Now I've wondered this every time that I look at any EQ spectrum for my tracks, whether it be a snare, a synth, bass, sweep, the master, whatever, I always feel like I'm boosting and cutting so that the analyzer is relatively even for the master EQ, then I minimally change the master to my own pleasing, though I'm unsure if that is the correct way to go about things. I try to go by sound, and I'm assuming that's what pro audio engineers go by, but I am nowhere close to a pro engineer, nor am I close to any sort of audio engineer - period. So what do I look for in these EQ spectrum analyzers?
Not a good idea. I guess you're not into graphic design, it's called
audio engineering, right?
It all begins with a proper set of speakers and most of all: Acoustic treatment. The monitoring system is by far the most important tool.
Spectrum analysers are classic measurement systems in signal processing. So, it's not uncommon to see them here and there. But it's important to understand that they have zero musical value.
Our ear perceive events that are about 1000x "smaller" (i.e. faster) than anything our eyes could perceive. Even more, our brain can interpret these informations in a far more elaborate way than our sight does. It makes absolutely no sense to visualise
music. If someone tries, he would quickly get an epileptic shock.
To answer your question, a well known assumption is that the sum of all natural sounds results in a pink noise signal. That is, it has a 3dB/Oct slope. It definitely doesn't hurt if your mix has a similar frequency distribution. At least for "average" material, whatever this means. But it makes no sense to approximate such a distribution if you're just processing solo vocals or whatever instrument.
A lot of graphs and tables have various instruments going around a specific frequency (
https://imageshack.us/a/img801/5821/captureets.jpg ) should I auto cut out frequencies that don't fall within those ranges to create more space for the rest of the spectrum? It irks me that every time I try to put an instrument "in it's own space" I end up cutting out parts that I think make the sound more or give it character with the extra harmonics, or vocals with nice formants - no matter what I cut or boost.
Wait, these so called "frequency charts" are just particularly stupid misinterpretations of
tonal range charts. The idea to use frequency charts for musical instruments is wrong by definition. Let me explain why: All music instruments, without exception, have bandwidths extending to infinity! All of them! Correct "frequency charts" would look pretty boring, because most instruments start at the fundamental frequency (i.e. the tone) and extend to infinity! Some instruments also introduce intermodulation products tones below the fundamental. Now try to draw this on paper!
And that brings us to your next question: No, please don't start filtering everything away! That's exactly where the good stuff is. Great bass synths or bass guitars sound so fat because of their high frequency components! Don't mess with them!
At least, you heard right! You're definitely more "audio engineer" than you assume!
Just looking for a little bit of guidance in this area, I guess what am I looking at/for with the spectrum analyzer and a remedy for giving instruments their own space without removing or giving too much. Thanks for your time!!
Just forget these technical aspects and trust your ears (just don't trust your monitors/room!).
First of all, make sure the composition and sample/sound selection gives your idea the room it needs to express itself. After this, it's all about a proper gain balance and clever panning, occasional Eqing where needed, and subtle compression here and there. But generally, avoid processing wherever possible. Technically, that's all you need to sound great. Just make sure you can find the right decisions, and that's the point where you need a honest and transparent monitoring system.
