Hasn't this already been on mixers for years?

Not needed in Serato imo

+1

Ok but when I walk into a club and see the dj with the treble @ 3 the mids @ 2 and bass @ 4 all that hassle for what?

I've heard lots of djs finish their mix and turn the treble up after or the bass

My files r better all straight except for treble @ 1 o clock



Just a suggestion to help make it all have a general sound.

And what's an imo? Lol.

Or I've seen a dj put his treble all the way up and still sounds like crap. This way u can put it up in serato and just turn ur treble on the mixer above 12 o clock and its fine!

I think it might be easy to put into INT mode. But where would it go in the signal chain in REL & ABS?

I guess this could be another feature for the SL2, available in???...

I dont know about for the SL1, but I would like an EQ profile stored with the file (like the gain) that would automatically offset the EQs on the 57

for the TTM57
because it already has EQs
scratchlive.net

Has been suggested before
www.scratchlive.net <- click

And I would love to see this!

I think its a good idea. I'd have the gain under that highs then mid then low and make the meter for the volume smaller rather than so big.

imo=

In
My
Opinion


=)

I've said it before. We need eq (high, mid and low) adjustments per track.

No more wacked out settings on the mixer


+1 We need to be able to change the frequency at which the 3 Bass Mid & Treble knobs work!
Just to be able to blast that higher range of the basslines!
You see what I mean yall funkateers?

and save it option as you go :)

you should be listening to most things with the eq flat and only trimmin it a little to sound better with the track you mixin into...so each time you mix it it will need to be tweaked differently.

so having the track pre-eq'ed dont make no sense to me...

Once again I have to agree with s3kn0tr0n1c...

Nope, gotta disagree. In this digital era you have tracks from various sources which have different sound characteristics. Therefore having a EQ for each track is essential.

but some artist has went to all the bother of producing it, mastering it to sound correct then some dj plays it with +3db bass and -2db of mid.....nahhh....if the mp3/wav whateva was ripped correctly (as mine are with no eq changes) then it should sound nice playing out serato flat(no eq changes), then all the dj has to do is MIX them using their ears to fine tune the track into the other.

eqs shud be at 0 except when mixin it to fine tune the 2 record together to sound nice.


it woudnt hurt to have this feature but i would prob never use it for tracks...........i however would use it to take out the bass for a skrwatching sample(ahhh fresshhh and the like)....as these are the only thing for me that need tweaked permanently ....tracks if ripped correctly should sound sweet all at 0db

I think you didn't understand what I was talking about.

Compare the same song: once from CD, once from vinyl.



That's exactly why we need this function! To pre-equalize tracks which have a lack in certain frequency areas due to non perfect ripping etc. So that while we mix we just have to fine tune.



As said, DJ's nowadays get their tracks from different sources, different stupid labels with stupid people who don't know how to encode, rip etc.

and its not just the encoding,

you have thousands of artist, thousands of mixdowns, thousands of masterings, they are not all going to agree with you or each other about what flat is, even if everything is handle correctly which its not.

I consistently find some of my tracks benefit from the same slight eq setting. This function would allow me to permanently 'fix' those tracks. It is exactly the same as setting the volume on a track and having it remembered.

suppose so for minor tweaks, be horrilbe if folks wacked all 3 right up on every track.......

defo wouldnt hurt to have the option tho

+1

really tho? Vinyl has wonky pressings, bad masters, quieter pressings, bad production in general for decades - DJs just used their ears to compensate w/ the EQ. Why does it need to be different for digital?

1st. just b/c it has been like this - does not mean it has to be like this in the future. Afraid of change?

2nd. I can give you a few digital tracks which you will never manage to get like this from any vinyl on earth. The variety of different sounds have broadened since we do not play only with vinyl material.

Track individal EQ's can help to reduce the differences.

I figure if people were that serious about pre-EQing their tracks, there are plenty of sound editors, plug-ins, VSTs, and Audio Units out there that can do it for you.

However, I am afraid that there are enough neophytes out there that don't know the first thing about sound quality fucking their tracks up even more than before. The amount of DJs I see with their serato master volume cranked to like 5 o'clock or their track gains cranked and constantly clipping is enough to let me know that adding an EQ option will just makes things worse.

Actually, that does bring me to the fact that thanks to the DYI proliferation of easy-to-obtain software I think a lot of it has less to do with "variety of sound" and more to do with all the amateur "producers" who really don't know what the fuck they are doing with mastering and mixdowns and production in general making shitty-sounding tracks. I guess EQ could compensate but it would likely be better if these people could just learn how to make tracks properly before releasing them to the public. But as I don't know exactly what you play, I can't say for sure that's the case with you...

er... DYI = DIY

Of course there are ways around it.

There are ways how to pre-loop tracks.

But it's a hassle (time+effort, rendering etc.), and you will reduce the quality of tracks eventually by re-encoding. That's why I think the idea presented in this thread is a good one, cause it eleminates all mentioned down sides.


lol. But that goes with any technology. Those who don't know how to use it will make things worse. That should not stop us (who know how to work with it) from using the technology.



Good point. Debatable. But does not change the fact that we have a wider variety of sounds.



True. But again.. different medias have different sound characteristics.



I don't think it matters what kind of music I play, I assume it goes for all the "DJ"-music.

I dont think its really an issue of home studios, of course they make the situation worse, yes. But I could pull out records from the same producer, same mastering house, same pressing plant, and argue that eq would benefit mixing them.

we needed eq on our mixer day one.

a mix is more of an opinion then a rule. and yes add on top of that all the formats, home studios, and so on...

the thing is with SSL, we would have a the special opportunity to make, non-destructive, at the same time permanent, and also on-the-fly eq adjustments. no other way to get these three benefits.

just like the gain we have

word.

yeh after thinking about it lets have eq........i was against it because i kNOW peeps will make destoy tracks but as you say above this shouldnt stop us in the know using it correctly

destroy tracks?

there is an eq on your mixer, who destroys tracks?


the drawback is cpu usage, and redundancy. that why this should only be an offset for the 57s eq

meh. I guess I'd rather have Rane working on things you can't do with a mixer.

It's pretty much the same arguement about internal effects (which, contrary to popular belief, many work fine pre-fader). It's something that's not necessary and can be done outside of the program.

mmm, you cant save an eq profile per file on your mixer

what?? you havent saw the great djs that ramp everything to the max , trims, eq the lot..........the more gain added the better the dj ;)

then i have to go on after them and try and convince the sound engineer to turn me up as i will be 12db lower(0db) than the dj before me....

anyways, i with ya.....id like a eq for certain stuff,mostly scratch samples as 90% of the time you want the low end trimmed down a bit.

I get on after these guys all the time, but I try to have an understanding with the soundman before the show starts.

but it makes little sense to design based around idiots who misuse shit.

and I would much rather have all the knob twisting happening in the idiots laptop then on the gear Im about to touch.

defo.

Other threads on this:
scratchlive.net
scratchlive.net

_

serato.com

here a link to an eq solution
(TTM57 only)

An EQ for each track would be great! Yeah yeah can use other programs to set the EQ of the song, you can even use the EQ in iTunes but it would be nice to have something simple and wright there to use. Also, a master EQ would be nice. I sometimes DJ small venues, lounges, house parties where there is no EQ and it would be nice to have something to balance out the sound. And don't say, "Go buy an EQ" because that's just one more pice of equipment to bring.

i think this is a great idea. Had the idea myself and just posted it up in a new topic because i couldnt find anyone elese suggesting it. GREAT IDEA. This idea was first suggested in March 2006!!!!! Why hasnt it been implemeted?! Surely its not that difficult to put a 3 or 4 band EQ into SL?!

The people who are winging at the producers not being able to master tracks properly etc need to think twice before criticising. So many new artists have broken through different scenes (e.g. dubstep as a prime example) because of the availability of music production software and the rise of the internet and the IT age etc. Some of these tracks, although agreeably badly mastered, are groundbreaking tunes. A simple EQ in serato solves this problem. People will be able to make them sound better by pre-EQing when at home in their studios. EQing live in massive clubs is an amazing skill to be able to do properly. With monitors having to be louder than the main system and then headphones having to be louder than the monitors, in some clubs this is an impossible task. If we had the ability to listen to our tracks against each of our other tracks at home or in the studio where you can hear the sound better and pre-EQ them accordingly, the people who actually know what their doing would be able to improve the sound of their live sets in the club to new levels.

I fail to understand the argument against implementing it because some people wont be able to use it properly and will be ruining the sound. These people shouldnt be DJing live! simple as. Someone said above that hed seen DJs pumping the serato gains at about 5 oclock!!! mine are mostly below 12 o'clock....what the hell are these people doing!? that must sound terrible!?

Anyway, serato, for those who dont want this implemented, simply dont use it! Why argue against a new device many others would find useful?