EQ question

[Aviel]

Hey
i am recording my amp through a set of mics, but when examing the record with the EQ i fund some really annoying frenquencies, about 2-3 on the 4k and 2k, so i use an graphic EQ with a large Q, and reduce only thoe 2 frenquencies, and the i get a much cleaner and nice sound, without the strange "whisper" and "hum" sound thoe frenquencies give for some reason.
the prob is the then my guitar lack a bit of highs, when compressing them aith a multibnad EQ on the highs, those frenquencies come back again.

Anyonw has an idea?
Thanks
Aviel

 

[Farview]

You could cut the 2k and 4k and add some high shelf at 6k or 8k.

Or you could make the guitar amp sound better. It's always better to fix the sound at the source than to try to fix it later.

 

[Nameless]

Hey
i am recording my amp through a set of mics, but when examing the record with the EQ i fund some really annoying frenquencies, about 2-3 on the 4k and 2k, so i use an graphic EQ with a large Q, and reduce only thoe 2 frenquencies, and the i get a much cleaner and nice sound, without the strange "whisper" and "hum" sound thoe frenquencies give for some reason.
the prob is the then my guitar lack a bit of highs, when compressing them aith a multibnad EQ on the highs, those frenquencies come back again.

Anyonw has an idea?
Thanks
Aviel

So you're asking: "I just took some highs out of my guitar track, and now it sounds like it's lacking highs?!?"

As Farview said, definitely fix it at the source (the amp) if at all possible. A noisy amp is a pain to record anyway. Also make sure you're not playing close to your computer monitor, Playing guitar next to a computer monitor can introduce a lot of hum/static/noise.

Remove all the noise from the amp as best you can and mess with the EQ knobs and record a few test tracks to see which sounds best recorded. Then you can write them down so next time you record with that sound in mind, you can just look at your notes and setup and record!

(You should see how many notes I've got written down on amp settings alone!).

 

[cello_pudding]

are you eqing out noise, or tone?

i'ld say just stick with the guitar tone...get the noise to be quiet as possible, but leave it in if its sacrificing too much of your tone. you can compromise to taste...but you don't really notice noise in the overall mix. unless you've got a compressor with a lot of makeup gain boosting it. a noise gate before the compressor could help that too...but you have to set it really well...sometimes the blank spaces can be a distraction and sound very un-natural..it just depends on the ratio of your signal to your noise. but...for me, lo fi noise can be cool...so i would leave rather than suck tone to get rid of it.

 

[Aviel]

The amp Sounds great, i think is a problem with the presence which create those noises, i think this come out in the process of recording.

but when leaving this something just hurt in the ear, but if putting a high shelf at the 6k i afraid will reate more problematic freqs

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

i am recording my amp through a set of mics
...
The amp Sounds great, i think is a problem with the presence which create those noises, i think this come out in the process of recording.

I've been sitting back waiting for someone to bring up the miking, but it hasn't happened yet. You say the amp sounds fine in person, but sounds problematic on playback. Before I jumped to the end of the chain and looked at EQ, I'd want to make sure I'm actually capturing the sound the right way first.

It sounds like you're double-miking the cab. The questions I'd bring up are if your problem freqs do indeed sound problematic in each individual mic track or only when you bring them up in tandem, and, have you worked with your mics individually (one at a time) and adjusted placement to get the right sound before EQ?

but when examing the record with the EQ i fund some really annoying frenquencies, about 2-3 on the 4k and 2k, so i use an graphic EQ with a large Q, and reduce only thoe 2 frenquencies

I'm not sure I'm parsing this passage properly. First, I'm not sure what you mean by "examing the record[ing] with the EQ". Does the recording sound OK without the EQ or not?

It almost sounds like you're trying to do something similar to a parametric sweep, but using a graphic EQ instead. Problem is, by taking out the offending frequencies with wide Q scooping, you're probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater by scooping out more frequencies than you need to. I'd recommend sticking to parametric EQ to ID the specific offending frequencies by ear, and targeting them with narrow Q notching.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Try using two mics but point one on axis to the middle of the speaker (bright) and one directly above this mic pointed at 45 degrees (less bright). Mix both to taste to one track or record to two separate tracks and mix later.

Use mic technique, amp settings, a good axe, and new strings, as your first line of defense against nasty guitar sounds.

 

[Sonixx]

once you have the best source gtr tone and mic positioning you can achieve, here's a very ear friendly EQ curve. gently sweep around these EQ points and adjust the Gain and Q to taste. Keep the Boost fairly Wide and the Cut very narrow. Learn the benefits/pitfalls of each and your end result will improve.

Boost...
80Hz - Bottom
400Hz - Tone
1.5KHz - In your face
3.5KHz - Bite

Cut...
2.3KHz - Annoying to my ears. Use narrow BW (Hi Q)

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Hey
but when examing the record with the EQ i fund some really annoying frenquencies, about 2-3 on the 4k and 2k

Aviel

You can't expect every frequency you sweep through to sound pleasant, assuming your examination consists of a sweep. Just because you hear harsh frequencies does not mean you should just get rid of them. If you did that with every element in the mix it would sound horrible, guaranteed.

The important thing is how the guitars blend in the mix. Pay attention to how they compete for frequency space with other instruments.

Regarding Sonixx post of his eq curve, you can't assume that this will work for you. You are not using his equipment or mixing with his other sounds.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Try using two mics but point one on axis to the middle of the speaker.

Good morning, Tom ,

There is no "one right way", of course, but I'd like to suggest a refinement of the term "middle of the speaker" as most likely meaning the inside rim of the speaker cone and not the center of the dustcap dome. Although this depends entirely upon the sound of the speaker itself and the tastes of the listener, I admit. It's just that there seems to be a whole lot of people who don't realize that the dustcap is usually not meant to be a main element of the actual sound reproduction of the loudspeaker, and that the "center of the driver" is actually the voice coil area (the small circle surrounding the dustcap dome.)

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Good morning, Tom ,

There is no "one right way", of course, but I'd like to suggest a refinement of the term "middle of the speaker" as most likely meaning the inside rim of the speaker cone and not the center of the dustcap dome. Although this depends entirely upon the sound of the speaker itself and the tastes of the listener, I admit. It's just that there seems to be a whole lot of people who don't realize that the dustcap is usually not meant to be a main element of the actual sound reproduction of the loudspeaker, and that the "center of the driver" is actually the voice coil area (the small circle surrounding the dustcap dome.)

G.

Hey G!

Actually in this case I meant center of the voice coil. This is the technique Andy Johns used for Zep, Van Halen, etc. At least that's what he says the book "Behind the Glass" and other interviews I've read.

 

[Sonixx]

Regarding Sonixx post of his eq curve, you can't assume that this will work for you. You are not using his equipment or mixing with his other sounds.

try again... re-read my post... sorry, but this has nothing to do with equipment. my EQ curve is a very good starting point for guitar distorted or not...

I'm always amazed at comments like this one, but I shouldn't be. how suggestions get totally discounted. whatever, I know this EQ is a very good starting point. believe it or not.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

try again... re-read my post... sorry, but this has nothing to do with equipment. my EQ curve is a very good starting point for guitar distorted or not...

I'm always amazed at comments like this one, but I shouldn't be. how suggestions get totally discounted. whatever, I know this EQ is a very good starting point. believe it or not.

Actually, the equipment does matter, on both sides of the microphone - including the mic itself. Just the difference in resonances in the guitar body itself can make all the difference in the world as to whether or where one may notch or boost any given frequency. And that's just the start of the variables. Then there's the pickups, the amp, the cab, the mic(s), the mic placement, the preamp, fitting in with the rest of the tracks, each with thier own EQ requirements, yada yada yada.

The thing about "starting points" is that they are just that, they are starting points, nothing more. At best, that makes them no better or worse than any other starting point, including a flat or bypassed EQ. One can easily start there as well and wind up in the exact place they want to be just as easily and just as well.

At worst, however, such non-flat starting points can unfairly bias the listener into thinking that the solution should at leat somewhat resemble the starting point; maybe a couple of dB here or a couple of Hz there, but an EQ curve that doesn't even closeley resemble the starting curve is not only implied to be wrong, but isn't gotten to any faster or easier from that starting point than it is from a flat EQ.

I've used curves similar to the one you show on guitar before. But frankly, I also used a thousand curves that resembled that curve about as much as I resemble Angelina Jolie.

Your mileage apparently does indeed vary, but my guess is that your mixes and/or your sources don't. Do you really think that Joe Satrani on "Surfing with the Alien" needed anything close to the same EQ as Dick Dale did on "Surfin' Safari"? Or even that C.C DeVille's Flying V gets anywhere near the same EQ as Dave Davies' Flying V?

Every situation is different. Best IMHO to start with zero EQ, actually use one's ears, do a sweep or two to see what sticks out, test it against a faders up mix, and go from there.

G.

 

[giraffe]

yea, many times i need less 400ish, and sometimes i need more 2k ish.
don't usually find the need to boost 80hz (sometimes do)
bassically making that starting curve, exactly the oppisite of what i need sometimes.

 

[giraffe]

Hey
i am recording my amp through a set of mics, but when examing the record with the EQ i fund some really annoying frenquencies, about 2-3 on the 4k and 2k, so i use an graphic EQ with a large Q, and reduce only thoe 2 frenquencies, and the i get a much cleaner and nice sound, without the strange "whisper" and "hum" sound thoe frenquencies give for some reason.
the prob is the then my guitar lack a bit of highs, when compressing them aith a multibnad EQ on the highs, those frenquencies come back again.

Anyonw has an idea?
Thanks
Aviel

try (like i think has been said) to narrow your Q width, so you can still get the annoying crap and leave behind the rest of the hi's.

the mic placement suggestions are good ones to try and MAKE SURE THE MIC'S ARE IN PHAZE.

 

[jonnyc]

try again... re-read my post... sorry, but this has nothing to do with equipment. my EQ curve is a very good starting point for guitar distorted or not...

I'm always amazed at comments like this one, but I shouldn't be. how suggestions get totally discounted. whatever, I know this EQ is a very good starting point. believe it or not.

Have you read slippermans thoughts on guitar eq'ing? You should, he'd have you cutting some of those frequencies you're boosting and after using my own version of his method my guitar tracks have become a lot more solid.

 

[masteringhouse]

MAKE SURE THE MIC'S ARE IN PHAZE.

Most times yes, but you can also get some cool sounds with mics being slightly out of phase too. Just make certain that it's an intentional use of phasing or done serendipitously.

Does anyone remember phase pedals? Joe Walsh and Johnny Winter wouldn't have survived without those little MXR buggers in the 70's.

 

[Sonixx]

the poster asked a question... I stated how I go about it... there you go. it works for me. listen to my stuff. like it, then thanks. don't like it, that's cool.

you all want to have a pissing match about absolutes, go ahead.

 

[jonnyc]

the poster asked a question... I stated how I go about it... there you go. it works for me. listen to my stuff. like it, then thanks. don't like it, that's cool.

you all want to have a pissing match about absolutes, go ahead.

Simma down now, nobody's pissing on your eq parade. Sorry if any of us came off as putting you down, if it's working then way to go man. However I thought my way was working for 3 years until I tried somebody elses way and then I found out my way wasn't as good as it could've been. Seriously, if you haven't read badmuckingfastard do it. I had no faith in doing things slippy's way but when I finally did I found out that it works so much better than my way. I'm glad your way works for you though and I'm actually going to listen to your stuff when I get home.

 

[giraffe]

Most times yes, but you can also get some cool sounds with mics being slightly out of phase too. Just make certain that it's an intentional use of phasing or done serendipitously.

yea, it's possible that the use of caps was going a bit far.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to masteringhouse again.