Too Much EQ?

T

TheLemonAid

New member
Good day everyone!

I use Logic Pro 9 to process my recordings. Right now I am recording an own composition, and since I am still relatively new to recording, mixing and mastering, I have a tendency to experiment a lot with the possibilities.

At the current moment, I am mixing the guitar for my song. It's a singer-songwriter type of thing, I recorded it on a classical guitar because I don't have an acoustic steel string guitar yet. It's a finger-picking piece.

Obviously, I try to get it to sound as good as I can now. In the process I do use a lot of EQ, and I am just wondering whether that's a good thing or not. I end up with a couple of EQs in a single channel. For instance, I open up an EQ first, put a highpass on it, use the peak bands to cut down on the unwanted frequencies, but there are only some 4 or 5 peak bands in a single EQ, so I open up another one to cut out more of the unwanted frequencies. This repeats until I have the signal traveling through some 10 EQs, and then I do the compression and all that follows.

I want to know whether that's ok, or if I should really change that "habit". I actually have a feeling that I am committing some kind of heavy mixing crime here... :o

I've included a photo so it's easier for you to see what I mean: Screen Shot 2012-12-05 at 2.53.33 PM.png

Thanks you!

Keep Music Alive, as usual :guitar:
 
99 times out of 100 one eq is enough for me.
Once in a blue moon I'll daisy chain 2, but usually because I've set automation that I like then realise I need a broad boost or something.

Ten in a row? Somethings wrong, IMO.

It's easy for me to say but the goal is to record in such a way that you don't need eq at all.
Doesn't happen often I'm sure, but that's the goal.

Can you post a before and after clip to hear what you're working with?
Perhaps there's a fundamental issue that can be resolved another way.

To directly answer your question, there is no right or wrong. You're not breaking any rules or committing any crimes, but I'd definitely look for an alternative.
 
The general rule is: if it sounds good, then it is good. However, your approach is processor intensive and you can probably achieve the same with fewer EQ instances and/or by improving your recording techniques and/or recording environment.

Like Steeno says, post a before and after processing clip to give an idea of what you're working with.
 
but there are only some 4 or 5 peak bands in a single EQ
Click to expand...
I'd submit that you're probably far off from the right core sound if you need EQ for anything more than a "nip-tuck tailoring" of a guitar tone.
 
I would say that if you have to use all these eqs, there was certainly a problem at the micing stage. If you get it right at the recording, you may have to cut here and there, and gently boost at maybe one or 2 spot. My suggestion is that when recording, have already some kind of idea of your mix in mind. In fact, even at the arrangement stage, I have already the mix in my head. For sure, things will change and move, but the decisions that you'll made may still help you more for the subsequent step that is mixing.
To give you an idea, normally, on a track I'll use the shelving filters and cut maybe at 1 or 2 place. After that, I'll boost where it's needed.
I normally use 2 eq plugs: one for the corrections and the other one for the boosting, wich I'll use for the "color" I'm looking for....I.e a pultech, Api, Neve etc...

Funnily, regarding your request in this post, I'm supposed to post today (in about an hour) an article on my blog about subtractive eq'ing (this will be the second of series of 3 articles). Obviously, you will be more than welcome, if it can help you (see the link below).
 
Looks like judgment day came early for me! But forgive me for my crimes!

@Mindsound, your blog is open in a new tab as we speak I'll check it out for sure!

Thank you for your advice! It's clear that I should approach my eq-ing differently. I'll listen to all of your recommendations.

I've bounced two 10 second samples, one with the 10 EQs and one with a totally clean signal. I've also bypassed compression, reverbs and all that, just to focus on the EQ. Just for clarity, the sample without EQ is called "EQ-less" and the sample with EQ is called "EQ-full", excuse my obscure vocab-humor.

View attachment EQ-less (Without EQ).mp3
View attachment EQ-full (With EQ).mp3

Thanks again!

Edit: Honestly, now that I freshly listened to it after the bounce... I hear that the one with EQ is missing quite a lot of important tones...

Remember to keep music alive
 
Last edited:
The EQ~full one sounds alot worse in my opinion. It's like all the fullness of it's balls have been stripped away to leave mere droplets.
 
grimtraveller said:
The EQ~full one sounds alot worse in my opinion. It's like all the fullness of it's balls have been stripped away to leave mere droplets.
Click to expand...

I agree - I only listened on my laptop speakers, but it sounded fuller to me. However, in the mix, it might work better, I guess.
 
As the others mention, you have the proof that you don't have to eq excessively. By the way, as Massive master point out, your naked track sound enough good to mixing it. So don't worry that much.
Happy if my recommendations help you in any way.
 
Alright, thanks for all the help guys! I'll re-eq, the stuff with some 90% less eq-ing :thumbs up:

Do you also think that there's some major changes I should do during my recording stage?

keep music alive
 
Make sure you KNOW your listening environment before you start doing anything drastic with an eq. Too often, your room is influencing the sound which is causing you to make decisions about how stuff sounds, and these decisions will often not translate to other listening environments.
 
That's actually a very good point. Because, I don't have monitors. Yes. Quite a necessity that's missing from my gear. So, I have to make the best of what I have: €30 computer speakers, standard speakers on my laptop (it's a mac, so they sound relatively good, probably due to the aluminium casing), good panasonic headphones and vic-firth drumming headphones (which apparently produce a flat frequency response and can be used for monitoring). I just constantly check between the 4 different "outputs", for the lack of a better word, during mixing to get the best sound. But I know that I really need monitors, I will get a pair asap.
 
Yup, too much EQ. The first clip without EQ sounds great. The EQ'ed track sounds bad.

I suspect that your problem lies in your monitoring environment.

Cheers :)
 
I'm interested in why you felt the need to EQ the guitar in the first place. I think un EQ'd it sounded good.
Do you sometimes EQ because you feel you have to, that it's the done thing ? It's a mindset that's easy to get into and hard to get out of. I've found that sometimes. I might have a raw guitar sound that I actually like but find myself EQ~ing it anyway and then I just stop and ask myself "why am I doing this when I already like it ?".
 
Grim, I think it's because he doesn't have good set of monitors or headphones around. I bet the headphones are heavy at bass and he needed to turn down the lows. ...and got thin sound.

I didn't see anyone mentioning it, but after eq'ing you might want to turn off the eq and see if the signal did get any better or not. If not, start over. ;)
 
Yeah I think it's down to my poor monitoring environment quite a lot and indeed, especially for a beginner like me, it's a try and try again process. Also, just as Grim said, I do start eq-ing just because it [should/I] be done. I should listen to my ears more... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top