Is a 4-band EQ enough for most tasks?

[Citizen]

I'm going through this phase of trying to simplify my process, and in doing so, simplify my sets and tools that I use.

Part of this is to build custom channel strip with minimal controls that can all be controlled easily via Push. I want to get back to using my hands and ears as much as possible, and this is part of that move.

In the past, my go-to EQ has been Fabfilter's Pro-Q. It is awesome at what it does (detailed work, with visual representation) - but obviously doen't map especially intuitively to a simple macro array.

I'm thinking of moving towards a much simpler EQ - similar in style to the classic 4-band vintage ones:



My thinking is that less parameters will map intuitively to macros, and less parameters will mean less pointless tweaking, less using my eyes, and more progress.

So here is my question:

Will a 4-band EQ be too limiting for some tasks – especially a 4-band EQ with no variable Q?

Obviously 1000s of classic albums have been mixed using such technology over the years, so should it be any different when working with electronic music?

[Citizen]

Also, any thoughts on the Slate EQs, or any similarly simple interface/4-band Eqs would be welcome

[dsu]

One key factor in the 1000s of classic albums is that often a great deal of effort was but into getting the sound recorded right from the instrument. If the recorded sound was great then it didn't need much extra work during mixing. With electronic music the sound tends to be polished all the way through the process. Part of your simplified workflow could be to decide if the part doesn't mix well, redo it rather than tweek it into shape. Redoing could mean anything from designing a better sound to figuring out a different part.

Getting things back into your hands sounds like a great idea, good luck with it!

[Citizen]

One key factor in the 1000s of classic albums is that often a great deal of effort was but into getting the sound recorded right from the instrument. If the recorded sound was great then it didn't need much extra work during mixing. With electronic music the sound tends to be polished all the way through the process. Part of your simplified workflow could be to decide if the part doesn't mix well, redo it rather than tweek it into shape. Redoing could mean anything from designing a better sound to figuring out a different part.

Getting things back into your hands sounds like a great idea, good luck with it!

Thats really solid advice dsu – and actually forms a signifcant part in my process when it comes to composing and writing.

If you choose complementary timbres that don't fight each other in the frequency spectrum, and/or arrange your bars (and song) in such a way that there is not audio clutter, well half (or more!) of you mixing problems will be solved even before you get to the mixing stage.

Being that my 'technical' skills at mixing are quire rudimentary, this was possibly one of the best pieces of advice that I've been given.

[nightscope]

Any VST can easily be controlled with Push without using a macro's dials. They'll just come up in the LCD on Push. Obviously, the less parameters they have the less banks will be required. This is great for plugs with only a few parameters. For example UAD's LA2's and 1176's fit in a single bank. Duende's SSL Channel Strip fits into five banks of 8. Works great with Push, compressor is on bank 4, easy peasey. Any EQ's such as OP wants to use will just map out fine, no problem, even if there's more than 8 parameters, just have 2 banks. Plus if you don't like the order the params come up in they can be re-ordered to taste.

[Citizen]

Plus if you don't like the order the params come up in they can be re-ordered to taste.

REALLY?!?!

I was unaware of this – how is it done?!

[irrelevance]

One key factor in the 1000s of classic albums is that often a great deal of effort was but into getting the sound recorded right from the instrument. If the recorded sound was great then it didn't need much extra work during mixing. With electronic music the sound tends to be polished all the way through the process. Part of your simplified workflow could be to decide if the part doesn't mix well, redo it rather than tweek it into shape. Redoing could mean anything from designing a better sound to figuring out a different part.

Getting things back into your hands sounds like a great idea, good luck with it!

Good point. From a dj perspective performance efficiency is obviously important and I would choose a good three band over the functionality of say a four band with variable lower mid. Create like a child, perform like an artist, produce like a surgeon imho.

[Citizen]

Good point. From a dj perspective performance efficiency is obviously important and I would choose a good three band over the functionality of say a four band with variable lower mid. Create like a child, perform like an artist, produce like a surgeon imho.

Fair play, but I think the application of EQ in a production context is somewhat different to in a DJing context.

[irrelevance]

Good point. From a dj perspective performance efficiency is obviously important and I would choose a good three band over the functionality of say a four band with variable lower mid. Create like a child, perform like an artist, produce like a surgeon imho.

Fair play, but I think the application of EQ in a production context is somewhat different to in a DJing context.

I dont consider myself a dj but i can and do. Just making the point that if what you're cutting from the source material isn't too obscure, and you already mentioned the sounds would be vetted prior to mixdown then a three band is tried and tested from a performance perspective.

[TomViolenz]

It really depends on the task and how much you value precision.

Generally I think dsu got it right, the sounds we use are usually already fitting the overal track, because we made/chose them that way and EQing is more to gel things together.

I personally don't even spend much time anymore on EQing single tracks but instead mix them into a 4band mixer on my main bus.

For that 4-band mixer I only used Lives EQ8 in that transparent 4 band rack posted here a while back: http://rhythminmind.net/STN/?p=43

And then added a bunch of dynamics and saturation plugs per chain.
And then I mix everything live.

What I find indespensible for this workflow are good faders for the EQ band volume (the chain volumes of the racks) and pot knobs for the dynamics.

I use an Allen and Heath Xone:K2 from my band mate for this and couldn't be happier about the overall results.

[Stromkraft]

Will a 4-band EQ be too limiting for some tasks – especially a 4-band EQ with no variable Q?

Obviously 1000s of classic albums have been mixed using such technology over the years, so should it be any different when working with electronic music?

As an overall strategy I think it's a great idea to focus on using sounds that sound great together and minimize use of EQ for shaping the track. It's indeed useful to limit yourself and not get lost in details that won't affect the musical experience noticeably.

But for some tasks, yes, just a few bands may be too limiting, but who's going to stop you from using a more detailed EQ just for those tasks?

One aspect of electronic sounds is that the sound source may or may not sound the way you want it to, to begin with. Sometimes EQing may be faster than reprogramming, depending on your skills with the sound source and the possible influence you can have on the frequency response within the sound source. If it does indeed sound good you just need to match it well and possibly carve out some sonic space for it, but it is not always the case that the instrument is perfect for the situation. I tend to use character EQ inside a rack group chain as part of the patch for reuse.

One type of sound I often find I need to do detailed EQ on is hihats. Sampled or synthesized and especially drum machine sounds, they never sound exactly the way I want until I remove unwanted frequencies in quite narrow bands. And that's on original sounds that I like.

[Stromkraft]

What I find indespensible for this workflow are good faders for the EQ band volume (the chain volumes of the racks) and pot knobs for the dynamics.

I use an Allen and Heath Xone:K2 from my band mate for this and couldn't be happier about the overall results.

Wow, the Xone:K1 is another piece of gear that got on my purchase list. Thanks for sharing.

[TomViolenz]

What I find indespensible for this workflow are good faders for the EQ band volume (the chain volumes of the racks) and pot knobs for the dynamics.

I use an Allen and Heath Xone:K2 from my band mate for this and couldn't be happier about the overall results.

Wow, the Xone:K1 is another piece of gear that got on my purchase list. Thanks for sharing.

Must be new. In any way the K2 has great faders that are really good for mixing. And the pots are nice and stiff (in a good way). And lit buttons galore.
The K1 looks similar, but without the (often redundant) sound card. So it's looking good

Regarding light feedback we had some issues with the way it's set up. We solved it by creating a simple template in Bomes MT. But without that it might be more complicated to make the buttons light up. So that may be something to pay attention to.

[dave dove]

@OP
why not just map 3 or 4 bands of EQ8 to whatever?

dave

[Tarekith]

I don't think a 4 band EQ will at all be limiting myself, pretty rare I find myself using more than 2-3 bands anyway most of the time. Set up the high and low as shelves, and make one of the middle bands have a sharper Q than the other and you'd have a lot of flexibility IMO.