eqing question

P

polarity

New member
Can someone take a look at the start of this video

Home Studio - PreSonus Studio One 2 Lead Vocal Mixing Work Flow - YouTube

He is talking about EQing and I asked yesterday about when you bump a frequency and listen for these sounds "you don't like" is what I've always heard. I can hear clearly in there a couple of the ones he's removing have this weird sound when he gets to them, is that what we're listening for?

It's not my video, I don't own it or know the guy in it.
 
It's a way to help you find the problem frequencies.

Basically he's setting a parametric EQ to boost a relatively narrow band of frequencies then using the centre frequency control to sweep through an area where he thinks there might be problems. When you hear it get really bad, you know that's the frequency you don't like and you use the EQ gain control to CUT the problem frequency you just found by using the boost.

It's just that it's often easier to hear a boosted problem than a fix for that problem.
 
Got ya, I've been working on learning EQing and I knew I was listening for something and I've heard those types of sounds several times but I assumed that was just because I had jacked up the gain on that frequency of course I was going to hear it strangely. In that video though it seemed very clear and I instantly felt like an idiot. Then I wanted to make sure this was correct.

Thanks for the answer Bobbsy
 
polarity said:
I assumed that was just because I had jacked up the gain on that frequency of course I was going to hear it strangely.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, but I think the technique depends on you having this 'I know something's wrong but I can't just pinpoint it' feeling.
If you're getting that, then scanning with a narrow band should lead to the eureka moment.

It's not something I'd do often. With vocals, for example, I usually know pretty much what I want to do.

Maybe I'd scan like that to pinpoint the ringing of a snare or something?
 
There's also a difference between "sounding weird" and "ice pick through your temple that blocks out everything else like a dark brown cloud of crap". The latter is what you're scanning for.
 
I tend to use it more for live work than in the studio...dunno why. However, it can be a good way to teach yourself how to listen for frequencies. After a while you can just go to them rather than use the boost/sweep method.
 
For me, studio vocals don't really require any fancy eq. I'll be rolling off at 100-140hz and giving a little boost around 1k most often than not.
That's just me/my room/my mics.

Beyond that, lately I've been tailoring the eq on the way to reverb, rather than eqing the actual vocal track.
If the vocal needs a little more presence during the mix, I'll brighten the 'room'.
 
Hmm, if you feel like explaining more on that steeno I'd love to hear it. Kind of a what and why type question. Why on the way to the reverb instead of on the track? What types of changes there and how does it differ from what you would have done before.

If not, I know you're a busy man.
 
polarity said:
If not, I know you're a busy man.
Click to expand...

I wish I was. :facepalm:


Don't take any of this as gospel; It's just what I've been doing lately.

I figure I throw up a mic and some dampening panels and the sound is 90% there.
As I say, I may roll off the bass a little which is pretty normal.

Usually I have my vocal track with eq and comp, then a send to another track with eq and reverb.
The reverb is 100% wet.
The reason I have an eq before the verb is because more often than not I like to drop the mids and bass going to a reverb.
That can make it a lot less muddy.


Sometimes as the mix builds up, the vocals can get lost a little bit so I figure it might sound more natural to leave the raw track as is and make the ambience around it brighter.
I've only started doing it recently but it seems a lot more natural than hyping the high end of the dry vocal track.

I use exactly the same technique with delay, if I'm using delay. Here's a recent reference track.

I guess it works because we're talking about pretty subtle changes.
You could argue that if you need major eq on the vocal, there's something wrong in the room.
 
That sounds pretty awesome to me. Like the song too! What kind of mic was used on the vocals?

And if I get what you're saying you pretty much just roll off some bass on the main vocal track. Then are you duplicating the track and rolling off mids and bass before the verb so it is bright and not so muddy. Or are you doing that with sends to an aux bus? Beginner questions I know but want to make sure I'm understanding it right.
 
polarity said:
That sounds pretty awesome to me. Like the song too! What kind of mic was used on the vocals?
Click to expand...

Gearslutz favourite - SM7B! :p



polarity said:
And if I get what you're saying you pretty much just roll off some bass on the main vocal track.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for most dense mixes I find sub 120/130 to be unnecessary boom.



polarity said:
Then are you duplicating the track and rolling off mids and bass before the verb so it is bright and not so muddy. Or are you doing that with sends to an aux bus? Beginner questions I know but want to make sure I'm understanding it right.
Click to expand...

I use sends personally, but I guess duplicating works just the same.
Some reverbs actually have eq built in - Something to look out for.
 
awesome man, thanks for taking the time to explain that. That vocal sounds very clean and clear, very nice. I guess sm7b will go on my gotta have it list haha. I'll make sure the wife knows this is your fault.
 
Hehe. Cool.
Keep in mind it's horses for courses. Sm7b might suck on your voice in your room with your gear, or it could be the best thing since...

If you have a 58 give it a blast. They're not that similar, but I guess if you like one you'll probably love the other.
 
Yeah I have a 58 and like it, it was actually way more flattering than I expected. I kind of expected general work horse mic with ok sound and that's why it's always used. I was really happy with how it sounds.

I've been really enjoying my AKG c214 lately, it sounds deep and rich. I'll use any excuse I can to pickup more stuff though
 
Steenamaroo said:
The reason I have an eq before the verb is because more often than not I like to drop the mids and bass going to a reverb.
That can make it a lot less muddy.


Sometimes as the mix builds up, the vocals can get lost a little bit so I figure it might sound more natural to leave the raw track as is and make the ambience around it brighter.
I've only started doing it recently but it seems a lot more natural than hyping the high end of the dry vocal track.
Click to expand...

You could just set the EQ at the reverb plug/unit if it has the option (my hardware units do)...that way it's set for any/all signals sent to it.
That said...it's not really "more natural" for the highs to be prominent on reverbs, as that's what would naturaly dissappear first, with the lows lingering the most...so I wouldn't go too crazy rolling off the lows, but yeah, sometimes the chosen reverb patches can seem rather boomy when you get them loud enough to where you hear a decent reverb level.
I find that the things that help with getting the vocal to sit out when using reverb, are pre-delay and reverb time. Many presets are often too long, and tend to swell up when you want them to tail off before the next word/phrase.

Anyway, it's all reverb type and production taste relative... :)
 
miroslav said:
I find that the things that help with getting the vocal to sit out when using reverb, are pre-delay and reverb time. Many presets are often too long, and tend to swell up when you want them to tail off before the next word/phrase.
Click to expand...

That's true.
I mentioned that some verbs have eq built in. ;)
Makes no odds though; If you have an eq before your verb on an aux track, everything still has to go through it.


miroslav said:
That said...it's not really "more natural" for the highs to be prominent on reverbs.
Click to expand...

It kinda is. I can record the guy in a bright room in real life, but I can't make the his direct voice sharper or brighter in real life.

Like I say, it's just something I do.
 
Steenamaroo said:
That's true.
If you have an eq before your verb on an aux track, everything still has to go through it.
Click to expand...
OK...it just sounded like you were EQ'ing per track content rather than globally.

I also always have to remember that most guys here are talking ITB setups...and I'm always thinking OTB, which is more dependant on what the existing hardware allows. I could slap an EQ on one console Aux bus, but that requires a hardware EQ to be used up just for that, so I use the EQ in the reverb units. :D



Steenamaroo said:
It kinda is. I can record the guy in a bright room in real life, but I can't make the his direct voice sharper or brighter in real life.

Like I say, it's just something I do.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I know what you mean about the "bright room" concept...though those tend to be things like tiled rooms and very hard, reflective rooms, which "generally" don't sound that great for the majority of things.
I was just making the point that reverb "naturally" rolls off the high end of the source rather than highlight it....regardless of the type of room.....but I get your point that sometimes you have to tailor things in a mix to make them work. :)
 
OOO a debate.. I got $5 on the big guy!!!

Just kidding, great info guys and I'll play around and see what I like. I've seen on this forum and everywhere that there is no one way to do anything, but when you have no less than 100,000 options to play with having SOMETHING to start with makes life so much easier!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top