#390888 - 02/19/00 04:54 PM
EQ versus imaging versus compression
|
Ken Favata
Member
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 25
Loc: Pittsford, N.Y.
|
Offline
|
|
Hey Roger,
I just purchased a used original TC Finalizer to polish the stuff coming off my Akai DR8/PROMix01/Cubase virtual tracks sourced mixes. (was that sentance complicated enough for you?)
I've been playing with this wonderful beast on one mix for over a week. I now realize that, in the past, I was frustrated at the inability of EQ to fix what are really imaging problems. These appear mainly on the DI'ed bass and lead vocals). Yes - I do check for proper phasing but till sometimes get less than stellar imaging results.
I mix on KRK 6000's driven by a Hafler 2400 amp and also listen on a few different systems.
Rather than have to use the stereo imaging feature on the Finalizer to rectify this ( side effects of narrowing the field are not all positive for all the elements of the mix) I've been working with the panning of my bass (chrus/rvb) and vocal (delay) effects to narrow the these images. I am careful to use only modest amounts of these sonic spices on these sounds.
Obviously, compression also contributes to the perceived imaging characteristics.
Any "masterful" tips on how to recognize/separate imaging, compresion and EQ issues and how best to balance the use of these controls to achieve the best mix??
The S.Dan stuff does a wonderful job of this. I know there are no magic recipies but how do you go about geting to the right place??
Thanks in advance for your reply - I am not worthy.
Cheers from very snowy Rochester NY,
Ken Favata
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#390889 - 02/20/00 01:24 PM
Re: EQ versus imaging versus compression
|
Roger Nichols
Platinum Member
Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 1249
Loc: Miami, Florida
|
|
Offline
|
|
ken
First of all, I am not sure exactly what you mean by imaging. Youtalk about closing the image in with the TC... Are you talking about the left right position in the pan, or about the clarity of the instrument at its position in the sound field?
It seems counter-productive if you are panning things out and then using an additional device to mve things back toward the center, if that is what you are doing.
As far as EQ and dynamics, don't overdo it with the TC. I never use a ratio greater than 2.5:1 and I watch the meters so that I never have more than 1 or 2 dB of compression. Remember, you can not undo compression later if you are using the TC on your mix on the way to the DAT machine. Always print the mix without the TC and use it uring a copy operation so if you are not happy, you can do it again.
As far as EQ after the mix, I like to use the and levels in the compressor section of the TC to bring up the high end or bottom over a broad area. It works good for mastering. It is harder to use EQ to bring out a vocal without effecting the guitar, and that sort of thing.
The reason mastering houses are used is that the mastering guy does all sorts of different CDs from tons of different studios and record companies and has his finger on the way things should sound to be commercially viable.
In selecting speakers for mixing, play someone elses CD that you like, and find the speakers that make it sound the way you like the best. Now use those speakers to mix your record. Everything should be fine.
Roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#390890 - 02/20/00 02:35 PM
Re: EQ versus imaging versus compression
|
Ken Favata
Member
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 25
Loc: Pittsford, N.Y.
|
|
Offline
|
|
Roger,
Thanks for your reply.
To clarify.
The stereo imaging feature on the TC that I referered to is in the insert section. It adjusts the relative level of the common L/R signal against the difference between the two channes L-R. My understanding is that the common signal can be thought of as the center information and the difference channel can be thought of as all the off-center information.
Adjusting the relative levels of these is meant to achieve a type of narrowing or broadening of the stereo field while still panning the mix hard L/R.
With the finished mix I was working with increasing the center channel 5% helped to add definition (a.k.a. "imaging") to the center panned vocal and bass - whose effects had been panned hard L/R. Simply increasing the volume and/or eq'ing these elements in the mix did not seem to achieve the same results.
On mixes-in progress I am exploring not hard panning these effects so that I dont end up wanting to use the TC stereo field feature to better define/image these sounds.
However, I believe most mixers do hard-pan these effects. Do you?
Now that I've better explained the situation any other comments?
Cheers,
Ken Favata
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#390891 - 02/21/00 05:33 PM
Re: EQ versus imaging versus compression
|
Roger Nichols
Platinum Member
Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 1249
Loc: Miami, Florida
|
|
Offline
|
|
Ken
I NEVER hard pan ANYTHING all the way left or right. The most I do is pan hard over, then bring the pan pot back about one dot on the knob or 10 degrees or something like that, just so I can hear a teeny tiny bit of it in the other speaker.
I never plan on using outboard gear to fix something I failed to do in the mix. I try to make my mixes so that in mastering I don't have to do anything. It doesn't always work out that way, but that is what I try for.
If you mix by panning all the way over and then use the TC to narrow the field, just stop panning all the way out.
If it hurts when I hit my self, after a while I stop hitting myself.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
