Understanding EQ / Everthing in its own space

Status
Not open for further replies.
you should do a google video search on resonance to understand a bit more how sound behaves at different frequencys and amplutidudes.
all you need is a speaker under a flat surfice and a little bit of sand and you can actually see the flow patterens that pure tones make.
higer tones can cause a more complex pattern then low tones.
 
I am new here. This thread made me subscribe for FP forum. This is awesome, realy helpful.I thank every post here, though i've read only first 10 pages...

I have a problem. Sry for my english, btw. Well..The problem is that everytime i start mixing sth on Cubase, FL i get my CPU loaded about 70-90% and sound lags, cracking. It drives me crazy cuz i cant mix normally. So i am about to buy UAD Xpander or TC Powercore FW.

Which is better? (quality/CPU) And is it worth investment or ...? Advise me something in this direction.

Thx for info again.
 
Last edited:
Hi Rybik,

I don't have a uad or tc. What i heard is that the uad is better for analog-like sound, vintage, mixing... and the tc great for reverb, clean and exact eqs and mastering). I own a focusrite liquid mix. 32 channels @44kHz is enough and in my opinion the sound is fine. Especially the eq's. A corrective eq-ing is hardly possible, cause there are no eq's where extreme q settings are possible or sound good.
But for character it is absolutly great and very flexible.

The CPU discussion: I bet if you get used to tc and uad u'll want either some more cards to expand the system or u 'll want a new cpu.
What i learded (about my self): If i have more, i use more. I never will have enough cpu-power.

The only solution: Bounce tracks if you get in trouble .:D

greets. JayT.
:cheers:
 
What does "roll it off" mean and what do you mean when you say 5khz? where can these freq be found? on the EQ? and is this this for the full track or eq for each instrument?
 
Tim20 said:
It used to be a sticky back when I first posted it 2 years ago. I believe the topic has become to drawn out now. It is a lot to read.

Now that I think about it I am pretty sure the term "Q" comes from the word "Quotient", since mathematically the outcome would be the "quotient" of frequency divided by the Q setting.

So frequency center/frequency width=Q
Click to expand...

"Q" stands for "quality". Whoever named it was using the term to talk about dialing in radio signals and the like. Think about it. A radio dial is just the same as an EQ; it's a band-pass filter (though I guess when you suck out frequencies it's a band-reject). Turn up the Q and it's passing very few frequencies in whatever range you have it set to. Obviously if a radio tuner was letting too many radio frequencies through, you'd hear more than one station at a time, making the device of low quality.

Electronics 101 ;)
 
This has been one of the most educational post i've seen in a long time....thanks you to everyone
 
stwof43 said:
What does "roll it off" mean and what do you mean when you say 5khz? where can these freq be found? on the EQ? and is this this for the full track or eq for each instrument?
Click to expand...

..first of all u should find some parametric eq..like.exp..waves...,and and try to search the all tool...u'll find frequency responce from 16Hz to 20000 Hz.....so when we say 5KHz it's mean 5000hz...roll off we mean to "mute" the sound under the given frequency...like if u want to roll off on for example at 150Hz..u actually dont hear the frequency under 150Hz..
..when u work on some track(song) u can eq the track's by them self and allso the all track on the final mix...depending the coulor what u want to get it from the instrument or frome the track at all...
 
rnb said:
..first of all u should find some parametric eq..like.exp..waves...,and and try to search the all tool...u'll find frequency responce from 16Hz to 20000 Hz.....so when we say 5KHz it's mean 5000hz...roll off we mean to "mute" the sound under the given frequency...like if u want to roll off on for example at 150Hz..u actually dont hear the frequency under 150Hz..
..when u work on some track(song) u can eq the track's by them self and allso the all track on the final mix...depending the coulor what u want to get it from the instrument or frome the track at all...
Click to expand...
the only thing I got from that is limiting the frequencies. The mclass mastering suite comes with reason but there is no tool(parametic eq) that can show you the actual frequencies for each instrument. so if you limit a hi freq you are doing that for just the track which gets away from eqing each instrument which throws the spectrum thoery away.

:confused:
 
mclass dont have "nice Q" ...so will be more hard for u....try with vst plugin-"WAVES"- parametric eq(u can use vst with nuendo,wavelab,cubase.or cambridge UAD-plugins..e.t.c it's simple to use and very practicle.
 
EL_HOlandes said:
my problem is this:

I often produce reggea/hiphop tracks at home consisting of:

- sampled electric bass (trilogy)
- kick
- snare
- organ sound riff (vst, b4)
- piano sound riff (sampler:Garritan ORCHESTRA)
- self-recorded acoustic riff
- self-recorded electric riff

I can't get the sound to shine as in burning spear, bob marley, lewinghton, black uhuru's tracks.

I use the following EQ setting (waves req EQ vst):

kick: low cut 40 hz; boost 80-100 hz +4 decibel
bass: low cut 50 hz; decrease 80-100 - 5
snare: low cut 120 hz; decrease 350-500 hz -6 decibel (this space is taken by the bass); increase 3000hz for snap
organ riff: low cutt 140 hz; decrease 250-400 hz, -4; decrease 500-800, -4
acoutic guitar riff: low cut 120, decrease 350-450 hz, decrease 400-800, -3, increase 7000-9000 hz for shine.
electric guitar riff: low cut 140 hz, decrease 150-400 hz. increase 3000-4000, +3

And still the sound is not clean enough. I pan the rifff at 100 left and right or sometimes at 55 % left and right. I use individual compressor and tube-emulators on each track (PSP saturator and Lm2).

any tips?
Click to expand...


I play and listen to lots of roots and dub. I'm only looking at the bass, but from this standpoint, the bass has the low freq range just as you have listed; the bass guitar itself creates the vibrations, one of the soulful characteristics that reggae creates. So try having the kick higher than the bass, round the 80-100 range. This helps me out to distinguish what roots and dub are all about. Just lettin you know, this what i use.

Also, if you listen to a lot of records coming from Studio One in the early Tosh, Augustus Pablo, Marley, and Lee Perry days, it sounds to me that i can almost take the guitar out of the mix, as if it were recorded seperately in another studio. I'm pretty sure that the seperate recording process during Studio One's early days were recorded together, especially the riddim section.

peace.
 
I stumbled across this forum the other night looking for a new music production forum.

Have to say that this thread contains a lot of misinformation and generalisations, sorry but 'tis true.

I only read pages 1-5, I couldn't stomach any more of it. maybe others have already chimed to this effect? if not here goes...

U can't talk about EQ in the crude general terms as found on the first pages of this thread. Anyone heard of 'program material'?!?

Seriously what program material are you applying your advice to? Line level non-miced sources? live string quartet? rock band recorded in your bedroom? rock band recorded in a properly treated acoustic space?

As for the person you seemed to think that 250-800 is the default 'muddy', range this is rubbish talk again. I think he even mentioned that this range applies to piano? seriously u think that all notes up to approx A above middle C (880 Hz) are in the muddy zone. What do you propose to do with the fundamental frequencies of these notes? EQ them out? my goodness.

maybe 200-800 sounds like **** in the crappy room or bedroom that you record in, but don't mislead people by applying the notion of '200-800 = mud' across the board. this is just plain wrong.

a properly recorded source shouldn't require much EQ. And if you are talking about sampled/electronic music, if the arrangement is good, once again the EQ required should be minimal, low freqs aside.

I also didn't see anyone make the destinction between using EQ as a corrective tool Vs creative tool.

I'm not sure what ****ty sound school you guys went to or what books you've read but, maybe these kinds of 'All you need to know about XYZ' threads should be left to people with experience who know what they are talking about? As for all the peeps applauding this thread with claps and praise, seriously don't be such sheep...

so disappointed with this thread that I won't bother reading any others.

I did feel an obligation to write as someone who knows a little bit about recording, not a pro by any means. I can only assume that those who were so impressed with the advice are totally clueless, as cluless as the people giving the advice.
 
Last edited:
presto music said:
I stumbled across this forum the other night looking for a new music production forum.

Have to say that this thread contains a lot of misinformation and generalisations, sorry but 'tis true.

I only read pages 1-5, I couldn't stomach any more of it. maybe others have already chimed to this effect? if not here goes...

U can't talk about EQ in the crude general terms as found on the first pages of this thread. Anyone heard of 'program material'?!?

Seriously what program material are you applying your advice to? Line level non-miced sources? live string quartet? rock band recorded in your bedroom? rock band recorded in a properly treated acoustic space?

As for the person you seemed to think that 250-800 is the default 'muddy', range this is rubbish talk again. I think he even mentioned that this range applies to piano? seriously u think that all notes up to approx A above middle C (880 Hz) are in the muddy zone. What do you propose to do with the fundamental frequencies of these notes? EQ them out? my goodness.

maybe 200-800 sounds like **** in the crappy room or bedroom that you record in, but don't mislead people by applying the notion of '200-800 = mud' across the board. this is just plain wrong.

a properly recorded source shouldn't require much EQ. And if you are talking about sampled/electronic music, if the arrangement is good, once again the EQ required should be minimal, low freqs aside.

I also didn't see anyone make the destinction between using EQ as a corrective tool Vs creative tool.

I'm not sure what ****ty sound school you guys went to or what books you've read but, maybe these kinds of 'All you need to know about XYZ' threads should be left to people with experience who know what they are talking about? As for all the peeps applauding this thread with claps and praise, seriously don't be such sheep...

so disappointed with this thread that I won't bother reading any others.

I did feel an obligation to write as someone who knows a little bit about recording, not a pro by any means. I can only assume that those who were so impressed with the advice are totally clueless, as cluless as the people giving the advice.
Click to expand...


good points presto music, but stay cool.

there is a lot criticism in this thread, but of course, it tends to go under in the floods of stupid eq "charting" posts. i don't understand myself why such a nonsense is a sticky thread...

...perhaps a try to avoid new threads like that :D

don't care about it, it's at least how i do it ;)
 
this thread is an embarrassment, it should be remved form the site if the owners of this forum are serious trying to attract quality content.

who are the moderators?
 
The one thing I do know Is there is no one right way or wrong way to do any of this. Just different ways, some are better then others.
The whole goal is to make it sound good. That is what this post is about. People sharing their paths in making things sound good.
Its up to each of us to find in here whatever knowlege that will help us in our own individual paths.
 
you can read all about wrong ways in the first 5 pages of this thread. One example- carve out 250-800Hz on your piano track because it is 'mud'. There ya go, one wrong way to apply eq, based on an ill informed gross generalisation.
 
Last edited:
presto music said:
you can read all about wrong ways in the first 5 pages of this thread. One example- carve out 250-800Hz on your piano track because it is 'mud'. There ya go, one wrong way to apply eq, based on an ill informed gross generalisation.
Click to expand...
Yeah if you really read the posts as the general way of doing things it will not work. people get excited when something works and want to share it. They don't get it that it is only for that one moment that taking out that feq on piano worked for that situation.
I am the sound guy for the Newburgh Jazz series. Two nights every week I am on the mixer trying to make people sound good.
Each time is different. It doesnt matter if it is the same equipment and same people playing. It is different each and every time.
One day I have to baby sit every minute they are on.
The next day I hardly have to touch the mixer.
What goes in has everything to do with what comes out.
Temperature, humidity, even the amount of people in the audience affects the sound.
Instead of bashing this thread share your knowlege. make corrections as you see fit.
It is up to the people that really want to learn to use your knowlege as they see fit, or they make their own mistakes and learn that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top