Talking to AI on Nostr: #[0] Please re-write the following text in the form of bulletpoints. Its for a ...
Cyborg (npub13wf…4fun)
Please re-write the following text in the form of bulletpoints. Its for a presentation for students of audio post production.
An equalizer adjusts the levels of different frequency regions relative to each other. As such, it can tackle mixdown frequency-domain imbalances head on, so it’s hardly surprising that it’s used so much. However, most small-studio operators seem habitually to overuse it, largely because of a fundamental mis- conception about what it’s there for. The root of the problem is that inexperi- enced engineers primarily use mixdown EQ to try to improve the tone, richness, and general subjective appeal of each of the instruments in their production. Although this is a worthy goal, it’s actually a secondary consideration, because EQ has a much more crucial task at mixdown: achieving a stable balance.
To understand why equalization is so vital to creating a good mix balance, you need to know about a psychological phenomenon called “frequency masking,” which affects our perception whenever we hear several instruments playing together at once. To put it simply, if one instrument in your mix has lots of energy in a certain frequency region, then your perception will be desensitized to that frequency region of the other instruments. In other words, if you have cymbals thrashing away and filling up the frequency spectrum above 5kHz, you’ll perceive this frequency range a lot less well in the lead vocal part—the
cymbals will be “masking” the vocal above 5kHz. Although the vocal might sound lovely and bright on its own, the moment the cymbals are added it will appear dull. To retain apparently the same vocal sound against the cymbals, you must either reduce the levels of the cymbal frequencies above 5kHz or exaggerate those frequencies in the vocal
sound.
The ramifications of frequency masking for mix- ing are enormous. First, it should be clear that EQ presets are of no use whatsoever at mixdown, because the designer of the preset can’t possibly predict how masking will affect any given sound in your specific situation—you might just as well ask your Aunt Mavis to set up the controls so they look pretty. By the same token, an EQ setting that worked on one mix can’t be expected to work on the next. Mick Guzauski says, “You shouldn’t say, ‘Oh, I’m gonna add 5kHz to the vocal and pull out 200Hz, because that’s what I did on the last song.’ It may not work. Your approach has to be modified somewhat for each song, as each will have different
instrumentation, a different singer, a different key, and so on.
The effects of masking also mean that even if each individual instrument in your arrangement sounds good enough to eat on its own, you’ll still need some equalization to compensate for frequency masking between the instruments in order to maintain the apparent tone of each one within the final mix. What’s more, carrying out this necessary processing may make individual sounds a lot less subjectively appealing when soloed, either because certain frequency regions have been exaggerated to overcome masking from less important instruments or because some frequencies have been cut to avoid masking more important instruments. In short, a good mix EQ setting is not necessarily the one that makes the instrument sound best in its own right. In some cases the only way to fit a subsidiary instrument into a crowded mix is if its frequency balance is mangled to the point of absurdity. That’s why trying to make every individual instrument sound fantastic is a fool’s errand.
Says John Leckie, “Sometimes the drums sound spectacular, but it’s not what you want, because you want the guitar to be spectacular, and you can’t have spectacular everything—then you wonder why the mix doesn’t sound any good, because everything’s crowding everything else. When you solo the instruments, everything sounds good, but when it’s all put together it’s a jumbled-up mess, so something’s got to give way.”2 “Or the opposite can happen,” says Tchad Blake. “You solo the kick drum and it’ll be just awful. But then listen to it with the bass and it can be fantastic.”
Now I’m not saying that EQ has no role to play in improving the subjective timbre, character, and general splendidness of individual instruments, but this needs to remain well below the balancing role in
your list of priorities, otherwise the mix as a whole will never live up to its potential. Ideally, the tone of each instrument should have been optimized at the tracking stage, so if you start mixing one of your own projects and discover a track that’s son- ically underwhelming (even when it’s soloed), then it’s often a good indica- tor that the production’s not actually ready to be mixed. Clearly, though, life in the small studio is often far from ideal, and there are usually a few instru- ments that need extra sparkle, warmth, aggression, moistness, flocculence, or whatever—but EQ often isn’t the best tool for adding these qualities. So this chapter is going to concentrate primarily on the balancing role of EQ, and I’ll leave it to Chapter 12 to describe some alternative tone-sculpting methods that can deliver serious subjective tonal changes on those occasions where you sim- ply don’t like one of the raw sounds you’re presented with.
Another lesson to draw from frequency masking is that there’s little to be gained by making EQ judgments with the solo button down, because you can’t judge the impact of frequency masking between any two instruments unless you listen to them at the same time. Soloing tracks while EQ’ing can be useful for hearing exactly how and where you’re altering the frequency balance, but it’s imperative that you subsequently validate and refine those EQ decisions within the context of the mix. Finally, frequency masking provides another good justification for building up your mix balance by introducing the tracks in order of importance. If each newly added instrument is less important than the previous one, then you can be pretty sure which one needs to capitulate when masking conflicts arise.
Please re-write the following text in the form of bulletpoints. Its for a presentation for students of audio post production.
An equalizer adjusts the levels of different frequency regions relative to each other. As such, it can tackle mixdown frequency-domain imbalances head on, so it’s hardly surprising that it’s used so much. However, most small-studio operators seem habitually to overuse it, largely because of a fundamental mis- conception about what it’s there for. The root of the problem is that inexperi- enced engineers primarily use mixdown EQ to try to improve the tone, richness, and general subjective appeal of each of the instruments in their production. Although this is a worthy goal, it’s actually a secondary consideration, because EQ has a much more crucial task at mixdown: achieving a stable balance.
To understand why equalization is so vital to creating a good mix balance, you need to know about a psychological phenomenon called “frequency masking,” which affects our perception whenever we hear several instruments playing together at once. To put it simply, if one instrument in your mix has lots of energy in a certain frequency region, then your perception will be desensitized to that frequency region of the other instruments. In other words, if you have cymbals thrashing away and filling up the frequency spectrum above 5kHz, you’ll perceive this frequency range a lot less well in the lead vocal part—the
cymbals will be “masking” the vocal above 5kHz. Although the vocal might sound lovely and bright on its own, the moment the cymbals are added it will appear dull. To retain apparently the same vocal sound against the cymbals, you must either reduce the levels of the cymbal frequencies above 5kHz or exaggerate those frequencies in the vocal
sound.
The ramifications of frequency masking for mix- ing are enormous. First, it should be clear that EQ presets are of no use whatsoever at mixdown, because the designer of the preset can’t possibly predict how masking will affect any given sound in your specific situation—you might just as well ask your Aunt Mavis to set up the controls so they look pretty. By the same token, an EQ setting that worked on one mix can’t be expected to work on the next. Mick Guzauski says, “You shouldn’t say, ‘Oh, I’m gonna add 5kHz to the vocal and pull out 200Hz, because that’s what I did on the last song.’ It may not work. Your approach has to be modified somewhat for each song, as each will have different
instrumentation, a different singer, a different key, and so on.
The effects of masking also mean that even if each individual instrument in your arrangement sounds good enough to eat on its own, you’ll still need some equalization to compensate for frequency masking between the instruments in order to maintain the apparent tone of each one within the final mix. What’s more, carrying out this necessary processing may make individual sounds a lot less subjectively appealing when soloed, either because certain frequency regions have been exaggerated to overcome masking from less important instruments or because some frequencies have been cut to avoid masking more important instruments. In short, a good mix EQ setting is not necessarily the one that makes the instrument sound best in its own right. In some cases the only way to fit a subsidiary instrument into a crowded mix is if its frequency balance is mangled to the point of absurdity. That’s why trying to make every individual instrument sound fantastic is a fool’s errand.
Says John Leckie, “Sometimes the drums sound spectacular, but it’s not what you want, because you want the guitar to be spectacular, and you can’t have spectacular everything—then you wonder why the mix doesn’t sound any good, because everything’s crowding everything else. When you solo the instruments, everything sounds good, but when it’s all put together it’s a jumbled-up mess, so something’s got to give way.”2 “Or the opposite can happen,” says Tchad Blake. “You solo the kick drum and it’ll be just awful. But then listen to it with the bass and it can be fantastic.”
Now I’m not saying that EQ has no role to play in improving the subjective timbre, character, and general splendidness of individual instruments, but this needs to remain well below the balancing role in
your list of priorities, otherwise the mix as a whole will never live up to its potential. Ideally, the tone of each instrument should have been optimized at the tracking stage, so if you start mixing one of your own projects and discover a track that’s son- ically underwhelming (even when it’s soloed), then it’s often a good indica- tor that the production’s not actually ready to be mixed. Clearly, though, life in the small studio is often far from ideal, and there are usually a few instru- ments that need extra sparkle, warmth, aggression, moistness, flocculence, or whatever—but EQ often isn’t the best tool for adding these qualities. So this chapter is going to concentrate primarily on the balancing role of EQ, and I’ll leave it to Chapter 12 to describe some alternative tone-sculpting methods that can deliver serious subjective tonal changes on those occasions where you sim- ply don’t like one of the raw sounds you’re presented with.
Another lesson to draw from frequency masking is that there’s little to be gained by making EQ judgments with the solo button down, because you can’t judge the impact of frequency masking between any two instruments unless you listen to them at the same time. Soloing tracks while EQ’ing can be useful for hearing exactly how and where you’re altering the frequency balance, but it’s imperative that you subsequently validate and refine those EQ decisions within the context of the mix. Finally, frequency masking provides another good justification for building up your mix balance by introducing the tracks in order of importance. If each newly added instrument is less important than the previous one, then you can be pretty sure which one needs to capitulate when masking conflicts arise.