I know I am seeing alot of different posts on here about working with EQ, but the discussion I am thinking I would personally like to see is one of how much you eq. I mean it is prett easy to figure out what range something is in, or it is to me at least, but I am wondering to what extremes folks take EQ. Are we talking a few db difference, or are we talking some radical changes? One thing that I do is take a eq curve and move the peaks around till the channel sounds cool; what is your oppinion of this sort of thing. I mean I am cutting and boosting pretty heavily in what I am working on now, but I am still not happy with what I am doing, it's all a little muddy still (even though this is a charactoristic of the band). More than anything I am just wondering HOW MUCH folks EQ.
EQing Levels (yes even more EQ)
- Thread starter Bondo
- Start date
just as a general rule for myself...if i find myself cutting/notching out more than 4 db an the EQ,.......i didnt track it right.
when boosting eq.....i try not to boost more than 2 db, and thats if i even boost at all! ill try to compinsate by cutting rather than boosting.
use soft "Q's" for general cutting, and narrow "Q's" for cutting specific problem, frequencys or ringing feedback etc.......
if it looks like it was a radical change, ill re-record the track and either change gear, or move the mic to capture a differnt tone in what im trying to get.
the only radical change ill apply to EQing is to total alter the tone on purpose.......for example....to get the famous 'telephone' sound....boost 1k and pull out all highs and lows around that frequency. now thats radical!
when boosting eq.....i try not to boost more than 2 db, and thats if i even boost at all! ill try to compinsate by cutting rather than boosting.
use soft "Q's" for general cutting, and narrow "Q's" for cutting specific problem, frequencys or ringing feedback etc.......
if it looks like it was a radical change, ill re-record the track and either change gear, or move the mic to capture a differnt tone in what im trying to get.
the only radical change ill apply to EQing is to total alter the tone on purpose.......for example....to get the famous 'telephone' sound....boost 1k and pull out all highs and lows around that frequency. now thats radical!
CIRO
Eu mesmo
Glen gaves the "right" answer on another thread:
Ears
For example,When I record guitar on my POD Line 6, I EQ THE HELL on mids but thats a matter of experience with principally guitar sound (cause I´m first a guitarrist and don´t like POD eq).
(I try, for example, few Dbs on 1 k , try a little more on another "mid/hi critical" frequencie, cut lows/mid lows...even find the sound I want)
(note that I´m talking about software eq, and I aplly these "changes " on
"monitoring" option).
That´s MY WAY... (cause "frequencie instruments" that you see on manuals,are only a guide, usually "falls short" if you follow as a "rigid rule").
But as you know, without good monitoring and room, these decisions are very dificult.How many times I cut lows/mid lows and compress a voice (for example) and after hear on another (good) monitoring....voice was ok without no effect?
Monitoring (and ear
)issues...
Ciro
.
Ears
For example,When I record guitar on my POD Line 6, I EQ THE HELL on mids but thats a matter of experience with principally guitar sound (cause I´m first a guitarrist and don´t like POD eq).
(I try, for example, few Dbs on 1 k , try a little more on another "mid/hi critical" frequencie, cut lows/mid lows...even find the sound I want)
(note that I´m talking about software eq, and I aplly these "changes " on
"monitoring" option).
That´s MY WAY... (cause "frequencie instruments" that you see on manuals,are only a guide, usually "falls short" if you follow as a "rigid rule").
But as you know, without good monitoring and room, these decisions are very dificult.How many times I cut lows/mid lows and compress a voice (for example) and after hear on another (good) monitoring....voice was ok without no effect?
Monitoring (and ear
)issues...Ciro
.
CIRO
Eu mesmo
My acoustic/eletric guitar Washburn is another case (altough I obvously prefer record with a mic) that,if recorded in line "flat" has terrible results, with boomy bass , no mid, excessive higs....
"Strong" Eq on some critical points (that my ears knows what are) gives me a good sound.
"Strong" Eq on some critical points (that my ears knows what are) gives me a good sound.
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
The way I see it, it depends on just what you're looking for in sound you want from your instruments. If you're looking to get a sound that its just not possible - or at least extremely difficult - to get from your instruments and their associated gear (pedals, amps, mutes, etc.) because it's not a sound that they are really designed to produce, then heavy EQ is probably a necessity to distort their "natural" (for lack of a better word) sound.
However, if you're looking to get a good recording of your instruments without necessarily bending them into something from a Star Wars cantina band, then you're best off getting that sound via proper tracking that requires a minimum of EQ. Using excessive EQ to try to correct a bad tracking job and get a recording to sound "right" is a fool's quest.
Shortly put; use extreme EQ to make things sound different, not to make them sound better.
G.
However, if you're looking to get a good recording of your instruments without necessarily bending them into something from a Star Wars cantina band, then you're best off getting that sound via proper tracking that requires a minimum of EQ. Using excessive EQ to try to correct a bad tracking job and get a recording to sound "right" is a fool's quest.
Shortly put; use extreme EQ to make things sound different, not to make them sound better.
G.
Ironklad Audio
New member
#1 rule when EQ'ing for a full mix:
cut before you boost!
cut before you boost!
EQing uses selective phase cancellation to cut frequencies....
The more you EQ the more you risk screwing up your phase. You should try your best to get your sounds to tape, but if you have to EQ then cutting is your best option because you're taking away the bad, not adding something that doesn't exist.
There's no general rules about how much EQ to use, except if it sounds good then its good.
The more you EQ the more you risk screwing up your phase. You should try your best to get your sounds to tape, but if you have to EQ then cutting is your best option because you're taking away the bad, not adding something that doesn't exist.
There's no general rules about how much EQ to use, except if it sounds good then its good.
I forgot to add...
Don't EQ with tracks solo'd. Every track effects the others. I think it's best to start off with kick, snare, and bass in a typical rock situation, and get that sounding great then add in overheads and the rest of the drums..
Once you get a solid rythmn section the rest will come with ease.
Don't EQ with tracks solo'd. Every track effects the others. I think it's best to start off with kick, snare, and bass in a typical rock situation, and get that sounding great then add in overheads and the rest of the drums..
Once you get a solid rythmn section the rest will come with ease.
RedStone
Member
list your gear
List your gear and instruments for this reason:
If you are using dynamic mics, or cheap condensers to record your music, you will already have a muddy sound as these types of microphones typically can't reproudce high end like a nice condenser microphone.
And if you have a muddy sound overall, this means one of two things (I'm sort of flying off the top of my head, so someone correct me if I'm wrong) .... The first scenario is that more than one instrument is causing build-ups in the fourth octave (between 160 and 320 hz), which means you have to cut in that area for each instrument that has too much presence there - which is ....... not all that easy to figure out, as each instrument will need a different, but fairly specific cut ...
the converse to that is that the mix actually lacks high end (9th octave) and so it seems muddy, which means that you have to boost in here.
So, the long and short for me is that I only EQ if I have to --- low and high pass filters, and some notching to get rid of swells.
hope that makes sense ....
Ryan
List your gear and instruments for this reason:
If you are using dynamic mics, or cheap condensers to record your music, you will already have a muddy sound as these types of microphones typically can't reproudce high end like a nice condenser microphone.
And if you have a muddy sound overall, this means one of two things (I'm sort of flying off the top of my head, so someone correct me if I'm wrong) .... The first scenario is that more than one instrument is causing build-ups in the fourth octave (between 160 and 320 hz), which means you have to cut in that area for each instrument that has too much presence there - which is ....... not all that easy to figure out, as each instrument will need a different, but fairly specific cut ...
the converse to that is that the mix actually lacks high end (9th octave) and so it seems muddy, which means that you have to boost in here.
So, the long and short for me is that I only EQ if I have to --- low and high pass filters, and some notching to get rid of swells.
hope that makes sense ....
Ryan
RedStone
Member
Bondo said:
well, yes and no .... if you have access to each individual instrument, then I would assume it more rewarding in the end to apply the boosts/cuts to the instruments/elements themselves as you listen to the overall mix.
I would listen specifically for what is making the mudd - is there too much bass, do the drums sound like cardboard, are the guitars bright enough or too bassy, are the vocals lacking presence or are there several things at work (i.e. three or four things all contributing to that muddy sound .... which is usually the case - but who really knows who hasn't heard the track)
Messing with the overall mix (as in a single stereo wave file) can teach alot about what does what and where as far as EQing goes ... you can play little mind games like "if I cut a bunch out (like 6-12dB at 250hz, what do I hear being cut out and what begins to stand out more"), but in the end - messing with the mix like that is hinting toward mastering, not mixing.