[EQ] Am I understanding this correctly?

[InternetH3ro]

So being more of a n00b than I thought to home recording, I've been immersing myself into learning everything I can. When it comes specifically to EQ, I have heard terms such as "add some boost to the XXX hz range), or "cut the low end". At first I had no idea what was meant by "cutting" and "boosting" certain frequencies, but I think I got it figured out.

In Cubase LE, each track as a 4-band EQ: lo, lo-mid, mid, hi. Each are set, by default, to a certain frequency (not sure what as it's on my laptop, and I'm currently at my desktop). For each frequency, there are two dials, one inside the other. The outer dial increases or decreases the frequency. The inner dial, however, raises or lowers the frequency on a graph. So I am guessing that when someone refers to "cutting" a certain frequency, they aren't lowering the frequency, but moving it below the middle line of the graph (decreasing the amount of said frequency?). And "boosting" is increasing the amount of said frequency, or moving the frequency above the line.

I'd love to have some fancy screenshots, but my back is acting up and I'm pretty much banished to the computer chair, so I don't have access to my laptop.

But have I figured this out? Or, at the very least, gained a basic, rudimentary knowledge of these terms? Thanks, guys.

 

[Gandalf]

Yes, what you say is correct. Boosting at (for instance) 100 hz means increasing the amount of the signal around 100 hz in the signal. Of course it doesn't just boost the stuff at exactly 100 hz, but some about and below that as well. How much above and below is set by the bandwidth.

 

[mikemorgan]

The "smile" you see on a graphical representation of EQ is referred to as an EQ Curve or EQ ramp. The width of that smile is the range from xxxHz to xxxHz and is commonly called the "Q" or "Range" of that paramter. Typically, on a parametric EQ (what you must be using), the controls are Q/Range and Boost/Cut. Boost/Cut raises the center of the Q, and Range widens or narrows the "BAND" of frequencies being adjusted. Then there are filters like high-pass, low-pass, high-cut, low-cut which allow you to tail off, or ramp up the very ends of you frequency scales. These filters have the same Q/Range/ and Boost/Cut controls as your other parameters. Hope this helps

 

[InternetH3ro]

Excellent, so I did kinda figure it out myself, or at least come to an understanding of what I've heard. Still don't understand the specifics of it all, but now I know. Thanks, guys.

 

[pangalactic]

The term I never understood (still don't) is when people refer to "sweeping" at whatever frequency. Anybody care to clear that up for me?

 

[Nick98338]

SWEEPING. Ya know you have some problem freq. somewhere, but you don't know exactly where it is. Ya need to find it. Take one of those presets, and boost it up 9db, or so. Then move that preset toward the low freqs, then back up through the high freqs... SWEEPING back and forth from low to high and back again. When the preset hits the problem freq., the boost will accentuate it and the problem will become absolutely hideous. That's when you know that you're close. Now, narrow the Q so the preset covers less freq. range and SWEEP slowly in a smaller area near the problem. Narrow the Q some more, sweep in a still smaller area. Pretty soon you'll know exactly where the problem is. Then, bring down that preset until you have a 3db cut. Adjust to taste.

 

[rayc]

Aren't some wah wah pedals sweepers?

 

[pangalactic]

SWEEPING. Ya know you have some problem freq. somewhere, but you don't know exactly where it is. Ya need to find it. Take one of those presets, and boost it up 9db, or so. Then move that preset toward the low freqs, then back up through the high freqs... SWEEPING back and forth from low to high and back again. When the preset hits the problem freq., the boost will accentuate it and the problem will become absolutely hideous. That's when you know that you're close. Now, narrow the Q so the preset covers less freq. range and SWEEP slowly in a smaller area near the problem. Narrow the Q some more, sweep in a still smaller area. Pretty soon you'll know exactly where the problem is. Then, bring down that preset until you have a 3db cut. Adjust to taste.

Thanks That's probably the most useful advice I've had on these forums so far.

 

[Kevin Deschwazi]

My method is slightly different, I just start off with the narrowest Q setting and boost as high as that particular eq goes and then sweep.

Problem fequencies will kind of leap out anyway with the gain all the way up.

You need to have your monitors fairly low though.

 

[Kevin Deschwazi]

Aren't some wah wah pedals sweepers?

Yes, a wah pedal is a sweepable band pass filter. (Parametrics are peaking filters or rather a set of peaking filters).

 

[eeb]

wah pedals= really hard to eq and get to sit right in a song.. in my limited experience with dealing with wah

 

[InternetH3ro]

Okay, here's another question. When someone talks about using a "high-pass filter", what does that mean? I've seen some explanations on the web, but they're all a bit over my head. If someone could boil it down into laymen's terms, that would be excellent. I also want to thank everyone who has supplied these easy to understand answers. Very cool!

 

[Nick98338]

High-pass means pass high. It will "pass" (meaning will not affect) freqs that are higher than a certain point. It will not pass (will block, or reduce) freqs that are lower than the certain point. Put another way... high-pass = low-cut. Normally used to reduce "rumble" noise below about 80hz, or so. Also known as a "ramp", since the resulting eq curve looks like a down-left sloping line.

 

[pangalactic]

I've always used high- and low-pass filters to remove annoying 'hiss' and ambient noise picked up by mics when I've recorded with computer mics into a line-in on my soundcard or just recorded with the built-in mic on my laptop. When I was recording like that I was using Audacity, so I had to guess as far as what frequencies to use, but I've managed to get decent results doing it that way. I haven't used them with more advanced programs, but I assume more control=better results.

 

[Kevin Deschwazi]

I’m not sure that a LPF would be the best tool for removing hiss. Of course the best thing to do would be to sort what’s causing the hiss but if that’s a no go then in terms of eq I suggest a peaking filter would be better suited to the task. If you filter out all frequencies above the hiss then you could be losing quite a bit of air from your recordings. For example tape hiss is usually around 12-16Khz. If you set a LPF at 12khz you’re going to lose quite a bit of high end detail. The parametric eq allows you to be much more surgical.

Of course a good hiss removal tool will probably be the least destructive but they tend to cost a lot.

The reason HPFs are OK as “rumble filters” is because the frequency you set them at is usually outside of the range of the programme material anyway so the original track is essentially unaffected. That's probably not going to be the case when you're dealing with hiss.

 

[pangalactic]

I realise that. I would never use it on a 'real' recording, but for the purpose of adding some clarity to the most basic of recordings - generally for demoing my ideas, just so I don't forget them - I've always had usable results. Obviously, though, I have no idea what its actual purpose is (until reading this thread, anyway).