EQ and mixing

[elviskennedy]

Hello All.
I am mixing a recording at the moment, but am a bit lost when it comes to EQ. I can muck around for ages and get a range of decent sounds, but I would really like to slap a default "Snare EQ" setting on my snare track and fine tune from there. Lazy I know, but does anyone know of anything that can do this? Or even a list of suggested EQ settings that I can apply in Cubase?
Any help greatfully appreciated

 

[Massive Master]

Double posting is evil...

 

[Farview]

My Lord! how many different times did you post this same question? The real answer to your question is: If you really want to be an engineer, you will have to learn to like fiddling with EQ. Thats what we do

 

[punkin]

Is there an echo in here?

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

There is truth to the fact that if you want neat little EQ or compressor templates you aren't cut out to be an AE. Every sound, song and performance is different and needs different things.

And there are often 3 or 4 ways to do any one goal--and often 4 or 5 contradictory goals that could all be good.

The AE picks what they think is best for the song and goes for it--they know how to do it almost instinctively (due to their training and knowledge), and hopefully have the common sense and taste to know if it *is* right for that particular piece of music.

Here's the easy answer; THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS. However, AE is pretty easy when you boil it down... if you have done a few years of homework that is.

 

[Strange Leaf]

+18dB @ 1 kHz
+18dB @ 500 Hz
24dB rolloff all above 1.1kHz

Done.

 

[Track Rat]

+18dB @ 1 kHz
+18dB @ 500 Hz
24dB rolloff all above 1.1kHz

Done.

That'll do 'er.

 

[Fletcher]

Thinking about it... find the "whack" in the midrange... usually around 5-700 Hz depending on the tuning of the drum, if you need more, turn it up, if you need less, turn it down... find the "crack" on the top... usually in the 4-6kHz neighborhood... if you need more, turn it up, if you need less, turn it down... if you bring up too many cymbals and shit, narrow the "Q" [which is a bigger number... damn confusing ain't it], if you wanna bring up more cymbals, then maybe try a shelf on the top end... if you need more "thud" [golly, is it the 80's again already?] you can often find it in the 125-160Hz range... but be careful that it doesn't fuck up the rest of the definition with the kik and the bass... that's a tough neighborhood to do a lot of fuckin' round.

...or ...when in doubt, do nothing.

Peace.

 

[Ken Breezy]

I would really like to slap a default "Snare EQ" setting on my snare track and fine tune from there. Lazy I know,

This is actually the harder way. If you want the easy way tune the snare and mic it correctly.


TIP: If you are looking for a certain sound, track it that way.

 

[Tonio]

good one by fletch, I like the whack part best, though sometimes its hard to find due to the mudd. But it comes along when using a HP filter @ 80-20hz judicially. It sometimes aids in not having to boost the crack region.

pls no more thudding!!

LOL

Thinking about it... find the "whack" in the midrange... usually around 5-700 Hz depending on the tuning of the drum, if you need more, turn it up, if you need less, turn it down... find the "crack" on the top... usually in the 4-6kHz neighborhood... if you need more, turn it up, if you need less, turn it down... if you bring up too many cymbals and shit, narrow the "Q" [which is a bigger number... damn confusing ain't it], if you wanna bring up more cymbals, then maybe try a shelf on the top end... if you need more "thud" [golly, is it the 80's again already?] you can often find it in the 125-160Hz range... but be careful that it doesn't fuck up the rest of the definition with the kik and the bass... that's a tough neighborhood to do a lot of fuckin' round.

...or ...when in doubt, do nothing.

Peace.

 

[chessrock]

Thinking about it... find the "whack" in the midrange... usually around 5-700 Hz depending on the tuning of the drum . . .

I tend to think of that as the "thonk!" region, as opposed to "whack." It just sounds more like thonk to me. Call me crazy.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Call me crazy.

Chess, you crazy.............!

 

[Son of Mixerman]

I tend to think of that as the "thonk!" region, as opposed to "whack." It just sounds more like thonk to me. Call me crazy.

IF we was talking bongo's then "thonk" would be correct, but in snare talk its "whack".

Keep em straight Chess

SoMm

 

[lpdeluxe]

Hmmmm...as a student of correct usage I was taught that under certain circumstances "thock" was accepted.

 

[Fletcher]

I've also been known to call it the "bap" region... the important part is that we all know what is being discussed...

Peace.

 

[RhythmRmixd]

You guys should've done the action dialog bubbles for the old Batman movies.

 

[sweetnubs]

I be not liking the various approaches offered. First the goal is not to use eq (I.e. proper micing for the desired sound) Then when you deem eq necessary the eq should be subtractive as opposed to additive. Here's the nubs technique: boost by about 8-10 db then sweep with your frequency knob, when you hear an undesired sound gradually apply cut until it sounds "better". Subtractive eq introduces less distortion. I do boost on occasion but I find it more unecessary than not. Most sweepable eq has a 1.5 to 2 octave range. If you find yourself boosting everything not only are you introducing more distortion you are in a sense just raising the overall level of the track which can be accomplished by simply raising the fader. If you look down on your console and see everything boosted you are doing something wrong. You must ask yourself: "self, am I just falling in the trap that louder sounds better?" It's easy to do. If you have parametric eq I tend to still leave the 1.5-2 octave range intact as it sounds more natural. Narrow Q is generally only used for fixing problems (fucking chair creek!) and it can sound very unatural when boosting or cutting a very narrow frequency band. You must also step away from the solo button and eq the instruments in relation to one other. Is the lower end of the guitar fighting the bass? Perhaps the bottom end of the guitar should be cut in this situation. Let's suppose you did such a thing: when you solo the guitar it is not the ideal sound but when you pop it back in the full mix it sounds fine and the bass now sounds clear. This is another common error where the engineer becomes too focused on the sound of individual tracks. Psychoacoustically the bass fills in the the missing bottom cut on the guitar track. You dig? Thanks uncle nubs.

 

[Sonixx]

... the eq should be subtractive as opposed to additive... Subtractive eq introduces less distortion...

prove it... let's hear some very convincing technical reasons why this is so.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

prove it... let's hear some very convincing technical reasons why this is so.

Because that's the way it is!

Depends on the manner in which the EQ works... active EQ's (cheaper ones) add way more distortion because they use feedback to achieve amplification; whereas passive EQ's (essentially) convert a signal to a lower amplitude and the boosts are actually reducing the amount of attenuation... the key to a good passive eq is an excellent attenuator and clean post eq gain stage that is transparent.

Both *still* introduce distortion artifacts.

And good passive EQ costs money. A GML or Manley Massive Passive costs between 4300 and 11,000 bucks. Even a beat to shit Pultec EQP will set you back 2k.

 

[Fletcher]

Wow... no shortage of idiots here today... I'll be damned.

Subtractive EQ and additive EQ are exactly the same fucking thing, 180' out of polarity... so unless you have some kind of magic amplifier that distorts less when it's output is switched 180' out of polarity, the amount of distortion is indeed equal in boost as it is in cut.

Cloneboy... active EQ's don't use feedback to achieve amplification, some of them use negative feedback to drop the noise floor, but not to achieve amplification. Active EQ's employ active electronics for the filter set of the equalizer, passive EQ's use passive electronics for the filter set... it's really that simple.

I have to say that the following quote may win a "dumbass quote of the year" award should such an award ever be presented...

whereas passive EQ's (essentially) convert a signal to a lower amplitude and the boosts are actually reducing the amount of attenuation... the key to a good passive eq is an excellent attenuator and clean post eq gain stage that is transparent.

The signal conversion to lower amplitude is called "insertion loss" as it's a passive filter network and will consume some of the energy that comprises the signal so the filter will indeed do it's thing... this is why you have amplifiers [a buffer amp in front, and a "gain makeup" amp behind] on either side of the filter set... how the "boosts are actually reducing the amount of attenuation" statement came to be I must say is a total mystery... if you break it down, it is indeed actually correct... the "boosts do reduce the amount of attenuation"... that's what a boost does... it's also how an amplifier works.

The key to a good passive EQ is a well designed passive filter circuit. Passive filter circuits can be done with "RC" [Restitive and Capacitive] networks, or via inductors... that "clean post eq gain state that is transparent" is something that not a whole lot of passive EQ aficionados are really after.

The reason things like Pultecs... even good working Pultecs are sought after items are things like the even order harmonic distortions created in the amplifiers [though the solid state Pultecs are a bit cleaner than their tube counterparts, and IMNTLBFHO have a better bass character than their tube brethren], as well as the "ringing and overshoot" and additional phase distortion created by the input and output transformers. Same with the Manley Massive Passive.

Active EQ's like the $11,000 GML 9500 [incidentally, I have one in my rack] are indeed exceptionally low distortion devices... the 9500 also has a bandwidth of [if I remember correctly, Jeffrey told me once, I didn't write down the information] 4Hz to 280kHz... in other words, nary any phase distortion through the audio spectrum, yet the fact of the matter is that with both, the GML 9500 as well as the Manley Massive Passive [two radically different working and sounding units] there is one universal truth... that truth is that the "subtractive" EQ works exactly like the "additive" EQ except that filtered section of audio is 180' out of polarity to the main audio passing through the unit.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You gain no additional headroom using subtractive EQ, you lose nothing by using additive EQ, it's an urban myth that subtractive EQ is any different in it's nature than additive EQ, though I will say that it is more difficult to perceive subtractive EQ so often more is employed, which leads to a greater quantity of phase distortion in the resultant signal.

I don't remember the thread, but I think it was in the forum called "The Rack"... there was a far more indepth discussion of subtractive vs.additive EQ somewhere on this site, I believe it was "The Rack" forum but I could easily be wrong about that location... if anyone gives a shit I'm sure they'll be able to hunt down the thread.

Peace.