Really appreciate this video. I especially like the point of "don't remove anything if it doesn't need it" that's something I try to make a point of to my audience too. I've been saving up for a Raven and VMS and I'm continually impressed with your whole company. Thanks again 😀
Take love, Michael. Your FL studio template using slate digital plugins introduced me with them. Now sometimes for me it's tricky to choose plugins from iZotope, T Racks and Slate Digital within seconds. ^_^
That beautiful feeling when you can predict almost the exact eq setting he will/wont do, you heart starts pumping and you feel like you're really finally starting to understand things... I love these videos by the way and the everything bundle!
First of all, THE SLATE EVERYTHING BUNDLE has totally transformed the quality of my projects. I've been engoineering since the 70's. Bravo!!! There's a subtlety to the plugins that feels like a scalpel instead of a chainsaw. As a dad and grandpa, I try to say things to my young folks that they can grasp immediately and walk away with the essence of what I'm trying to say. This particular video did just that. It gives folks a simple concept that they will use forever. Bravo again
Ive just discovered Steven Slate and Slate plugins thanx to the free bus compressors I downloaded, and I must say, I absolutely love his 'to the point' and 'no nonsense' approach to things. Ive been engineering for 30 years and I believe I can learn a lot from this guy. And their plug ins are great as well.
Really good one Steven. Sometimes no matter how long you've been doing something, hearing a little tweak to how we look at something is gold. I love it.
These misconceptions were something that really held my mixing back for a long time. It wasn't till I watched CLA mix that I realized you don't have to follow those silly rules. Great to see you spelling it out so clearly from others who may have been held back as well. PS. That 15k boost on the custom series eq is soooooo good for adding air to a vocal.
Thanks so much. A great amount of data put in simple, concise words. Too many people will talk for 10 minutes and not say a thing. You have mastered a great teaching method.
Thanks for getting right to the point. You've done in 6 minutes what many others take 20 minutes for. Always a pleasure to hear what you hear and apply strategies to make it sound better.
Thanks mate, really helpful. The ''too much [-], not enough [-]' (in that order) is a very helpful first principle. (Another helpful tip I found in my investigation was to 'cut narrow (ie 'too much [-]'), and boost wide (ie 'not enough [-]'); these two principles helped no end. Cheers
This is a fantastic way to think about EQ. You've put into words how I approach my mixes, and I'm sure this is going to help a bunch of people. When I first started producing 10 years ago I can remember feeling guilty any time I went to make a boost!
I would love to see some examples of EQing in context. Your tutorials are excellent and I've learned a ton, but you tend to always demonstrate EQ changes in solo, while reminding us to EQ in context, even in the Audio Legends rock course. Could we see some more real-world mixing in a future vlog? I've LOVED the vlog so far. Keep it up!
The best line in this vlog was "It needs nothing here" (referring to the vocal cut). Too many think that they always have to turn a knob. Great vlog. Keep them coming. Musicmaniac
True!! But I think that part was absolutely subjective - listening to it I felt there was too much boxiness - as such I would have subtracted some lows. But again, it's taste. But Steve was on point though!
Great video. Glad to see how I work with EQ is the same way you do, but seeing a refresher on EQ always helps keep my head sharp when using it so thanks for the vid.
Good work my guy. Love the mix screen bruh. Gonna start tuning in more often, bn mixin songs for bout 14yrs now. Always willing to keep learning from the pros.
Felt good to guess what you’d cut and boost, and get most of them right. Only thing I didn’t get was to do nothing in the cut for the vocal. Made so much sense though. Great tips!
Great job! You’re an awesome teacher. This is what we call in Electrical Engineering K.I.S.S keep it simple stupid. There’s beauty in simplicity and you don’t over complicate things which I like.
If you already know what Steven will do to the "_blank" before he takes action and you are not yet a professional music producer, then i guess you should change your job and study sound engineering...thank you for this simple and effective videos, which might be one of the best EQ tutorials i have ever seen....and damn what a desk!!!
Anyone else find it strange he uses protools but the thumbnail for the video shows logic's stock eq..? Not even one of the slate EQ's? Huge slate fan, great vid as always, if you haven't gone Slate-Unlimited yet then you need to.
Great video. I do this in live mixing all the time. Basically summed it all up! I find myself EQ cutting just to cut sometimes heh... but hey... perfectionist.
I know you can't say it generally, but in my experience, after having mastered many of my own tracks, I can say that using subtractive EQ esp on the master is key. Rather cut frequencies than adding unwanted annoying ones. The result on my songs is always MUCH better with Subtractive EQ'ing than boosting stuff.
Great lesson! It's really hard to realize what it's missing and what is in need. As the vocals exemple tell us, if there's nothing to subtract, don't do nothing. Same for additive EQ.
Thanks for bringing back what was common knowledge before youtube.. I spent all day yesterday trying to figure out what the frequency cutters were saying. Sorry, but adding highs to a vocal by cutting just thins out the good stuff without adding what i wanted to hear.
hey steven, great video, very interesting, I am already enjoying and practicing with my raven mti2 console and the plugins bundle. Thanks for the contents of your videos.
That myth always bugged me. You're just changing relative gain of different frequency bands so a standard digital EQ gives the exact same result whether boosting or cutting. You should do more audio forum myth busting!
well the reason they say that boosting bears worse results than cutting is that an EQ is basically a shitty amplifier and by boosting certain frequencies you gain more noise as well, while when you cut you do not gain noise. But yeah I don't see why you should never boost
One useful thought exercise i like is to imagine a boost as a cut to everything else, and imagine a cut as a boost to everything else. When cutting one thing, ask self "do i want to boost all that other stuff?". When boosting one thing, ask self "do i want to cut all that other stuff?".
I say this to myself too. Damn, I honestly felt like I was the only one who thought of this. Also, I have to remind myself that with certain analog emulated EQs, a boost could add more than what is being boosted. So there's that also.
Great advices as always. I would add: when to use a shelve vs a HPF/LPF? Like the difference between there is too much blank vs there is unnecessary blank. I see too much students using a HPF/LPF instead of a shelve EQ. Custom EQ filters and FG-S shelves are so complementary imho.
I happen to come across this video in a link in ny email, I’m assuming because i have subscription for the everything bundle, but I’m really glad I saw the email and watched this video. As a rookie audio engineer and amateur pornstar that has only been mixing for about a year and a half or so, I hear those and read those same Myths all the time that Pros cut and while the inexperience boost etc and those other myths and as someone who’s in the early learning stages it can really make me feel insecure about my EQ decisions and in turn feel insecure about my Mixing decisions and set off a chain reaction ending with a poor mix.. because if I’m supposed to boost something but I don’t because I feel it’s unprofessional then I try to compensate by trying to get an “EQ Result” by trying a lot of other plug in like compression and saturation and maybe reverb or distortion etc etc and like I said it ends in a bad and poor mix and leaves me feeling discouraged and when really a simple boost would’ve saved my mix and confidence... so I really appreciate it Steve..
an eq is just a freq dependent volume control..plus initial eq you do solo'd fine tuning you do with the track..additionally you usually use definitive reductive eq that you won't change BEFORE a compressor and additive after as if you change eq you change gain which affects you compressor threshold.. and why add what the compressor will see and push down? as an added thing to think about... it's easier to hear what needs to be taken out by sweep BOOSTING the eq then removing
First of all a comp will not take down just what you added unless you use multi band one. If level rises it will take down whole signal. On the other hand the similar happens when you cut on EQ - level drops and your comp stops working. That's why you can use trims on EQ or just readjust your comp after you EQed. Or just use EQ after comp whenever it suits better. Or if you use a filter on a comp input EQ may not affect compression... or... or...
yes subtractive decreases gain that's why i used the term "definitive" reduction pre compressor [ i don't move it so i have no threshold change]..do i add some of that back post compresser on occasion? yes!...but in 43 years it's kinda tale chasing if you constantly change a pre comp eq and tehn have to do threshold changes..and then where? low and low mids have diff attack values pre expectation than dealing with adding or cutting transients by fast or slight delyaed attack values..it becomes a stupid mind fawk..my motto is get it as great as possible at the mic/ instrument..then tweak with the gear
Hi, Steven. Please help me to understand some problem with eq. I have low-end timpani in my mix, it appears from time to time and sounds nice overall, but analyser Levels shows me that i have a problem with kick and bass. What must i do? Is this problem at all?
The quick answer, in most EQ's it doesn't matter as long as you volume compensate so your ears aren't fooled. For this reason the Free SlickEQ by TokyoDawn is my favorite eq to use quickly.
How can I train myself in identifying which frequencies need to be fixed? Any shortcut or exercise to improve this? BTW, thanks for the video. Really helpful!
It was explained to us like this. In the world of analogue audio when you boost you are adding both distortion and shifting the phase of that frequency band because an analogue eq achieves boost through the use of a feedback loop. Cutting just shifts phase as it is just resisting or as I like to call it bleeding off (like air pressure from a tire) energy from that band. The old analogue guys are stuck in this because they can't understand that digital doesn't work the same (unless it is designed to). Digital eq is a codec or a series of numbers. By changing the numbers you change the sound. With that, there is no place to gain distortion unless you tell it to add that. A common misconception is that there is no phase shift. There is but there is also a misconception that it is the same as analogue and that is not always true either. From what I understand more often than not it is not true. Once again if we design an eq plugin to mimic a Pultec then it is going to have to shift the phase similarly and with that, we will change the numbers to note the phase shift characteristics of a Pultec eq. Wait. A generic good digital eq is not going to need phase shift as a sonic character and therefore will not purpose to do that. The only thing that will cause that portion of the sound to change phase or in this case arrival time is the added time it takes to make the calculations. Of course, that speed depends on a number of factors but if it is being done by a good modern processor the differential even with what I call FRANTIC eq is on the order of 2 or 3 degrees. I measured it with a few different units as an experiment to see the difference and for all of the disbelievers, I invite you to do so as well. All you need is a decent measurement mic and Smaart live. Standard tools for an audio engineer. I am not talking about FIR filters either. the way I understand it is that just delays the entire program to compensate for the eq differential.
"A generic good digital eq is not going to need phase shift as a sonic character and therefore will not purpose to do that." I understood phase shift to be a constant and unavoidable part of EQ'ing, regardless of the domain (hence the need for and existence of things like linear phase EQs). The *degree to which* phase distortion is present and pleasing, however, is equally dependent on the software, the user, and the overall subjective nature of music as a fucking whole amiriiiiiiiite 🤷🏻♂️✌🏻
If that were true systems like Smaart would show it as such and as I stated in my test it really didn't. My understanding is that a "digital eq" is such that it simply increases or decreases amplitude within a given frequency group. Phase shift that is part of that sound is an added component of a given plugin usually so to allow a closer estimation of the function of an analogue eq and in order for it to sound like an analogue eq, it would have to induce phase shift. If the plugin simply was designed to change amplitude values at given frequencies why would it other than the fact that it literally takes time to calculate those changes? Remember digital audio is just a process of turning sound into numerical values. Change a given value, change the sound. Why couldn't you make those changes one part one at a time?
PS. I never said analogue eq couldn't be pleasing. I started working with analogue everything. I am one of the few folks left who has actually aligned analogue tape machines and because of my life experience, I can appreciate the value of both eq that does and eq that does not sound like analogue. Smoothing out the sound or rather eliminating definition is not always a desirable thing. A digital eq that minimally shifts phase can be a very powerful tool. Actually, I am going to say more powerful than your favored atypical sonic smearing devices.
I think you might be over-simplifying the processing here... For instance, the FabFilter ProQ 2 is arguably one of the best plugin EQs on the market (and widely used) and has three phase settings, each taxing the computer at increasingly higher rates to get less and less phase distortion. The result is cleaner and cleaner performance from the plug, but more and more CPU usage to compensate. If it were simple (or even possible) to design plugins without that distortion to begin with, there would be no reason for this feature to exist at all. "Phase shift that is part of that sound is an added component of a given plugin usually so to allow a closer estimation of the function of an analogue eq and in order for it to sound like an analogue eq" - This I think is just incorrect. I can think of a hundred stock and third party digital EQs that are definitely not emulating hardware.
Great Job ! The sentence trick is really helpful, don't you think the substractive/additive eq should be a a 2 steps process, substractive with surgical eq and then additive with "character eq" ? First one before compression and then the second after?
Are those touch screens really useful to mix and do music stuff on? My experience with it is that its generally fairly inaccurate when it comes to fine tuning, in this case fine tuning EQ.
+SlateTV, Hi Guys .., any progress news on WHEN the FG-X (2) will be released ? .., been waiting patiently so far , but anxious as the promise for it is already 'Years Old'
This is a no-brainer, but like he said..with all the misinformation it's good to show. I think the vocal had too much around 1k but depends on the mix etc.
I don't understand how EQing can cause phase problems if you are influencing the frequencies of an entire sound (not mixing in parallel dry.) I trust it CAN as conventional wisdom...but I'm too dumb right now to get it. Thoughts?
