter.
00:14:12 But why?
Well, maybe if I go up to 30 here,
because this is 33, they are gonna
be closer. Let's see.
00:14:28 Maybe it's the amount.
00:14:38 Already they are a lot closer
than they were a second ago.
00:14:42 So, does this sound
radically different from
this at this point?
As a reminder, Pultec.
00:14:57 Interestingly enough, because
of the different curves and energy,
the Pultec brings a lot more level
for about the same amount of fat.
00:15:05 Where this brings a lot
of fat but it's more tamed.
00:15:08 So it's a leaner sounding EQ.
00:15:11 There's no tubes in this one
but you have more options.
We can go up to 56.
00:15:19 100.
00:15:24 180.
00:15:29 Noticed how it gets heavier and heavier.
00:15:31 Now, the differences between 33 and 56
seems to be,
to be less smart
than the difference between
20 and 30 here.
00:15:55 It can get really confusing really fast.
00:15:58 But the idea here is that
if you wanna hit 100
with just a narrower Q
you can.
00:16:05 Here, you cannot.
00:16:07 So, depending on your program material
there are some things are gonna benefit
from the more brutal approach here
and some things are gonna benefit
more from the metrosexual approach
of this guy.
00:16:25 Makes sense? OK.
00:16:26 So, now we have a difference
between this two guys.
00:16:28 What about the SSL?
Good question. Thank you for asking.
00:16:31 I'm gonna turn this guy off
and turn the SSL EQ on.
00:16:36 In addition to the wonderful noises,
the SSL also brought
fully parametric EQs.
00:16:43 Meaning, you could actually sweep
and you could change the Q of the EQ
on two of the bands
and then you have two regular shelvings
on the top and the bottom,
a high-pass filter right here.
00:16:57 All that is very useful
and was very useful at the time
because that's when production
started to switch to super-layered
very multi-track records were
they needed to carve more stuff out.
00:17:07 So, raw.
00:17:17 Comparison with the Neve.
00:17:23 The Neve is "über-fat".
00:17:25 With the Pultec.
00:17:41 Alright.
They all sound different.
00:17:42 Does one sound better than the other?
(Whistles)
No. They sound different.
00:17:51 That's the key.
00:17:52 But some people would
like to just turn the thing on
crank a little 33
and they have a very
very fat bass drum.
00:17:59 Some people would like to have
more of a controlled sound
and will use the SSL.
00:18:03 Some people would just
like to be super lazy
and just have one choice, click it up
and that's what they get.
00:18:08 And some people have to like this
because they have an SSL console
and they're stuck with it.
00:18:12 And some people like this
because they have a Neve console
and they're stuck with it.
00:18:15 And some people like this
not because of the console,
there was no Pultec console,
just because they like this
and because they are told it's the best.
00:18:23 Seriously now, older hardware
has a signature sound
that is due to their topology
and how they decide to EQ.
00:18:30 This is an inductor EQ.
00:18:32 This is definitely not.
00:18:33 And so, they're gonna
get different results.
00:18:35 So, two dBs at 10k here.
00:18:37 and 2dB's at 10k here
is gonna sound slightly different.
00:18:40 You have to learn the sound,
you have to decide what you like.
00:18:43 Can you not make a record
because you don't have this guy?
As you can see you can get
where you need to be.
00:18:49 and it's not gonna change
the course of modern music.
00:18:51 One interesting thing
to do is to compare
the hardware with the software.
Ain't it?
Yes it is.
00:18:57 So, I'm gonna turn this on.
Turn this guy off.
00:19:01 And say we have 4.5 at 20.
00:19:05 This is the sound of it.
00:19:08 Reminder: we started here.
00:19:17 And then I can pick
some venerable Pultec imitation.
00:19:21 Of course since my Pultec
was never modeled
it's not gonna sound the same.
But is it gonna be in the same vibe
is the question.
00:19:30 Boom.
00:19:33 Hi, gorgeous!
Alright we're gonna say 20
4 and change, ok?
Hardware.
00:19:50 Noticed the difference?
The plug-in's actually fatter.
Check it out.
00:20:03 Completely different sound.
00:20:05 Maybe if I put less.
00:20:06 Because maybe the scales
are different between this Pultec
and that Pultec hardware.
00:20:20 Getting closer.
00:20:21 One more time, this is the software.
00:20:32 Enough said, they are different.
00:20:33 This one is different from this one,
which is different from this one,
which is different from this one.
00:20:37 and that's OK.
00:20:39 In the end one of the biggest
differences between
hardware emulation EQ
and a purely digital EQ
(they're both digital but
you know what I mean),
beside the topology
the emulation of the transformers
and all that stuff,
is that most hardware emulation EQs
will have fixed frequencies
and a digital EQ will let you go wild.
00:21:00 So which one you'd choose?
Well if you feel very secure
about where you're at
use the digital one,
it let's you do more.
00:21:07 If you need a little bit of that shine
Then you could use
the hardware emulation one.
00:21:13 If you're gonna use a digital one
here's what I propose you do.
00:21:16 If it's a really wide open digital one
like this one, where you can
do whatever you want,
use it a little bit like
this one at the beginning.
00:21:23 Where the bands overlap
but they don't go all the way.
00:21:30 So it kind of forces you to keep
things in the same range.
00:21:33 So you're not gonna go take this band
and go all the way down here.
00:21:36 Whereas here you can do that.
00:21:37 You could take this band
and go all the way down here.
00:21:39 And that is hell on earth.
00:21:41 Because the control for this band
is all the way over here,
which is very counter-intuitive.
00:21:45 So if you find yourself in this position
and you're gonna use this EQ
restrict yourself.
00:21:51 Don't go wild.
00:21:53 Unless you're stuck and
nobody's watching. If nobody
is watching do whatever you want.
00:21:57 But if you're watching
use the bands in the order
that God designed them to be in
which will allow you to keep your mind
focus on one thing
the audio. Not chasing what color
is what and square goes where.
00:22:14 That will go a long way
with a digital EQ
that's free like this or the FabFilter
or any of the new styled EQs.
00:22:20 It will help you focus on the music.
00:22:24 Pretend that is limited.
00:22:26 At least for now.
00:22:27 Since as we've seen a lot of
this stuff can sound very close
by tweaking a little bit,
you're basically taking advantage
on hardware emulation EQs
of what the designer thought was cool.
00:22:39 Right?
Is like playing violin.
You don't have a pre-made note.
00:22:44 On piano you do.
00:22:46 Is kind of the same difference
if you know what I mean.
00:22:49 Since the frequencies are
already picked for you
and you use a lot of the same EQ,
say for example of background vocals
you're gonna use 24 of these
if you have the DSP.
00:23:00 And you boost 10k on all 24 of them
you'll find that there will be
some bond-shop going on
and you're gonna have
some resonance problems
there's gonna be too much
energy in the same spot.
00:23:10 So, sometimes it's cool
to actually use different EQs
to be able to have
slightly different points.
00:23:19 So, you would use half
of the background vocals
maybe the high
background vocals with
one EQ and the low background vocals
with another EQ.
00:23:26 Or you would use pairs of
background vocals with one EQ
and another pair with another EQ
so you can boost slightly
different frequencies
and not get all the energy
pointing on the same spot.
00:23:36 That is a very useful trick sometimes.
00:23:38 If you find yourself spending a
lot more time looking at the curve here
and looking at the settings down here.
00:23:47 and then finding that you don't like
what you've done in the morning,
start using this guy.
00:23:52 This guy is great.
00:23:54 This guy is only ears.
00:23:56 Because I guarantee you that
this is not 3dB's at 5k.
00:23:59 No. And that's great.
00:24:01 So, use the stuff
that forces you to listen.
00:24:06 The simpler the EQ the better.
00:24:08 Only move onto the bigger EQs
when you have better control
and you're not doing it just because.
00:24:15 Another thing that's interesting to do
when you have an EQ setting like this
for example.
00:24:22 Any EQ setting really.
00:24:25 Doing this is one thing
but is this thing here really necessary?
And if you don't hear it in the sauce
get rid of it.
00:24:33 Because if you don't hear
it in the sauce
the system still has to deal with it
and it still does something.
00:24:39 And if it's not necessary don't do it.
00:24:41 If you can't hear it, it's not worth it.
00:24:44 You noticed, but I have to show you
because if I don't show you the you will
complain that I didn't show you.
00:24:49 So here it is.
00:24:50 This is how you're supposed to look
for a frequency that's bothering you.
00:24:54 You take your frequency
you boost it
you could, probably narrow
the Q a little bit,
and then you look for it
and then you remove it.
00:25:02 That's the way it's done.
00:25:03 By the way this EQ has
an invert button which is kind of cool.
00:25:06 So you can go here
and then you hit invert. Boom.
00:25:10 For the very lazy people amongst us.
00:25:12 However, there's a few pointers
for this fantastic venerable technique.
00:25:17 I don't really like it
because if you do that most of the times
you're fooling yourself
It's better to use your mental picture.
I'll show that in a second.
00:25:26 So, but the peak and cut technique
if you have to do that
because it's useful,
especially at the beginning when
you're confused about frequencies,
don't do it with a very narrow peak.
00:25:36 Because there's resonance here
and basically you're not hearing
just that frequency.
00:25:41 That's not how it works.
00:25:42 You're hearing a whole
bunch of artifacts
that mislead you drastically.
00:25:48 Be gentle.
00:25:49 And then, don't go too fast
because you're probably
passing by a lot of masks
you don't even know are there.
00:25:55 And don't boost too much.
If you boost too much
again, rippling is gonna happen
and then you're gonna create masks
and then you're gonna end up
with a curve from hell.
00:26:03 So, the best thing to do
is to stay pretty tame
both in the Q and the gain
if you have to do peak and cut.
00:26:12 And here's an alternative
to peak and cut. And you'll see
how interesting that is.
00:26:18 Cut only.
00:26:19 How about you try
starting to remove the stuff
that's bothering you
and look for the frequency
by removing it?
It's a lot harder
to hear the frequency
by cutting it.
00:26:29 A lot harder.
00:26:30 But it will force your brain
to work much harder
and you will get there
much faster
two, three weeks from now
if you do this as a system.
00:26:39 Promise.
00:26:40 One of the great advantages
of this digital EQs
that we get today,
sometimes for free
sometimes for a fee,
is that they have unbelievable
flexible Q factors.
00:26:50 You can go insanely narrow
and do crazy things like that.
00:26:56 I would be very careful.
00:26:58 Is not because you got them
that you necessarily have to smoke them.
00:27:02 Basically, if you find yourself
in situations like this
something else is wrong
with the system
or with your signal.
00:27:10 It's time to re-record or
move on to a different song.
00:27:14 The very narrow Qs like this
are not very useful.
00:27:17 What's really nice is a medium Q
and most designers pick
their favorite Qs
and if you deal with plug-ins
that are made by quality people
probably it would be
a good place to start.
00:27:27 So, I would deal with the Q last.
00:27:30 The way I think about it is
most of the time,
I will cut
with peaks.
00:27:37 Meaning I will do things like this.
00:27:40 And then, I will
find my frequency,
probably guess my frequency or
intuition my frequency
and probably narrow the Q
to the strict minimum Q possible
to get the effect that I want.
00:27:53 So, I touch my signal the least.
00:27:55 Unless I'm making a special effect.
And then "wo-hoo".
00:27:58 But in situations of not special effects
but regular EQ'ing
that's my philosophy.
00:28:05 Find a frequency, either
by intuition or peaking,
do what you gotta do
and then reduce the Q
so it's least amount
of EQ'ing possible
without ruining the signal.
00:28:16 Without going to super-narrow stuff
because then, you get
into the other problem
when you create other artifacts.
00:28:23 So, for the cutting is mostly
fairly narrow things
the places that bother me
if I'm gonna enhance anything
I'm gonna tend to use shelves.
00:28:33 In this case I would use
a high shelf and just
boost a part of it.
00:28:38 Same with the bottom.
00:28:39 And then sometimes
when you boost a shelf, like this,
(this is nice and gentle)
sometimes you will find a problem here
and nothing prevents you from
doing a little cut within the shelf.
00:28:52 That's fully acceptable.
00:28:53 But basically this
Find your frequency,
narrowing on it
and then reduce your Q
so it does the least amount possible.
00:29:04 If you're gonna enhance something
start with a shelf,
see if it does it for you,
unless you're looking for
something special, like
a 5k brightness on vocals, for example.
00:29:13 Basically is a good idea to enhance
with big wide open Qs
and to cut with as narrow
as possible Qs
to remove the least amount of signal.
00:29:21 Alright, let's put this in action
and listen to some examples.
00:29:26 Since I know you didn't believe
or didn't wanna believe me
early here about the whole
hardware versus software thing,
because it's no fun,
let's do one more example.
00:29:34 I have here a stereo SSL EQ
and I happen to have the plug-in of it.
00:29:40 Let's listen to that first.
00:29:41 So, this is
a track from the amazing Will Knox
Listen to it again.
Memorize the sound.
00:30:04 Right now it's all digital.
00:30:21 Now it's going through
the SSL EQ flat.
00:30:24 With EQs engaged.
00:31:09 Somebody smart in Oxford England
made sure that this is
as clean as possible
so they got rid of the tubes and as many
transformers and everything as possible
to be able to make sure
that you don't hear this box.
00:31:25 That was the goal.
Clean.
00:31:27 And so, they did it
and it's as clean as they could get it.
00:31:30 So, we have our good friends
at Universal Audio
that actually emulated the EQ
that came out from the same console
that this came out of.
00:31:36 Wonderful.
00:31:37 So, let's turn the hardware off
and listen to
software on and off.
00:31:42 Normally it should be the same.
00:31:45 So all this listening is for you to be
sharp on your ears for the next part.
00:31:49 Check it out.
00:32:15 Listen to the bass drum.
I'll play without it again.
00:32:31 Interestingly enough,
the SSL they've sampled
it's actually leaner sounding
that my SSL right here.
00:32:38 As a reminder this is my SSL.
00:32:55 They're not the same. They can't be.
00:32:57 They did not modeled this box,
they modeled another SSL console,
well an actual console,
that was brutalized differently
by some other dude.
00:33:05 This SSL channel
has been brutalized by me
and everybody that runs through
the studio, which is a lot of people,
in a different way
for a different amount of time.
00:33:14 They cannot sound the same.
00:33:15 It's not possible.
00:33:16 So, unless you have the SSL that
the plug-in manufacturer have sampled
it will never be the same.
00:33:21 And that's OK.
00:33:24 Let's do some EQ'ing.
00:33:38 I feel the track needs
some opening on top.
00:33:49 It's a little bright-less.
00:34:21 So, we have about
plus four-ish, if I'm aiming.
00:34:25 Plus four at 10k. Alright.
00:34:27 Let's do that.
00:34:28 So I'm gonna by-pass this.
Turn this on.
00:34:31 The EQ is already in.
I'm gonna switch to 10k
and notice that already one
difference between the plug-in
and the hardware is
that if you work in stereo
it can be a little tedious here.
00:34:44 So this is ten-ish
and this is plus four-ish.
00:34:48 Let's compare.
00:35:44 So, I don't know about you but
I actually like the plug-in better.
00:35:48 The plug-in is more connected.
00:35:50 The high-end, the boost and the rest of
the material are actually more connected
than on the hardware. Listen again.
00:35:55 Listen to the vocal
and how bright it gets
and listen to how that brightness
is connected to the rest
of the track
and the top of the snare and the bottom
of the snare and all that stuff.
00:36:05 This is the plug-in.
00:36:33 Interesting, isn't it?
Yeah.
00:36:35 So, it could be that the settings
are slightly different.
00:36:39 It could be that my box
needs a recap,
although it got recapped recently
but you never know.
00:36:44 It could be many things.
00:36:45 But in this particular case
the software beats the hardware.
00:36:49 Now, this is a console
emulation plug-in,
when you get your DAW you get this.
00:36:55 Not as vintage looking.
00:36:57 Does it make a difference?
In your thinking about building
your rig in your EQ strategy,
do you need to buy this?
Or can you get by with this?
Good question, thank you
for asking. Let's find out.
00:37:10 So, let's look at the settings.
00:37:11 Plus four-ish at ten-ish.
00:37:14 and that's about as precise
as this interface will let you be.
00:37:18 This interface let you be
unbelievable precise,
especially if you know how to type.
00:37:24 ...and plus four.
00:37:26 Boom.
00:37:46 Clearly, my SSL settings are brighter.
00:37:49 Which means that whatever
clicks are set on the SSL
I'm more than 4 dBs
Getting closer.
00:38:07 ...5.6.
00:38:19 So, we're more or less in
the same amount of brightness.
00:38:21 Right? I'll play it again.
00:38:23 EQ3, built-in EQ from Pro Tools.
00:38:51 Interesting, isn't it?
So, you feel more or less
the same amount of brightness
and it's very hard to match
but the tone is a little different,
right?
you get a little more fizz,
a little more
A shine on transients
on the SSL.
00:39:06 And the EQ3 is a little more
cool and accurate.
00:39:11 Which one do you want?
I don't know.
00:39:14 Which one do you want?
I don't know.
00:39:16 When you think about your EQ'ing
do you need this?
Or do you need this?
This is where taste comes in
and also workflow comes in
and if you learn both, or you
try both, long enough
you will be able to feel
the differences and decide
which one is good for you.
00:39:44 If you're learning
I recommend using the EQ3 for a while
because you will be able to associate
what you're doing with the visual.
00:39:51 If you wanna rock it
and just be super intuitive
all the time you can use the SSL.
00:39:57 Now, let's push this a little further.
00:39:59 We have here
the meaning of a very accurate
digital EQ, that's supposed to boost
4.6 dBs or 5.6dB's
at 10k and that's it,
with an SSL emulation EQ
that's supposed to emulate
other parts of
the chain that affect the sound.
00:40:16 Now, the SSL was designed
to be very clean.
00:40:19 How about
the Helios?
That was not designed to be clean
or at least they didn't know
how to make it clean at the time.
00:40:28 This is a fixed 10k band and we're at
4dB's in theory, right?
So, let's add 4dB's.
00:40:33 Let's compare.
00:40:35 This is the raw track.
00:41:01 You felt that, right?
If you compare to the EQ3...
00:41:09 Completely different.
00:41:11 And the SSL.
00:41:37 Is that wide?
It's even brighter. Let me add
a little bit of gain here on the SSL.
00:41:43 Helios.
00:41:59 Now you have a real difference
between the two EQs.
00:42:02 Because there's a real difference
between the topologies.
00:42:04 and because the Helios is older
and this is modeled after an older EQ
and they couldn't get it to be as clean.
00:42:10 And so the actual sound
of the topology of the EQ
has more influence than
it has on the SSL.
00:42:17 There is a big jump between the SSL
and the Helios for the same settings
but there isn't that bigger jump
between the SSL and the EQ3.
00:42:23 So, when you think about
building your arsenal
and you think about
organizing your track
and what you're gonna use where,
you can use a lot of EQ3
because is neutral
and doesn't bring that fuzz that fizz,
that aggressivity,
for certain tracks.
00:42:41 The tracks that maybe
you wanna have in the back.
00:42:44 And then you could use something like
the Helios
to bring some shine or something
that you wanna bring forward.
00:42:50 Even with less EQ
it will still move forward
because it has that fuzz.
00:42:54 That little "je ne sais quoi"
on top of the EQ.
00:43:00 And that's an important thought because
if you listen to a bunch
of digital EQs, like for example
this guy, which I use on every mix
in the history of the universe,
and this guy which I'm also using
on a phenomenal amount of mixes
in the universe,
and this guy which
a lot of people use,
me not really because I've got the
other two and I got used to them,
but I like it I think is very good.
00:43:24 Let's have them all have
the exact same setting and listen.
00:43:27 and then maybe
we can start hearing reality.
00:43:31 So, this three EQs are designed
to be pure and they are digital.
00:43:36 They are not trying
to emulate anything.
00:43:38 They are not trying
to emulate transformers
or any path or tubes or anything.
00:43:43 Of course the designers will all hear
and think of algorithms of EQ'ing
in different ways, which
will give different sounds.
00:43:52 So for example, here is the EQ3
which we know and love.
00:44:36 Let's do it again.
00:45:18 In this particular case
I think the Epure,
with those settings
without tweaking them,
sounds a little more open
and the Sonnox
and the EQ3 sound very similar.
00:45:29 Now, does it matter?
Probably not because
in the course of action
you're gonna do 4dB's
or 4.2dB's and nobody cares
and you're gonna get to where
you wanna be in your ears
because remember
you're not using presets.
00:45:44 You're not using presets, right?
So, since you're not using presets
you're basically gonna stop
tweaking when you are happy.
00:45:50 That's the key.
00:45:51 So, you have to look at this tools as,
are this tools providing me
with what I need?
Is my strategy
based solely on sound?
Which in this particular three cases
they all sound very similar
and they all sound wonderful.
00:46:08 Or is it based on features,
ergonomics, or whatever you get
a discount for this week?
It can be a combination of all that.
00:46:17 So, it'd be useful to study
what this different EQs do
and see what your workflow needs.
00:46:24 Example.
00:46:26 Here we have an A/B comparison
So you can actually morph in-between
two settings of EQ on the Flux
and you could automate that.
00:46:34 So you could do some crazy
EQ-morphing kind-of-like effects.
00:46:39 That could be very interesting.
00:46:40 Also any band can be anything.
00:46:42 You can take this band,
make it a low cut
and you can take this band,
make it a high cut.
00:46:46 And they don't have
to be in the right order
You can do whatever you want.
00:46:49 You can automate all that stuff.
00:46:51 And you have control groups
and very extensive presets, although
you don't use presets, right?
So, the Sonnox.
00:46:58 You have a low-pass and high-pass filter
I can go down to 36dB's per octave,
as you've seen many time
if you watch pureMix videos,
and that's very useful.
You don't have that here.
00:47:07 Do you need that?
If you do, Sonnox is the one.
00:47:11 If not Flux maybe the one.
00:47:13 Also, there's a certain way
to describe curves here.
Do you like that?
Don't you? I don't know.
You decide.
00:47:20 Here, you have a very well laid-out
7 band EQ, that's very good on DSP,
that sounds great
and you have every feature
you can think of,
you have the filters
and it's free.
00:47:34 Can't beat that.
00:47:35 But you don't have an
A/B setting like here.
00:47:37 This is awesome to have an A/B.
00:47:39 You can have a first EQ
and then a second EQ
and compare between the two.
00:47:42 So, your strategy here
is to look at how you work
or look at how the person
whose mixes you like works
and see if the way he'd think
is compatible with your thinking
and then try their tools.
00:47:56 And that's a good first step
to come up with an EQ strategy.
00:48:00 I know that from experience
because at the time this
was the best EQ available,
because at the time not all
digital EQs sounded that good.
00:48:09 When the Sonnox came out
it was awesome.
00:48:12 It totally change the way
my workflow went
because I was able to feel really good
doing anything in the Sonnox
and it never sounded bad.
00:48:21 Since then,
EQ3 came out, the Epure
came out and above
700.000 other plug-ins came out.
00:48:29 and I'm sure they all sound great.
00:48:31 I love the Sonnox because I'm used to it
and it goes really quickly
and I used to use all the types but now
I do everything on Type one.
00:48:40 When Epure came out
I really enjoyed the way it felt
and some of the tones
I was able to get with it
by doing combination of crazy filters
because on the Sonnox
the bands are fixed.
00:48:53 So, if your looking for
something complicated
and you're in this band, all the other
bands are used, you're stuck.
00:48:59 Not a good look. You don't have
that problem with the Flux.
00:49:02 You do have the same
problem with the EQ3.
00:49:04 There's other EQs like the FabFilter
where you can do whatever you want.
00:49:07 As you get better into
the intuition-based work
you will always gravitate
towards one EQ.
00:49:14 Until then,
I recommend you try a few
and use the one that
annoys you the least.
00:49:22 Now that we understand enough
about the history, the ins and outs
and we've demystified a little bit
of the plug-in versus software
and the plug-ins versus plug-ins battles
let's do some raw EQ'ing.
00:49:34 So I have this track that I love dearly.
00:49:42 Let's use this guy.
00:49:43 So, what you want to do?
I don't know. What you wanna do?
I don't know.
00:49:47 What you wanna do?
Let's listen to it again.
00:50:01 Alright, what's your verdict?
Well, you were supposed, while you
were listening, to form your opinion.
00:50:07 You were supposed
to have your mind go:
"OK, so I think there's
too much of this and this."
"And this and this
makes me feel this way"
"so maybe if I do this
and this I'll feel this way."
Or maybe your mind should have gone:
"Alright, so
I've just listened to
the new Kesha record
and this is clearly a Kesha knock-off
and so I want it to
make it sound like Kesha
and to do so I need
to make it ten times brighter
and make sure that theres absolutely
no bass on it, except at 80Hz."
That could be your mind process.
00:50:39 The idea here is that
before you touch anything
(and that's a key strategy),
before you touch anything,
you have to have to force yourself
to imagine what you want.
00:50:51 If you start fuzzing with the numbers
and start moving things around
you're screwed.
00:50:57 Because if you're start adding EQ
before you form a mental
picture of what you want,
you will start creating
phase differences.
00:51:06 You'll start altering the signal
in ways that will have
repercussions down the road
and if you don't need it, don't EQ it.
00:51:15 So, do you need EQ here?
Do you?
I do.
00:51:33 I listen to this and I tell myself
in a purely analytical way
this is a raw track is pure
I don't want it to sound processed
I wanted to sound transparent,
like there's no speakers.
00:51:51 I listen to it right now
and I tell myself "hmm"
There's a little bit of a mask,
something too much.
00:51:57 Above the bass drum just
where the bass is. Check it out.
00:52:08 Also I hear, every time
the bass drum hits,
this kind of cloud, this "mhmm" thing
that distracts me from the vocal.
00:52:16 And I don't like that.
00:52:18 You may like it.
00:52:20 It may be a different point of view,
which is wonderful
but I have the controls so
I'm gonna do what I wanna do.
00:52:27 I'm gonna low-cut this
and this EQ is fixed
at 6dB's per octave.
00:52:32 So I'm gonna go very low
on the high-pass filter.
00:52:36 Let's listen to that.
Track...
00:52:45 High-passed at 26Hz.
00:53:00 You can hear it "pu-pu-pum".
It's a little cleaner.
00:53:02 I can actually go a little higher.
00:53:05 So, without.
00:53:12 With.
00:53:21 That feels good, right?
Again, "pum-kah".
00:53:25 "pum-ka-pu-pum-pum"
Listen to that bounce here.
Without...
00:53:45 There's not that bumping level
on those two kicks
Subtle? Yeah.
But we are subtle people.
00:53:51 Now that we have this "boom-boom"
thing taking care of,
I think that a little bit of a cut,
tiny, maybe a half dB,
at a hundred and something Hz,
should be nice.
00:54:04 And I'm actually gonna
make it narrower right here
let's see.
00:54:10 Without this...
00:54:27 It's nice.
00:54:28 So, we started here.
00:54:48 That's all I've heard on this
in the bottom, anyway.
00:54:50 So, we are talking about a low cut
at 30Hz
and a half dB at 110Hz.
00:54:59 That's it.
00:55:01 Now, if I had done
something like this...
00:55:20 It takes a lot more cut
to satisfy the ear after you've done
because your ear is tuned
to more drastic changes
and now you're starting
to make bigger changes.
00:55:33 It's like I was at minus something here.
00:55:42 We started here...
00:55:47 Notice that we're starting
to be a lot more brutal.
00:55:49 Not a good look.
00:55:50 Was that much necessary?
No. I think that the intuition
based thing
was better before
and so intuition
is developed from listening
and from mental picture protection
as opposed to
doing the peak and then cut thing.
00:56:04 The peak and cut
thing is good when you're lost.
00:56:07 But if you have the mental picture
before you go, and that takes time,
if you have the mental picture
before you start touching
you get more subtle results
and you get better results.
00:56:17 I like this better.
00:56:27 I realize it's overwhelming
and it can be difficult sometimes
to find the frequency.
00:56:30 It happens to everybody.
Happens to me all the time.
00:56:33 Sometimes you get fool by harmonics.
00:56:35 You think is at 5k, it's at 2.5k.
00:56:37 Or maybe it's at half of
that, 1.25, or half of that.
00:56:40 You don't know.
Sometimes it's so messy.
00:56:43 So badly recorded or so fuzzy.
00:56:46 That you look, you look,
you look and you feel very stupid.
00:56:49 Here's a principle that's
been working for me
for generations after generations.
00:56:56 When you listen to something wholly
and I would say most
recordings you'd get
are gonna be a little wholly,
are gonna be a little
just too much stuff.
00:57:08 And I see a lot of people
reaching for adding high-end.
00:57:12 Well, you have two options.
00:57:14 If it's a little wholly or dark
maybe it has too much bass
rather than lacks high-end.
00:57:21 That's possible, right?
So, as you saw with this track,
first thing I did is high-passing,
tucking a little bit of the bottom.
00:57:28 I didn't reach for the high-end.
00:57:31 And I got a very clean,
very together track
with no bumps. And it's almost like
it got a little compressed
because everything
stuck together more.
00:57:39 If I had reach for the high-end first
and left those bumps in there
I'd be stuck and I would have to add
more and more EQ to get the track going.
00:57:47 So, the first thing you
should think of is what
can you clean out.
00:57:53 What is in the way of you being happy.
00:57:57 Then, once you have
something that's together,
does it lack something.
00:58:03 So, first clean and then enhance.
00:58:07 It's a good way of stay within
the parameters of manageable.
00:58:11 Without going into a direction where
six month down the line you look at your
EQ curve and you have like 10 bands
all going in different directions
and overlapping.
00:58:19 Or you have two or three EQ plug-ins
and one has plus 10dB's at 60 Hz
and the one after that
has minus 10dB's at 60Hz.
00:58:27 The system and the universe is sending
you a message, don't do that.
00:58:31 Let's listen our track again.
00:58:46 I like it.
00:58:47 I'm very curious to hear,
now that we're here
why would happen if
I had a shelf way up high.
00:58:55 This...
00:58:58 Outside the hearing range
but pretty heavy.
00:59:35 Listen to the top of the snare
and the "ahhh" on the vocal.
00:59:38 Without.
01:00:04 I did a lot for you to hear it, now
I'm gonna back it up a little bit.
01:00:07 I like what it does is like
that (makes a sound) thing.
01:00:11 So I backed it down
from eleven to seven.
01:00:14 Seven dBs in the high-end is a lot.
01:00:15 but look it's 24k.
01:00:18 Your dog even can't hear 24k.
01:01:05 Listen to the verticality
(I'm being technical) of the mix.
01:01:11 You know how when you listen
to music sometime is this tall
and sometime is this tall.
01:01:17 When we started it was about this tall.
01:01:19 And then with the high-pass
and a little half dB at 100
it went like this.
01:01:26 Because this little nudge here
at a hundred-ish
and the mask effect of
that energy at the bottom,
at 30 or a little above 30,
actually made it feel restrain
and kind of tucked in.
01:01:43 The mask effect is when
a bunch of frequencies
hide other frequencies. Just like
a train can hide another train.
01:01:49 You've gotta be careful
when you cross the tracks.
01:01:52 Here it's the same.
01:01:53 Frequency can hide another frequency
or over-shadow another frequency
and like this bunch
of energy in the middle
which prevents you from enjoying
that really lean and beautiful thing.
01:02:02 And so, if you listen to
the track before and after it.
01:02:05 and focus on the distance
between the low and the high-end.
01:02:08 and I realize we're cutting
some of the low-end.
01:02:10 but it really makes it feel fatter
and taller.
01:02:13 Check it out. Without.
01:02:39 So, it's a little softer
because of the energy we lost
from the cut at the bottom.
01:02:44 'Cos a lot of the energy
of your signal is at the bottom.
Consequently when you EQ
you're changing the energy level.
You're changing the level.
01:02:52 If you're removing a half dB
on a broadband you're gonna remove
almost a half dB of your whole signal.
01:02:58 Since the energy in the high-end
is a lot less energy than in the low-end
adding all this high-end does not
make it feel louder
And so, if you wanna really pay
attention to before and after
it's probably a good idea
to use the gain
to compensate before and after.
01:03:15 I personally use pretty
metro-sexual EQ settings
so I don't often do it. And also it
takes more time and I like to work fast.
01:03:22 But for the sake of demonstration
let's add a little bit of gain
for the EQ'ing signal
since we're cutting quite
a bit in the low end
and listen again. Without.
01:03:59 Does this, and that's awesome.
01:04:02 And we did that with a half dB here,
a high-pass here and
plus seven dBs on a super airy shelf.
01:04:10 That's it.
01:04:11 This was my strategy for this track.
01:04:14 Heard the bunch on
the bass drum bother me,
high-passed a little bit,
That allowed me to see that
there was another problem
somewhere in the low-mids.
01:04:22 I guessed 100, I was right.
01:04:24 Removed the half dB was happy and
I was lacking a little bit
of the tallness
added the top-end. Boom.
01:04:30 You will have a different spirit
and you will have a different result.
01:04:34 But if you think before you touch
you can do a lot with very few settings.
01:04:39 and if you do a lot with
very few settings
your signal will stay more together.
If your signal
stays more together across 64 tracks
you get a better mix, period.
01:04:48 I often get asked: "do you put your
EQ before or after your compressor?"
I often answer: "I don't know"
You try, send me a postcard.
01:04:56 But since we're here.
01:04:57 This is our venerable bass drum.
01:05:05 This is our venerable compressor.
01:05:07 And we shall use an EQ.
01:05:10 Alright so.
01:05:14 I know that it's still too fat.
01:05:18 And super low-end.
01:05:21 I hear a little bit of a mask here.
01:05:35 Noticed something interesting?
Cutting the mask and high-passing
it gets fatter. I'll play it again.
01:05:41 Without the EQ.
01:05:51 Getting rid of the mask
is a beautiful thing.
01:05:53 But it could use a little bit of a
you know "je ne sais quoi"
around here.
01:06:04 The whole room is shaking.
01:06:13 I dig.
01:06:13 Now let's take this
and copy it post.
01:06:16 So, this is the EQ before.
01:06:27 A-ha, again.
01:06:29 This is with the EQ
after the compressor.
01:06:44 What do you hear?
What I hear is that is fatter
when you put your EQ after.
01:06:50 Why would that be?
Well that would be because
if you push a lot of the
level into the compressor
it's gonna make the compressor
freak out even more.
01:06:58 Especially if you push a lot of low-end
into the compressor. Check it out.
01:07:03 This is before.
01:07:16 Makes sense.
01:07:17 Now, here are a few important points.
01:07:19 Number one:
a lot of the reasons
that started this whole debate
"before and after compressor-EQ",
which comes first
the chicken or the egg,
are gone.
01:07:33 Because if you have
a digital compressor like
Sonnox compressor, or
the FabFilter, or the built-in
compressors of Logic, or whatever,
they don't really have a tone.
01:07:43 They don't make things
brighter or darker
They don't high-pass because
of transformer relation.
01:07:47 They don't do any of that.
01:07:49 They're just level writers.
01:07:51 And so, because
a lot of people used to have
to EQ to compensate
for a really dark compressor
or make something fatter
because the 1176 kind of
rolled off the bottom sometimes.
01:08:03 All that stuff's gone.
01:08:04 So that's not really the consideration
you should go for
unless you're using emulations
that are incredible
accurate and do that stuff.
01:08:12 But overall
you're pretty safe.
01:08:16 Here's a simpler way to think about it.
01:08:19 If you have to clean the signal
do it before compression.
01:08:23 Subtractive EQ like high-pass and cuts,
do that before compression, so that
you can remove the problem and
not compress it and make it louder.
01:08:31 Makes sense.
01:08:33 If you need to enhance a signal.
01:08:35 Add a lot of bottom on an 808
bass drum. You wanna go "boom".
01:08:39 Well do that after, so that
the compressor doesn't fight against it.
01:08:43 That is a good way
to think about it until
you fly with your own wings.
01:08:48 Then you'll have your intuition
that let's you decide that.
01:08:50 I'm totally wrong and
that's not the way it's done.
01:08:53 The consequence
of the previous principle
is that you may wanna try
a two EQ setting.
01:08:59 One before and one after the compressor.
01:09:02 Let me show you what that does
'cos that's pretty neat.
01:09:05 Here's another track and
I'm gonna take my EQ.
01:09:12 So, they're the same.
And I'm gonna copy that here.
01:09:17 and here. Make everybody active.
01:09:21 On this second track
I'm not gonna boost here
and I'm not gonna cut
and I'm not gonna do this.
01:09:29 So, here we have
one EQ before
same EQ after,
the example we've just heard.
01:09:39 And here on this track,
which is an exact copy,
we have and EQ that just does
the clean-up before the compressor
and an EQ that does
my boost after the compressor.
01:09:47 Which sounds best?
Good question.
01:09:50 Check it out.
01:09:51 So, this is where we were
and clearly we really
dug the after thing,
right? That was pretty nice.
01:09:57 So, it sounds like this.
01:10:04 And this is the other
track with the split.
01:10:12 A-ha, check it out.
01:10:14 First example.
01:10:28 The split example is fatter
and more together.
01:10:33 I'll play it again. Check it out.
01:10:35 Split.
01:10:47 Isn't that amazing?
And if you want to compare with
the before compression example.
01:10:51 So, this is before compression example
versus split EQ.
01:11:07 Isn't that wonderful?
This was a lot of information
to inside you.
01:11:11 To go back to the EQ folder of your DAW
and look at all those
beautiful plug-ins you have
and start looking at them
with a new motto in mind.
01:11:21 What kind you do for me?
As opposed to "Oh, you're
pretty. I like your dress."
Now, a last word of wisdom:
If you find yourself working
on a track for a while
and your EQ settings
look a little bit like this
my recommendation is you take a break.
01:11:40 Start over in a little while.
01:11:42
Once logged in, you will be able to read all the transcripts jump around in the video.
Fab Dupont is a Grammy winning NYC based record producer, mixing/mastering engineer and co-founder of pureMix.net.
Fab has been playing, writing, producing and mixing music both live and in studios all over the world. He's worked in cities like Paris, Boston, Brussels, Stockholm, London and New York just to name a few.
He has his own studio called FLUX Studios in the East Village of New York City.
Fab has been nominated for Grammys 6 times, including two Latin Grammys and has received many other accolades around the world, including Victoires de la Musique, South African Music awards, Pan African Music Awards and US independent music awards.
Great lesson for me too! Is the "band pass" function of some eq plug-ins a little better than the "boosting before cutting" technique when searching that right frequency? or is it a bad habit anyway?
Thank you
Serchas
2018 Jan 10
Increíble Fab, excelente información y manera de explicar, aplaudo de pie la excelente clase.
BeBopALuba
2018 Jan 07
Hey Fab. You´re such an sympathetic & funny teacher. Eaven boring stuff would be interesting with you.
Thanks for this lesson & the whole puremix side.
Logic101
2018 Jan 06
This was amazing lesson with a fantastic teacher. Pure gold!
Michaeltn86
2018 Jan 02
great ears, great teaching. thank u!
idogo
2017 Oct 19
Pure Gold. Thanks
jengilleran
2017 Sep 17
Wow - what a lot of great knowledge you shared! Thank you.
A bit of feedback:
I suggest that you consider broadening your perception of your audience. Referring to studio folks as 'guys' or 'dudes'; choosing the term 'emasculating' to describe taking a great characteristic out of a sound; assigning gender to plug-ins with 'pretty dresses' that we should not be distracted by and instead demand from them 'What can you do for me?' - is unsettling and distracting - rather like a neglected frequency in an otherwise elegant mix. Thank you for listening.
demixstudio
2017 Jul 17
Another excellent lesson by Fab. Quite overwhelming, I have to say! A lot of the examples are definitely not night-and-day to my ears, and I wonder if I can make music without such levels of sophistication (sure I can!). I do think Fab is one of the 'least' broad stroke-mixers here. Anyway, very impressive stuff. Thanks.
Alex94120
2017 Jun 15
I looked at quite a few tutorials of Fab, I still can't put less than five stars, this one is no exception to the rule. I would have rated 5 +. Awesome !!!
Steviem672
2017 Jun 12
I am amazed at the amount of knowledge in these tutorials, vast amounts and I never walk away feeling I haven't learned something valuable.
LudoL
2017 May 26
Very great teacher !!! Thanks a lot !
Chrisdude
2017 May 21
wow - great teacher! Thanks! :) Great website also :) Im in UK and this site is really great resource - best I've come across!
moridja
2017 Apr 25
Salut Fab. À quand le sous titre en français! :)
Fabulous Fab
2017 Apr 24
@Slowlearner: Don't despair, it takes time. The problem may be your monitoring, the problem may be your monitoring level or your room. No natter what, it's important to not get discouraged. If your intuition is off-track then use your mental presence to check your moves until you reprogram your intuition. For example, if you see yourself cutting or boosting enormous amounts with your eq, be aware that you may be going in the wrong direction and reign in the madness. Check the results elsewhere and adjust to taste. Over time, you'll get it.
Slowlearner
2017 Apr 21
Great video Fabrice, thank you! I have a question. I have been mixing for years and EQ is still the only process that messes me up. I already followed what you say 100% but I often end up with scooped mixes, frequency holes around the low mids. How do you tell what frequencies should be cut and what should be pushed? It sounds like I'm cutting bad frequencies but on a mix of 50 tracks the wrong subtraction leaves my mix unbalanced. Any thoughts? Thank you everyone!
MvM
2017 Mar 28
Great work. Could you make a similar one dealing with compressors?
tomasjochmann
2017 Mar 05
Bananas! :)
SimL
2017 Feb 24
This is why I subscribe to Puremix. La pédagogie de Fab au sommet de son art. :)
G.MICHAELHALL
2017 Feb 17
@pawel_lunapark - Awesome suggestion..would love to see a tute on exactly this
pawel@lunapark
2017 Feb 16
Fab !
Equalizer Strategy & Philosophy ?
You are Golden, as always ...
I`m wondering ... brass, strings mixing lesson ?
s'il vous plaît
merci
flaremusic
2017 Feb 14
Amazing!!Nothing like a clear and concise explanation from Fab Dupont. Not only is he a master at mixing, but also a great teacher/mentor.
Nitin
2017 Feb 14
Great Tutorial!!!...Please do a similar one on compression too.....and maybe reverbs and delays aswell...i dont ask for too much do I !!!
TC Hotrod
2017 Feb 11
In parallel with full mixes videos, I really like that kind of tuto dedicated to specific subject, which mixes history, philosophic vision, and practical tips. We leave it with a new and fresh approach, getting things as they look (and sound) easier to tame.
Chris Wyatt
2017 Feb 11
Best EQ tutorial on the web. Great lesson Fab!
mshostak
2017 Feb 10
So clear. So pragmatic. So good. Thx!
richardharris
2017 Feb 10
So glad I signed up for this site! Fab makes sense of very complex subjects with ease! Great video for sure. Loved this one.
Markedgeller
2017 Feb 10
Is the Will Knox track deliberately mono?
slguthre
2017 Feb 09
groovy......
jolyoncox
2017 Feb 09
Probably the best tutorial on EQ I've ever seen. Thanks Fab.
G.MICHAELHALL
2017 Feb 09
I may be wrong in [practice and theory], but in particular, when I need to add a hpf , in some instances, I'm using the sub band of a linear eq to create a bell shape narrow cut , which (to me)means I am not having to go and make adjustments to the low band so much and I am getting my very bottom tidied up, albiet at the cost of everything below the narrow bell cut, which I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing..it sounds good to me but this is where I sometimes question what I'm hearing. I try and look at eq as rationed with little to spare..
G.MICHAELHALL
2017 Feb 09
EDIT re: previous post---The effect of the HPF is really "obvious"...
G.MICHAELHALL
2017 Feb 09
re:59:00-1;02:00 - The effect of the HPF is really and I'm wondering, is the 0.5db cut made around 100 hz a corrective move to the phase altering instigated by the HPF slope? I'm trying to wrap my head around the give and take of the HPF.If you had say, placed the HPF curve to start at a lower frequency(20hz or so..), would the corresponding cut have been higher, perhaps closer to 120-130hz to re-correct ( so to say) the phase after the hpf cut? If you had not placed the HPF on at all, what is the likelihood of even having needed to make the cut at 100? Trying to see the relationship here.g
Richard Boyer
2017 Feb 09
I think your a genus, little crazy, weird scientist, but it maybe me
vlakanas
2017 Feb 09
Merci.
Burekenge
2017 Feb 09
Great Tutorial, thanks.
That arpeggiated, delayed guitar part on the Will Knox track is absolutely fantastic.
Ming
2017 Feb 09
Thanks,Fab.You are really a good teacher!!
Johnny London
2017 Feb 08
Wonderful stuff! Thank you Fab!
pumafred
2017 Feb 08
As always, very instructive and entertaining, Fab. Thank you! Over the past year I see many people, including yourself, showing off the UAD plugins a lot. I am sure they are good, but do you think they are something of a fad (as were Sonnox, Soundtoys, etc., all of great quality), or are they a "must have"?
(And now you start with Flux! :-) )
owenlt
2017 Feb 08
Fun fact about mic'ing, the Beatles AND kick drums:
"For example, on Ringo’s drum sound, I wanted to move the mic closer to the bass drum. Well, we weren’t allowed. I was caught putting the mic about three inches from the bass drum, and I was reprimanded... And so, I was sent a letter, from one of the guys in the office down the corridor, giving permission—only on Beatles sessions—to put the microphone three inches from the drum." http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/an_interview_with_legendary_engineer_geoff_emerick
pearlpassion
2017 Feb 08
Hi Fab...Excellent tutorial and pretty much guilty on many pointers you made. Made very much sense and will go back to the drawing board and clean up my mixes. Thanks
leojobst
2017 Feb 08
Great fab!
Befurg86
2017 Feb 08
Very useful!! Thanks
bataleo
2017 Feb 08
Thanks FAB!!!!
StudioSaturn
2017 Feb 08
Your Pultec has a lot more oomph than the plugin that is what I heard.
