30-04-2023, 08:52 AM
Sure, man. I appreciate the philosophy you tried to pass on. I agree with most you wrote.
I care very little of how one shapes one's sounds. One can boost or cut as one pleases. It depends.
I cut more, mostly bc I obey the 11th commandment (watch George Carlin's how the Bible came up with 10 commandment). "cut is to make better, boost is to make different". Some wiser mixers already spent the time figured it out for me, so I just follow. I agree bc I understand the reasons behind the statement. I don't want to make any sound given to me different; I just want to make them sound better together. There's a difference, imo. Besides, economically speaking, cut costs less than boost in term of pain. Though faithfully obeying the "rule", I occasionally boost to get what I want. I find that 95% of my EQ work are cuts. Cuts, in my experience, helps separation easier and less hard on the ears. But like you said you do you, man, so I have a chance to do me. I have no problem with that. Do whatever to get what you want. Just make sure it's the right tool, the right move, and on the right instrument, right?
Though I know the reason why cut is better, I am still unsure of which one comes first? Sure I can boost and cuts but what do I do first? why? And does it even matter?
My current answer is: cut comes first. Bc cuts are to do the following: get rid of annoying frequencies, resonant, mud, shrill, harshness, masking, etc. Boost only gives me what I want initially but does nothing to clean out the sound, not to mention the possibility of potentially masking other instruments. I also think that it matters which one comes first bc it affects the mix as a whole. Boost should be in the "definition enhancing" step, which is a step right after separation, if there's a need for it at all, and it would be more effective after instead of before. Like sanding before wiping and then painting. One cannot wipe before sanding bc it would be a waste of time and effort, if not ruin the whole job, or one would have to go back and... rewipe. So, in short, I cuts only in the separation stage. And of course, rebalancing levels. It seems to me this step will be repeated throughout the mixing process. Always going back and forth rebalance levels. I'd love to hear your or anybody's thoughts on this. I don't mind being corrected. Thanks.
I care very little of how one shapes one's sounds. One can boost or cut as one pleases. It depends.
I cut more, mostly bc I obey the 11th commandment (watch George Carlin's how the Bible came up with 10 commandment). "cut is to make better, boost is to make different". Some wiser mixers already spent the time figured it out for me, so I just follow. I agree bc I understand the reasons behind the statement. I don't want to make any sound given to me different; I just want to make them sound better together. There's a difference, imo. Besides, economically speaking, cut costs less than boost in term of pain. Though faithfully obeying the "rule", I occasionally boost to get what I want. I find that 95% of my EQ work are cuts. Cuts, in my experience, helps separation easier and less hard on the ears. But like you said you do you, man, so I have a chance to do me. I have no problem with that. Do whatever to get what you want. Just make sure it's the right tool, the right move, and on the right instrument, right?
Though I know the reason why cut is better, I am still unsure of which one comes first? Sure I can boost and cuts but what do I do first? why? And does it even matter?
My current answer is: cut comes first. Bc cuts are to do the following: get rid of annoying frequencies, resonant, mud, shrill, harshness, masking, etc. Boost only gives me what I want initially but does nothing to clean out the sound, not to mention the possibility of potentially masking other instruments. I also think that it matters which one comes first bc it affects the mix as a whole. Boost should be in the "definition enhancing" step, which is a step right after separation, if there's a need for it at all, and it would be more effective after instead of before. Like sanding before wiping and then painting. One cannot wipe before sanding bc it would be a waste of time and effort, if not ruin the whole job, or one would have to go back and... rewipe. So, in short, I cuts only in the separation stage. And of course, rebalancing levels. It seems to me this step will be repeated throughout the mixing process. Always going back and forth rebalance levels. I'd love to hear your or anybody's thoughts on this. I don't mind being corrected. Thanks.