Seeking virtual multiband EQ for.....

[NRS]

Hey all,
I know theres no shortage of multi band EQ plugins out there for multi track programs, however I'm looking more for something thats designed to work permanently in the background with my soundcard to tune my overall system response reguardless of what programs I'm running. I currently have a Soundblaster live 5.1 and a SB Audigy on my two PC's but even with thier respective software installed, I'm still left with only the basic hi and lo shelving options that windows offers.

Freeware would be preferred in this instance of coarse but so long as its substancially cheaper than having to purchace an actual second hand outboard harware EQ, it would still be worth it.

thanks

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm not aware of anything that'll act like a TSR to control the EQ of your soundcard output. I think the best you could so is play back your mixes in a player like Winamp or iTunes that as it's own on-board EQ. I know that's not going to help you while you're mixing, but...

I think the more important question here is what is the problem that you believe the EQ will solve? If you're trying to overcome either an audio monitor deficiency or a room acoustics deficinecy - and it's probably a bit of both - throwing some "corrective EQ" on the playback is - to be honest - not really going to make it any better.

The problem is that such deficiencies in the playback chain are going to be too finely detailed for a graphic EQ to be able to correct with any more accuracy than the deficiencies you have now; i.e. all you'll be doing is changing the color of the deficiencies. You might be able to attack the problem a little bit better with multiband parametric EQ, but without an accurate measurement of your room's spectral response, you'll have no map as to how to set such an EQ. Besides, all the EQ in the world isn't going to help if your problem is in acoustics or in frequencies your speakers just can't deal with.

G.

 

[NRS]

I actually have yet to determine what the exact moniter/room deficiancies are going to be but will know soon enough as I already have an ECM8000 measurement mic on order and have downloaded some trial software to use with it. I was just thinking ahead a little with the EQ part in case I needed it.

I'm a still a bit confused by what you refer to as the mere "coloration of frequencies" vs. the real ability to actually flatten the sound with EQ though. Although I absolutely understand the concept of good quality moniters in an acoustically treated environment and know thats the first place to start, I still dont quite get how EQ wouldnt further help compensate for any leftover problem frequencies that your room treatment didnt fix assuming your speakers were capable of generating such frequncies.

So you mean to say even if I could completely flatten out the spectrum anaylsis of my room on the chart by using EQ with a pink noise generator and measurement mic, that the flat response I may be getting may not actually be truely flat, only colored???? I always thought EQ in this application was common and saw it as more a colorless, passive, multi band resitance tool just for flattening fequency response. What else might I be missing?

 

[RAMI]

Why don't you spend the money you would spend on an EQ that won't help your mixes, and invest it in room treatment? Treat the problem from the source instead of buying a band-aid.

 

[noisewreck]

Even if you could theoretically "flatten out" the responce with an EQ, (which is practically impossible) EQs don't come without their own problems. You might be able to fix the frequency responce, but you'll also likely introduce phase anomalies that would make your monitoring environment sound unfocused. Also, it will not treat issues such as standing waves, unwanted room reflections, etc.

In an untreated room, or a not well treated room, the frequency responce is highly dependent on where your location is in the room as even a shift of a couple of millimiters of your head (basically pretty much breathing) will cause frequency shifts. You can hear this very easily BTW, just sit in your monitoring position, playback some steady synth tone that's rich in harmonics, and move your head a bit. You'll hear the phasing effect I'm talking about.

 

[NRS]

Why don't you spend the money you would spend on an EQ that won't help your mixes, and invest it in room treatment? Treat the problem from the source instead of buying a band-aid.

Although I realize thats probably the first and best possible solution most people are going to recommend, there are 3 reasons I would also consider EQ

1. To further tweak what frequencies your room treatment may not correct.

2. To have the flexability go mobile with a laptop and possibly still master your mixes accurately in less than ideal environments.

3. Affordability: A $20-$30 virtual software EQ is a fraction of what expensive room treatment costs

As I said, I wont know what my exact needs are till I test the room but would still like the option either way. I really consider it more a possible suppliment to room treatment than a replacement for it.

 

[mshilarious]

I'll add my voice to the opinions that you are taking the wrong approach. First, note carefully the comment above about room response and position. You can't EQ away a room problem at more than a single location. Even if you "fix" your mix position, you will still suffer from the same type of problem when you track in various places in the room, and that is not so easily fixed with EQ.

I also don't think you understand how severe room issues can be. You will, when you get that mic and test software. You may well find that your mix position is +4dB at 50Hz, -6dB at 60Hz, flat at 70Khz, and +3 at 80Hz. That would not be unusual, and if you try that level of detail in an EQ correction . . . well, try it and you'll see.

Probably 75% of the mixes I work on that come out of similar rooms have two issues: first, the bass frequencies are totally off. Most people do not try detailed corrections to the low frequencies, which is a good thing for further processing, because if you applied the corrections above to a mix, you would likely destroy it beyond repair. So instead there is just a general inappropriate level, because the recordist didn't really know what was going on in the bass.

Second, there is often an accumulation of sibilance/harshness in the 3-4kHz range, probably from the use of microphones that accentuate those frequencies. That could be corrected in the mix, but maybe when people are monitoring on small nearfields that are less than 3' from your head (in an attempt to reduce the acoustic problems of the room), their ears get fried and they can't be objective about their mixes anymore. I dunno, it's a bit of a mystery to me

Both problems have their source in acoustically bad rooms. If you want to make every track you cut and every mix you do sound better, work on your room.

It doesn't have to be that expensive, check into the Studio Building board where we discuss how cheap bastards such as myself can DIY superior treatments for a fraction of the cost of commercial foam.

 

[danny.guitar]

You can also buy already-made panels for pretty cheap here:
http://www.atsacoustics.com/cat--ATS-Acoustic-Panels--100.html

I (tried) to make one myself and the total (including the prices of 703) was actually a little more than those panels which are pre-built.

If you're broke, like me, then just buy one a week or something. Maybe start with the 4" bass trap panels and get the bass somewhat under control in the corners and go from there.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm a still a bit confused by what you refer to as the mere "coloration of frequencies" vs. the real ability to actually flatten the sound with EQ though.

There are several issues involved, a few of which Noisewreck and MSHilarious already hit upon. But to answer the above question directly:

First, even if you go with a full 1/3rd octave graphic EQ (31 bands), the resolution is still not necessarily fine enough and the center frequencies of each ban not necessarily targeted enough to be able to "flatten" the room response. For an example pulled out of a hat, you might be sitting in a null at 280Hz that's only 20Hz wide. With the nearest bands at 250 and 315Hz, you couldn't target that null at all. And even if the null were right on 250Hz, the bandwidth of the EQ band is not going to match the bandwidth of the null; you'll be artifically boosting a lot of surrounding frequencies just to try and pull that null out of the hole. It's like a bubble under plastic; flatten it here and it pops back up elsewhere.

With a parametric you might be able to attack that null, but there are a limited number of frequencies that you can attack with a parametric EQ because there's going to be a limited number of bands of EQ available to you. Still no flattening of the response at hand.

Second, and perhaps most important, things like bass and midrange nodes in room response are properties of the room, and not of the playback system. Trying to attack them with EQ will have little to no effect because the modes will still be there. Think of them as room resonances (which is what they really are.) There will be some frequencies that at certain locations in the room - including potentially your monitoring position - just will not reproduce or will reproduce too well, regardless of your attempts to EQ them out. And in another form of that plastic bubble analogy, if you do manage to even out a given trough in the room resonance, you are boosting way out of line that same frequency in the nearby resonant crest, which can sometimes be a matter of inches away. Move your head 6 inces to one side or another and all of a sudden your "flat" rsponse is honking out at you like a French ambulance siren .

Your heart and mind are in the right place, but the "fix" you have in mind just won't work quite the way you think it will. Many have been down that path before you; you might get a mix to sound good in that room, but chances are far better than not that it just won't translate well to the outside world.

Room treatment doesn't necessarily have to be expensive. There are lots of homebrew solutions that can work great; sometimes just moving a piece of furniture a bit can make all the difference in the world. Other times a quick trip to Home Depot for some Owens Corning fiberglass or a cheapo bookshelf, nether of which will cost much at all, can give you just what you need to get your room manageable.

Finally, I'd think hard about the idea of "mobile mastering". "Mastering" is something that should be done under at least understood - and preferably controlled - acoustic curcumstances. Taking a laptop to an unknown room to master a production is like taking a patient into an unknown room to perform surgery; either way you have no idea how your patient will become contaminated .

If you're just hobbying around, then that's a differet story. But then again if your just hobbying around, you probably wouldn't bother spending money on accurate acoustic measurement gear . And hobby or pro, the acoustic properties of the room still cannot be very well addressed via monitoring chain EQ.

G.

 

[NRS]

Thanks guys. I needed all that. Thirty years later the six year old boy in me still needs to know WHY when I'm told something wont work.

Based on whats been said however, it seems that even with proper room treatment it would still be very difficult if not nearly impossible to ever achieve a perfectly flat frequency response in any room (and certianly not at all positions). Seems it only gets good and better to the point you can work with it but I have no doubt room treatment will improve the situation greatly.

That being said, is there any headphones out there that are actually reguarded as good enough to mix professionally on? That would certianly eliminate the environmental factor but I've read somewhere even headphone mixing is generally not recommended. Is that becuase it just not possible to make them good enough or some other reason?

Also, on kinda the same lines of my EQ question, does anyone ever overtreat a room to the point its completely acoustically dead then reintroduce a bit of reverb into the moniter chain just to emulate a more typical natural listening environment?

I could probably ask a dozen more questions on this very subject but think I'll just wait till I get the mic and do some additional reading in the meantime.

thanks again

 

[danny.guitar]

Based on whats been said however, it seems that even with proper room treatment it would still be very difficult if not nearly impossible to ever achieve a perfectly flat frequency response in any room (and certianly not at all positions). Seems it only gets good and better to the point you can work with but I have no doubt room treatment improves the situation greatly.

I don't think there's any room that has a perfectly flat response. The point is, you need to learn how to translate the mixes from your monitors/room onto other systems. It's going to take some trial & error. After awhile you'll get the hang of it. Listen to your mixes on several different systems, cars, boom boxes, etc. Burn several different mixes onto a CD and see which one sounds best. Then figure out what kind of adjustments need to be made...too bassy? Turn down the bass a little. Not enough bass? Turn it up a little.

That being said, is there any headphones out there that are actually reguarded as good enough to mix professionally on? That would certianly eliminate the environmental factor ibut I've read somewhere even headphone mixing is generally not recommended.

The problem with headphones is...regardless of how flat their frequency response is, is stereo imaging. It won't sound the same on headphones as it does in speakers, regardless of how good they are. Headphones have their purpose in mixing, but they should never be used for final judgment.

Also, on kinda the same lines of my EQ question, does anyone ever overtreat a room to the point its completely acoustically dead then reintroduce a bit of reverb into the moniter chain just to emulate more a typical natural listening environment?

I would personally advise against putting anything into the monitoring chain specifically to try and fix problems in your listening environment. I guess you could overtreat your room to the point where it's dead, but any reverb that you add later should be to make the mix sound more 'lively' or not so 'dead' rather than trying to make it a better for mixing.

So in summary, fix your room so it's ideal for mixing. At least to what your budget allows. Then work on getting those mixes to translate to other systems.