Spoiler: Equalizer tutorial: learning to set the EQ correctly - 1

Equalizer tutorial: learning to set the EQ correctly

The EQ (written equalizer) is an important tool that can be used to make most mistakes in mixing - even if you know exactly how to use an EQ. Because many have no or poorly optimized room acoustics in the studio or home studio (home recording). It is then very difficult or even impossible to assess whether the audio signal really needs to be processed or whether the room is "playing a trick" on us. You can do a lot of good with an EQ, but you can also cause a lot of harm. For the correct settings, now this tutorial (learning to set the equalizer correctly) with many clear explanations and helpful tips .

Again, because it is really important: Without optimized room acoustics, you will make mistakes when setting the equalizer. In a room that is not or insufficiently optimized acoustically, certain frequencies can be overemphasized or eliminated. The overemphasis is also called room modes. So the song may not have any problems with certain frequencies. You only have the roar in your room and possibly exactly where you are sitting.

Especially in the low-frequency range (frequencies) you have most problems to mix them down to the right degree or to set the EQ correctly for this range. If you recognize yourself here, you should first optimize your room acoustics. The article Set up studio monitors and improve room acoustics will help you.

If you just have a small corner free in your apartment and it is therefore impossible for you to optimize the room acoustically, I recommend mixing with headphones. For more information, see the article Mixing through studio headphones.

" The less signal processing, the better. "

This also applies to the EQ. The EQ also has side effects (ask your doctor or pharmacist), such as effects on the phase position. Today, due to the computing power and simplicity, we can add as many plugins as we want in one channel without restriction. But just because you can does it, it is by no means a reason to load an EQ in every channel.

Musicians who have not been involved with mixing for too long often use the EQ to give the audio signals a better sound and more "fullness". This is not fundamentally wrong, but it is much more important to have a stable volume balance with an equalizer.

The aim should be that all audio signals (vocals, instruments, drums) together result in a sound that makes our ears smile. In order to achieve this, it doesn't help us to solo a signal and shape it into a melodious sound. If the song is just one guitar, there is nothing wrong with doing this, but most songs are far more than one guitar.

In order to achieve a transparent sound in which we can clearly hear all sounds, it is important to avoid frequency occlusions. More on this in the next section.

Frequency masking

If we hear several instruments playing together at the same time, frequencies can be masked. In fact, it is very likely. This means that if an instrument has a lot of energy in one frequency range, it can obscure another instrument.

Example: All instruments except the bass are playing and can be heard easily. But if you add the bass now, you will hear the kick worse because the bass has so much energy or low frequencies that it masks the kick.

Solution: With an EQ you can now make the low frequencies of the bass quieter or cut them off.

The effects of frequency masking on mixing are extreme. Even if the individual instruments sound good, you have to edit the instruments in context to avoid frequency occlusion.

Don't be alarmed: It can even happen that after the EQ processing, which we correctly set in connection with all instruments, the individual instruments sound bad when you listen to them individually (solo). Don't let that irritate you! Only the overall sound counts! Because the listener always hears the entire song with all audio signals.

" Don't try to make every single instrument ring fantastically. Only the overall sound counts. "

It would be wrong to let the drums solo sound fantastic, the bass solo awesome and the guitar solo phenomenal. The mix wouldn't sound good at all. The instruments get in each other's way. An instrument should be a team player in the mix and also make room for others. In a crowded mix, you often have no choice but to make extreme EQ settings to make it sound good overall.

It is perfectly fine to briefly listen to the instruments solo to hear exactly how and where you are changing the frequency distribution, but it is unavoidable to then check the EQ settings throughout the mix.

Which instrument should make room? The instruments that should be clearly audible at the front of the mix, such as drums, bass and vocals, should take up more space than the decorative accessories. The listener cannot concentrate on more than 3 things at the same time. In the case of masking problems, the instruments that are supposed to get less attention from the listener have to give way. This means that the frequencies of the unimportant instruments should be lowered with an EQ.

This is another good reason to build the mix, add the tracks in order of importance.

Understand an EQ

An EQ doesn't create signals, it just scales them. An EQ cannot amplify frequency components that are not there. That is an important finding. In order to better understand this insight, here are two practical examples to imitate:

Practical example number 1: You need a sine wave generator for this. Most sequencers have this on board. Level the volume of the sine wave generator to -12 dB and set the sine tone to 60 Hz. A deep tone can now be heard. Now load an EQ in the same channel. Activate a band on the EQ, set it to 60 Hz and increase its gain to + 6dB. The level meter now rises from -12dB to -6dB. Now turn off the EQ. Then move the fader up + 6dB. The effect is exactly the same!

What does that mean? An EQ is like a fader. With the difference that you can use the “fader” of the EQ to set exactly which frequency should be made louder or quieter.

Practical example number 2: Now set the frequency of the sine tone to 1 kHz. Now activate the EQ again. Even though the 60 Hz band is still at + 6dB, you won't hear any difference. Assuming that the band is set narrow (Q-factor from 1). Now increase the band to +12 dB. The 1 kHz sine tone will remain the same loud.

What does that mean? An EQ cannot amplify frequencies that are not present in the audio signal. An EQ doesn't create signals, it just scales them.


When do instruments, drums or vocals / vocals / rap need an equalizer?

You have now created an initial mix ratio with the faders of your (probably digital) mixer. So the song sounds pretty bearable.
Now you choose 2 elements, as described in the article Mixing / Mixing down order - building up the mix, which should get the most attention from the listener and which should be at the front of the mix. This can be the vocals and the bass, for example.

Step 1: First listen to all elements solo.

Here you pay attention to whether the audio signals need to be cleaned up. This occurs when there is hum, noise, or pounding in the recording. You should also cut away any low frequencies that you don't need so that the kick and bass can be heard clearly in the mix.

Solution: Take high-pass filtering (low-cut / hi-pass) to clean up with a Q-factor of 6, 12 or 18 (try it out and listen carefully) until you notice a change in the audio signal. Then go back a little bit with the frequency. Further explanations on the subject of “cleaning up the deep bass” are also given in the article Mixing / Mixing sequence - building up the mix .

Check the result with the bypass switch. If the bypass button is pressed, the audio signal is not processed by the plug-in, in this case the EQ. Press the bypass again and listen carefully to see whether the change has a positive effect on the mix as well as the kick and bass. Of course, you can only judge whether you actually hear the kick and the bass better if you can also hear them.
In addition, you should check whether the element has interfering frequencies or resonances and remove or reduce these with the EQ.

Step 2: Listen to frequency occlusion.

If you now listen to both elements that should get a lot of attention, pay attention to whether or not when you switch on the second most important element

- you can find a fader position that allows you to hear all the frequencies of the element as well as you want and

- whether the new audio track mainly leaves the perceived frequency distribution of the previous audio track unaffected.

If so, you don't need an EQ. Otherwise, you will likely need to use an EQ.
Check the result again with the bypass.

Step 3: Add element by element (audio track) according to importance and listen to frequency occlusions

Each time you add a track, ask yourself if

- you can find a fader position that allows you to hear all the frequencies of the element as well as you want and

- the new instrument leaves the perceived frequency distribution in the most important tracks largely untouched.

Tip: At this point I would like to give you the tip to start processing sums as early as possible. To do this, you can read through the article Sums processing later.

EQ presets have no advantage when mixing a song. It is impossible for the manufacturers of the EQs to predict how the masking will affect the sound in the particular situation. Therefore, EQ settings that helped unmask certain instruments on the last mix may not be helpful at all on the new song. Because every song has different instruments, a different key, a different singer, etc. There is no such thing as an optimal equalizer curve.

Spoiler: Equalizer tutorial: learning to set the EQ correctly - 2

Equalizer tutorial: learning to set the EQ correctly - 2

Discipline in masking problems

As we gradually add the instruments, it is always important to watch out for masking issues. Always ask yourself the following question when adding audio signals:

" Do the added instruments hide the main instruments? "

If so, it is recommended to use an EQ on the newly added audio signal. While editing, we should shift the listening perspective. This means that while we are processing the newly added audio signal, we will concentrate on the main instruments that should get the listener's attention. The decorative accessories or filling material must therefore be worked on until the frequencies of the main instruments are no longer covered.

The instruments in the background sound awful solo or thin and unnatural? That's not bad. Ultimately, the listener listens to the entire song. So our goal is for the whole sound to sound great. It is normal and right that not all instruments can sound fat and plump in a dense arrangement. The whole song would sound terrible then.

Be disciplined when building the mix. Unfortunately, it's easy to forget to check your masking problems. Once all the tracks have been mixed, it is very difficult to uncover complex masking problems afterwards.
You first learned why we mainly use an equalizer when mixing. So that you can solve masking problems with a parametric EQ, you should of course know which filters you can use and what they mean. More on this in the next section.

Explanation: Parametric Equalizer / EQ

Before explaining the filters of a parametric equalizer, it should be mentioned at this point that there is also the graphic EQ . Here, the acoustic spectrum is divided into many small frequency units. The gain is controlled with its own small fader. Due to the not really detailed regulation and the increased phase / resonance problems, a graphic EQ is not recommended. Even if the graphic equalizer is easier to understand for beginners, as it has predefined frequencies that can be attenuated or amplified with just one control, such an EQ should rather collect digital dust.

Hi-Pass / Low-Cut (the two terms have the same meaning - no difference)

The hi-pass / low-cut cuts off the low frequencies . If I set a hi-pass filter to 500 Hz, does that mean that all frequencies below 500 Hz cannot be heard? No. With a hi-pass filter, we also have a Q factor. This often has the fixed frequencies 6 dB / oct, 12 dB / oct, 24 db / oct etc. A Q factor of 6 dB / oct means that the hi-pass filter is lowered by 6 dB from octave to octave. So for the first octave it is -6 dB, for the second octave it is -12 dB, for the third octave -18 dB etc. Below 500 Hz the frequencies are lowered more or less steeply depending on the Q factor.

For example, if we want to cut all low frequencies up to 80 Hz, the low-cut filter is a good choice.

The hi-pass / low-cut cuts off the low frequencies . More or less steep depending on the Q-factor.

The low-pass / hi-cut cuts off the high frequencies .

For example, if we want to cut off all high frequencies from 8 kHz, the Hi-Cut filter is a good choice.

Shelving filter / shelf / shelving filter

The shelf filter changes the volume of the entire end of a frequency range. If we activate this once for an EQ with a graphic representation (most DAWs have such an EQ), it immediately becomes clear what it is doing. Does the filter remind you of a cow's tail? Not necessarily. But it is translated into German with a cow tail filter. There are two variants of this filter:

- Low shelf filter: boosts or cuts all frequencies at the lower end of the frequency spectrum.

- High-shelf filter: boosts or cuts all frequencies at the upper end of the frequency spectrum.

With the two shelf filters (low and high) you can set how much should be lowered or raised (level gain, gain). In addition, the so-called corner frequency can be set. The corner frequency is the boundary between the processed and unprocessed frequency range.

With the low shelf filter, all low frequencies can be raised or lowered up to the corner frequency, and with the high shelf filter all high frequencies can be raised or lowered up to the corner frequency. Some EQ designs have shelving filters with fixed corner frequencies, some with a limited selection of corner frequencies. However, every good DAW has an EQ with a shelving filter. In particular, the internal DAW EQs can be set flexibly.

For example, if we want to lower or raise all low frequencies up to 80 Hz, the low shelf filter is a good choice.

For example, if we want to lower or raise all high frequencies above 8 kHz, the high shelf filter is a good choice.

Bell filter / peak

As the name suggests, this filter looks like a bell when it is lowered or raised. For example, if you want to increase or decrease the bass at 120 Hz, this is exactly the right filter. The bell curve is generally used for more targeted interventions in the frequency range. Incidentally, the control for raising or lowering is usually labeled with "Gain" .

Depending on the Q-factor, a wide bell (more frequencies are raised / lowered around 120 Hz) or a narrow bell (fewer frequencies are raised / lowered around 120 Hz).

Q factor

A mid-band does not mean that you only boost the mid-range when you set a mid-range frequency. The Q control indicates how much is boosted around the frequency. It is wrong that with a set frequency, for example 1500 Hz, you only increase this frequency (1500 Hz). You always raise the lower and higher frequencies next to the 1500 Hz. You can determine how much of it you raise with the Q-factor:

- With a low Q-factor, you boost more of the lower and higher frequencies.

- With a high Q-factor, you lift less of the lower and higher frequencies.

Yes, for some it would be more logical if you also raise fewer other frequencies with a low Q factor. But quickly forget that, because it's exactly the other way around. Many equalizers also show graphically which frequency range is additionally boosted with the Q factor.

Input control

An input control on the EQ? Why that?! Many people don't care about the input control of an EQ. However, this controller is not as unimportant as you might think at first. The following scenario: You add an EQ (equalizer) to the sum channel. You only have 2 dB of headroom (distance between the audio signal and the point at which the signal is distorted) in the entire mix because of the level peaks of the drums. The mix doesn't have enough bass yet.

Now you raise the low frequencies properly with a shelf band. What is happening? You clip! To give us more buffer (headroom), you can now turn down the input controller. You can now raise the bass properly and the sound will not be distorted. In addition, plugins, like an EQ, always have a certain level at which they work best. You can also use the input controller for this. In general, this is at an RMS level of - 8 dB to - 10dB.

Raise or lower the frequencies with an EQ?

Basically, it is recommended to lower it with an EQ. Why?

- Louder always sounds better. If we raise it with an EQ and thereby make the entire audio signal louder, it will sound better. But do we now really have the desired tonal result? It's difficult to judge. Such an EQ boost makes the individual audio signal more audible in a mix. The greater the increase, the more difficult it becomes to keep track of things.

- An equalizer produces artifacts. EQs without oversampling produce poor treble resolution when boosted in a 48 kHz project. The sound is often referred to as harsh. Therefore, equalizers with oversampling are generally recommended, such as HOFA IQ-EQ or Voxengo GlissEQ.

- An EQ not only adjusts the frequencies, but also changes the phase relationship between the frequency components of the track. Especially with the bell curve filter and shelving filter, the largest phase shifts occur in the processed frequency ranges. The phase shift is basically the delay of a signal in relation to another (almost) identical audio signal. When lowering a frequency, one concentrates on areas that are less important - that is why the area is lowered. The effects are therefore less noticeable.
In theory, we could also increase a certain frequency range by lowering the other frequencies and moving the channel fader up. However, this can be very cumbersome. It's best to just use an EQ that can oversampling. Then frequencies can also be increased without having to worry.

Improve sound with EQ?

There is nothing wrong with using EQ to add sheen to the sound. But it should be less of a priority than avoiding frequency masking with an EQ. And there is something else that you should internalize: A good mix starts with well-recorded and good-sounding sounds .

If you discover an instrument in your mix session that sounds bad when you listen to it in mix and solo, it is a better choice to re- record this sound better or to replace it with another similar sound than to somehow add the EQ.

Example: If the snare just sounds bad, you won't be able to save it with an equalizer. Better to use a different snare that sounds better. There are also so-called trigger programs for this. More on that later. If you still want to have the character of the old snare, you can quietly mix the old snare with the new snare (or vice versa).

This also applies if the signal, in this case the snare, is missing something. This could be the punch, for example, or the snare just sounds too thin. Then look for a sample on your PC that will add the missing property to the original. A trigger plugin can also help here.
Again according to the motto:

" The less signal processing, the better."

And:

" A good mix starts with well-recorded and sounding audio signals. "

There are also other and sometimes better methods than using the EQ to improve the sound. More on this in a later article.

Which EQ is the best?

It doesn't matter which EQ you use, whether it's the internal EQ of your DAW (Cubase, Pro Tools, Studio One, Ableton Live, Logic, Samplitude, Reason, Reaper, etc.) or a plug-in. The EQs always have the same parameters. The operation of the equalizer is often just different. There are, for example, equalizers,
- where you have buttons to turn. Or without buttons, with which the settings can then be made in the graphical representation (with many you can even do both),

- where you turn the Q-factor to the right instead of to the left, if you want to increase more or less neighboring frequencies or

- that have a certain number of ribbons or an infinite number of ribbons, etc.

So it is often a question of which EQ you can best cope with visually (the surface is called GUI - graphical user interface) in order to quickly make your settings.

Do I even need another EQ from another manufacturer if an EQ is already on board in my DAW (Cubase, Pro Tools, Studio One, Ableton Live, Logic, etc.)? It emulates many other analog EQs that you can buy from third-party manufacturers and then call up in your DAW. Often these are even more limited in terms of functionality than the EQ in your DAW. Analog EQs often only offer fixed frequencies. The Q-factor is also often fixed. Why do many sound technicians and engineers still often work with these analog classics? Good question.

I have the following explanation for this:

- Having too many options is sometimes not a good thing. Sometimes you are faster when you have fewer options.

- Many sound engineers used to work with the analog EQs. You did a good job mixing it up back then. So why not use it digitally?

- Analog EQs don't sound transparent. They color the sound - often even if you just switch on the EQ and all controls are in their starting position (set to "0"). The coloring is what we want to give the sound. This is often desirable if you are raising frequencies in particular.

The digital internal EQ is therefore better for targeted and transparent interventions. If you also want to add a nice color to the sound, you can use an emulation of an analog EQ or even the original - the hardware (for which you often have to flip through a lot more bills).

EQ recommendations

I would like to give you a few EQ plugins that I like to use for mixing / mixing. There are certainly other good EQ plugins for the channel or group. Maybe you already have your own personal favorite EQ. Leave a comment and let us know. Here are a few recommendations:

- HOFA IQ-EQ: I almost always use the HOFA IQ-EQ for masking problems. What advantage does it have over the internal DAW EQ? For one thing, it offers me oversampling. This allows the heights to be increased properly without the heights getting an unsightly resolution. On the other hand, the EQ has an integrated analyzer that is really very good. The topic of analyzers in music is explained in detail and understandably in a later article. In addition, it offers the important input display and output display as well as an input controller and output controller (why is this important? Answer under Gain Staging ). In addition, this EQ has an integrated compressor.

- UAD Pultec EQP-1A and MEQ-5:In almost every large recording studio you can find a Pultec as hardware. Countless professionals like to use this EQ for mixing. As soon as the EQ is switched on, the sound is colored very pleasantly for our ears. To me, the UAD Pultec EQP-1A and MEQ-5 sounds the best compared to any emulation on the market. This equalizer is not suitable for surgical interventions, but rather for giving the sound a nice coat of paint like with a broad brush. Note that additional hardware is required to use this and other plugins from Universal Audio. The hardware is available as a card for the desktop and as a mobile device with an Apple or Windows connection. It acts as a USB dongle (copy protection) and also relieves the computer, as the plugins only (!) can be calculated on the UAD card. The number of UAD plugins therefore depends on the CPU power of the hardware.

- Waves SSL E-Channel: SSL is known for very high quality and expensive mixing consoles. Waves SSL E-Channel modeled the complete E-Channel channel strip with EQ, compressor, filter, etc. of the SSL 4000E console. The plugin has been around for many years, but it still sounds great today. Definitely try it out to give the sound a nice color. By the way, the coloring takes place when the plugin is switched on.

Conclusion: Create space in the mix with an EQ

Those who start mixing often use EQ to improve the sound. You can do that - especially with EQs, which give the sound a color. It is much more important, however, to create space with an EQ for the audio signals that should get the most attention from the listener. For many, the most difficult thing is simply to leave traces unprocessed. Does the sound really need EQ processing? If the audio signal sounds great and sounds harmonize well with one another, then EQ processing is unnecessary.

If you need a very long time to set the EQ and it is not due to your level of experience, ask yourself whether the EQ is the right solution for the problem in the mix. Also take into account that without optimized room acoustics, you will make mistakes when setting the EQ. Many wrongly neglect room acoustics! If you mix in an untreated studio, then it is definitely advisable to mix with good studio headphones .

Do you have a favorite EQ that you use in almost every mix session? Which EQ has a great coloring for you when raising the frequencies? You are welcome to write a comment on this or if you have any suggestions or questions. I would also be happy to share the article on Facebook, Twitter or Google+.
In addition to theory, setting the equalizer correctly requires a lot of experience and practice. It is often not that easy to lower or raise the correct frequency. To make life in the recording studio or home studio easier for you, the next two articles each introduce a method for finding the right frequencies more easily:

Frequencies: explanation, frequency table, tones
https://tonstudio-wissen.de/frequenzen-erklaerung-frequenztabelle/
Spectrum Analyzer: Explanation and Application
https://tonstudio-wissen.de/spectrum-analyzer-darstellung-frequenzen/

Source :https://tonstudio-wissen.de/tutorial-equalizer-eq-richtig-einstellen/

 

Last edited: May 7, 2021

Your article neglected to mention the basic function of the equaliser in an historical sense. It was simply to make a session which included a string section, guitar, brass, drums, bass and vocals sound "equal" when played back. Hence the name. The Equaliser made sounds equal. If the horns sounded dull or strings too bright during the audition before the usually one take recording, equalisation was applied to make them more representative of what the listener would expect. In essence that is still what it should be. But it has become a sculpting tool and what a Pandora's Box it turned out to be.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2021

This, as I have proven several times in this forum, is just wrong.

And this is highly doubtful.

 

I think Acustica Audio says that their EQ's and plug-ins work best at that level but yeah, it would not make a difference with most of the other software EQ's today.

 

Blame your shelf

 

Thanks for the correction. I've corrected the mistakes in the Equalizer tutorial.

I found this:
Bobby Owsinski (mixer, producer, author):
- Set the boost/cut control on your equalizer to a moderate cut level (-8 - 10 dB should be sufficient).

- Balance of frequencies While you might make a strong intervention (from 3 to 15 dB) at a certain frequency when recording, you almost always work with small increases in value when mastering (usually a tenth of a dB up to a maximum of 2 or 3 dB.

Allen Sides (sound engineer): He boosted a quiet piano by 10 dB at 15 kHz.

 

Last edited: May 7, 2021

Right, they say it, as well as Waves and some other do for (at least some of) their pluggies. But since I'm a sceptic, I like to check these claims by duplicating a track and inserting leveling plugins. Turns out, 99% of these claims are wrong, they don't pass a phase inversion test.

 

That's why Manley Massive Passive Mastering EQ can boost 11dB and SPL Mastering EQ 20dB?
The less you have to correct the better, I'll give you that, but when it needs a 10dB boost it needs a 10dB boost - even in the mastering stage. Would you refuse to do it because someone says so?

 

In some cases, input gain matters to quality of the result.
On very low levels some plugins just won't work, won't trigger the response (have a sensitivity threshold) so they eventually refuse to work or automatically increase the input gain. This gain increasing results in higher distortion (at least due to including yet another instance of DSP).
Input gain is especially critical with declippers, which usually process (de-clip) above some threshold, but also with any other type of DSP plugin that depends on level threshold.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2021

I set up the input devices VSTi or external synthesizers as I listen to them. Then turn on my mixer chain and try to get - 8 to - 12 dB as headroom. If it is too quiet I take the "SSL Bus Compressor" and turn the "Make Up" control from 0 dB to 6 dB. I find your experiences with the Manley and SPL 10 dB helpful. I would do the same if I had both of them in the mixer chain.

 

ITB changed some rules.
If you have dozens of high end microphones you can sculpt the sound that way, put the source trough high end preamps and compressors that dont even need to compress to add life and thickness to the source.
In that case you have very little work mixing compared to people who have no microphones, no classy preamps and work only ITB.
Only stuck up old engineers usually brag how EQ is not needed and talk down to ITB producers because they dont have a good front end or cant afford it.
People working exclusively ITB where EQ is very needed, because without it you get an unfinished track and i dont care what your digital chain looks like, you cant be Al Schmitt without a good front end.

 

As long as we are not talking about dynamic EQ's, a digital EQ doesn't have any specific threshold level other than the noise floor of your signal + the THD of your EQ/DSP. This should not be a problem for regular signal processing in media etc, it is a common problem for scientists though.

 

Are you referring to @Xupito?

 

You don't even need high-end for that. Just buy a small used Mackie Onyx or similar and sum the subgroups.... instant thickness and depth... and then drive it into the yellow range to get some punch or create harmonics by driving it into the red. It's that simple.

 

Last edited: May 8, 2021

Recording techniques from the mid 1960's changed the rules long before ITB came along. Read Marc Lewisohns Complete Beatles Recording Sessions to see how George Martin, at the bands insistence would push the top end of the eq's on acoustic guitars to be told that wasn't allowed according to the proper and correct usage of the equipment in the EMI engineers handbook. Same story the night Chris Thomas close miked their drum kit for the first time and pumped the bottom end. As for old stuck up engineers bragging about not using eq? I know a few and none of them have ever said that. In fact I'd consider myself an old engineer. So old, it's quite possible I may not get much older.

 

Yes but those changes were made in the analog domain, we are talking about the typical low key bedrom ITB producer.

And for the other guy you just can not seriously compare an onyx to a Neve preamp, lol. But ill have whatever you`re smoking bro.

 

First of all, you made the comparison, not me.
Second, I'm a non-smoker.
BTW: Onyx is not bad just because it is cheap. Quite the opposite.
I bought one about 15 years ago and still use it at home as a secondary mixer next to the Ghost for summing and coloring, even though the rest of my rack fleet is much more expensive now. Mostly I use it for FX, but sometimes even my main vocals go through it.

 

I have seen some really radical EQ cuts and boosts by many excellent engineers over the decades.
When they played me the original track pre-EQ, I completely understood why they did it. For example, a Hard Rock bassist who had ridiculous amounts of 240-250hz. I would never have said they did something totally wrong but I can tell you that it was definitely cut more than 6db ,and it sounded a lot better because of it as a band.
There is no one-size-fits-all. It all depends on what the engineer is dealt with to mix. It always has been that way. If they're incredibly lucky, the engineer may need to do very little, but that is not commonplace.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2021

Are you using one of those older 1620 type of mixer?

 

Yes