Rules of thumb for EQing?

[diggy_dude]

It always baffles me when people ask, "What should I do with my bouzouki track?" or something similar.

It's because we're conditioned to accept the opinion of a bona fide expert as the final word. That's the point I'm making. Remember how, in Asimov's Foundation, science had at some point become less about direct experimentation and more about accepting prior art as authority? That's where society is today. Beneath its futuristic window dressing, science fiction is timely, addressing concerns of the here and now. People ask you these questions precisely because you know more about it than they do. They don't know how you acquired the knowledge you have, they only see the end result. "This guy sure knows a lot about it, therefore he must be an expert."

In short, learning to trust and accept our own perceptions over maxims etched into stone is an ingrained habit that dies hard.

 

[diggy_dude]

But they *believed* that the chart or something like it was necessary to get started, therefore they believed that it truly helped them out of a hole. But the reality is that the hole was of their own making; that it was the belief that they needed some map, or "rules of thumb", or whatever you want to call it that held them back from just using their ears from the get-go.

Bingo! It's a fundamental dogma of scientism that we need a roadmap. We need Dr. Spock to tell us how to raise a child. (Look how that turned out. ) It's easy to say "throw the map out the window and drive," but somewhat harder to (quoting Burroughs again) exterminate rational thought.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I get what you're saying, but I don't get it's relevance. Whether or not one thinks that I or anybody else should be listened to, by then it's too late anyway. Dogma in this case is after the fact.

Again I have to say (mostly rhetorically) that if doesn't have an idea - or at least the beginnings of one - of what they want to do with a mix then they shouldn't be mixing it, because there is nothing for them to do. And if there is noting for them to actually do, then they aren't even at a point where they yet have any questions to ask of someone else.

Just like the driver who hops into the car with no place to go. Don't ask me where to turn, ask yourself why you're even driving to begin with if you don't know where you want to go.*

This is exactly why I don't do the MP3 clinic. Who am I to tell someone what I think they should do with their mix, if they don't even know themselves what they want? They are the ones who started the engine and threw the thing into drive.

*And no, "I just wanted to get out of the house" is not an acceptable answer in this case

G.

 

[diggy_dude]

This is exactly why I don't do the MP3 clinic. Who am I to tell someone what I think they should do with their mix, if they don't even know themselves what they want? They are the ones who started the engine and threw the thing into drive.

I think many of them do have a vague sense of what they want the final result to be like, but simply don't know how to achieve it. An experienced ear is more likely to offer realistic advice and practical suggestions than an inexperienced ear. Merging the art and the science into an organic whole, i.e., something that is more than the mere sum of its parts, is somewhat akin to mixing oil and water. Accomplishing it is tantamount to working magic among ignorant savages. You are a witch doctor, while some of us are still savages.

 

[miroslav]

I think perhaps you underestimate the depth of social conditioning. It is practically a heresy against modern thought to suggest that one's own subjective experience is more valid than facts, figures, statistics, or telemetry readings.

For certain types of knowledge/experience...yes, but when it comes to our senses, it's very much about social conditioning and personal, subjective experiences.

Do you need a book to tell you that flowers are visually more appealing than weeds in most cases, or that a pile of do-do is not a pleasant smell, while fresh baked apple pie is.
Same goes for our hearing...we ARE analyzing what we hear all the time, though it’s subconscious. Fingernails on a chalkboard make everyone cringe, but for some reason Mozart doesn't. Hoever, there are people who for some reason just don't absorb certain sensual impressions as well or as easily as others, or their brains just don't process that stimuli in the same manner...
...which is why some folks are not impressed by visual beauty in any meaningful way, and why some are "tone deaf" (as they say).

Yeah...you can teach someone to be more analytical...but it's not easy for everyone to connect the analytical side of their brain to the artistic. I think with music/audio…a lot of folks get involved with it but only some really get *into it*. This is probably more true today than ever…especially since technology has made it easier for a lot of people to get involved…but still, getting *into it* comes from a deeper, inner motivation (some call it talent)…and not everyone has that...and it also comes in varying degrees.
I think if you have it a decent amount to begin with, you CAN develop and refine it over time, but if you don't have it...well, you may never.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think many of them do have a vague sense of what they want the final result to be like, but simply don't know how to achieve it. An experienced ear is more likely to offer realistic advice and practical suggestions than an inexperienced ear. Merging the art and the science into an organic whole, i.e., something that is more than the mere sum of its parts, is somewhat akin to mixing oil and water. Accomplishing it is tantamount to working magic among ignorant savages. You are a witch doctor, while some of us are still savages.

I am not a witch, I am you!

Seriously, first, you're giving me a lot more credit than I deserve, IMHO. My voodoo is not something I doodoo any better than your average human whodoo it too.

Second, I have no problem helping people with the "how" part of things; otherwise I wouldn't be here at all. But it's the "what" part that I feel people need to figure out for themselves before they even try coming here to ask how.

This pisses a lot of people off, but I can't help it. It's not meant to piss anybody off, it's just honesty: I think that if one needs to ask someone else if something sounds good or not, they have hopelessly lost the battle before they even popped off the first shot.

G.

 

[RAMI]

I can't believe how "deep" (""=sarcasm) this conversation has become.

Bottom line: The chart is nice and pretty with nice colors and "interactive" features, etc....But it's not a tool, it's a very general guide. And if you fool yourself into thinking that it's going to help you make better recordings, then it's actually a detrimental tool, as opposed to a useful one. You can learn AND accomplish a lot more by doing your own parametric sweep then you can from memorizing every inch of that chart.

I'm not knocking Glen or his chart at all. I think he knows what I'm saying because it''s pretty much what he's trying to get through everyone's head.

 

[RAMI]

I might just make an ass out off myself now. . .

Might???

A Paragraphic EQ is one that works with seperate bands, like the hardwear EQ's you get and the EQ's you get in itunes, Windows media player etc. The ones where you have, for example a 30-band EQ so there are 30 sliders, each slider opperates a single frequency. A PARAMETRIC Eq are the ones that look like a graph, where you have upto 4 (usually) bands and you can alter the specific frequency, Q which determins how narrow the curve is.

The way I remember it is that they sound like they should be opposite, paragraphic sounds like it should be the one with the graph style, and parametric sounds like it should hve specific values. infact it is the other way round. Hope im right.

No. What you're describing is a graphic EQ.

 

[diggy_dude]

...but it's not easy for everyone to connect the analytical side of their brain to the artistic.

This is really all I'm saying. It's possible to both have an analytical mind and appreciate beauty without necessarily being able to unify the two.

Here's an example. If you played a recording where the Haas effect is used and asked me how they did it, I would probably immediately recognize that the dry and delayed signals are panned to opposite extremes. There's a clearly recognizable link between cause and effect.

On the other hand, if you played a recording where an instrument is localized in the stereo image, I would probably guess a combination of panning, level, and reverb. It probably wouldn't occur to me that some EQing was involved if I hadn't read about it somewhere. The link between tone or timbre and spatial position isn't readily obvious, although we know rationally that such a link exists (e.g., everyone knows the Leslie effect involves modulating both level and frequency). So I may have twiddled pan pots and faders all day trying to duplicate the effect without ever touching the EQ.

The point being, just because we don't expect second-hand knowledge to be useful doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[benherron.rrr]

Might???


No. What you're describing is a graphic EQ.

AWWW man!!!! Just when I was begging to think I had the right Idea.

*hangs head in shame*

 

[RAMI]

AWWW man!!!! Just when I was begging to think I had the right Idea.

*hangs head in shame*

It's OK. You gave it a shot. Now dust yourself off...we need you out there!

 

[diggy_dude]

Just one more illustration, and I'll give it a rest.

Let's say you give me some raw tracks, a rack full of gear, and a blindfold. I adjust pots in total darkness and produce a beautiful record. (I'm not disputing that this is possible, nor even that it's ideally how things should be done.)

Without looking at the markings on the pots, how do I know what it is I've just done? Do the settings I've chosen suggest a technique that can be employed again on other projects, or is blindly adjusting settings based on hearing alone the only technique?

The predominant line of thinking in this thread, if I'm not mistaken, seems to be that it doesn't matter if I can see what I've done, that such knowledge is irrelevant. I think it is relevant. The markings on the pots translate what I'm hearing into something more-or-less quantifiable and therefore more accessible to the rational mind. They are the glue that binds theory and perception.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I can't believe how "deep" (""=sarcasm) this conversation has become.

Bottom line: The chart is nice and pretty with nice colors and "interactive" features, etc....But it's not a tool, it's a very general guide. And if you fool yourself into thinking that it's going to help you make better recordings, then it's actually a detrimental tool, as opposed to a useful one. You can learn AND accomplish a lot more by doing your own parametric sweep then you can from memorizing every inch of that chart.

I'm not knocking Glen or his chart at all. I think he knows what I'm saying because it''s pretty much what he's trying to get through everyone's head.

No offense taken, because you're right. That is basically just what I was saying.

Actually it's kind of funny in a way; a para sweep is a great tool that helps take care of some of the things that even those with a good ear can't pick up on that easily just by raw listening, and helps all sides of the debate.

G.

 

[RAMI]

No offense taken.

None intended.

 

[benherron.rrr]

Just one more illustration, and I'll give it a rest.

Let's say you give me some raw tracks, a rack full of gear, and a blindfold. I adjust pots in total darkness and produce a beautiful record. (I'm not disputing that this is possible, nor even that it's ideally how things should be done.)

Without looking at the markings on the pots, how do I know what it is I've just done? Do the settings I've chosen suggest a technique that can be employed again on other projects, or is blindly adjusting settings based on hearing alone the only technique?

The predominant line of thinking in this thread, if I'm not mistaken, seems to be that it doesn't matter if I can see what I've done, that such knowledge is irrelevant. I think it is relevant. The markings on the pots translate what I'm hearing into something more-or-less quantifiable and therefore more accessible to the rational mind. They are the glue that binds theory and perception.

I personally dont disagree with what you, or anyone else for that matter is saying. But it is one way of thinking, in that situation you among many others work in the way you explained. . . with a rational mind. The importance of being able to see what you are doing as well as hearing. If you are developing than blindly EQing somthing you may be able get the sound you need. but your hearing isn't that great so you cant understand whats going on, other than knowing that what ever that may be is working. having a visual aid helps with the learning curve, However minds work differently, If you have an analytical rational mind than by nature you need reason and explanation to what you are doing. On the other hand, like myself, if you have a more irrational, creative mind. then its not the reason that matters its more the doing. and by doing rather than analyzing, you learn more. its about using the methods that suit you best.

 

[diggy_dude]

However minds work differently, If you have an analytical rational mind than by nature you need reason and explanation to what you are doing. On the other hand, like myself, if you have a more irrational, creative mind. then its not the reason that matters its more the doing. and by doing rather than analyzing, you learn more. its about using the methods that suit you best.

Ironically, I was an artist before I got into IT or programming. You'd think this would be a piece of cake for me. And perhaps it could be if I stopped over-rationalizing it.

As life turned out, I had to get into IT for sanity. I'm not exaggerating in the least. It's one of the few things that can both hold my attention and keep me halfway rational. I wasn't very productive the other way.

 

[benherron.rrr]

Ironically, I was an artist before I got into IT or programming. You'd think this would be a piece of cake for me. And perhaps it could be if I stopped over-rationalizing it.

As life turned out, I had to get into IT for sanity. I'm not exaggerating in the least. It's one of the few things that can both hold my attention and keep me halfway rational. I wasn't very productive the other way.

BTW, when I said 'you' I was meaning it as a generalization not you personally you.

with me its knowing that at the end of the day, or at some point in the production process I can play an instrument. Im easily distracted, trying to focus on complex things just either hurts my head or makes me angry when I realise I cant do them.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The predominant line of thinking in this thread, if I'm not mistaken, seems to be that it doesn't matter if I can see what I've done, that such knowledge is irrelevant.

No, that's not my point at all. My point was there's no way that something I wrote four years ago could possibly know what you want or need done to the track that's sitting in front of you today, that the only person who could possibly know that is you, and that the only way you could know that is by using your ears and your head.

But above and beyond that, let me go back to what I said yesterday, that the frequency chart is by far the most popular page on the website. No other page on the website, including the front page, can come anywhere near close to making that claim. For November almost 58% of the visits went to the frequency chart first on purpose, with the other 42% divided amongst all the rest of the website.

Yet, much of the rest of the site covers far more important issues; from CR monitor selection to listening biases to CR room acoustics to how to read mic specifications to meter reading, dB scales and gain structure, to a course on the use of compression.

Now part of the frequency chart's popularity is because of it's pretty colors and fancy-schmancy interactive layout, yeah; but that's only a small part of it. The absolute #1 reason for it's popularity - and I get this from the comments and discussions and and all that that come from the actual users of it - is because people are using it in place of an ability or a willingness to actually use their ears.

They can't use any of the other charts or information or tutorials or columns to try to do that; the frequency chart is the only resource on that website that they can attempt to use as a replacement for their ears.

That's exactly the #1 reason why it's more popular than the rest of the website combined. And that's also exactly the number #1 reason why I think it's the worst thing on that site by a long shot. I'm trying to help people use their ears, not avoid using them.

I don't care if they think it's helping them in the short run, because it's hurting them overall, whether they realize and appreciate that fact or not. It may help them win the current battle or it may not, but it's almost certainly helping make the war last longer than it needs to either way.

G.

 

[diggy_dude]

BTW, when I said 'you' I was meaning it as a generalization not you personally you.

with me its knowing that at the end of the day, or at some point in the production process I can play an instrument. Im easily distracted, trying to focus on complex things just either hurts my head or makes me angry when I realise I cant do them.

Except for the part about being easily distracted, which I am, I think I'm the opposite. I like to concentrate intently on complex things for hours on end. I like being in that zone. If something doesn't pose an adequate challenge that will put me in the zone, then it seems to me not worth doing. I guess it comes from recognizing that idleness has a way of putting me in a sorry state.

 

[diggy_dude]

That's exactly the #1 reason why it's more popular than the rest of the website combined. And that's also exactly the number #1 reason why I think it's the worst thing on that site by a long shot. I'm trying to help people use their ears, not avoid using them.

I don't care if they think it's helping them in the short run, because it's hurting them overall, whether they realize and appreciate that fact or not. It may help them win the current battle or it may not, but it's almost certainly helping make the war last longer than it needs to either way.

I see what you're saying, Glen. You see people using it as a long-term crutch, whereas I see it more as a stepping stone. Was there a time in your early career when you viewed the charts and what-not as an aid rather than as a hindrance?