Eq

[raximus]

I wondered if any of those who are more experienced engineers can guide me on EQing. It would be great if you could include information on Drums (Kick, Snare, Toms, Cymbals), Bass Guitar, Rhythm Guitar and Vocals.

I know that different EQing depends on the sound your after, but it would be great if i could just have some guidance with it.

Cheers

James

 

[danny.guitar]

I'm no expert but I consider myself well-experienced in acoustic guitar. So if you ever find yourself trying to EQ an acoustic, this may be useful:

20-30Hz - You can roll-off these frequencies if it causes speakers to distort at higher volumes or if there is a "rumble" in your subwoofer/speakers. (Guitars (except bass obviously) don't have much energy at all below 80Hz anyway).

120-240Hz (and also 440Hz) - Usually the "body" of the guitar. Can make the guitar have "warmth" to it but if the guitar sounds boomy, a slight cut around this range (around -3db) can make it sound better. Be careful around this range because it can sound obviously EQ'd.

400-700Hz - In a mix with vocals or a lead guitar, you will probably want to do a slight, wide cut around this range and it will give them plenty of room. If the guitar sounds kind of muddy (especially when strummed) cutting these frequencies can help also. I never find myself boosting these frequencies at all.

1KHz - If there's vocals, do a somewhat narrow cut in this range also. It will allow the vocals to sit naturally.

4KHz-8Khz - I've boosted this area a lot to get a more airy sound and more depth. I've boosted it up to about 6db with a wide Q and it can make it sound more natural. If the recording has a lot of noise in it, you can expect that to be more noticeable also.

Take these into consideration when miking the acoustic also. If you have these guidelines in mind when recording, you will not find yourself using an EQ very often.

Hope that helps someone.

 

[Pitseleh]

I'm no expert but I consider myself well-experienced in acoustic guitar. So if you ever find yourself trying to EQ an acoustic, this may be useful:

20-30Hz - You can roll-off these frequencies if it causes speakers to distort at higher volumes or if there is a "rumble" in your subwoofer/speakers. (Guitars (except bass obviously) don't have much energy at all below 80Hz anyway).

120-240Hz (and also 440Hz) - Usually the "body" of the guitar. Can make the guitar have "warmth" to it but if the guitar sounds boomy, a slight cut around this range (around -3db) can make it sound better. Be careful around this range because it can sound obviously EQ'd.

400-700Hz - In a mix with vocals or a lead guitar, you will probably want to do a slight, wide cut around this range and it will give them plenty of room. If the guitar sounds kind of muddy (especially when strummed) cutting these frequencies can help also. I never find myself boosting these frequencies at all.

1KHz - If there's vocals, do a somewhat narrow cut in this range also. It will allow the vocals to sit naturally.

4KHz-8Khz - I've boosted this area a lot to get a more airy sound and more depth. I've boosted it up to about 6db with a wide Q and it can make it sound more natural. If the recording has a lot of noise in it, you can expect that to be more noticeable also.

Take these into consideration when miking the acoustic also. If you have these guidelines in mind when recording, you will not find yourself using an EQ very often.

Hope that helps someone.

thank you for that

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

James,

The first thing I'd recommend is some basic exercise with your EQ and your ear. With a decent 1/2 or 1/3 octave graphic EQ (hardware or software, doesn't matter), just sit down for a half hour a night for a few nights playing a variety of music throgh the EQ while you sit there and pay attention to what happens to the sound of the various instruments in the mix as you move each slider on the EQ slowly up and down.

Use this first to learn what the various frequency bands actually *sound like*. There is no substitute for actually being able to recognize what 400Hz or 4kHz (or whatever) sounds like when you hear them (and when you don't.) Learn how to recognize key frequency bands with your ears and what they sound like on the different instruments is 95% of what one needs to use EQ well, IMHO.

Second thing I'd recommend is to do a searc on these forums for the term "parametric sweep" and read up on wherever it's metioned or described. This common EQ technique is very powerful and useful for many common EQ situations, and is also an excellent way of learning and internalizing the relationship between the numbers that you see on your EQ and the sounds that you hear in your ears.

Finally, AFTER the two things above, you might want to head over to www.independentrecording.net, and in the "Online Resources" column, click on the link for the "Interactive Frequency Charts" for some *general* reference on some key frequency properties for each instrument.

IMHO, YMMV, ETC.

G.

 

[ad0lescnts]

keep in mind that boosting EQ adds phase shift to the track. Try to cut instead of boost to make something fit better in the mix.

 

[Sinistah]

James,

The first thing I'd recommend is some basic exercise with your EQ and your ear. With a decent 1/2 or 1/3 octave graphic EQ (hardware or software, doesn't matter), just sit down for a half hour a night for a few nights playing a variety of music throgh the EQ while you sit there and pay attention to what happens to the sound of the various instruments in the mix as you move each slider on the EQ slowly up and down.

Use this first to learn what the various frequency bands actually *sound like*. There is no substitute for actually being able to recognize what 400Hz or 4kHz (or whatever) sounds like when you hear them (and when you don't.) Learn how to recognize key frequency bands with your ears and what they sound like on the different instruments is 95% of what one needs to use EQ well, IMHO.

Second thing I'd recommend is to do a searc on these forums for the term "parametric sweep" and read up on wherever it's metioned or described. This common EQ technique is very powerful and useful for many common EQ situations, and is also an excellent way of learning and internalizing the relationship between the numbers that you see on your EQ and the sounds that you hear in your ears.

Finally, AFTER the two things above, you might want to head over to www.independentrecording.net, and in the "Online Resources" column, click on the link for the "Interactive Frequency Charts" for some *general* reference on some key frequency properties for each instrument.

IMHO, YMMV, ETC.

G.

for those with the "fuck a tutorial" approach to research, here is the famed chart of life......... http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

for those with the "fuck a tutorial" approach to research, here is the famed chart of life......... http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

Ummmm....same chart, same site . The only difference is that coming at it from the front page I gave instead of the direct link you gave is that the front page link will pop up the chart in a formatted and fitted window, leaving your main browser window for whatever else you may want/need it for.

G.

 

[Sinistah]

Ummmm....same chart, same site . The only difference is that coming at it from the front page I gave instead of the direct link you gave is that the front page link will pop up the chart in a formatted and fitted window, leaving your main browser window for whatever else you may want/need it for.

G.

i know it was the same chart, thats why it was for those with a "fuck a tutorial" approach towards research....... some of us have a "fuck a front page" attitude too, such as myself

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I might have to re-program that page to handle direct HTTP requests like that differently (j/k)

G.

 

[Sinistah]

I might have to re-program that page to handle direct HTTP requests like that differently (j/k)

G.

lol, you made that chart? if so pretty informative stuff.....

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

lol, you made that chart? if so pretty informative stuff.....

hee hee, Sinistah...don't the logo in my avatar and the domain name under my name look kind of familiar?

That's why there were those joking posts made by Benny, Noise and me in that other thread about the chart on the Recording forum. I personally was waiting to see how long before the newer guys in that thread (that were't around last summer or fall when I intro'd that chart to the members here) made the connection .

Enjoy the chart . There's some other resources available there too if you're interested.

G.

 

[Sinistah]

hee hee, Sinistah...don't the logo in my avatar and the domain name under my name look kind of familiar?

That's why there were those joking posts made by Benny, Noise and me in that other thread about the chart on the Recording forum. I personally was waiting to see how long before the newer guys in that thread (that were't around last summer or fall when I intro'd that chart to the members here) made the connection .

Enjoy the chart . There's some other resources available there too if you're interested.

G.

lol, i knew it was familliar, i remember the .com in your sig but wasnt too sure i probably didn't catch on earlier because i was analyzing the chart ......

i just bookmarked the site

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That's one of the things that cracks me up about the Internet; it comes with it's own form of tunnel vision sometimes. All that information available via the Net, and half of the end users don't even see what is right in front of them on their screen

G.

 

[Sinistah]

one general question too Glen, (well maybe more than one)

say if i was using a 4-band EQ on a vocal track, with the 4 bands set like this

band 1 = low-point/bass
band 2 = low-mid
band 3 = high-mid
band 4 = high-point

in regards to your chart,

you say the male vocals generally range from 120hz for fullness to 240hz for boom, i understand that raising the dB's would make the sound fatter/warmer and the opposite would thin them out at this level (i even tried it, lol)

so the low-mid frequency range of the chart wouldn't apply to vocals because it's indicated that vocal presence isn't picked up until around the 2khz mark?.....

would it be safe to place the 2nd band between the 2khz-4khz and raise it to alter the the presence and then the 3rd at about 5-9khz to work on the sibilance and clarity, then Band 4 at the high-level to enhance the sound away from Mudsville?

i just typed all that shit because i'm killing time at the day job, but my real question is, on vocal EQ'ing, hypothetically speaking on a 4-band EQ is it cool to ignore setting bands on the low-mid's because the vocal recognition doesn't start until after it gets into the high-mid level of 2khz and beyond or should i just be doing a flatline EQ all together for vocal tracks and leave the multi-band for the mixdown stage?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

one general question too Glen, (well maybe more than one)

say if i was using a 4-band EQ on a vocal track, with the 4 bands set like this

band 1 = low-point/bass
band 2 = low-mid
band 3 = high-mid
band 4 = high-point

in regards to your chart,

you say the male vocals generally range from 120hz for fullness to 240hz for boom, i understand that raising the dB's would make the sound fatter/warmer and the opposite would thin them out at this level (i even tried it, lol)

so the low-mid frequency range of the chart wouldn't apply to vocals because it's indicated that vocal presence isn't picked up until around the 2khz mark?.....

would it be safe to place the 2nd band between the 2khz-4khz and raise it to alter the the presence and then the 3rd at about 5-9khz to work on the sibilance and clarity, then Band 4 at the high-level to enhance the sound away from Mudsville?

i just typed all that shit because i'm killing time at the day job, but my real question is, on vocal EQ'ing, hypothetically speaking on a 4-band EQ is it cool to ignore setting bands on the low-mid's because the vocal recognition doesn't start until after it gets into the high-mid level of 2khz and beyond or should i just be doing a flatline EQ all together for vocal tracks and leave the multi-band for the mixdown stage?

Well, first of all, I would never recommend using those charts as a guide for setting EQ. They are a very nice tool for helping to *train the ear* to recognize certain characteristics of the various instruments as well as of the various frequencies, but any EQ decisions should be made based upon what one actually hears, not what is said in any chart or book.

I can understand the strategy you're describing, and it's not a bad place to mentally start from, perhaps. But who's to say that the vocal needs any EQ anywhere? And if it does need it, is it because the track itself is deficient or is it because it needs to be shaped to fit the rest of the mix?

I can think of a few situations offhand where I might dedicate a band of EQ to the low side of the vocals; the singer was frenching a dynamic microphone and I need to get rid of some proximity effect, there is LF vibration coming through the mic stand from the clothes dryer in the next room that I want to filter, the vocal was done on a $99 LDC that is all high end and anemic on the bass, I want to tongue-and-groove EQ doubled vocal tracks to give the doubling a bit more texture, etc.

There are just as many situations where I'll want to leave the lower registers of the vocals completly alone. The point is, there's no way that chart or any canned EQ recipe can tell anyone when or where - or even *if* - any given track or mix requires or desires any given form of EQ. The best one can do is listen to the situation at hand and plan their strategy or tactics from there. How I would want to assign 4 bands of paraEQ (or 3 bands or even one band) is going to be different for every vocal track I come across.

IMHO, YMMV, Do Not Remove This Tag Under Penalty Of Law, etc.

G.

 

[Sinistah]

Well, first of all, I would never recommend using those charts as a guide for setting EQ. They are a very nice tool for helping to *train the ear* to recognize certain characteristics of the various instruments as well as of the various frequencies, but any EQ decisions should be made based upon what one actually hears, not what is said in any chart or book.

I can understand the strategy you're describing, and it's not a bad place to mentally start from, perhaps. But who's to say that the vocal needs any EQ anywhere? And if it does need it, is it because the track itself is deficient or is it because it needs to be shaped to fit the rest of the mix?

I can think of a few situations offhand where I might dedicate a band of EQ to the low side of the vocals; the singer was frenching a dynamic microphone and I need to get rid of some proximity effect, there is LF vibration coming through the mic stand from the clothes dryer in the next room that I want to filter, the vocal was done on a $99 LDC that is all high end and anemic on the bass, I want to tongue-and-groove EQ doubled vocal tracks to give the doubling a bit more texture, etc.

There are just as many situations where I'll want to leave the lower registers of the vocals completly alone. The point is, there's no way that chart or any canned EQ recipe can tell anyone when or where - or even *if* - any given track or mix requires or desires any given form of EQ. The best one can do is listen to the situation at hand and plan their strategy or tactics from there. How I would want to assign 4 bands of paraEQ (or 3 bands or even one band) is going to be different for every vocal track I come across.

IMHO, YMMV, Do Not Remove This Tag Under Penalty Of Law, etc.

G.

oh no it was just a hypothetical question, i think i'mma remix an old track i have left in my session files, i just wanted to know if what i was describing, is a good technique towards EQ'ing vocals (if needed).......

lol, come on, i'm not just gonna go EQ for the sake of incorperation, especially when from my own experience, knowing at times the vocals might only need a touch of tight reverb to help it fit in the mix before compressing.......

i wasn't asking in hopes to find a pre-defined setting for a Multi-Band EQ, nor was i stating that your chart was the "end-all" for frequency recognition, i just used it as a settings reference for my question...

but since you mentioned it, what is this "tongue and groove" EQ thing about?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

i just wanted to know if what i was describing, is a good technique towards EQ'ing vocals (if needed).......

Well, in terms of your mentally dividing the voice into spectral slices with the knowledge that the different slices generally tend to affect different specific properties of the vocals, that's not a bad way to start your listening/analysis of the track. One thing I have learned after being here for a while, is that everybody has their own "mental picture" of sound and their own starting points that make sense to and work for them. If what you describe works for you, then yeah, I'd say it's fine.

As far as your initial question of whether one should use a parametric EQ for mixing or wait to use it for mastering, I use mine on individual tracks during mixing all the time, and in fact try to get things as right as possible before the mixdown. Sure there may be some use for some EQ after mixdown, but I personally try to keep that to a minimum. For me, if the mixdown isn't right big time, that means that the mix isn't right big time, and needs to be remixed, not fixed in the mastering.

but since you mentioned it, what is this "tongue and groove" EQ thing about?

That's kinda my slang term; usually it's referred to as "differential EQ". That referrs to the technique of EQing two or more tracks with the main EQ settings on one track being at least partially a mirror image of the EQ setings on the other track. For example, on one track you may cut a certain frequency by just a couple of dB and on the other track boost that same frequency by a couple of dB.

This can allow the two tracks to "fit together" a little better, like jigsaw puzzle pieces, without having to drastically change the EQ of either track individually so that it sounds radically different.

G.

 

[Sinistah]

Well, in terms of your mentally dividing the voice into spectral slices with the knowledge that the different slices generally tend to affect different specific properties of the vocals, that's not a bad way to start your listening/analysis of the track. One thing I have learned after being here for a while, is that everybody has their own "mental picture" of sound and their own starting points that make sense to and work for them. If what you describe works for you, then yeah, I'd say it's fine.

As far as your initial question of whether one should use a parametric EQ for mixing or wait to use it for mastering, I use mine on individual tracks during mixing all the time, and in fact try to get things as right as possible before the mixdown. Sure there may be some use for some EQ after mixdown, but I personally try to keep that to a minimum. For me, if the mixdown isn't right big time, that means that the mix isn't right big time, and needs to be remixed, not fixed in the mastering.That's kinda my slang term; usually it's referred to as "differential EQ". That referrs to the technique of EQing two or more tracks with the main EQ settings on one track being at least partially a mirror image of the EQ setings on the other track. For example, on one track you may cut a certain frequency by just a couple of dB and on the other track boost that same frequency by a couple of dB.

This can allow the two tracks to "fit together" a little better, like jigsaw puzzle pieces, without having to drastically change the EQ of either track individually so that it sounds radically different.

G.

oh ok, i think i was introduced to the "tongue in cheek" EQ technique the other day.... i know exactly what ya mean by that now

i think i got my technique str8, the bands are for the seperation/definition of wave frequencies you want to deal with...... the dB's are obvious, but now it's this Q setting that i have the most issue with and i actually don't mess with it because i still dont fully understand it's purpose....... got any breif info on the purpose of the Q, i understand it's for the EQ curve or something like that, but when should it be applied (made bigger, made smaller, etc.)

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

got any breif info on the purpose of the Q, i understand it's for the EQ curve or something like that, but when should it be applied (made bigger, made smaller, etc.)

Q just refers to the frequency width that particular band will affect.

The higher the Q value, the smaller/tighter the bandwidth that the control will affect and the narrower/sharper the curve, like a sharp mountain peak.

The smaller the Q value, the wider/looser the bandwidth and the wider/gentler the curve, like a gentle hill.

Use it as you see fit; if you need to attack a specific problem frequency, use narrow Q. If you need to do some gentle general shaping, use a wider Q.

G.

 

[IronFlippy]

Q just refers to the frequency width that particular band will affect.

The higher the Q value, the smaller/tighter the bandwidth that the control will affect and the narrower/sharper the curve, like a sharp mountain peak.

The smaller the Q value, the wider/looser the bandwidth and the wider/gentler the curve, like a gentle hill.

Use it as you see fit; if you need to attack a specific problem frequency, use narrow Q. If you need to do some gentle general shaping, use a wider Q.

G.

More precisely, Q is 1/octave. So a Q of 1 covers a range of an octave, 2 is a half octave, etc.

danny.guitar, thanks for the helpful info at the beginning of this thread.