audio frequency shelving

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thom IV
  • Start date Start date
T

Thom IV

New member
Hi all

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the theory and practice of audio shelving...

I’ve heard that the best thing to do to ensure ‘transparency’, is to put each track on it’s own ‘shelf’ in terms of it’s ‘best’ audio frequency. Makes sense at first blush...

So, say for instance, my stratocaster through my tube amp sounds nicer when the 4-5khz range is emphasized about 4-5db. I need to use my parametric eq to emphasize th 4-5khz on this track, and make sure none of the other tracks have the same emphasis...

What if both my vocals AND my strat sound good in the same range?

I’ve actually done a fair amount of research about this topic on the web as well as searching on this forum, and can find little info...any links would be appreciated

Any thoughts would be appreciated for that matter...
Tom
 
Sounds like "mix by numbers" or something.

The reason that you will find so little info about something like this is that is only address PART of the issues of mixing.

There is also a thing about how you cannot boost/cut any frequency that doesn't exist. Inversely, no sound is narrow in a frequency range. With all that said, the arrangement of parts, and how the source instruments sound when you track them has a very big impact in the clarity of a mix.

Ed
 
huh...?

could you clarify...?

see you tomorrow...

I'm might be missing something...

Tom
 
Parametric EQ and Shelving EQ are two different things. Shelving is when all the frequencies above or below the chosen frequency are also raised/lowered.

4-5k is a common EQ spot for adding a little edge to a sound to help it stand out. It's also a good place to cut if a track is a bit to harsh.

It's okay to do some of the same EQ moves to different tracks. If the end result is a good mix than it doesn't really matter how you got there. Just be carefull of adding EQ out of habit. Make sure it is really helping before you commit to it.
 
Thank you Tex...

(and your right about me being careful not to mix out of habit vs. necessity--I find myself needing to keep myself in check frequently...

Sonus--
the more I think about your post , the more it makes sense. Now if only I could get a clue...

Tom
 
Ed translation:

Don't automatically boost and cut key frequency ranges because you have dedicated a certain instrument to that location. At the same time everything must find its place in the mix. If you have conflicting guitars you may have to separate them out buy eqing them apart a bit.


In other words, yes & no


F.S.
 
Another Ed translation: The whole idea of EQ'ing, in general, is only a small part of the mixing equation.

If you've heard that the "best" way to ensure sonic transparency is to analyze it all, and EQ everything in it's ideal sonic range, to categorize and divide everything in to shelves, etc etc . . .

Then you've heard wrong. The ideal method is to track everything so that each instrument / voice has it's own natural sonic distinction from everything else in the first place. You should at least be mindful of how well each successive track is going to work and play well with the other ones, as they are tracked.

In a perfect world, this is a simple and elegant solution.

In reality, you will likely need to do some creative EQ'ing to get everything to blend well together. But even then, it's much more complicated than just assigning everything to a shelf, boosting or cutting the magical frequency and so on.

It's a lot more complicated, yet at the same time simpler :

* More complicated in the sense that you can't just boost something that isn't there to begin with; ie - if the instrument doesn't naturally have presence to it, then you can't expect to just dial in presence with the magic EQ shelf.

* Simpler in the sense that if you try something, and it sounds right, then it probably is right, regardless of your method of arriving at it.

This is where we get in to some Bluebearisms . . . for it is at this juncture where the importance of knowing what sounds right comes in to play. And once you're there, theoretically, everything else should come much easier and fall in to place naturally.
 
Heh...didn't know there were "sonusman translators" out their. :D You guys get paid for that? Is there a university degree that you have to get? :D

;)

Good discussion so far.

When I first started out, I thought eq was going to create seperation, so I eq'ed til everything was SO seperated that it sounded ANNOYING.

Naturally, there will be "masking" effects when you combine instruments. The trick is to make sure that how one instrument "masks" another is not masking what is important about that instrument IN THAT MIX.

So many things come into play at that point. We start getting into the whole "it sounds great on it's own, but doesn't sound good in a mix". I have heard stuff where people thought something didn't sound good in the mix, but in reality, it offered just the right presense and/or any other descriptive.

I try to remember that every sums to the whole, and the whole is what is important. I do better work when I don't focus to closely on any one instrument in the mix.

The tracking stage is where it is all at. Man, I learn that over and over and over again. The second I have to do more than a 3 or 4 dB cut/boost on anything, I didn't get it right tracking (I am finding that most eq's, digital or analog work much better in the 3 to 4dB cut/boost range.....). Any more than that and the eq all of a sudden become "obvious".

Here is a scenario that should hit home for many, and give a few things to think about.

The snare hit's in most pop music on 2 and 4. It is a VERY short lived sound. Tell me, how terribly bad is it going to be if it "mask's" the guitar a bit? Probably isn't going to be bad at all, and certainly, letting it be a bit more prominent in the mix than the guitar for that whole 100ms it lasts (IF THAT!!!) is no crime, and you will hear on many fine sounding productions, if you listen closely that this happens all the time.

Mixing is far more art than science! I cannot usually give a lot of technical mumbo jumbo about why I eq something a certain way. I did it because it offered what sounded right for that song. I get into trouble when I start eqing something because that is what I "always do" to that kind of track. :(

One song may need a tight and bright snare that is not very ambiant. Another may need a loose and beefy snare that has a crap load of reverb on it. I would employ FAR different eq approaches to bring either of those out, and certainly, I would have used very different snare while tracking (if the freakin' drummer even HAD a different snare available while tracking...don't get me started on that....).

Does the bass do a lot of notes? Certainly a more articulate, midrangy sound will work better than some beefed up overly compressed low end thing. Sometimes though, the bass is just "riding the E" and needs HUGE bottom. Again, two different approaches to the eq.

Percussive vocals of lush and big? Two different approaches.

Using "pass filters" and "shelve" eq's CAN help in keeping "junk" out of the sound that doesn't need to be there, but it is only part of the equasion.

Approach your tracking with a good idea of what things need to sound like. If you are newer to this recording stuff, you will get fooled a lot by what kind of source sounds you need to make a certain type of song work. Live and learn! Learn and try something different next time.

In time, you will find yourself using less eq because you will either realize that it usually mucks up the sound if used too drastically, or because you just got it RIGHT while tracking.

Ed
 
The Pseudoaccoustic Infector is very easy to over-do. :D

What I oftentimes have trouble with is with the "power" and "glory" controls. Once you apply the power to one track, then that track winds up overshadowing all the other tracks, so you have to apply a bit of glory to them in order to stand up and hold their own with the power tracks.

Before long, you've got like 20 tracks all fighting for the same power and glory, and there just isn't enought to go around.

I remember one time, after getting carried away with it, all of my mixes wound up sounding like Meatloaf.
 
I know what you mean Chess. It's easy to try and add power here and glory there until you have gone all the way around the mix and are back at the original track adding yet more power and glory etc. etc. etc. It's a vicious circle that many fall into. It's pays to remember some times you need to remove a little power or in some cases glory to get the mix your after instead of always adding until it's all F***ed up.

the power of subtraction is equal to that of addition.



F.S.
 
Lots of great info...

Thanks for EVERYONE’S input...

Sonusman—thanks for your input (as well as your ‘translators’). I get the sense that you deal with stuff like this for a living...I appreciate your (and your translators) taking the time (forgive me, I’m a newbie to this board)...

Roman—thanks for the link...very informative. I’m wondering...in Lionel Dumond’s article, he says:

“There is one famous brand of equalizer that claims to sound better because it uses “constant Q” circuitry, when in fact it does just the opposite! In fact, better equalizers allow the actual Q to vary as the amplitude is varied, so that bandwidth remains roughly the same -- which creates a more musically pleasing effect, and sounds more accurate to our ears.”

Any idea which “famous brand of equalizer” is he talking about? Anyone have any thoughts?

As always...yes...the whole must be greater than the sum of it’s parts. I try to keep this in the forefront of my mind when making music. Sometimes I need to work to see the forest for the trees...

Lot’s of stuff to think about now...having a hard time computing...must think harder...

Tom
 
heheheheh.....

You folks spend way too much time in the studio....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top