does - = +

[jugalo180]

i've searched the forum but lucked out on finding any answers tailored to my questions. i'm pretty sure it's been covered, but some of this stuff is dug deep, and spreaded thinly throughout the forum. please explaine in layman's term.

let's say i cut a bass guitar -4db around everything below 250hz and above 300hz, is it recommended to then add +5db in the gain to compensate for the cut?

i've been cutting frequencies using the same technique as above but have not been applying any gain, am i compromising quality from the signal?

i often cut everything around synthesized instrument, in a graphic eq, most of the time below 10db. i end up with only three bands at zero db usually after sweeping and cutting everything that is annoying when boosted. am i taking too big of a slice out of the sound, in result comprimising important harmonics? maybe my question is too broad but any help is well appreciated.


thanks

 

[Seanmorse79]

I'm sure there is a formula, but I don't think you'd want to use it. When you cut frequencies, you change the perceived volume of the track, and depending on other tracks, the gain may or may not need to be raised.

I don't think you're going to adversely affect the sound quality by making 4db cuts. Keeping in mind that you may lose harmonics by doing high or low roll-offs. As a rule of thumb, I try not to cut unless my ears tell me that I need to. Roll-offs can help, but they have to be used carefully. For that, there is no set formula that I know of.

 

[jugalo180]

okay seanmorse79

say i apply a cut not to subtract any annoying frequiencies but to avoid boosting the sweet frequiency. then do you think it will be necessary to compensate some gain so that the untouched frequencies can stand out? is the gain going to compensate for volume loss in the cuts or is it just going defeat the purpose of cutting and not boosting, meaning will it still introduce some sort of distortion?

 

[Seanmorse79]

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to that question ...it depends on what you're cutting. As for whether or not you'll be introducing distortion, that depends on your gear.

If there's room to boost without distortion, you'll be able to boost. Whether or not you need to boost depends upon the entire mix. Generally, cutting frequencies is done to make room for other tracks. Boosting may very well defeat that purpose because it's filling out other areas of the spectrum.

I would have to say that generally, if you're significantly cutting into the "center frequency" of the track, then you'll need to boost the gain to compensate. However, the need to do this should be rare.

 

[jugalo180]

okay

got it, thanx

 

[barefoot]

There are two main reasons why you might want to cut. One is simply because it makes that particular track sound better for some reason. In this case, all is relative and raising or lowering the overall track level doesn’t affect the new spectral balance - within limits. The other main reason you might want to cut is because frequencies from one track are interfering with frequencies from another. In this case there might be an absolute threshold level above which those frequencies in that particular track cause problems. For example, a -4dB cut might eliminate the inference problem but when you raise the track level the problem reappears because you have brought the culprit frequencies back above the critical threshold. So in this case you might need to cut more to compensate for the level increase.

Make sense?

Also, I would avoid using graphic equalizers as much as possible. In many cases you are needlessly degrading much of your track spectrum. More targeted parametric type filters like shelving and notch filters will cause less damage than the battery of bandpass filters in a graphic equalizer.

barefoot

 

[jugalo180]

hmm,

does that hold true for para-graphic eq's? man, i'm really learning something here. if paragraphic eq's do more harm than good then what would be a good notch, shelving plugin(s)?

 

[Seanmorse79]

Paragraphic EQ's are fantastic - that's pretty much all I use anymore. There's a big difference between graphic and paragraphic EQ's.

Here's a link to the best in-depth EQ article I've ever read.

http://www.studiocovers.com/articles6.htm

Click on "All things being EQual". The 3rd part reviews the pros and cons of some very good EQ plugins. But read all 3 parts - you'll learn a lot of important stuff.

 

[jugalo180]

wow

i was just reading that, this guy has pretty good reviews. if he's an engineer where does he get the time to do run a web page that is as extensive as his?

 

[barefoot]

Well, there is some great info that article, but the section in Part Two where he says that Q is a dork term and it doesn't matter is all wrong. Q is in fact very musically important. Q does indeed determine the bandwith of a filter, but a narrow bandwith doesn't come for free. Q also describes the damping properties of a filter. A narrow bandwith high Q filter also happens to have very poor damping and therefore will smear out the signal in time. For example, a deep 1 octave notch filter, with a Q of perhaps 3 or more, will cause significant time smearing (transient degradation and phase distortion) reaching about 1/2 octave into the pass bands both above and below the notch. Simply thinking about your sound in terms frequencies rather than the whole picture which includes time will seriously hinder your ability to create real depth and clarity in your sound. Remember that there are tradeoffs to practically everything you do. A good rule of thumb is to always try and use the lowest Q (best damped, widest bandwith) filter that will do the job.

barefoot

 

[jugalo180]

got it

okay, notch, and shelving, and Q are new terms for me, i have to learn, visualize, and relate them to something before i can fully understand those terms. hopefully he covers those terms, and then i can be back with more questions.

 

[Seanmorse79]

I saw that too. I think he was just deterring the use of "Q" as a unit of measure, instead of working in octaves. Personally, I don't translate well between the 2 terms, so I reference "Q" too (guess I'm a dork)