Understanding EQ / Everthing in its own space

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Come on!

OK...

Let's forget the ego involvement, folks.
The fact is that most professional recording facilities have and make use of both.
So, if you would, please get back to me with some USEFUL insight.
And, Technine... Your earlier advice was so helpful. I'm sure you can offer more than "Amatures use graphic EQ's and Pro's use parametric EQ's."

Thanks.
 
EQ + compression

I just wanted to add some more to this, because there is another factor involved with this when you're mixing/eq-ing, and thats compression.

When mixing you're typically going to have quite a few compressors running (i.e. for drums, bass, vox) maybe on every track, plus many people will have a limiter running on the output of the main stereo bus.

All of this can add alot of complexity to eq-ing, because by boosting certain frequencies alot you can end up reducing the percieved volume of a track all together because the compressors will be interacting with your EQ settings.

A good example is with a bass drum. If you have some compression on the bass drum track and then you start boosting 90Hz, you may begin to find that the sound seems quieter or less "full" because you have boosted the transient peak of the sound and the compressor is now working harder.

Of course, it all depends upon the type of sound you are working with.

One guideline I would like to offer, is that it is better to remove unwanted frequencies with EQ and then raise the overall level of the track rather than just boost the frequencies you want. Doing this will reduce the problems you get when EQ interacts with compression. It will also give you more control over the sound and make your mixes clearer and less muddy.
 
query

thank you for all the info, i now feel a lot more confident using my eqs, i've also written down your frequencies range lists for easy home use.
I have an eq question however.
Can you use eq to seperate out a kick drum from a bass line, or is this more easily done when mixing.
Lots of my tunes seem to merge the kick drum into the bass, so that the kick sounds weak or non-existent. Since both sounds are in a similar range this is understandable, could u suggest any general eq settings to seperate the sounds out, or is this purely a mixing issue?
Thanks for all the info again.
You have spread compassion along with your knowledge.
 
If you are trying to get distinct sounds from the kick and bass then play around and try cutting one in a narrow freq at the lower end while slightly boosting the other in that same range. If the kick is a real sample then the beater will come out at a higher freq. Try sweeping above 1000 to find the sweet spot.

It is hard to give specifics because of the tuning that the kick might be centered around. Just play with it.

The last resort might be a little panning off the center, one to the left with the other to the right, but then if this is going to end up on a mono system then that is a little useless.

Someone mentioned compression, a little trick, but one that is hard with a lot of software based recording software is using sidechain. By doing that the bass or kick drives the compressor and thus lowers the apparent level of the other. There are ways to use sidechain in software based programs, but it is difficult to explain since every program handles it differently.
 
Great stuff guys. Thanks tim for starting it off, Ur stuff on compression was geat as well.
 
Wicked site, interesting thread.

Just a question to all who give their 2 pence on how to eq elements in a mix. Which music genre(s) are you referring to??

Just for a laugh, I once mixed a Drum&Bass track following all the 'good hints' from a generic music magazine. Miracle, the track that was supposed to be an underground D&B slammer sounded like a 80s Rock production (without the fuzzy guitars)... guaranteed to wipe any dancefloor clean.

In certain styles it's actually a must to tame the 'rocky' bass freqs at 120-300 hz and then add a little sub and rumble in the 50hz neighbourhood.

ez&out
B#

Anything that feels good to you doesn't need to sound good to others.
 
Stevie,
I hope you aren't insinuating that my original post was stolen from another site. I wrote that months ago, but thanks for the cool link!

As far as the chart for freqs of instruments, that can be found on at least 100 different recording sites. Addtitionally, there are literally hundreds of written articles on the subject of EQ and they all read about the same. Of course that is because the subject of how to apply EQ has never changed, only the author.

R2,

While it might be helpfull to use a template (so to speak) in the genre of music that you are recording, it would be better to understand every instrument seperatly and how EQ affects them. Then you can "build" a mix and make it sound the way you want it to.

:cheers:
 
Tim20 said:
Stevie,
I hope you aren't insinuating that my original post was stolen from another site. I wrote that months ago, but thanks for the cool link!

As far as the chart for freqs of instruments, that can be found on at least 100 different recording sites. Addtitionally, there are literally hundreds of written articles on the subject of EQ and they all read about the same. Of course that is because the subject of how to apply EQ has never changed, only the author.

R2,

While it might be helpfull to use a template (so to speak) in the genre of music that you are recording, it would be better to understand every instrument seperatly and how EQ affects them. Then you can "build" a mix and make it sound the way you want it to.

:cheers:
Click to expand...

the words "nail" and "head" come to mind again Tim20 :cheers:
 
Tim20 said:
Stevie,
I hope you aren't insinuating that my original post was stolen from another site. I wrote that months ago, but thanks for the cool link!

As far as the chart for freqs of instruments, that can be found on at least 100 different recording sites. Addtitionally, there are literally hundreds of written articles on the subject of EQ and they all read about the same. Of course that is because the subject of how to apply EQ has never changed, only the author.

R2,

While it might be helpfull to use a template (so to speak) in the genre of music that you are recording, it would be better to understand every instrument seperatly and how EQ affects them. Then you can "build" a mix and make it sound the way you want it to.

:cheers:
Click to expand...

not at all Tim20
unless you are also Silas!!!!!!!!!!!\
actually thanks for starting this thread it has been very helpful

"Now let's try not 2 ruin it"
 
Stevie,

I apologize, but put yourself in my shoes and read your post. Then I think you can understand where I was coming from.

No hard feelings on my part. :cheers:
 
Tim20,

I deliberately made my post a bit provocative ;) The test I did from the magazine was not meant for Drum&Bass or other underground club stuff. Most templates are supposedly generic but are in fact often taken from experiences in specific music genres with specific instrumentation.

Although a number of eq 'recipes' are valid for well miked organic instruments (e-guitars, acoustic gear...), those very 'rules' are often not applicable to synth/sample based genres. I suppose those who often deal with 909 type drums/3 osc detuned sine/square bass combos plus tons of ever changing samples and vocalists know what I'm talking about. That's one thing.

The 'fix-it-in-the-mix-with-eq' attitude can cost valuable time + nerves if the up-front choice of sound elements was made arbitrarily or based on 'just deal with what you got in your arsenal'.

Often I had discussions like this:
- Why did you use the Triton for the e-piano layers, why not the Roland?
- Well, the Korg sounds better.
- Perhaps it does on its own but in THIS particular tune it's a nightmare cos' it clashes with the Novation bass and Naima's vocals. I would record the tracks again with a different sound.
- Oh no, let's eq it...
- All right then. There you go. It doesn't clash anymore.
- Now it sounds like a Casio toy!
- I told you, use the Roland!
etc...

Provocative example ;) while eq can come to the rescue for instance to fit an esoteric string sound from a dodgy 70s Mellotron into a mix with gritty Strats, weeping Les Pauls, E-bass and Sonor drums, you might have a hard time to squeeze complex synth patch #264 into an already busy mix, only by using eq. In this case you might want to try patch #389 or why not a different synth.

If your pre-mix (eq flat on all tracks) never sounded good, chances are high that it will never sound good either after eq-ing or other DSP. If something's missing in the spectrum, I tend to add a new element (eq flat). If a sound is irritating, I simply replace it or dump it.

Just my 2 pence, innit ;)

ez
B#
 
Re: Graphic vs. Parametric

Smooth L said:
What are the differences between graphic EQs and Parametric EQs (other than the obvious)? For instance, why should I have both? Are there specific instances in which one would prove more useful than the other? Or, is it just a matter of choice?
I'm justing fishing for opinions.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

.

Graphic and Parametric, as far as I can recall, are two incarnations of equalization which are often found to distinguish two types hardware EQ units.

Graphic EQ's usualy have 10, 15, or 30 bands of frequency booster/limiter faders for an audio channel. The frequency bands for each fader start around 20hz, and usualy go up to 20khz - spaced evenly apart. They are arranged in a row, and can usualy be raised or lowered by +/- 10 relative steps - this is where the "graphic" term originates, since the frequencies are being adjusted in an interface that basicaly resembles a graph. These EQ's are often used to tone down frequencies that cause feedback in PA's.

Parametric EQ's usualy only feature a few bands of frequency adjustment, but the frequencies being boosted or reduced can be precisely dialed in using a knob that sweeps through a range of frequencies, often low, mid, or high. I am assuming that the "parametric" term originates from the idea that there are parameters (frequency, etc) one can adjust for each band being affected.

*shrug*

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is AWESOME
So much reading, it's like a book

Thanks to everyone who is participatingKeep the great tips coming!

:)
 
mano 1 said:
This thread is AWESOME
So much reading, it's like a book

Thanks to everyone who is participatingKeep the great tips coming!

:)
Click to expand...

.

...and thank YOU for helping maintain this excellent website.

.
 
Grant B:

Thanks for attempting to address my question in a sensible manner. I don't understand why no one else could find it in themselves to respond to what I believe to be a question worthy of response.
Unfortunately, your response was not exactly what I was fishing for.
I understand what graphic and parametric equalizers are and how they work. I own and use both.
I just wanted a feel for why and in which situations other producers would choose one over the other.
But thanks again for trying to help.
 
But thanks again for trying to help.
Click to expand...

.

Right - like I mentioned, I've mostly seen graphic EQs used to kill problem frequencies in sound rigs or PAs where feedback is occuring.

Parametrics are used more often in studios because - I would assume - you'd be applying the EQ to an individual instrument where more detail to exact frequnecy is needed. Due to their precision, they are also more commonly found in the mastering stages of the studio.

Yes? No? Anyone? Beuler?

.
 
I'm finishing up the last of my mixdowns right now for a forthcoming LP and this post was a Godsend!!

And thanks Technine! I applied a highpass filter at 100 hz to my guitars and vocals and it cleaned up my mixes like I can't explain!!

Between eq techniques from this thread, hard panning and using envelopes to vary amounts of verb/delay in different tracks, I'm stoked about the progression in my mixes between now and a year ago!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top