What's going on with this FX?

spantini

spantini

COO of me, inc.
Would someone please explain what's going on behind the curtain here.

I added one instance of Reaper's ReaEQ to a guitar track using a 'Close Mic Acoustic' preset. This cleaned it up nicely.

Then I added an identical second instance of ReaEQ. This brightened things up considerably - like pulling a wet blanket aside.

All settings in each FX are identical.

Why is the second ReaEQ, combined with the first, making the sound so much brighter.. cleaner?

ReaEQ.jpg
 
So why use -3 and -3 on separate ReaEQs, why not -6 on a single ReaEQ?

My guess, they multiply against each other . Not add.
 
Wait spantini have you tried -6 with a single ReaEQ? Will that make the same dynamics as -3 and -3?

What are you saying?

Save CPU speed with less VSTs running.
 
Exactly, you doubled the low cuts and double the high end boost. Yes it will be brighter, but also thinner. As was suggested, you can simply double the cut or boost in one of the EQs and delete the other one.
 
I had thought of doubling the boosts/cuts on a single FX, but when I look at them I see #1 at 0.0 dB.. #2 also 0.0 dB, though they are visually below that. I'd just be eyeballing those two.

So I'm missing something and would like to know what's going on in there. Maybe stacking them doesn't ADD. Maybe it's exponential..? Like an old school stereo's volume control..? I dunno.
 
The 2nd ReaEQ is showing 4.3 db gain boost on the side slider there. Is the first ReaEQ boosted +4.3?

Are you sure it adds the EQ maps in series?

This is a perfect time to post a clip of the situation, so's we can dissect it.
 
The first one is a high pass filter, so you would need to double the "bandwidth", which in the case of a high pass filter would probably be slope. Looking at the picture #2 is doing nothing. #3 is doing something, so double that. #4 is a boost, double that.
 
Some filters, like that high pass filter, are sort of special. In theory, if you cut the bandwidth in half it will make it steeper, but an odd thing happens if you go too steep. There will be a boost around the cutoff frequency that gets taller and narrower as you make the filter steeper. I don't think making that filter steeper is going to have a large effect on the sound you hear, so I'd leave it as is and just double the other two filter gain values.
 
Farview said:
The first one is a high pass filter, so you would need to double the "bandwidth", which in the case of a high pass filter would probably be slope. Looking at the picture #2 is doing nothing. #3 is doing something, so double that. #4 is a boost, double that.
Click to expand...
bouldersoundguy said:
Some filters, like that high pass filter, are sort of special... so I'd leave it as is and just double the other two filter gain values.
Click to expand...

I think I see what's going on here. #1 being a High Pass, I should ignore the 0.0 dB setting below - it's not relevant for this experimental comparison. But.. #2, #3 and #4 are Alt Bands whose dB settings are reflected correctly below. The 0.0 dB setting for #2 is correct (the #2 icon is on the 0 line) but the #1 High Pass is warping the wave under #2's icon downward, below 0.0 dB. It's an illusion of sorts.

So.. I'll leave #1 and #2 at 0.0 dB, then double #3 and #4 - that should provide the correct comparison.

I'll be bach..
 
Yes, the HPF and LPF filters ignore the dB value. It's only a matter of frequency and slope. You "could" double the slope steepness (halve the width of the filter in octaves), but it will probably start doing that boost thing that I mentioned.
 
You could add another highpass band exactly the same as the first to get the actual same effect as putting two instances in series. It will definitely make a difference compared to just the single hpf.

edit - like, if band 2 really isn’t doing anything, convert it to a highpass set to the same frequency as band 1.
 


This is two acoustic guitar tracks, one 100% Left, one 100% Right. The following EQs are applied to both equally. I placed these in order of perceived increases in volume, so the one with doubled band gains wound up in the middle at number three. That surprised me as I would have bet that one would have been the loudest.

The first section from 1.1.00 to 5.200 (@ 0 sec) is flat EQ - no FX.

The second section from 5.2.00 to 9.2.00 (@ 10 sec) has one instance of ReaEQ using 'Close Mic Acoustic' preset.

The third section from 9.2.00 to 13.2.00 (@ 19 sec) has one instance of ReaEQ 'Close Mic Acoustic' preset but bands #2 & #4 have been doubled. Almost no discernable difference here.

The fourth section from 13.2.00 to 17.0.00 (@26 sec) has two instances of ReaEQ chained using 'Close Mic Acoustic' preset with all bands as is (half of previous section). This is the loudest by far.

The fourth section has two ReaEQ chained - the third section has a single ReaEQ with bands 3 & 4 doubled. The doubling in that single EQ does not equal the two chained EQs. The fourth section with two ReaEQs on each guitar is quite a bit louder.

The output gain on all EQs has been set to 4.3 and no changes were made to any of the band's settings other than to double # 3 & # 4 in the third section.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top