Dumb EQ Question I'm Sure, But...

[hookiefree]

Everything I read on EQ and mixing says it's better to cut than to boost. Then they go on to say "boost @ 10K to brighten vox." etc. So do they really mean cut everything but the 10K range? I've been boosting and I wonder if ti would sound better to cut everything but the desired range.

The way the linear EQ is set up, it seems like a backwards way to work.

Thanks. I know it's probably a dumb question but please don't link me to another EQ primer unless it answers my question specifically.

 

[mshilarious]

I think that's a bit like the driving instructors who tell you not to speed . . . but then I wrecked my car two weeks ago, so you probably shouldn't take my advice either.

 

[crispycutz]

i would say that you should boost around 13000 (13khz)
with a low Q like 1 or 1.3 a db or two.

check this out

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/41AE5FECC7D8418D86256675000A3CFD

 

[crispycutz]

sorry...i see you didnt want a link...

check it out though, its pretty straightfoward...

as for boosting and cutting, some times it is is better just to pull back on some freq.'s....

whenever you pull something down, everything else essentially, goes up a bit.

I dont think that your reading sources meant to cut EVERYTHING except the 10khz range,

but remember you should compress first, then eq last.

Roll off everything below like 150hz or so, tweak the mid ranges around 2500hz to 3000hz depending, then boost the top end a bit. This is for vocals right? the link is a pretty good guide...I have it pasted next to my comp....

.1db or even .2db can make an audible difference..
good luck ...hope i helped

 

[boingoman]

Part of "don't boost" is a holdover from the days of really crappy eq. Even a lot of top-end equipment couldn't boost really well, and anything else, well....Part of it comes from loss of headroom due to one part of the signal being a lot stronger than the rest, lowering the average strength. Part of it comes from the fact that generally, yes, you are trying to get rid of bad stuff rather than add in the good stuff.

Whenever you boost you add distortion, out of phase elements, and noise to your signal, especially with a cheap EQ and with large amounts of boost(more than 6 db, in my book). You can hear it if you play around with an EQ. Probably not the distortion, but definitely the phasing issues. This is why people recommended not to boost, as alot of EQs just boosted like crap. Hook a set of headphones up to a cheap graphic eq and listen as you boost and cut each frequency. But cutting everything to boost one freq or band has it's own problems. If you cut everything below 10k with say, low, low-mid, and hi-mid eq, you are going to have some issues where those bands cross. You want to eq as little as possible, in my opinion, with most eqs, to have as little signal as possible going through the filters, boost or cut.

Eqs in general have gotten better, but just avoid excessive boost. It's way harder(and more expensive) to design a good additive eq and make it sound good, and it eats up headroom to have just a band or two boosted really high. If I need to boost EQ a real lot, I try to move the mic to get the sound closer to what I'm looking for, especially recording digital, where you want to get the hottest average signal you can.

That being said, do whatever you gotta do to make it sound good. If it sounds good with the highs boosted, it does.

So it's like MShilarious said. Drive however you want after you learn the rules, and how they came about.

 

[ocnor]

As opposed to what Crispycuts said I prefer to EQ first and compress after. This way any spikes that are created by boosting will get compressed. Also if you roll off everything below 150Hz it will sound like a tin can.

 

[mixandmaster]

Everything I read on EQ and mixing says it's better to cut than to boost. Then they go on to say "boost @ 10K to brighten vox." etc. So do they really mean cut everything but the 10K range? I've been boosting and I wonder if ti would sound better to cut everything but the desired range.

The way the linear EQ is set up, it seems like a backwards way to work.

Thanks. I know it's probably a dumb question but please don't link me to another EQ primer unless it answers my question specifically.

It's because the bands on most analog and some software-based eqs don't cover the whole frequency spectrum. For example, on an SSL console EQ the lo shelf only goes up to about 500 and the high shelf only goes down to around 1500. There is no easy way to lower ALL frequencies under 10K evenly. With software-based eqs like Waves Renissance and others, this is not an issue, as the bands go all the way across the spectrum.

 

[mixandmaster]

but remember you should compress first, then eq last.

As with most "trueisms", this is not always true. For example, if you've got a kick drum with with way too much lo end, you may want to take care of the lows before you compress, as the subs would keep the compressor over the threshold, when you may want more of the higher frequencies to resonate.

 

[crispycutz]

I stand corrected....

its all style and experimentation right?

I have this obsession with vocals ....sorry.

 

[dirtythermos]

As opposed to what Crispycuts said I prefer to EQ first and compress after. This way any spikes that are created by boosting will get compressed. Also if you roll off everything below 150Hz it will sound like a tin can.

If you boost before compression, you're not boosting that frequency, you're adding extra compression to it.

 

[kylen]

I think the EQ first or compression first discussion is kind of important and depends what you are doing.

With the material I handle I could either be repairing it or polishing it.

If I'm repairing then the EQ is grossly off or Dynamics are grossly off. Repair first, polish the results second.

For example during a repair if the bass is way off and there are bass frequency resonances for the length of the song then I'd run a parametric EQ on it to smooth it out. Sometimes you can see that kind of thing in a RTA spectrum analyzer like the free Voxengo VST SPAN. Following that EQ adjustment I might compress it if it needs it, lastly a limiter would then handle any transients as needed.

Otherwise if the balance of the pretty good then I might just compress it a little and maybe freq carve it to get it to sit in the mix better.

I think Blue Bear Studios has mixing primers as well as some of the mastering guys that come thru here. Even though you initially said you weren't looking for links they can be a great source to give you ideas to experiment with, make mistakes, turn mistakes into experience and attain your mixing goals.

 

[Ronan]

Part of "don't boost" is a holdover from the days of really crappy eq. Even a lot of top-end equipment couldn't boost really well, and anything else, well.....

I have to disagree with this. There are a few mixers like Tom Lord Alge that boost really agressively, but for the most part the majority of the top mixers in the world do a lot more cutting than boosting. Its actually harder to cut more than boost, it took me over a decade to get it down. When you mostly cut you can use a lot less EQ which helps the mixes sound bigger and more natural.

The cut instead of boost mantra is even more important with digital EQs. Many top mixers will only use digital EQs to cut and analog to boost.

 

[boingoman]

I have to disagree with this. There are a few mixers like Tom Lord Alge that boost really agressively, but for the most part the majority of the top mixers in the world do a lot more cutting than boosting. Its actually harder to cut more than boost, it took me over a decade to get it down. When you mostly cut you can use a lot less EQ which helps the mixes sound bigger and more natural.

The cut instead of boost mantra is even more important with digital EQs. Many top mixers will only use digital EQs to cut and analog to boost.

Oh, I definitely agree with everything you say. I thought I made the artistic reasons for cutting over boosting clear later in my post, but maybe I was concentrating a bit heavily on the electronic aspects. When I said boosting was harder I was speaking strictly from the angle of building an EQ which can boost a lot without introducing a bunch of crap into the signal, and that besides the technical side, most EQ performed is cutting. And that I try to use as little as possible, period. If something is too much or too little my first choice is to move the mic. To me EQ is about the hardest aspect of mixing, and I've got a lot to learn and experiment with. Thanks for the insights.

The cut instead of boost mantra is even more important with digital EQs. Many top mixers will only use digital EQs to cut and analog to boost.

Can you give me a little more insight on this? Are you saying that digital EQ is preferred for cutting at this point? Or that the quality of digital EQ suffices for EQ tasks involving cuts but is not up to snuff when it comes to boosting?(At least for top mixers)

 

[kylen]

Yes - the cut vs boost thing is a funny animal indeed, hehe.

Once I got my monitoring fixed and could actually hear a lot more of the frequency spectrum I was surprised to find out that certain types of cuts, instead of giving me less of what I cut, seemed to give me more of everything else. Does that make sense ? It's very interesting...

 

[boingoman]

Yeah, it makes sense. That's what Ronan was saying. I kinda got wrapped up in the tech side, but it's really the artistic side and how things sound that is important. Cutting a bit of what you don't want (or what sounds bad) out makes the rest of a track sound better. The better the track sounds, the better the mix sounds. And according to Ronan, bigger and more natural. There is also the concept of taking a bit out of one instrument in the mix to make room for another, especially when they overlap in frequency, like dipping a bit in the kick to make some room for the bass, instead of boosting something in the bass to make it stand out.
Some of this is kinda new to me- I'm coming from mixing live shows in small to medium clubs, where you are trying to blend the PA with what's coming off the stage. You don't really have to worry about an SVT getting lost in the kick in a 300 seat club!
(I hate shows that are way too loud cause the sound guy wants everything in the mix so his board tape comes out good).

 

[kylen]

I'm coming from mixing live shows in small to medium clubs, where you are trying to blend the PA with what's coming off the stage. You don't really have to worry about an SVT getting lost in the kick in a 300 seat club!
(I hate shows that are way too loud cause the sound guy wants everything in the mix so his board tape comes out good).

hehe - Stage projection vs Sound reinforcement. God bless ya - that's a tricky thing ! Different sound sources sometimes fighting each other - some times complementing - good thing human bodies eat sound, or is it?

 

[masteringhouse]

The cut instead of boost mantra is even more important with digital EQs. Many top mixers will only use digital EQs to cut and analog to boost.

Ronan -

I curious to hear the reasoning behind this?

 

[hookiefree]

Thanks guys. A lot of good info. I 'm glad compression and EQ came up cuz that was another question I had. I think I need to tighten up my monitoring set up like you kylen, so I can hear what's really going on.
Thanks for the link Crispy. I'm not against info, I'm actually pressed for it. I just didn't want a thread full of links (especially to stuff I've already read) and no actual responses.

 

[Ronan]

Can you give me a little more insight on this? Are you saying that digital EQ is preferred for cutting at this point? Or that the quality of digital EQ suffices for EQ tasks involving cuts but is not up to snuff when it comes to boosting?(At least for top mixers)

Well there are a wide range of opinions about EQ, Myself and many others feel that Analog EQ still sounds much better than digital EQ (I am sure some one will chime in a rebuke). Analog EQ sounds much better for sculpting a sound, and not being an electrical engineer I can only pitch in that its sounds better in the mix. The one thing that digital EQ can do really well is cut very narrow specific bands, so if you have a problem frequency it can often be easier to dial in and fix. When I am mixing off of pro tools (using an analog mixer of course). I use analog EQ for everything except fixing a few narrow trouble spots on individual tracks.

The mastering engineers I use usually work the same. Get the sound with analog EQ and fix a few trouble spots by dipping with digital EQ.

Digital EQs are starting to get better every year, but many on the market are just awful. I was doing a record in Europe and had to mix on a Mackie dB8. The EQ was so bad I could not believe it. I remember trying to boost a little 4k on the kick drum to help it cut throught the mix and the EQ actually made it disapear. I was stunned.

 

[boingoman]

Thanks Ronan! Kind of what I figured....Digital is catching up, but still has some work to do. There is a video interview with Rupert Neve posted here which is great. Not too much about EQ but very cool to watch, especially his views on digital sound & surface mount technology.