I use this trick all the time, one thing I do is grab the frequency knob and close my eyes as I slowly sweep up and down to make sure I'm using my ears only. Great tips as always. I'd love to see your reverb techniques if you do any other tip videos like this. I started hobby producing in 2007 and I still feel like I just twist knobs until I get lucky with reverb.
Vocal example actually made day and night difference when hearing that on built-in laptop speakers. Also it sounds like she sang in some crappy accoustic room. The bass part was more subtle, I needed to check it out on the headphones. On the headphones without the cut it actually sounds like those countryside garage rock bands - so I can actually use this trick in reverse to mimic their sound.
Love your videos Jonas. Always really knowledgable, always really friendly. (And not too long either!) Funnily enough, I too was shown a similar technique by a sound engineer several years ago. The 'problem' frequencies he was looking for in that case were those that were causing too much feedback in a live setting.
Thanks Jonas. Also: do this (resonance cutting) esp. on 909 rides : those are notorious for having rogue resonances. And use Sonarworks Sound ID Reference and possibly dearVR Monitor (or similar) in serial on your DAW's master if you monitor on headphones, to make sure you have a neutral soundstage.
Protoculture brought out a video on this a few weeks back, his take was that this is actually bad practice and you're actively looking for problems that aren't really there until you sweep the frequencies and that you should only cut frequency if they're an audible problem without any boosts, otherwise leave them alone, likewise for the reverse unless it's a sound design decision or EQ technique (pultec style). It's interesting to see the differing opinions from different producers
I didn't say that you should do this on every channel. 1. You hear there is an issue 2. You use this technique to find the problem frequencies 3. Cut them But when it already sounds good, certainly do not do this as it obviously isn't needed. So I think Protoculture and I are on the same page. I actually learned this technique from a dutch engineer doing loads of live stages. In those situations you usually have some room problems (resonances) to take care of. It does translate very well to studio use though although there you usually never should need very extreme corrections.
I kind of already touched that in the creative production techniques video. Huge reverbs in busy mixes can be tamed with sidechain compression. You should also look into eqing the reverb. Rolling off the low and low mid helps a lot already to reduce 'muddiness'
@@Estuera Thank you. Hmm yeah, I'm doing this already. Also using TrackSpacer and working with mid/side mixing. What I mean is this iconic sound of the crystal clear huge reverbs, hard to explain but some Thrillseekers track have them. I know a few people have quite special configs for Lexicon or ArtsAcoustic reverbs to get really nice sounding tails.. but yeah Lexicon is expensive xD I mean the sound of The Thrillseekers - Find You (Ferry Tayle Remix); even if the lows and muddy mids are suppressed, the huge reverb tails just don't melt into each other as beautiful as in these tracks. I'm having the feeling that I'm doing something wrong or it's really the specific algos? I'm using Valhalla and NI Raum alot lately
In my opinion Valhalla VintageVerb is the only reverb you need: valhalladsp.com/shop/reverb/valhalla-vintage-verb/ Just $50 and it blows all the other ones out of the water in quality and possibilities. I never looked back. Using it for everything.
Nice, I'll give this method a shot on some vocal samples ! As you said, for synth patches, It's better to make some changes at the source of the problem rather than going EQ heavy !
I think the ARC could be a good idea but you should do it _after_ treating the room. Eq room fixes should be the last step you take, not the first. As I will be setting up my new room later this year I will do one (or more) video(s) about treatment.
@@Estuera Really looking forward to seeing this. I've been holding off treating my room until I a) get more equipment moved and stationed, and b) actually have someone to show me the ropes online before I just start going crazy slapping panels everywhere or building a room-within-a-room. :D
@@Estuera I'm a corner bedroom studio guy. I do want my own studio room, I do but. My situation is I work in the bedroom. I mix on waves nx abbey road 3 plugin cause I work at night . But I do have time to mix on weekends and weekdays. My JBLls305 monitor really helps me hear more. I use to mix in one of those m audio gaming speakers, yukkkkkkk.
20 years ago I was in a bedroom studio as well so yes off course you gotta work with what you have. Still there are some things that can be done to get a better audio situation in almost every room. I recommend checking out this channel: ru-vid.com
Great video, very helpful; the vocal section really showed what a difference this technique can make. Q for you, for a track with a lot of effects (delay reverb, chorus, compression), where in that chain should I use this eq technique? and I should consider having it more than once -- before and after effects, for instance?
I think you make an absolutely wonderful point here, that also demonstrates why high end hobbyists and some professionals are moving away from DAWs: too much reliance on trusting your eyes instead of your ears. At the end of the day, I wouldn't listen to a painting to correct it; why would I look at a song?
Yes, I have been guilty of looking way too much at graphs as well so I know how tempting it can be. It can be very useful to spot certain problems in a mix right away but in the end you should make it sound good, not look good.
Here's a question: Say you play the bass part a bit higher or lower - and I mean physically playing, not pitching - would the boomyness still be around the same frequency? In the vocal example it appears that the nasal quality is specific to the voice/recording and not to the notes she sang. Is this maybe a general principle? Unfortunately, the bass line is a bit too monotonous to draw any conclusions. Come to think of it, it would make sense if the problematic frequencies were instrument specific, possibly due to resonances. Otherwise, eq bands would always have to move with the harmonies and I don't think many eqs can do that. So, am I on to something here or am I way off?
You already gave the answer yourself. A pitch is a frequency so yes, in case the bass plays different notes that also have problems you'll need to make another cut. That's why I said that at some point its best to take a step back and resolve the problems at the source. But now lets get to the reason why a bass could be so 'boomy'. In that case it's probably because of the acoustics of the room where it was recorded. In that case it means that only certain frequencies (aka notes) will be actual problematic so than this method works.
@@Estuera Great! I feel like I actually learned something by accident. 😁 Thanks for mentioning the room, too. Definitely didn't have it on my radar. Next time, maybe...
Certainly not. I took out a big peak at 122 hertz. All the actual original bass is still there. I know this as I prepared the 'muddy' bass by boosting it myself. After my eq it sounds like the original again 😉
It does sound more 'bassy' that way but in an unbalanced way. When you put it in a full mix these frequencies can cause the mix to sound less transparent. Maybe I also should have done a part where I combined a couple of channels to show that sometimes a sound that sounds great when solo doesn't work properly in a mix. Athough that wasn't really the point of the video.
