Blue Bear, lets talk eq, and added noise......

GT

GT

New member
Hey Bruce,

Ok, we talked about the necessity of eq for balancing a mix to sound good on all speakers.

Now with eq, especially attenuation, comes added noise.

Less signal, more noise.

What are your thoughts.

GT
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Let's start with an article and go from there!

EQ? When?? How???
Click to expand...

Bruce,

Great article, totaly agree with everything you said.

Subtractive eq is the way to go.

I would like to add, that subrtactive eq lowers the signal to noise ratio.

Borderline noisey items, such as guitar processors seem to suffer the most.

In other words removing some of the coloration, lets you hear more of the noise.

Kind of like when the fog lifts, then you can see the sky.

If I had to add to your article, I would say try to use eq to remove coloration.

GT
 
Bruce,

Do you believe in any kind of noise reduction? Or is it all bunk?

Do you like final Compresion?

GT
 
I understand your point when I read it. But I got some great results using the Qplugins from waves EQ'ing drums bass and guitar, even without substractive EQ but woth boosting...

for example, I recentely recorded a quick live demo from our band: evry instrument miked recorded directely ion a L/R. I used quite a lot EQ afterwards and got some good results...
 
The idea with EQ is no to use it as an excuse for crappy tracking. The same applies to noise reduction. Many people record with horrible noise or ambient sound than want to use noise reduction to get rid of it. The NR kills all the highs so they add EQ to give it back some 'air' and the results are usually pretty bad.

In a way EQ is a dynamics tool. The reason why is that if you have too much energy in a frequency range then you can't raise the level enough before clipping or overwhelming the other tracks. If you have some weak spots in your freq range then no matter how much you raise the level the sound just won't cut through.

You either want to make a track less overpowering or give it a little more presence or edge so it cuts through. Those should be the two main reasons for using EQ. If you are trying to sculpt the perfect sound with EQ and noise reduction you will usually be dissapointed.

After you have trained your ear to really know what kind of tracks blend well or cut through then you will get a better sound while tracking and will end up relying less and less on EQ.
 
"After you have trained your ear to really know what kind of tracks blend well or cut through then you will get a better sound while tracking and will end up relying less and less on EQ."

What do you mean?
 
I suppose the only sound modification device, that doesn't add noise, would be compression.

This actually surpresses noise, but compression also has negetive side effects.

Maybe someone with more experience with compression, would care to elaborate?

Bruce, side effects?

GT
 
Compression DOES add noise...!

It reduces the dynamic range of the signal, meaning - how far away a signal peak is from the noise floor is decreased.

Another way of saying it is that the noise floor is raised closer to the level of the intended signal. How much it's raised depends on how much compression is applied...
 
Hey Bruce,

Your pretty smart for a duck man!!

Anyway, I bet you don't have much respect for noise reduction?

I allways thought that Dolby guy, should be taken out and shot.

GT
 
dobro said:
"After you have trained your ear to really know what kind of tracks blend well or cut through then you will get a better sound while tracking and will end up relying less and less on EQ."

What do you mean?
Click to expand...

Say for example the first time you record your acoustic guitar you get a full lush sound but in the mix you find that you have way too much low mid rumble and when you raise the level it's overpowering the other tracks. To fix it in the mix you use a lot of low cut to clean it up. The next time you track it you will try to get farther away from the sound hole, rotate the mic away a bit, etc. By itself the track may almost sound a bit thin or tinny. But when it comes time to mix that new track will blend better and you will need less EQ to make it work.

Once you have used EQ to make a track sit well in the mix solo it and see what you have left. You may be surprised that it actually sounds kinda shitty on it's own but in the mix it fits perfectly. Learn how to get that perfect but shitty sound while tracking and you will need less EQ and end up with cleaner sounding mixes.
 
...Interesting. I didn't realise boosting affected phase relationships more than cutting.

So, say you want more treble on your vocal track. Starting with a flat EQ curve, and taking out some middle - and upping the level, *isn't* the same as just boosting the treble & bass?

So, starting with a flat EQ curve, and cutting the necessary frequencies - and then increasing the level - is a better approach than just boosting the requisite frequencies?
 
moley said:
So, starting with a flat EQ curve, and cutting the necessary frequencies - and then increasing the level - is a better approach than just boosting the requisite frequencies?
Click to expand...
MUCH, MUCH better!

...and even better is to capture the source the way you want it to sound in the first place, therefore negating the need to EQ at all!
 
Indeed.

Though - and forgive my naivity - for example, vocals. A vocal track making through to the final mix, without any EQ having been applied to it... does that actually happen?? Even with the most carefully placed mics in the world?

I'm thinking of close mic'ed lead vocal here, for a pop tune or whatever.
 
Well - you strive for the ideal... then make do with what you actually get!

Paying attention to tracking generally means less need to fuck around with the tracks in later stages of production.

Sure, you may need to use EQ, but you may only need slight amounts compared to requiring a rescue operation to salvage a badly recorded track!
 
Eq, seems to be a nescesary evil.

The noise problem I seem to be having with my new found, subtractive truck eq, lies squarely on the shoulders of my Pod.

While striving to get as clean a sound as possible out of my Pod, I have to turn the drive down to at least 1 1/2 to 2.

This alone brings noise (hiss, not hum) up more than I would like.

This is with barefoot to ground, facing away from equiptment, and treble setting as close to natural as I can get it. No treble boost.

Then add to that, subtractive eq to remove some coloration, and signal to noise gets even worse.

I'm talking about finalization eq (polish).

I am beginning to think I may have to try a different guitar proccessor to get a hiss free clean guitar recording.

Am I being to picky?

Help Bruce!!!

GT
 
To be honest - I *hate* using the POD - especially for clean sounds.... it IS noisy... some clients seem to swear by it though......... I prefer mic'ing an amp...

You may also be worrying a little too much about it, too.... guitars ARE inherently noisy - especially dirty guitar sounds, so *some* noise is acceptable (not during quiet parts though).... for those areas, a noise gate is useful, so is muting the track as needed - or use digital editing to silence noise during quiet parts.
 
Bruce,

Yeah, hate to admit it I do like my Pod, I actually have the original 2.0 chip, for what that's worth.

I didn't like the sound of the upgrade, as much.

Paul Mcartney once said, there's nothing as pure as a guitar direct in.

Thanks much for letting us pick your brain, and for your patience.

Wait, sounds like I'm talking to God. Give us this day our daily duck.

Glad to hear, that maybe noise is unavoidable.

"Silence, is the holy grail of the recording madman."

-Ben Franklin-

Any one find Sansamps to be noisey or quiet? Or do they just suck?

Just for fun, I may email Line6, and see what they have to say on the subject. I'll get back here with any results.

GT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top