Common EQ frequencies for vocals and electric guitar

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crayon Boy
  • Start date Start date
C

Crayon Boy

New member
I made a mixing cheat sheet that shows common EQ frequencies for drums and acoustic guitar... I want to expand on it by adding common EQ frequencies for vocals and electric guitar. Your posts are much appreciated.
 
Yo Crayola:

In my brain there is a thought that since no two voices are the same, there really isn't any "set" EQ pattern or setting.

Most voices do not need much, if any EQ. If you do EQ a vocal too much, you change the voice which may or may not be what you want.

As for the Elvis string instrument, guitar is a vibrant instrument and if you need to cut EQ high/low, it won't be much.

Just my opinion and I'm sure there are more who can help.

Green Hornet



:D :p :D :p :cool:
 
The Green Hornet said:
Yo Crayola:

In my brain there is a thought that since no two voices are the same, there really isn't any "set" EQ pattern or setting.

Couldn't agree more. I notice that these type of questions pop up more and more. I think it has to do with software recording, where you can actually set frequencies and db exactly. On my Tascam, you have "420" "2.2k" and "13k". That's all. If somebody said "cut 3db at 5k" I would have no clue what to do. :P

So, use your ears man!!! If it sounds good, it IS good! You can't record by numbers.
 
Okay, guys... I do use my ears, and most of the time I don't use EQ, but it is helpful to me to have a list of common frequencies in case I need to make some adjustments on something. I realize that there is not set EQ pattern or setting. Now can I get some answers to my original question??
 
You mean like, 'ouch band' 2-3k, 'shrill' 4-6k, 'honk' 500-1k? Like that?
Wayne
 
Yo Regebro:

Good to hear from you.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Green Hornet:D
 
Yo Regebro:

Good to hear from you.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Green Hornet:D :cool: :D
 
Maybe I didn't take enough time to explain exactly what I wanted. Here's an example from my current cheat sheet:
Drums:
Bottom end of kick = 40-200hz
Muddiness of kick = 200-900hz
Slap of kick = 2-8khz

Bass of snare = 100-400hz
Muddiness of snare = 200-900hz
High end of snare = 5-10khz

Low end of toms = 40-300hz
Boxiness of toms = 400hz-1khz
Good toms = 3-8khz

Cymbal crap = 1-4khz
Good cymbals = 6-9khz
Sizzle = 10-16khz

Acoustic guitar:
Fullness = 100-200hz
Muddiness = 200-800hz
Clarity/crispness = 5-8khz
Sparkle = 8-12khz

Now I'd like some common EQ frequencies pertaining to vocals and electric guitars to add to my sheet.
 
Crayon Boy said:
Maybe I didn't take enough time to explain exactly what I wanted. Here's an example from my current cheat sheet:
Drums:
Bottom end of kick = 40-200hz
Muddiness of kick = 200-900hz
Slap of kick = 2-8khz

Bass of snare = 100-400hz
Muddiness of snare = 200-900hz
High end of snare = 5-10khz

Low end of toms = 40-300hz
Boxiness of toms = 400hz-1khz
Good toms = 3-8khz

Cymbal crap = 1-4khz
Good cymbals = 6-9khz
Sizzle = 10-16khz

Acoustic guitar:
Fullness = 100-200hz
Muddiness = 200-800hz
Clarity/crispness = 5-8khz
Sparkle = 8-12khz

Now I'd like some common EQ frequencies pertaining to vocals and electric guitars to add to my sheet.

again READ this:
http://www.recordingwebsite.com/articles/eqprimer.php
 
Alright, Crayon Boy; in regards to your list . . .


Vocals: Between 100 and 350 you get the meat. Or it could be mud, depending on the singer's range, the song's arrangement, etc. From 350 to 700 can be mud. But it could also be the meat, depending again on the singer and the arrangement. Or it could the warmth, depending on those factors as well as the equipment used.

Somewhere from 800 to 2000 usually lies the tonality. This is where you best distinguish the melody line and the overall quality/personality of the vocalist. This is also where you can get some honk and aggression on some voices.

From 2000 to 4000 lies the articulation. It's also where the voice can sound really nasaly, annoying, piercing, grating, etc. But it's a key frequency range for grittiness, vocal aggression, etc.

From 4000 to 8,000 is a real key range for clarity. That's why you'll notice a lot of people's favorite condensers like the Audio Technicas, Shures, etc. all have this big 'ol boost around 6k. It helps keep them sounding clear and free of mud, etc.

The disadvantage to this range is it's also where most voices, particularly male voices articulate their consonants and sibilances -- so boosting this range can often be a double-edged sword.

8,000 to 12,000 -- Air on most male voices or low female voices.

12,000 to 14,000 -- Air on most female voices and/or higher male voices.

Air meaning more a sense of sheen / shine. Kind of an intangible quality -- hard to describe. But very commonly boosted in radio pop vocals, power balads, etc. "Breathiness" might also be a fitting description.


Electric guitar: 2-3 khz is crunch, 600-1100 is honk, 200-400=mud / warmth . . . and lower than 200 is meat for metalish and/or industrial - type guitar.

Anything over 4 khz is mostly annoying amp buzz, static, etc. Anything under 70 hz is probably rumble, hum, or other unnecessary junk.
 
I am reading that EQ primer...really good article to give a starting point...but I am a bit lost as to what he means when he says peak equalization with a 1.4Q, when refering to adding more fullness to such instruments as the kick drum.

i THINK that means for the kick drum, 50hz will be at zero and every other frequency fades off from there.

I am a bit lost here...can anyone help out?
 
terrible_buddhi said:
I am reading that EQ primer...really good article to give a starting point...but I am a bit lost as to what he means when he says peak equalization with a 1.4Q, when refering to adding more fullness to such instruments as the kick drum.

i THINK that means for the kick drum, 50hz will be at zero and every other frequency fades off from there.

I am a bit lost here...can anyone help out?
Think of peak equalization as similar to a bell curve. The nominal frequency being boosted/reduced is at the high point of the curve, and it fades off to the left and right from there. The width of the curve is defined by the Q setting. That means how many frequencies to the left and right of the nominal frequency will also be affected. A Q of 1.4 is essentially eqivalent to an octave. The lower the Q setting, the wider the range that will be affected.
 
terrible_buddhi,

Try playing with this calculator (Q vs Octave) :

http://www.mhsoft.nl/CalcBandwidth.htm

A Q of 1.4 = 1.01 Octave

You might try thinking about this in terms of Octaves (it's more musical they say) and your ear hears in terms of octaves - 1/3 and critcal bands.

The chart in your article shows some freq ranges: 50Hz and the next freq Range is 100Hz and so on. 100Hz just happens to be the next octave up from 50Hz (octaves double).

So already you can think in this particular chart they're breaking the bass and lo-mids down into various octaves.

A peaking filter (parametric) with a center frequency of 50Hz and a Q of 1.4 (1 octave) would then influence the frequencies both 1/2 octave above and 1/2 octave below 50Hz. You could draw a 'bell-type' curve with its' peak at 50 and the slopes going towards 25Hz and 75Hz (bandwidth = 50Hz which is 1 octave for 50Hz). You could also say the Q is the ratio of the center frequency to the bandwidth and calulate it out from there also.

The idea is then to increase the parametric EQ here at 50Hz if you want to (from the article):
1. Increase to add more fullness to lowest frequency instruments like foot, toms, and the bass. Peak equalization with a 1.4 Q.

That's a cool article I've got it in my notebook.
Good EQing !
kylen:)
 
Last edited:
so, then following the article where it says to cut at 400hz and boost at 5 khz...but using a peak of 50hz, isn't the 5khz and 400 hz for that matter already cut?

any settings in waves parametric eq will be tres beneficial in explaining this concept so I can see it. Thanks!
 
so, then following the article where it says to cut at 400hz and boost at 5 khz...but using a peak of 50hz, isn't the 5khz and 400 hz for that matter already cut?

I'm not exactly sure where you are in the link but you have to watch what's happening in articles. Sometimes they can switch from talking about a full mix to talking about individual tracks with no notice ! Ha Ha After the 20th reading it gets more obvious... :)

I don't have Waves some other folks do but here's an interesting article that has shelves and peaking parametric stuff in it:

http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects/Articles/Equalization/#par

Don't forget to play with one too - sometimes when I get a new effect I'll turn the sound down and run pink noise thru it while watching a spectrum analyzer so I can 'see' how it works. You can do that to see how EQ's work.
kylen
 
Back
Top