Eq

[andrushkiwt]

Not too vested in this topic or pondering it too hard, but just thought about what you guys prefer (as I was checking out free plugs through PluginBoutique) as far as EQ's go.

You like the preset freq, 3 or 4 knobs? The graphic kind, that let's you control whatever freq you want? The incremental slider, usually with 80,100,200,350 etc.... ?

I would say that the more I do this, the more comfortable I am with having only a few selections. Though there are certainly times where having the entire spectrum at your disposal is an advantage (de-ess, harsh spikes, particular resonance).

As far as I know, the earlier EQ's had a select panel of frequencies to choose from, and it didn't stop anyone from making great records. I don't know if anyone listens to 50's, 60's rock and thinks "hmm, that guitar needs a 250hz cut". It just sounds good, ya?

So, what you like?

 

[spantini]

... As far as I know, the earlier EQ's had a select panel of frequencies to choose from, and it didn't stop anyone from making great records. I don't know if anyone listens to 50's, 60's rock and thinks "hmm, that guitar needs a 250hz cut". It just sounds good, ya?...

I frequently remind myself of this. Putting out killer albums with 4-Track recorders..

___________

MY ears aren't as finely attuned as most of yours out there as far as picking out minute differences of individual frequencies.

I've got charts displaying frequencies for multiple intruments which I basically just use to get into the ballpark, then I like multi-bands
with HPF/LPF to zero in a bit more. I like playing with parametric but I'm not proficient with that yet - mostly I just wind up screwing around
with the parametric making weird sounds, then resetting to default.

I am finding now that I have better equipment as far as guitars go, I'm not needing to mess with the EQ as much. The LOW-MID-HI-PRESENCE
knobs on the amp sims dial in pretty good. I prefer a more raw sound from guitars and drums.

 

[andrushkiwt]

Yeah, sort of like the more options you have to mess with, the more you'll mess it up. If the technology is so great now, that we can cut specific frequencies all over, why isn't everyone making great sounding guitar tracks, or bass, or what have you. Getting it right from the start is 90% of the game, so I'm coming to see. And that takes tons of ear training.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Yeah, sort of like the more options you have to mess with, the more you'll mess it up. If the technology is so great now, that we can cut specific frequencies all over, why isn't everyone making great sounding guitar tracks, or bass, or what have you. Getting it right from the start is 90% of the game, so I'm coming to see. And that takes tons of ear training.

I would agree here. Though that being said there is much to do with monitoring...I should do all caps on monitoring and also include room treatment.

I just finished a record that I sent to a mastering pro. The first run seemed a bit thin on my system. I found that there was a needed nudge up at 140Hz on all systems I listened on.

In studio it felt ok, but I have heard this record for over a year while tracking. Sometimes we need an outside the box listener to make the mix better. And sometimes they need to get in the box to fine tune.

That sounded vague but it is what happened...

 

[ashcat_lt]

ReaEQ is my only answer.

 

[damianhk]

yeah "mud free" setting

 

[JimmyS1969]

yeah "mud free" setting

Mud is tough to get rid of. There is a range where that can be an issue, yet it can also be the range that the balls are...Careful...

 

[miroslav]

Mud is tough to get rid of. There is a range where that can be an issue, yet it can also be the range that the balls are...Careful...

If you have mud on your balls...it just means you played hard.

 

[spantini]

ReaEQ is my only answer.

Now that you mention it, that is a solid answer. It can be customized to fit what you need. I haven't really given it a fair shakedown yet - I'll begin using it in a more serious manner.

 

[mjbphotos]

ReaEQ is my only answer.

Yeah, for me too. I've tried a number of other free EQs, but none are as easy to use (with graphic display) as ReaEQ.

 

[Guitargodgt]

I've been using frequency, which is not included in cubase pro.

In terms of cheap 3rd party I like IIEQPro from DDMF.

In terms of what everybody and thier brother seem to like I'll say fabfilter Pro-Q 2, but this is not a cheap option at all.

I've used all three, I don't own pro q 2... yet.

I own several other options including stuff from waves. I think I prefer Req more than Q10 from waves if you look at waves.

 

[andrushkiwt]

ReaEQ is my only answer.

I downloaded the pack before, but the display turned me off. Obviously, it's very minimal, but I just did not care for those. I do, however, mostly use my stock EQ in Studio One. That's my go-to for 95% of EQ needs.

 

[easlern]

I’m not even really picky anymore, I just use what’s on the channel strip: a fixed high-pass, 2 fixed shelves, and a parametric bell. I add the logic parametric eq for surgical stuff. Fewer is better; I mainly want something that sounds pleasant and doesn’t take time to set. Else my ears get worn out and everything gets worse for it.

 

[JohnnyAmato]

I use the stock ProTools EQ3 for 90% of my subtractive eq and filtering. For color the 3 Slate EQs are fantastic; the FG-N, the FG-S, and the Custom EQ. I also use the Waves Scheps73 quite a bit. Parallel Particles is great, too, obviously not an EQ but sort of has the feel of one.

 

[andrushkiwt]

I mainly want something that sounds pleasant and doesn’t take time to set. Else my ears get worn out and everything gets worse for it.

I have not played with EQ's long enough, or in an extreme long enough, to hear when one is sounding better than another. I'm assuming they're all doing the same job (minus whatever code they have built in that determines how much of the surrounding freq's get affected).

But if there were a 3db cut with one EQ, compared to the same with another, I probably would not be able to tell the difference. I'm guessing anyhow - maybe one of them puts a shine on it and moves other freq's around enough where I would be able to tell, but I'm guessing not.

 

[Robus]

ReaEQ is my only answer.

That's all I use as well. Also ReaCOMP, Reaper's native compression, is what I use for 90% of my compression.

I totally agree with Taras on the subject of EQ. I'm a primitive when it come to mixing, but the idea of shaving off a few dB in this or that frequency to "carve out space" for something else is contrary to how I operate. You create space by level and panning, and by not turning up the volume of every single track in hopes of creating impact. If your guitar are too loud and panned near the center of the mix, no amount of EQ will prevent your vocal from getting stepped on.

 

[Deleted member 196982]

I was watching The Recording Revolution guy again on EQ just to clear my head a bit, and he likes the SSL plug because it's not graphic. I've never used it, but I'm sort of convinced it might be a good idea to stop trying to hear with my eyes, which I find myself doing sometimes with the standard EQ in Logic. I mean, I hear something that's obviously too much LF content (usually my voice and guitar), but I can't help but watch the analyzer graphs and go chasing the peaks there with cuts in the EQ, when I really need to close my eyes, or at least turn off the analyzer...

But, as far as hearing a difference between EQs, I have a hard time imagining it's significant in the big picture as far as anything I could do. Some of the big boys, yeah, maybe they hear it, but I doubt it would have made a difference in my impression of the result.

 

[jkuehlin]

You like the preset freq, 3 or 4 knobs? The graphic kind, that let's you control whatever freq you want? The incremental slider, usually with 80,100,200,350 etc.... ?

So, what you like?

Hi Andrushkwit,

This is really a question about GUI. Here's my take on it... The EQ's below are some of my favorite fixed knob EQ's. I don't like them BECAUSE they have fixed knobs. I like them because they've modeled hardware that has unique tonal characteristics embedded in the circuitry of the modular unit which shapes and sculpts the sound.



Note that it is probably possible (to a certain extent) to get a normal stock Avid Pro Tools EQ to mimic the sound of any of these pretty close. What is very difficult to achieve from a digital perspective is trying to get the control parameters to behave in a similar manner. For example, the API is what is called a proportional EQ. It is very very hard to get your stock Reaper EQ to specifically act like the API proportional EQ as you turn lets say...the 7k boost knob up and down in 2db increments. In other words, you can fiddle around with the stock Reaper EQ for hours and maybe figure out what some of the proportional ratios are, but you will struggle for days trying to get that EQ to deliver the same 'sound' as that API.

Its not to say they are better or worse than their graphical counterparts. I use the fab-filter, Waves, and the UAD Massenburg EQ's all the time. I wouldn't ever want to be without them. I use the Avid EQ's because they integrate nicely with the LCD displays on my console. But I know which EQ's to reach for in which scenarios, and I never attempt to get a graphical EQ to do a job I know is cut out for an emulator EQ.

For some sources it doesn't matter. For other sources it can make or break the way the source sits in and glues into the mix.

 

[andrushkiwt]

For some sources it doesn't matter. For other sources it can make or break the way the source sits in and glues into the mix.

Thanks. From time to time, I like seeing what's under the hood for everyone. You'll learn about some new plugs too. Thanks for sharing.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

At home and at "studio 1" I use ReaEQ for almost everything. I've set it and ReaComp as the default channel plugins. At "studio 2" I mostly use the Cambridge parametric eq he has, and I sometimes use the API strip in the above post and even less frequently one of the other eqs he has.