help with EQ mixing

>>74653971
Flat is best: the ew mixing has been done already in production

>>74653971
you should probably learn what an EQ is and how it works

personally i don't use one

>>74654048
But flat sounds different than the vinyl and cd versions, is this normal?

>>74654059
i just want to listen to my music again

>>74654059
you're missing out, in my experience half the time EQ is the magic ingredient in making things sound from average/good to amazing. i don't swear by it as a total necessity for everything but doing the opposite is just ridiculous in my estimation.

lol nevermind i'm retarded i thought we were talking about actually mixing music

boost 420 Hz

>>74654138
Yes. Both because of the equipment you're using (a cheap stylus for instance will skew the frequency-response of the speaker/headphone, and if you're playing with different speakers/headphones, then of course you'll get a different FR), but also because vinyl releases are often a separate mix (often either to recapture the flaws of older systems, or else to compensate for them).

Either way, unless you're using really particularly shit speakers/headphones/hardware, flat EQ is likely the closest you'll get to the intended mix. If your headphones or speakers ARE particularly shit, it's usually a case of poor bass response, and a slight boost to bass may help. If your record player itself is a cheap piece of shit, then you'll want to look into reviews of the model to get a sense of what it's shortcomings are, and compensate for them.

>>74654174
Unless you're listening to unmastered music, you are placing your own abilities with a single-band non-graphic EQ above those of whoever mastered the music you're listening to with all the tools available to them. If that's the case, why are you listening to them at all?