Boost/Cut eqing

  • Thread starter Thread starter BRIEFCASEMANX
  • Start date Start date
BRIEFCASEMANX

BRIEFCASEMANX

Winner chicken dinner!
The statement "always cut instead of boost" I don't get. Shouldn't it depend on the resonances of the sound you are EQ'ing. Like say, you have a guitar but for whatever reason while looking at a spectrum analyzer, the sine waves in the area you want to boost are about 3db below where most of the other main frequencies in the sound are at, if you boosted in this area in order to "fill in the gap" and make it eqaul with the other frequencies, and you didn't actually create any extra resonance, wouldnt this be just as good as cutting everything else?
 
I do boost periodically but most of the time i do cut. So, "always cut instead of boost" is true - at least for me.
 
The general feeling it seems people have is that cutting is a more sure-fire way of changing the tone of the audio without effecting it too much. (i.e. make it sound like poop)
Boosting can completely change the tone and "focus" of the audio to a more extreme amount than cutting usually.
It's all relative to what you want to achieve.
I think of it as boosing = high risk / advanced.
Cutting low risk / less advanced.

Also I will use boosts to alter a sound, more like an effect.
I'll use cuts to correct offending frequencies.

But always do what sounds best for the application.

With that said, it's all just math.
if you want a presence at 1k, you can boost the 1k slider... or cut all other sliders. The resulting audio will be the same, only the audio that had all the sliders cut will have less overall amplitude. This is probably best for extreme changes (like 12dB change). If you simply boost 1k by 12dB the resulting audio will probably distort and clip causing you to turn it down. Or if you cut all other bands by 12dB except 1k, you'd get the sound you want without peaking.
 
BRIEFCASEMANX said:
The statement "always cut instead of boost" I don't get. Shouldn't it depend on the resonances of the sound you are EQ'ing. Like say, you have a guitar but for whatever reason while looking at a spectrum analyzer, the sine waves in the area you want to boost are about 3db below where most of the other main frequencies in the sound are at, if you boosted in this area in order to "fill in the gap" and make it eqaul with the other frequencies, and you didn't actually create any extra resonance, wouldnt this be just as good as cutting everything else?
Click to expand...
First, the term "always" should not be in there. Whoever said that was hyperbolizing. Second, that statement is just plain wrong even without the "always".

Perhaps a more accurate but equally cliche saying would be "use EQ boost to make something sound different/use EQ cut to make something sound better." While this - like every other easy sounding saying in this business - is not correct 100% of the time, it seems to be more generally correct than it is incorrect. More often than not, if a guitar does not sound right or good, it's because of too much of some "unpleasant" frequency or frequencies, not because of a lack of the "pleasant" ones. Which leads to something else...

Implied in your question is the idea that the frequency response curve for any given track should be made as smooth as possible, and that "gaps" in a spectral analysis of an instrument therefore need to be filled in. This is as incorrect as the "always cut" statement you're asking about. Put the spectrum analyzer away and save it for when you have real problems. But the fact that a given set of frquencies are 3dB below another set of frequencies when you play guitar in and of itself is meaningless and irrelevant.

Cut the frequencies that sound bad to make the instrument naturally shine. Boost the ones that will alter the apparent timbre of the instrument to your liking and will help it to fill in spectral space in the mix. And do that all by ear and throw away the analyzer; that's is not telling you anything you need to know. The majority of the bumps and craters in your instrument's spectral curve are as natural as as the peaks and troughs in your instrument's track waveforms, and they tell you nothing about where they should be.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Cut the frequencies that sound bad to make the instrument naturally shine. Boost the ones that will alter the apparent timbre of the instrument to your liking and will help it to fill in spectral space in the mix.
G.
Click to expand...
I would add - although its probably implied in the above - to do this in the context of the mix. In other words, don't try to make the instrument sound good in solo mode, make it sound good in the mix.

I have often had tracks where a solo instrument sounded like shit by itself, but worked perfectly within the mix. This, for me, is quite common with guitar tracks which frequently fight with vocals for the same freqency space.
 
dachay2tnr said:
I would add - although its probably implied in the above - to do this in the context of the mix. In other words, don't try to make the instrument sound good in solo mode, make it sound good in the mix.

I have often had tracks where a solo instrument sounded like shit by itself, but worked perfectly within the mix. This, for me, is quite common with guitar tracks which frequently fight with vocals for the same freqency space.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I meant by "in the mix". ;) :D

You do amplify a very good point there, though.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
First, the term "always" should not be in there. Whoever said that was hyperbolizing. Second, that statement is just plain wrong even without the "always".

Perhaps a more accurate but equally cliche saying would be "use EQ boost to make something sound different/use EQ cut to make something sound better." While this - like every other easy sounding saying in this business - is not correct 100% of the time, it seems to be more generally correct than it is incorrect. More often than not, if a guitar does not sound right or good, it's because of too much of some "unpleasant" frequency or frequencies, not because of a lack of the "pleasant" ones. Which leads to something else...

Implied in your question is the idea that the frequency response curve for any given track should be made as smooth as possible, and that "gaps" in a spectral analysis of an instrument therefore need to be filled in. This is as incorrect as the "always cut" statement you're asking about. Put the spectrum analyzer away and save it for when you have real problems. But the fact that a given set of frquencies are 3dB below another set of frequencies when you play guitar in and of itself is meaningless and irrelevant.

Cut the frequencies that sound bad to make the instrument naturally shine. Boost the ones that will alter the apparent timbre of the instrument to your liking and will help it to fill in spectral space in the mix. And do that all by ear and throw away the analyzer; that's is not telling you anything you need to know. The majority of the bumps and craters in your instrument's spectral curve are as natural as as the peaks and troughs in your instrument's track waveforms, and they tell you nothing about where they should be.

G.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that and the analyzer thing was just to give an example with visuals having to do with resonances. I don't actually use analyzers that much but once in awhile they are helpful IMO. I was just wondering WHY its supposed to be better to cut. I remember reading something about how the ear responds more harshly to resonances and that's why cutting is better. It is as easy as:

"cut what needs to be cut
boost what needs to be boost

*but things that are tracked well usually end up needing cut more often than boosted"

?

I also thought it might have something to do with where the phase distortion from the EQ lies.

Also, any difference between boosting and turning the volume down, and cutting?
 
Remember you can't boost anything that isn't there.

I think all of us will use additive EQ at some point or another. I use it frequently to "change" the sound of something in the mix to create more interest, such as for a different drum sound in the verse or on background vocals, effects returns, and so on.

You are going to be the only one who is going to hear your tracks soloed. You'll waste a lot of time trying to make something sound individually great, while at the same time you are creating an issue with another track. I solo tracks frequently to see where I am, but the goal is always what everything sounds like together.

The tendency when using EQ is to find the frequency you want to cut or boost, and just cranking away on the knob to the left or right. A little bit goes a long way.

With subtrractive EQ, it can be used to shape the sound of the track to make it fit better with other tracks in the same frequency range, or just to flat out make it sound different.

Before you reach for the EQ, trying playing with the levels some more. A lot of the time moving a fader up or down a bit can make a whole world of difference.
 
I believe I read in one of those books:

cut if you want to improve the sound you have
boost if you want to change the sound you have
 
Stuif said:
I believe I read in one of those books:

cut if you want to improve the sound you have
boost if you want to change the sound you have
Click to expand...

I would call that more of a general idea, rather than a rule.
 
BRIEFCASEMANX said:
I was just wondering WHY its supposed to be better to cut
Click to expand...
A couple of reasons. TuoK got one of them when he said "you can't boost what's not there". If a pleasant frequency is missing, all the boost in the world ain't gonna get it where it needs to be.

The second reason is that if there is too much of an unpleasant or otherwise unwanted frequency, it's still going to be there if you boost the good/wanted frequencies, and it's still going to sour the sound; you've boosted a whole bunch of stuff and you haven't really solved the problem. If, OTOH, you just cut the offender, you get rid of the sour stuff without having to further artifically process that good stuff; its a quick and easy win-win.

BRIEFCASEMANX said:
Also, any difference between boosting and turning the volume down, and cutting?
Click to expand...
Great question! Yes there are a couple of differences:

- First, the further you push the slider or gain on a non-linear EQ, the greater the phase distortion that's introduced into the signal.
- Second, on a graphic EQ, the further you push the slider, the wider the bandwidth that's effected to an audible degree.
- Third, when choosing between boosting three bands or cutting one frequency, the cutting one control usually introduces less distortion.

The difference in competing frequencies can sound entirely different between Boosting one frequency 12dB and leaving the other, and boosing the first only 6dB and cutting the other by the remaining 6dB. They are not the same thing, even though the volumes may even out.

G.
 
I was thinking it might have something to do with the phase distortion on a cut being "buried" or lower in the signal, while with a boost the phase distortion is higher up in the db food chain, possibly at the peak of the signal. Am I offbase?
 
BRIEFCASEMANX said:
I was thinking it might have something to do with the phase distortion on a cut being "buried" or lower in the signal, while with a boost the phase distortion is higher up in the db food chain, possibly at the peak of the signal. Am I offbase?
Click to expand...
I always thought that was a factor.
Another way to approach the boots or cut decision is to look for which can you do the least of to get where you're going. That 'do the least harm' thing again.
Wayne
 
The way I look at it is that the sounds you are looking for are already there, but so are a bunch sounds you dont want. So why leave the ones you dont want there and make the ones you do want louder, just sounds messy to me.

Like...If your TV and your hifi are both on and you want to listen to the hifi, you turn the TV off, you dont just turn the music up, unless you want lots of noise.

I get rid of the stuff i dont want first. Then if theres like one frequency that needs a bit more prescence than rest i give it a little boost, rather than cutting loads of other stuff.

I know I've written it in kind of a retarded way but it works for me. :p
 
legionserial said:
If your TV and your hifi are both on and you want to listen to the hifi, you turn the TV off, you dont just turn the music up, unless you want lots of noise.
...
I know I've written it in kind of a retarded way but it works for me. :p
Click to expand...
Not retarded at all. I love a good analogy, and that one is vey nice, IMHO. :)

G.
 
Very few digital eqs can boost more than 1-2db without sounding like ass. Most of the time, they thin out the signal even if no boost or cut is applied. We have a long way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top