Cool project Idea. Please read and help.

  • Thread starter Thread starter d(-_-)b-Phones
  • Start date Start date
D

d(-_-)b-Phones

New member
This is not so much a musical Idea as it is a Diagram Idea I thought of when i was going to bed, I have found that the One thing, that really holds me back is my Hz when mixing, i cant remember what range is what, what goes where what ranges are good for Guitars, kick drum, bass, vocals etc..... so I guess the bottom line of my problem is Hz modeling, so what i was hoping I would be able to do is make a very laid back non strict Hz layout Diagram. A few things i dont know is the actual Spectrum how big it is and how much things can change in a single mix for each tune. But i seriously need a starting point or i will never learn. With nuendo I have a Spectrum range from 20hz to 20000hz so what I was thinking is making somthing that looks like a time line from 20hz to 20000hz then using overbars ( they kinda look like an upside down U with a flat top ) to kinda space out where guitars sound nice. then at the top of the bar write guitar. It may seem lame or weird or newb to some of you, but I think It would help me a great deal, that is if it is even possible to do, I do understand that every song will have tweeks here and there that will not be the same as before, but, at the same time these are kinks I can and will workout as I learn.

Please help.
Derek
 
Agree....sorta

Sounds like a cool visual aid.......as a reference point. People learn in many different ways. Visual learning is very common.

I'd be careful about getting hooked on a chart or diagram to help you "cookie cutter" the isolation or equalization of instruments. Probably cool as a learning aid.

Everything I've read on here and experienced personally tells me that the ears should be your barometer for "right", "wrong", "fits", "don't fit", "sounds good", doesn't sound good", etc.....

Then again, what do I know.....just an opinion.

Bart
 
Ditto...sorta

I agree with Bartman that such a chart would be very cool and handy, but should be used as a reference only and not as an immutable recipe for action.

With that caveat in mind, allow me to offer the following tables from my personal recording notebook that may help serve as starter data for your chart. I compiled these tables by combining information from several textbooks and reference books on recording/mixing/mastering techniques. If/when you do finish such a chart, I wouldn't mind having a copy for myself ;) :

INSTRUMENT CHARACTERISTICS BY FREQUENCY
BASS
50-80Hz bottom, 700Hz attack, 2.5kHz snap
Fundamentals - E1 to F4 (41.2 - 343.2Hz)
Pick/slap harmonics up to 4kHz

KICK
80-100Hz bottom, hollowness below 400Hz, 3-5kHz attack

SNARE
120-240Hz fatness, 900Hz ring, 5kHz crispness, 10kHz snap

TOMS
240-500Hz fullness, 5-7kHz attack

FLOOR TOM
80-120Hz fullness, 5kHz attack

CONGA
200Hz ring, 5kHz slap

CYMBALS/HI HAT
200Hz clang, 8-10kHz sparkle

ELECTRIC GUITAR
240-500Hz fullness, 2-5kHz presence
Fundamentals - E2 to D6 (82-1.174kHz)
Low impedance pickups amplify freqs above 5kHz but
guitar cables and amp responses tend to attenuate freqs above 5-6kHz

ACOUSTIC GUITAR
80Hz fullness, 240Hz body, 2-5kHz presence
80-100Hz sound hole resonants

ORGAN
80Hz fullness, 240Hz body, 2-5kHz presence

PIANO
80Hz fullness, 2-5kHz presence, 2.5kHz honky-tonk

VOICE
120Hz fullness, 240Hz boominess, 5kHz presence, 5kHz sibilance, 10-15kHz air

HORNS
120-240Hz fullness, piercing at 5kHz
Trumpet: Fundamentals - E3 to D6 (165-1.174kHz); Formants - 1-1.5kHz and 2-3kHz
Tenor Trombone: Fundamentals E2 to C5 (82-520Hz); Overtones - >5kHz (>10kHz overblown)
Tuba: Low fundamental B0 (29Hz); Overtones 1.5-2kHz
French Horn: Fundamentals B1 to B5 (15-700 Hz); Formants ~340Hz, 750-3.5kHz

STRINGS
240Hz fullness, 7-10kHz scratchiness
Violin: Fundamentals - G3 to E6 (200-1.3kHz); Formants - 300Hz, 1kHz, and 1.2kHz.
Viola is tuned 1/5th lower than violin and has fewer harmonic overtones.
Cello: Fundamentals - C2 to C5 (56 to 520Hz); Overtones < 8kHz.

WOODWINDS
Flute: Fundamentals - B3 to C7 (247-2.1kHz); Overtones to 3kHz to 6 kHz.
Clarinet: Fundamentals - C3 to G6 (139-1.57kHz); Overtones to 1.5kHz soft, 12kHz loud.
Tenor Sax (Bb): Fundamentals - B2 to F5 (117-725Hz); Harmonics to 8kHz; Breath to 13kHz.
Alto Sax (Eb): Fundamentals - C3 to G5 (140-784Hz); Harmonics to 8kHz; Breath to 13kHz.
-------
FREQUENCY CHARACTERISTICS BY OCTAVE
31Hz Rumble/Chest
63Hz Bottom
125Hz Boom/Thump/Warmth
250Hz Fullness/Mud
500Hz Honk
1kHz Whack
2kHz Crunch
4kHz Edge
8kHz Sibilance/Definition/Pierce
16kHz Air
--------
FREQUENCY CHARACTERISTICS BY SPECTRUM SLICE
16Hz - 60 Hz
SUB BASS Sense of power.
Felt more than heard. Too much is muddy.
60Hz - 250Hz
BASS Fundamental notes of rhythm section.
Makes music fat or thin. Too much is boomy.
250Hz - 2kHz
LOW MIDS Low-order harmonics of most instruments. Too much 500-1K is honking.
Too much 1K-2K is tinny.
2kHz - 4kHz
HIGH MIDS Vocal recognition, hard consonants, percussive attack. Too much = listener fatigue.
4kHz - 6kHz
PRESENCE Clarity & definition. Boost to bring forward in mix.
6kHz - 16kHz
BRILLIANCE Brightness/Crispness. Too much is brittle or sibilant.

HTH,

G.
 
Can you give me a better idea of what " attack " and " fullness " I imagine your talking about the freq range you find these in ... like for snare if your finding your snap and crisp in Mid Highs then you would apply the Hz to Mid High.

That type of flexability.
 
The use of adjectives when describing something that can only be properly defined by the senses and not by words (like sound, taste, orgasms...) is always a dodgy task. I'm kind of suprised (and thankful!) you did not ask about "whack", "edge", "crunch" and "air". (No I won't answer those. ;)

Nevertheless, in this context you can consider "attack" as being the approximate frequency of the fastest transients created by the instrument. These transients are usually (but not always, depending on the instrument) created percussively, such as when the stick hits the drum head or the pick hits the guitar string. So when you want to accentuate or deaden that percussive sound, the "attack" frequency for that instrument is a good place to start.

"Fullness" on the other hand, usually referrs in this context to the frequency range where most of the sonic energy emitted by the instrument is located (or, to perhaps oversimplify it a little bit, the loudest part of the instrument.) While most (or at least the loudest part) of the sustained sound of the instrument may come from range, the range does not necessarily all good sounds; this part of the frequency range of the instrument often contains muddy-sounding overtones and "honking" resonances as well. Some of those instrument hot spots have been ID'd in the tables as well.

Keep in mind, though, that the supplied "attack" and "fullness" values do not necessarily constitute the entire (or even all the important) frequency ranges of all instruments; they just highlight some general characteristics. Some instruments such as violins or saxaphones generate such complicated aural fingerprints with multi-order harmonics and such all over the spectrum, that very important parts of their timbre, or "sound" just cannot be easily quantified as a simple point or linear curve on a spectrograph. However, the general information provided can be used as guideposts for some general EQ tactics.

G.
 
Yikes. This is going to be harder than I thought, I do understand what your saying. but its starting to seem more and more flexable as I go. as in thinking there is one well beaten path within the trails is false.

I was hoping for answers like...
Guitar - #hz-#hz
bassguitar - #hz to #hz
Etc...

But thinking now even If i would have recived those answers, I am still stuck with the.. lows, low mids, mids, mid highs, and highs. leaving me with 5 Vars for every one track, of whatever sound it is. then in each 5 Vars, i have near 20000 vars for each 5, making the spread 100.000 per track, and say I have 24 tracks of music.... thars 2.400.000 Vars that can change at any time. and every one effects another.... there must be some way to wind all this down.
 
a guitar can have frequencies ranging so largely, that listing 40Hz- 12,000Khz isnt going to help you. mess around with an eq on your snare track. you already got a great "cheat sheet" in the reply above. apply it to your tracks and try it out. but don't use it as a formula, because your snare might not need a boost at 240Hz every time. hope this helped
 
hahaha, sorry mate. Just an example to help you out of your dream:
Bassguitar: 30hz - 20khz. Ain't no fixed answer mate ;)
 
Damn the torpedos!

Yeap, 'Eyes and Halion have it exactly correct. Unfortunately it's not as easy as you had hoped.

All instruments overlap each other in the frequency spectrum, and (with the exception of simple oscillator synths) have very complicated "voiceprints" that are all over the spectrum. It's not as simple as Guitar fits here and Oboe fits there.

I have seen several frequency charts in the past that were horizontal bar graphs showing the frequency ranges for each of the instruments with the instruments stacked top to bottom (e.g. cello on top, guitar in the middle, piccalo on the bottom) and the frequencies from 20 to 20K left to right along the bottom. There are three problems with these charts:

1.) The instruments overlap more than they don't; the charts don't really tell you all that much other than some have wider ranges than others or some may go lower or higher than others at their ends.

2.)The bars imply that every instrument generates every possible frequency within the bar's range. This is not necessarily true, there can be and often are "holes" in the frequency range that are just not typically generated by the instrument.

3.) The frequency range bars also imply that every instrument generates all its frequencies with the same intensity. The truth is most instruments have resonant or otherwise "favorite" frequencies that they are more efficient at producing and projecting and others that may be harmonics or overtones or "difficult" frequencies that it generates with less energy and/or volume.


But, BUT, I do not believe that all is lost with your idea anyway. I believe there can be a graphical way to represent the kind of information presented in my "cheat sheets" (and perhaps other related information as well) as a graphical spectral chart that would be a neato and helpful thing to have. I still believe this would be a great project to follow up on.

G.
 
I have some JPG's of some EQ charts by somebody whom I've long since forgotten. I use these STRICTLY as a starting point and if it would help I could put them online and post a link.
 
7String.....Post away!! I am curious to see also.

Anything is worth looking at as a starting point! :)
 
newatthis said:
7String.....Post away!! I am curious to see also.

Anything is worth looking at as a starting point! :)
Click to expand...

This is everything I have on EQ... and as I stated before... I use this ONLY as a starting point because every instrument has different characteristics... and as they say... your mileage may vary...

http://www.jeffsounds.com/schtuff
 
Chicken or egg?

Jeffsounds,

Thanks for sharing your stuff with us. :)

I assume those EQ curves are meant to pictorally represent the actual frequency range of the instruments themselves, and not equalizer settings for applying EQ to those instruments?

Just want to make that clear for everybody.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Jeffsounds,

Thanks for sharing your stuff with us. :)

I assume those EQ curves are meant to pictorally represent the actual frequency range of the instruments themselves, and not equalizer settings for applying EQ to those instruments?

Just want to make that clear for everybody.

G.
Click to expand...

No, those are the EQ curves that somebody uses (can't remember who though!) as a starting point for EQ'ing those particular instruments.
 
7String,

First, let me apologize for mis-naming you in the last post. My mistake. :o

As far as having a template curve for EQing instruments, I personally don't understand how that could possibly work.

No two guitars sound the same. Even the same guitar tends to sound different from one session to the next due to temp and humidity changes, string changes and tuning changes. Add to that differences in pickups, room, amplifier, microphone, player, recording gear, type of song, other instruments in the mix, and positions of the planets and it's impossible to say that any given EQ curve is even close to what one needs for best sound on any given guitar on any given day, let alone two different guitars in two different situations.

It's just not possible to say that a 5-minute solo played on a Paul run though Marshall 4x12s in the practice hall on a warm humid summer day and mic'd by an SM57 centered on the voice coil will sound any good with any particular EQ setting, let alone the same one as you would use for a rhythm guitar part played on a Tele through Fender 4x10s on a crisp winter evening and mic'd by a Sen421 angled in from the edge of a cone.

And even if you could, all those curves are *all boost* all the way across the spectrum. More times than not, you can get a much better sound out of almost any instrument by *cutting* just a few dBs here or there than you could ever get out of massive boost all over the place.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
7String,

First, let me apologize for mis-naming you in the last post. My mistake. :o

As far as having a template curve for EQing instruments, I personally don't understand how that could possibly work.

No two guitars sound the same. Even the same guitar tends to sound different from one session to the next due to temp and humidity changes, string changes and tuning changes. Add to that differences in pickups, room, amplifier, microphone, player, recording gear, type of song, other instruments in the mix, and positions of the planets and it's impossible to say that any given EQ curve is even close to what one needs for best sound on any given guitar on any given day, let alone two different guitars in two different situations.

It's just not possible to say that a 5-minute solo played on a Paul run though Marshall 4x12s in the practice hall on a warm humid summer day and mic'd by an SM57 centered on the voice coil will sound any good with any particular EQ setting, let alone the same one as you would use for a rhythm guitar part played on a Tele through Fender 4x10s on a crisp winter evening and mic'd by a Sen421 angled in from the edge of a cone.

And even if you could, all those curves are *all boost* all the way across the spectrum. More times than not, you can get a much better sound out of almost any instrument by *cutting* just a few dBs here or there than you could ever get out of massive boost all over the place.

G.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize. My ex called me Tom for the last six years of our marriage. When I finally divorced her she moved in with a guy named Tom. Go figger... ;)

I totally agree with what you are saying. All *I* said was that these graphs were something that SOMEBODY ELSE used as a starting point to get the different instruments out of the way of each other. a STARTING POINT. Good for newbies that need a STARTING POINT. It also might help them 'visually' understand the EQ process. People with more experience in using EQ and those who are able to just listen to an instrument (lucky b*%&*@d's) and determine what frequency needs work would more than likely NOT use these charts as a starting point.

Now my understanding of EQ is that BOOST means anything ABOVE the zero db line and anything BELOW the zero db line is a cut. I don't see much of ANY of these graphs going ABOVE the zero db line.
 
Spank me Angelina J.

7,

Ok, I swear I wasn't sent here by your ex or by anybody named Tom. ;) Also, I wasn't dissing you or your contribution personally.

I'm just a blind idiot.

I went back and looked at your EQ settings again and you are right, they are almost all cut and very little boost. Somehow when I first looked at them I was thinking 0dB was on the floor and not in the middle. I really gotta learn to take the needle out of my arm before I post. You're right and I'm blind.

I still have a problem with the idea of a technique that starts with a template EQ curve, but maybe that's just my unfair bias on my part based on the fact that I cut my teeth on a totally different approach and idology. But I have also learned since then that in all things there is usually more than one way to skin the cat. I'll back off and shut my mouth for a little while and take my punishment...

:D

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
7,

Ok, I swear I wasn't sent here by your ex or by anybody named Tom. ;) Also, I wasn't dissing you or your contribution personally.
Click to expand...

I took no offense at anything you said, trust me. ;)

SouthSIDE Glen said:
I'm just a blind idiot.

I went back and looked at your EQ settings again and you are right, they are almost all cut and very little boost. Somehow when I first looked at them I was thinking 0dB was on the floor and not in the middle. I really gotta learn to take the needle out of my arm before I post. You're right and I'm blind.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I used to be quite clumsy with a turntable myself... hahahaha

SouthSIDE Glen said:
I still have a problem with the idea of a technique that starts with a template EQ curve, but maybe that's just my unfair bias on my part based on the fact that I cut my teeth on a totally different approach and idology. But I have also learned since then that in all things there is usually more than one way to skin the cat. I'll back off and shut my mouth for a little while and take my punishment...

:D

G.
Click to expand...

The difference here being that you are experienced and the person requesting the different freq's of instruments was not. I thought that these graphical representations might give him a hint that all the freq's of different instruments overlap in different places. And again I will state that these graph's should ONLY be used as a STARTING POINT and not just slapped up on everything, because as you said, every bass guitar has different characteristics as well as every guitar, drum, keyboard, etc.

I think he was looking for something like this:

[-----drums-----][-----bass-----][-----guitar-----][-----vocals-----]
20hz----------------------------------------------------------------20khz


But we both know that it just isn't THAT cut and dried. The graphs that I put up are what somebody else used and had cuts in certain places to get them out of the way of other instruments as well as getting rid of freq's that are just not necessary since the human ear wouldn't be able to hear them anyway. But again, only a STARTING POINT, which is why I said something like 'your mileage may vary.'

And don't pick on my illustration!!! I don't care if the freq's are correct or the order of the instruments are correct. But I usually have a 40 pound dachsund growing out of my hip 24/7 and you should see his reaction when I put a 12db boost at about 22k on ANYTHING! hahaha
 
But...but...but...

Agreed on all points.

Does this mean that I don't get that spanking from Angie J.? :(

Damn...

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top