what do you automate?

Do you automate EQ?

Should you automate EQ to let sounds fill up the space if nothing else is doing the job?

So in busy bits of your mix, the EQ for each channel is different to sparse parts?
Puzzling over EQ, because if there are lots of elements on the go you can EQ the mix to sound tight, but then when elements break out everything sounds weird. Like when you isolate a channel and in the mix it sounds great, but on its own sounds weird.

Argh.

What else do you automate? Reverb? Panning? Filters? Everything?

I tend to just stick to filters and wet/dry effects, have never really done much eq automation, or even much volume automation.

Probably should do, curious how other people work.

I automate everything and anything.

But rarely EQ. If you are eqing properly then stuff should sound fine on it`s own as well as in the mix, depending on how busy your mix is.

You can get dynamic/tracking EQ`s that track the main note of what they are EQing, but these are mainly for bassline and stuff with high audio energy.

When I make the dark music, I automate loads and loads. For the atmospherics I`ll have filters, volume, effects, all sorts of stuff automated so that the sounds morph and blend and move. It takes ages.

I do a lot of volume automation too. Maybe some sounds fading in or out. Or a lead riff will increase in volume slowly by 1-2 db over the whole track, so it really sucks you in.

I dunno, pretty much everything I do has a ton of automation. A lot of the time it is very subtle.

Interesting.

So why not dynamically EQ?

Was listening to chilli peppers the other day. The mixing is amazing, but the vocals have this distinctive hollow sound due to the EQ shaping. I wondered why they didn't just change the EQ depending on what was going on around it. So for the solo voice bits they could have opened up the EQ, then narrowed it down during the busy bits with drums and guitars etc.

So.... when you're building a mix - each part is Eq'd to fit the busiest bit of the mix, and then left EQ'd in that state throughout the whole mix?

Because EQ is an interlocking system.
If you shift the EQ emphasis on one sound, then you are changing it`s interaction with another, and then may have to EQ THAT sound to compensate, and then that effects the harmonics of another sound, so you have to EQ THAT sound.

No it`s way too much bother. It takes me at lease a day to EQ and mix one track. At least, to then start really screwing with that is madness.

I use EQ automation very rarely for certain tricks, but it`s something that really screws your mix.

So do you EQ your whole mix based on the busiest part?

Will that not mean that there are "empty" bits when parts that occupy certain frequencies drop out of the mix, and nothing takes over that space?

I'm guessing no, but I'm curious about how it all works together. Had a cubase tutor who would talk about mixing bands, and he'd have to eq the lead singer so that solo'd she sounded like her head was in a bucket, but it was perfect in the mix. My confusion comes from the fact that if the song breaks down and she's singing a solo, she will still sound like her head is in a bucket.

The application of EQ, widening & reverb continue to confuse me...

I don`t Eq to the busiest part.
I EQ to fit stuff together.
If a sound needs extreme EQ to fit it in the mix, then it is a bad sound choice, and I take it out.
EQ is as much choice of sound as it is an actual filtering process.
Some sounds are a little larger and require more room, but if you are doing things properly the subtractive EQ you are using shouldn`t be so destructive that sounds on their own don`t work.
It sounds like your cubase instructor was either, overdoing his EQ, was working with a bad singer, or a badly recorded singer, as he was doing very destructive EQ.

When it comes to mixing bands it`s a different story in some ways, the human voice is pretty complex tonally, and if you screw with it too much, it is more noticable.

I just got a hold of the entire multi track recordings from the Latest NIN album, and I was checking out the vocals, as I am going to do some remixes. The vocals in the multitracks are all post EQ, and despite his music being very heavy on large, complex electronic sounds, the vocals sound fine solo`d, as the engineer did a proepr job.

It sounds like what you are talking about is if you overdo the subtractive process.
I try not to make any adjustments over 2-3db in EQ, so if a sound does drop out, it simply drops out and doesn`t leave a huge gap.
It`s like if there are 2 of you in a room talking.
If one leaves, the room will become quiter, but the whole dynamics of the room shouldn`t suddenly change.

2-3db eqing is very useful advice. Think I've been overdoing EQ a lot. And trying to shape unsuitable sounds into mixes that don't have the right space for them.

Hmmm.

Good food for thought. Cheers.

yea when u first hear about subtractive eq...u go mad on it dont you :)
then the next step is to make sounds that u shouldnt have to EQ much at all.

i personally automate everything, Eq n all. sometimes it can be a sloppy.. but i sually let stuff fall back into theright place.

hmmm. I have gotten some really really nice effects from automating my eq . I dont understand when people say you shouldnt automate eq at least subtly.. a filter is just a fancy kind of eq and its autmated all the time.

It depends I wouldnt automate my eq if I was recording a band or something, but if I was making some dubby-skanking techno I sure would.

I think with automating filtering you are doing it to create a new effect on the sound, I was talking about automating EQ to balance the mix.

Grrr. Production pisses me off at times. Just when you feel you're getting somewhere you have to unlearn and relearn everything again.

If you absolutely have to automate EQ for some reason, then there`s nothing to say you can`t.
But for mix purposes, there are other things you can do, as I said above, that should stop you needing to do this.

Hehe... I always giggly seeing DB's replies to things like this with "there are no rules" in his signature...

I know where your'e coming from Jay, cos it is so so so hard when you have a sound that you want to sit by itself at points and then be part of a full mix and when you drop bits it sounds all thin and blah blah blah etc...

Dare I say it after the discussion recently in the techno forum, it's something that I've struggled with a lot with guitars, 'cos as DB said there rightly, guitars take a hell of a lot of space in a mix, and (personal opinion, so we'll not go into that here :tongue: ) I like guitar sounds in techno, and I like dropping to just a thrash guitar, but that if it's eq'd to fit in a techno mix is nigh on impossible to get it sounding right by itself. Of course that could be construed a bad sound choice, but...

Anyway... rambling back, it's always seemed to be that things like automating eq one of those "rules" (I've always been told it's a rule not to) that's just dying to be broken for creative purposes, but then when you do it is very hard to tame it and get the balance back...

I've done things where I've dropped frequencies out of one sound subtly and replaced them in another using shelving eg, but that's kind of like a filter with no resonance really anyway, and again can be hard to get right....

The automation of EQ is not a "rule" it`s just common production knowledge that you are opening yourself up for a world of difficulty and trouble if you use it for mix purposes.
It can be done creatively, I use mid sweeping a fair bit when constructing atmospherics.

See above, there`s nothing to say you can`t do anything "in the mix"

Doesn`t mean it won`t sound shite though.

75% of my music making time is spent trying shit out just for the sake of it, so don`t paint me into a hypochritical corner buddy.

I`m just talking from experience that`s all.

As for guitars, it`s been tried and tried and tried.
So it`s nothing new.
It`s very old in fact, trying to meld heavy guitar and techno.
It rarely rarely works, but then, it `s mainly to do with how techno works spacially.

Guitars work well with drum and bass though. But the general spacial construction of drum and bass is different. It`s percussively fairly sparse to begin with in general.

I automate what ever I feel needs it. If it sounds good, it is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirty_bass

75% of my music making time is spent trying shit out just for the sake of it, so don`t paint me into a hypochritical corner buddy.

---

So-rry! That was aimed as a spot of humour largely referring to the discussion I've heard quite a lot about "rules" of production and the breaking them creatively, chill for Christs sakes!

Why is everyone so goddamn sensitive, I though this place was about discussion not getting tetchy when people have different ideas!

Well, I know everyone likes to go on about rule breaking, but production does have certain rules, it`s that simple.
Techno especailly, is quite a constrained medium for the most part, when it comes to club punter.
So when I answer qeustions on here I answer from a techno context.

Come over to idmforums.com and I`ll talk all day about undanceable time signatures, using multiband ringmodulation instead of EQ, and destructive processing.

Yeh production has "rules", or "common production knowledge" which are necessary if you want music to not sound wank, blow speakers etc..

It saddens me however the idea of techno as a constrained medium - I get what you're saying about answering posts from a techno point of view, but if techno is becoming a constrained medium, is that that we are putting techno in a box for the club punter? Using my guitars thing as an example, I guess I'm not using the word techno in this pure sense it seems to have become - I play with 4/4 beats, nessecarily (sp! cant spell and the spellchecker don't want to do it) quite simple, using the guitar to create interest... so is that techno, or is that electronic music using guitars...? But don't want to harp on that - but I write music that I like, however either wierd, or "tried and tried and tried."...

is it only "idm" thats allowed to break out of that box?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acidsaturation

Yeh production has "rules", or "common production knowledge" which are necessary if you want music to not sound wank, blow speakers etc..

It saddens me however the idea of techno as a constrained medium - I get what you're saying about answering posts from a techno point of view, but if techno is becoming a constrained medium, is that that we are putting techno in a box for the club punter? Using my guitars thing as an example, I guess I'm not using the word techno in this pure sense it seems to have become - I play with 4/4 beats, nessecarily (sp! cant spell and the spellchecker don't want to do it) quite simple, using the guitar to create interest... so is that techno, or is that electronic music using guitars...? But don't want to harp on that - but I write music that I like, however either wierd, or "tried and tried and tried."...

is it only "idm" thats allowed to break out of that box?

---

the only limitation is the self.

and for the record.

I automate your momma.