Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Sweeping for “problematic frequencies”

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ranelagh Tasmania
    Age
    68
    Posts
    7,758
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 590 Times in 480 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474857
    Sign in to disable this ad
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Pavlonis View Post
    What do you mean by "problematic" if something is that far off, then re-record it..
    Re-recording may not be the answer. For example, a guitar may have a particular note that is standing out. For example, a bottom G might, for some reason, be boomy. So you can cut a bit of EQ on that note.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    46
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gecko zzed View Post
    Re-recording may not be the answer. For example, a guitar may have a particular note that is standing out. For example, a bottom G might, for some reason, be boomy. So you can cut a bit of EQ on that note.
    True, most instruments naturally double their sound pressure on certain low notes. There are several ways it can be minimized.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    I never sweep, it's much easier and quicker to call up a spectrum analyser. You can immediately see the offending frequency and then deal with it using your preferred method of EQ.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    46
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by aj113 View Post
    I never sweep, it's much easier and quicker to call up a spectrum analyser. You can immediately see the offending frequency and then deal with it using your preferred method of EQ.
    Assuming you are familiar with what particular instruments look like on the analyzer. Every instrument looks different. I work in Cubase, every EQ channel is tied to an analyzer. It is a great tool.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Texas USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 376 Times in 342 Posts
    Rep Power
    2298479
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Pavlonis View Post
    Assuming you are familiar with what particular instruments look like on the analyzer. Every instrument looks different. I work in Cubase, every EQ channel is tied to an analyzer. It is a great tool.
    This assumes that the thing you hear in the mix that's bothering you is actually caused by a peak in a particular track. It's not always a single track, or even an observable peak IME. It's just something that catches your ear that you feel is out of place. Then, having some idea of where to start your testing, and using the the [cut] sweep method will be more useful, especially if it's really kind of a transient that can be very hard to pinpoint visually (again IMO/IME).
    "... I know in the mornin' that it's gonna be good
    when I stick out my elbows and they don't bump wood." - Bill Kirchen

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    ArizonaMaybe
    Age
    69
    Posts
    9,526
    Thanks
    210
    Thanked 166 Times in 154 Posts
    Rep Power
    9581210
    Quote Originally Posted by keith.rogers View Post
    This assumes that the thing you hear in the mix that's bothering you is actually caused by a peak in a particular track. It's not always a single track, or even an observable peak IME. It's just something that catches your ear that you feel is out of place. Then, having some idea of where to start your testing, and using the the [cut] sweep method will be more useful, especially if it's really kind of a transient that can be very hard to pinpoint visually (again IMO/IME).
    And to add..once more :>) Sometimes the 'problem isn't necessarily a problem of level -but one of dwell time. This more likely with instruments (or room but that's another discussion) in the lower to low mids.
    Placebo stomps 96k ....... Recent projects
    Ray Catfish Copeland 'Got Love Jim Goodman 'Southern Steel

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Pavlonis View Post
    Assuming you are familiar with what particular instruments look like on the analyzer. Every instrument looks different.
    Not sure what you mean. If there is a peak at a certain frequency, an SA will show it, regardless of the instrument that is playing it.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    Posts
    828
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked 137 Times in 122 Posts
    Rep Power
    752370
    Quote Originally Posted by aj113 View Post
    Not sure what you mean. If there is a peak at a certain frequency, an SA will show it, regardless of the instrument that is playing it.
    Um, you still have to have an idea of what you're trying to get rid of. The biggest peak on your analyzer should be the fundamental of the instrument you are playing and cutting that "by eye", as it were, would just cut the note you are playing. If you are eq'ing, say, a bass track of whatever type, your fundamental is going to be the biggest peak but the second, third and fourth harmonics will be the next highest unless you have some mistake you are trying to get rid of. If you don't know where your tone and harmonics are supposed to be for that instrument and then go cutting stuff that is visually higher, you won't be doing your self a favor. So , by all means , use an analyzer, but know how what you see relates to what you hear in order to make the changes that you wish. IOW an offending frequency is often NOT the highest peak on analyzer.
    Win 7 Ult Dell i7 4core 6700ghz 32 GB, 1,2x2, 4 Tb Barracuda HD's running Pro tools 2018 through Allen&Heath Qu-32

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gtoboy View Post
    IOW an offending frequency is often NOT the highest peak on analyzer.
    No, but it's the highest amongst others around it. If you cut the highest one and you don't hear an improvement, I think we would all assume at that point that the wrong frequency has been cut. In that case, try a different peak. Having said that, nine times out of ten the frequency I first go to is the right one. I mean, nobody is seriously going to be looking at 5kHz (for example) when they can hear some boxy, honky mid tones.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Powderville
    Posts
    3,609
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 60 Times in 56 Posts
    Rep Power
    8188951
    simply dropping freqs that peak,
    is not the answer.
    it may be THAT peak, is really one you need,
    or possibly is creating a masking issue,
    which may need the tweak of a fundamental and not a harmonic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Advises on problematic 1st mix
    By wphantom in forum MP3 Mixing Clinic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-17-2010, 03:07
  2. Sweeping
    By kdoggity in forum Cool Edit Pro / Adobe Audition Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-17-2004, 22:18
  3. Sweeping EQ ...
    By Rockr56 in forum Recording Techniques
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-08-2003, 14:02
  4. Sweeping Frequencies?? Parametric EQ
    By Shack in forum Mixing Techniques
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-10-2003, 07:44
  5. problematic mix
    By Shailat in forum MP3 Mixing Clinic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-16-2003, 03:32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •