My secret: Equalizing with harmonics

[nine09]

Before I continue on to my "secret" I will probably have to explain some basics first

THE BASICS
All complex waveforms consist of a fundamental frequency and harmonics/sidebands. WARNING: Those who know FM/AM synthesis will fall asleep now. The fundamental frequency is the highest frequency peak in the waveform (the highest peak). And the harmonics is every peak that is generated by the fundamental frequency.

To explain this in detail: let's say we got an electronic kick loop with a fundamental frequency of 90 Hz. What most people would do is to just raise a peak filter on an EQ to make a fatter sound with more punch. BUT, they are forgetting that the kick got harmonics. And what happens? The kick gets louder in amplitude and is sounding more punchy because, basically, you just "turned up the punch". This will cause the track to get louder on the fader (it's not going to actually sound much louder) and the kick will become very boring listening to after a while.

WHAT PEOPLE DO "WRONG"
An interesting fact is that what many people don't realize, is that when they turn up e.g 90Hz, they think it sounds a lot better because they will compare it to the already "flat" sound. But for those who haven't heard the original/unprocessed file, it's going to sound just as dull. Its like buying a pair of new shoes. You will love them because they are different. No one will buy a pair of the same shoes they just had. But for the other people walking buy, the only thing they are going to notice is that they are clean

MY WAY:
So here is my secret... finally:
If we get back to the "90Hz kick".... That kick got harmonic overtones to it which can enrich the sound and make it more colourful and punchy at the same time. To use these harmonics we have to know where they are! And how do we know that? Well... The best thing to do would be to use a spectum analyzer BUT generally all harmonic sounds (especially precussion sound) have a major harmonic peaks at all even numbered frequencies of the fundamental. It's kind of hard to explain. But for example, if the kick has a fundamental frequency at 90Hz it will definitely have harmonics at 45 and 180 Hz.

WARNING! Simple math, please remain bowel control

It's simply just to divide and double the fundamental frequency (f0)
90/2=45
90*2=180

Because the harmonics will create new harmonics we will have to repeat the same step for these frequencies. so...

f1=45/2+45= 67,5Hz
f1=180/2+90= 270Hz
and so on...

Summarized; the frequencies we turn up are:

90Hz: The fundamental frequency
45Hz The first harmonic undertone
180Hz: The first harmonic overtone
270: Overtone generated by the first overtone
...and you could continue.

Now, how much you should turn these frequencies up have to be considered carefully but, whatever you do.. use a high Q factor or else the whole point is gone!

What do we achieve?
1. Higher audible amplitude at lower generated signal amplitude
2. A richer sound due to the enhancement of the overtones
3. More punch depending on ho much you turn up these frequencies

Try it yourself, I promise you will hear the difference.
And guys... no bullsh*t comment's ok...? Just in case

 

[J.A.Beats]

lmao @ simple math warning

 

[say it terror]

cool info, really interesting!!

 

[Ace*tT]

co sign. Works best when you program/tweak your sounds/drums to work this way and have the same kinda balance.

 

[nine09]

co sign. Works best when you program/tweak your sounds/drums to work this way and have the same kinda balance.

Even better yea!

 

[deanlofts]

Interesting but if I have to look that deep into why my drums aren't hitting hard enough I would just change my drum sound. My best mixes are the ones that I have done completely by ear.

 

[nine09]

Interesting but if I have to look that deep into why my drums aren't hitting hard enough I would just change my drum sound. My best mixes are the ones that I have done completely by ear.

I agree with you, but I was not talking about the recording/tracking stage I was talking about mixing which I didn't mention. Sorry. But yeah, there is no use of trying to EQ if you have the wrong instrument sound. That would in most cases just make it worse.

---------- Post added at 04:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 AM ----------

Oh an btw guys. If anyone have tried a plugin like a "bass-bost" (I know waves got one) essentially this is what it does Just a little more advanced.

 

[Shuriken]

Very interesting.I'm gonna try this out.

 

[chris carter]

Q

In practice, this all makes sense. But in reality there are some other factors that might make this not the best way to do things. When you do this very narrow Q boosts, you are going to get a lot more phase shifting than you would with broader strokes that can a) sound less musical and b) potentially cause some smearing with high transient sounds (like drums) and c) in some cases can cause a ringy sound with larger boosts. If you do a bunch of frequencies (as proposed) you can get enough phase shift that you start to get a comb-filtering kind of sound.

This is why, generally speaking, mix engineers tend to prefer EQs with wide Qs.

That said, you are correct about harmonics (and subharmonics as well; same thing applies). It's just that with a wide Q you hit all those multiple frequencies and the reality is that inbetween those frequencies there really much there so it's not much of a concern.

But you are definitely thinking about EQing the right way by paying more attention to the harmonics than the fundamentals, which is exactly what you should do. You might consider also boosting shelves above or below the highest or lowest harmonic to create a shallower slope even though you are boosting much more. I've poasted at least half a dozen times about this when talking about EQing bass and kick.

 

[deanlofts]

You can also add very slight distortion on your bass to get the higher frequencies instead of just eq. I'm not sure what programs you guys use but in Cubase the EQ presets are pretty much spot on with the harmonics of the instrument that you select anyway. I think it was a new addition in Cubase 5 but it saves a lot of time. I will change them to suit what I am doing but it is only a very slight adjustment most of the time.

 

[Ace*tT]

This is why, generally speaking, mix engineers tend to prefer EQs with wide Qs.

I've actually been doubling the track and pitching it up or down 12 or 6 semitones, then using the volume for balance. I havent had any phase issues or anything, is there anything else to look out for?

 

[chris carter]

You can also add very slight distortion on your bass to get the higher frequencies instead of just eq. I'm not sure what programs you guys use but in Cubase the EQ presets are pretty much spot on with the harmonics of the instrument that you select anyway. I think it was a new addition in Cubase 5 but it saves a lot of time. I will change them to suit what I am doing but it is only a very slight adjustment most of the time.

Excellent suggestion. I use this technique frequently with sub-bass lines all the time.

 

[NoVA Entertainment]

Thanks for the tips chris and nine.

This technique has never come across to me, but I was basically doing it anyway without precise math (ears).

But I will definitely try it out this way and see if I can improve any of my results. I'll let you know when I'm done testing your theories and how it helped or made things worse for me.

 

[HakimCallier]

It's kind of hard to explain. But for example, if the kick has a fundamental frequency at 90Hz it will definitely have harmonics at 45 and 180 Hz.

It is not hard to explain at all if you know what you are talking about.

First I'd like to know what you mean by "if the kick has a fundamental frequency at 90hz"? How does 45Hz become a harmonic of 90Hz? Harmonics are integers that are multiples of a fundamental frequency...

 

[NoVA Entertainment]

It is not hard to explain at all if you know what you are talking about.

First I'd like to know what you mean by "if the kick has a fundamental frequency at 90hz"? How does 45Hz become a harmonic of 90Hz? Harmonics are integers that are multiples of a fundamental frequency...

Well according to his equation it makes sense in how 45 is a harmonic of 90 and so on. But in terms of results, I won't know until I try this out.

But I believe he decided where the fundamental frequency is based on the highest peak in the analyzer.

But I am assuming you can actually determine this with a eq sweep and find you ideal frequency and adjust from there with his equation. Let me know if I'm wrong with that assumption.

I didn't think it was a difficult explanation personally...i completely understood the post and the following posts. I'm not entirely sure where your confusion is.

 

[HakimCallier]

Well according to his equation it makes sense in how 45 is a harmonic of 90 and so on. But in terms of results

Actually, it is the result I agree with for the most part. Just disagree with how his description because a harmonic is indeed a multiple of a fundamental. Which means 45Hz is a fundamental frequency and not an "undertone" as suggested. I've never even heard it put that way before, nor do I think you will find it being taught that way anywhere. Sounds to me like a smart guy just came up with his own way to define audio phenomena... which is cool and I can dig it but it's wrong technically.

It kinda like going to a Victor Wooten clinic... HAHA!

 

[Wedges2]

Ya but isn't this just gonna turn up the volume, I mean your turning up pretty much any harmonics that the kick has so your just turning up the volume.

 

[nine09]

It is not hard to explain at all if you know what you are talking about.

First I'd like to know what you mean by "if the kick has a fundamental frequency at 90hz"? How does 45Hz become a harmonic of 90Hz? Harmonics are integers that are multiples of a fundamental frequency...

First of all, I do know what I am talking about and I do not appreciate your approach to this. I have been studying this for a long time now. I find it hard to explain because what makes perfect sense to me does not necessarily make sens to others.

As I said (if you actually read the post) the "90Hz" kick sound was an example. And if you are so god at this, you should know that every complex sound has undertones and overtones (yes, harmonics). Having that said, 45Hz is half of 90Hz which makes the undertone of the fundamental frequency. The bottom line is, as I also mentioned, that to find the fundamental and its harmonics you will have to use a e.g a frequency analyzer. I think the point you misunderstand is that fundamental freq does not only have overtones but also undertones (e.g. at 45Hz)...

---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

Actually, it is the result I agree with for the most part. Just disagree with how his description because a harmonic is indeed a multiple of a fundamental. Which means 45Hz is a fundamental frequency and not an "undertone" as suggested. I've never even heard it put that way before, nor do I think you will find it being taught that way anywhere. Sounds to me like a smart guy just came up with his own way to define audio phenomena... which is cool and I can dig it but it's wrong technically.

It kinda like going to a Victor Wooten clinic... HAHA!

Apparently, you are the only one that does not get this. According to your theoretical approach to this, you suggest that the 90Hz fundamental freq will not have an undertone, because you say that a harmonic is indeed a multiple of a fundamental. This is true but, in practice you will get undertones at half of the fundamental just as you get overtones of twice the fundamental freq.

 

[HakimCallier]

This is true but, in practice you will get undertones at half of the fundamental just as you get overtones of twice the fundamental freq.

Why are you saying "the fundamental frequency". What makes 90Hz "the" fundamental frequency over 45Hz?

My understanding is that the "fundamental frequency" is the lowest partial in a harmonic series. Therefore 45Hz would be considered the fundamental frequency in your example, this is pretty basic stuff.

Some of the elements you are using like "undertones" are present in advanced acoustic and music theory but we would be moving into a hotly debated topic of acoustic theory, ie. the existence of the undertone series.

This is hotly debated among musicologists because the existence of undertones augments our understanding of fundamentals. That being said, undertones in proportion to a fundamental frequency is not widely accepted.

But I believe he decided where the fundamental frequency is based on the highest peak in the analyzer.

It is funny how I'm always the one confused on FP. Again, a fundamental frequency is the lowest partial of a harmonic series NOT the frequency with the highest amplitude in a harmonic series.

 

[NoVA Entertainment]

Why are you saying "the fundamental frequency". What makes 90Hz "the" fundamental frequency over 45Hz?

My understanding is that the "fundamental frequency" is the lowest partial in a harmonic series. Therefore 45Hz would be considered the fundamental frequency in your example, this is pretty basic stuff.

Some of the elements you are using like "undertones" are present in advanced acoustic and music theory but we would be moving into a hotly debated topic of acoustic theory, ie. the existence of the undertone series.

This is hotly debated among musicologists because the existence of undertones augments our understanding of fundamentals. That being said, undertones in proportion to a fundamental frequency is not widely accepted.

It is funny how I'm always the one confused on FP. Again, a fundamental frequency is the lowest partial of a harmonic series NOT the frequency with the highest amplitude in a harmonic series.

Thanks for the correction haha.