Should I use Subtractive EQ instead of Boosting and Sweeping ?

J

justanuser

New member
Hey guys. So, as the title says. Should I use Subtractive EQ instead of Boosting and Sweeping ? I mean... I have no idea of what Boosting and Sweeping is. But there's a link in a guide about Mixing & Mastering. That link leads to a video named "Don't boost and sweep (Subtractive EQ)". So... I am not sure if I should waste the time to watch the video, read the tutorial about Subtractive EQ and then go and experiment in FL. Lots of people don't seem to agree that with that "don't boost and sweep" part so I want to know what yall think about it. Thank you very much if you bothered to read this ^^ :p
 
It seems that not only you, but perhaps the video poster you are referencing, are confused on the subject...

"Subtractive EQ" is, as the name suggests, _cutting_ frequencies in a mix, and is generally used to "fix" the sound of something. In a live setting, it is the way an engineer uses EQ to eliminate feedback and "tune" the system to the room it's in. In recording/mixing, it is used to "fix" or optimize a sound in the mix, if you have for instance a squeaky bass drum pedal or a ringing snare that you want to tone down.

"Additive EQ" is used to "enhance" (or "beef up" in some way) a sound, by adding "more" (not really, just accentuating what is already there, often at the expense of other frequencies) of some desirable frequency to achieve more snap, boom, rumble, crispness, or whatever sound characteristic you are trying to achieve. This can also be called "boosting."

Here's where it gets confusing to people. When you are subtracting a frequency, and you have a parametric EQ available (meaning, you have a rotary control for both the frequency and the amount of EQ, respectively), you often use the "sweep, boost and cut" method first. That's right, you have to _boost_ the frequency you want to cut, before you cut it. That's because in order to _find_ the frequency or frequencies that are problematic, you have to sweep thru them first (usually, but not always, mids), in order to identify by ear the freqs that you don't want (or want to de-emphasize). You sweep through the mids, identify where you want to cut, by first boosting it (to hear how bad it really is, and what it is you're trying to eliminate; for example "mud," "honkiness," "box-y" sound, etc.). You find the freqs by sweeping and boosting, then using what's called a narrow Q (on a visual parametric, it will be a cone or triangle shape that you can adjust as thin/tight as possible to really hone-in on the offending freq); _then_ you cut it, by subtracting it or, inverting the Q, so you can visually reference that it has actually been cut... It's the EQ/audio equivalent of a "search and destroy" mission. You have to find it, ID it, check it, then cut it.

THEN, a very important step-- check it _in the mix_. It doesn't help to have an amazing snare drum sound that sounds awesome solo'd, but crappy once you bring all of the other mix elements in.

So, yeah, sweep/boost/cut is a basic technique used by most modern engineers. You should definitely learn and practice it. Depending on the type of EQ you're using, "Subtractive EQ" and "Sweep/Boost/Cut" are the same thing. Or more properly, sweep/boost/cut is a method of subtractive eq (that doesn't work if you're using a graphic eq, because you have less control, and you have to both know your freqs and/or guess more often when notching them out).

GJ
 
Last edited:
I'd worry less about whether you're using subtractive/additive eq and more about how this affects the balance of the sound in relation to the rest of the frequencies. If you boost something at 3k, and then you turn down the output of your eq to match the average volume with the sound before you eqed it (as you should, so you don't trick yourself into thinking something sounds better), You have to understand that boosting 3k is no different from cutting everything else (all-be, with a ridiculously curved eq). With eq, it helps to think in terms of different, not less or more. If I boost the highs on a snare, I've made it brighter, but I've also made it thinner. There's a constant give and take, because you can't have it all. It's the same with eqing instruments in relation to other instruments. Rather than boosting the highs on vocals to try and make them have more "clarity" than the snare, I could just cut some of the snare's highs. Some of your sounds will sound ridiculous soloed, and that's because it's a give and take. Every element in your mix can't be crisp and given a hi-fi sound, otherwise it just turns into a mess. This is probably the best news you will ever hear. When you understand this, mixing opens up. You have many more options with what you can do.

Edit: all that being said, it's definitely more common to subtract than add eq, and sometimes that's just because it's rare for people to level match their stuff. If people are just doing additive eq, everything is getting louder and louder and there's more stuff competing with each other. If they level matched, they may find it's still easy to make room for things. However, there is an argument I would make for subtractive eq, and that is that boosting a frequency (effectively cutting everything around it) is usually much more dramatic than cutting a frequency (boosting everything around it) when you cut everything around a frequency, you are REALLY focusing in on a specific frequency. It's more dramatic to boost than cut, to me at least.

This is all a bit overly simplistic, because the nature of an eq means boosting a frequency isn't exactly the same as cutting everything around it, but it wouldn't hurt to just think of it that way. No matter what, do what sounds good. That's all that matters. Some people boost, even if they cut a lot. Some people will tell you about "phase-smear" like it's this invisible thing you can't hear but will bite you down the road. Don't listen to any of that. Trust your ears.
 
Last edited:
i mostly agree with the posts above, except that I don't think that boosting something makes it thinner. If you boost the right ways you can increase clarity of those instrument parts by accentuating the parts that matter most to the ear. other than that, i pretty much agree with what was said above.

the main concern with boosting is making sure you have enough headroom to accomdate the boosts so that you don't introduce clipping anywhere or limiting too much further down the line.

i also agree the choice depends upon what sounds good and how you want to budget your time. and some instruments might need cutting while others don't. it depends entirely upon the material.
 
Personal taste thing as long as it gets to the desired point imo. Sometimes putting faders at -16db with hyperbole Eq is interesting.

Eq to me is just a more in depth filter module when making beats and bumps.
 
Working an EQ you do by doing what you can do with it. You cut what you want less of and you boost what you want more of, it's as simple as that when we are talking basics. When we are going more advanced the story changes a little, in the sense that the monitoring process becomes far more focused than the EQ process and you tend to gravitate towards boosting more over time as an engineer because of your creative process becoming richer, while the cut habits tend to remain somewhat more the same, although it totally depends on the content. You might for instance cut in front of a compressor in order to offset where the compressor should hit. The same about the reverb, you might want the reverb tails somewhat more focused to each sound source by having them in their own frequency range. And you might do some fairly steep cuts in parallel on the input tracks to add required air into the mix. That kind of stuff typically tends to be quite pattern oriented, while at least I find the boosts to be a bit more creatively oriented.

The takeaway rule of thumb is that the monitoring process is more important and hence should be the process you depend on and focus on, more so than the EQ. It is the EQ process that is controlled by the monitoring process, not the monitoring process being controlled by the EQ process. Keep that in mind, because it creates better sounding mixes.
 
>>>>The same about the reverb, you might want the reverb tails somewhat more focused to each sound source by having them in their own frequency range.<<<<

Great point, as one of the simplest things you can do to increase intelligibility and energize a reverb-heavy mix (especially if there are multiple 'verbs and effects on multiple tracks and things are getting muddy) is to EQ the 'Verb itself (not the source track), often accentuating the highs a bit. Simple thing, often overlooked.

GJ
 
Nystagmus said:
i mostly agree with the posts above, except that I don't think that boosting something makes it thinner. If you boost the right ways you can increase clarity of those instrument parts by accentuating the parts that matter most to the ear. other than that, i pretty much agree with what was said above.

the main concern with boosting is making sure you have enough headroom to accomdate the boosts so that you don't introduce clipping anywhere or limiting too much further down the line.

i also agree the choice depends upon what sounds good and how you want to budget your time. and some instruments might need cutting while others don't. it depends entirely upon the material.
Click to expand...
Well I didn't say if you boost anything it will always be thinner. I said if you boost the highs of something and level-match it, you will see it gets thinner. Not trying to go off on you here, but this is an important distinction.

I can boost a guitar at 4k, and I'm now perceiving it to be louder. SO I turn down the output volume of the eq and now I think it is about the same volume as it was pre-eq, but I've effectively turned down the lows and low mids and I perceive the sound to be thinner. You can look at it with a spectrum analyzer and make the case that the lower frequency content is unchanged (which might not even be true depending on the eq) but we will absolutely perceive the sound as thinner. Even if you don't level match it, your listener on the other end is going to perceive it as thinner than it would've been if you never boosted that 4k and sent the mix to the listener that way. That is how the contrast in music works. Everytime you make something more of anything, you are making it less of something else. if I have a kick that has like 400ms until its decay completely tapers off, and I compress it or use a transient designer and change it so it tapers off after 80ms, I have made that kick punchier but less fat (that is, if you see punch and fat as purely dynamic terms and not related to frequency content).

The level matching here is important. If you are mixing something and you boost at 4k, it is not going to sound thinner to you if you don't change the output volume. Because you heard the amount of weight behind the sound before you eqed it, and it's still there afterwards. But by god, if you don't level match it, you can't make an objective observation of what you just did (especially because it's now louder, and louder is always better). But your listener can, because they have no idea what it sounded like pre-eq, and they will perceive it as thinner than if you never used eq at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top