making live sound better?

kb420 · Post by **kb420** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:13 pm

radib wrote:
it all changed when i had my first hardware eq. thats were you really hear the most of the whole difference. with analog eq you just shape the sound characteristics, with a digital one you have to tune for hours while not getting any step close to a result really satisfying on a level beyond "parttime-homerecording".

I'm not falling for that.

Comparing analog to digital EQ is one of the most contentious subjects in audio. When people in audio circles start to discuss this, the safest action is to run for cover.

http://www.xowave.com/doc/effect/eq/ana ... ital.shtml

Chang · Post by **Chang** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:34 pm

radib wrote:
kb420 wrote:I like to think of digital mixing like putting different liquids into a soda bottle. Each different track is a different liquid ingredient. If you put the right amount of each ingredient in the bottle, then you will have a nice soda.

thats no big deal, more exactly what i´m tired of. why should i limit every track in such way when i wanna go for a unique sound? mixing analog rarely produces crap, and takes lots of less time and effort. AND i didn´t come from analog, i started with digital and did it for three years. it all changed when i had my first hardware eq. thats were you really hear the most of the whole difference. with analog eq you just shape the sound characteristics, with a digital one you have to tune for hours while not getting any step close to a result really satisfying on a level beyond "parttime-homerecording". even if you take the cheapest analog compact mixer available you have better results than with the most expensive digital eq (i still use some universal audio software eq in the songwriting process since i have no big console with eq on every track, so i hear the difference every day).

I have analog gear to but disagree with many points in your post. First analog gear can easily produce crap as you say all day long if person doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't have a good method. Your opinion on getting a certain sound on digital eq versus analog quickly is a personal, there are trues just the opposite. The cheapest compact analog eq does not sound better than the best digital eq. That may be your opinion, but is not a fact. Hundreds of multi platinum records have been mixed in the computer using plugins like McDsp and uad. Hundreds of multi platinum records have not been recorded using cheap analog compact mixers.

Analog eq, pre for front end recording and what type of music one makes and how important front end is is another debate entirely where i might agree with you.

radib · Post by **radib** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:00 pm

hell i couldn´t care less about platinum records of the last two decades, though i´d doubt it honestly. softare companies pay artists the same way hardware companies do, and sure they tried all the free copy and found a quick statement of euphoria for a few bucks.

its different to believe something or to know something.

RezEdit · Post by **RezEdit** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:15 pm

Hi I'm new so don't flame me for saying something obvious.

Getting back on to the questoin this person asked. Have you tried a 20hz filter on your mix. Anything below 20hz is useless but it still takes up subsonic space in your frequency spectrum. In fact you could roll of everything under 36hz or higher - If you are worries about it not sounding so good when played in a club - don't - The Fletcher Munson effect and the tuned systems in clubs will do all kinds of good psychoacoustic voodoo to a well produced and mixed track

Get rid of the inaudible rumble by putting a 20hz filter on your master or if that feels to brave - on your bass sounds at least. As for compression - experiment. Listen to a track called Foothold Heralds Summit View by KiloWatts for a masterclass in ducking compression and eq'ing techniques.

Also - mix at low volume - spend time on levels and try the subtractive eq mentioned earlier. There's always a learning curve, in fact thats all there is.

I am new to ableton (from Cubase SX) and I dig it big time.

cryo · Post by **cryo** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:59 am

all the tips are sinking in but i seem to have one issue with live....the eqs are so foreign to me since i am used to hardware mixers....with hardware when all knobs centered(flat) i find it easy to add low end where needed ect.....with live there is so many different eqs all with different settings...none of them seem to have a center or flat point(unless i am missing something).....i wish i could find a eq that when selected did not boost or take away any frequencies....that way you can add or take away frequencies from a centre or flat point...not sure if this makes sense...

Low Frequency Obstinator · Post by **Low Frequency Obstinator** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:27 am

I was under the impression that eq8 was flat by delault? Cant hear any difference untill settings are adjusted though may be my 41 year old ears!!

I have noticed some slight colouration with eq3 but tend to use this for my dj set only.

Emissary · Post by **Emissary** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:25 pm

ooooh, yummy choons, i think your mix sounds nice and rough, suits your sound. I like music like this and weirdly its the total opposite to the stuff i make. keep splicing and funking.

Dexes · Post by **Dexes** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:12 pm

cryo wrote:with live there is so many different eqs all with different settings...none of them seem to have a center or flat point

scrap all those. Live has 2 eqs, eq8 & eq3. All the rest is just presets for these eqs. Drag the "folder" that just says eq eight to your track and you get a flat eq to manipulate as you desire.

cryo · Post by **cryo** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:47 pm

Dexes wrote:
cryo wrote:with live there is so many different eqs all with different settings...none of them seem to have a center or flat point
scrap all those. Live has 2 eqs, eq8 & eq3. All the rest is just presets for these eqs. Drag the "folder" that just says eq eight to your track and you get a flat eq to manipulate as you desire.

thanks so much...its funny cus with hardware mixers and equipment i always had trouble getting the sound to be bright so i always had to boost the treble so much, with software the opposite is true, i am always trying to get rid of high frequencys ....

Sampo · Post by **Sampo** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:25 am

cryo wrote: thanks so much...its funny cus with hardware mixers and equipment i always had trouble getting the sound to be bright so i always had to boost the treble so much, with software the opposite is true, i am always trying to get rid of high frequencys ....

I have the same 'problem' too

Actually with Live 6 the transients were somewhat rounded (maybe due to not so good mixing engine?) but when I upgraded to Live 7 I seriously had to change how I mix (obviously the engine had been upgraded). Now the transients were very hard and shrill so usually I have to do a lot of taming and cutting of high frequencies. I had really problems and even thought about going back to Live 6 because I knew how to mix on that

Anybody else had same when upgraded to Live 7?

Zygi · Post by **Zygi** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:42 am

cryo wrote:
thanks so much...its funny cus with hardware mixers and equipment i always had trouble getting the sound to be bright so i always had to boost the treble so much, with software the opposite is true, i am always trying to get rid of high frequencys ....

Totally opposite o_O But I guess it's because of my built-in laptop card dynamics... ( time to save some $$ for a better one )