Solved EQ - Before/After

[danny.guitar]

I try not to use EQ very often especially on acoustic but I want your opinions on which one sounds better.

They're very small, short clips (~13 seconds). Tell me which one you think sounds better. One is without EQ and the other is with EQ.

File 1 · File 2

 

[zed32]

i dunno...they are pretty different, File 2 sounds pretty good to me, has more lows, warmer overall sound IMO.

 

[Decipha]

use both pan eq1 full left, pan eq2 full right... i just did and it sounded much better

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I try not to use EQ very often especially on acoustic but I want your opinions on which one sounds better.

Which color is better, maroon or brown? There is no "better" here when taking them in abstract. EQ1 sounds a bit fuller on the low end while EQ2 is concentrated more un the upper mids. They both sound good.

The question is not how they sound solo, but what mix are they intended for and which one works better for that mix. I suspect that EQ1 would be most appropriate when counterbalanced with a higher-timbred vocal in an acoustic approach a la Jewel or Don Henley. EQ2, however, may fit better in busier group mixes or denser arrangements because it concentrates on cutting through the upper mids while leaving room on the loer end for other instruments.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

They are quite similar.
I only listend quickly to each one, but I think the 1st one is nicer. Has more warmth in the low mids.

Eck

 

[Nick The Man]

i like 2 more.. even though they are really close. sounds fuller

but man id really like to hear about how your capturing this great acoustic sound.. maybe its just the player and the guitar?

 

[NL5]

Damn - I must be going deaf. They sound the same to me.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Damn - I must be going deaf. They sound the same to me.

Well, apparently you're not the only one, NL5...

Of the responses thus far, half of us think that the first one is fuller/warmer, and the other half believe it is the second one. Half of us are hearing something different than the other half (unless Danny is playing around with the uploads on us ).

Attached is an FFT analysis of each file at the same point in the file (on a heavy downstroke).

Note that EQ1 has a bit wider of a range and a just bit more RMS volume. EQ2 is slightly narrower in range and a just bit lower in RMS volume. I think my ears personally interpreted those differences as the extended LF range and slight volume boost in #1 being "warmer", and the narrower range and lower volume tending to accentuate the high mids a bit more in #2.

Interesting how that "listening/interpretation" is not so clear cut across the reader's listening spectrum.

Just for the testing record, my listening tests were done on both Mackie HR824s and Sony MDR-V600 headphones as played through both Winamp (EQ bypassed) and Sound Forge 6 (no plugs other than the FFT meter), and I made my interpretation long before I went back to look at the FFTs.

G.

 

[danny.guitar]

Thanks for the replies guys. #2 is the one WITHOUT EQ and #1 is the one with EQ. I was trying to go for a more 'pop' acoustic sound, not sure if that's what I got. I was also trying to use it sparingly.

Would you consider this a usable guitar track? Just curious.

And yes Glen I am aware it's about how it sounds in a mix but it will be a very sparse mix with probably just vocals and whatever little adjustments I need to make I can do it once the vocals are there.

If anyone is interested I attached the EQ I used.

 

[NL5]

Thanks for the replies guys. #2 is the one WITHOUT EQ and #1 is the one with EQ. I was trying to go for a more 'pop' acoustic sound, not sure if that's what I got. I was also trying to use it sparingly.

Would you consider this a usable guitar track? Just curious.

And yes Glen I am aware it's about how it sounds in a mix but it will be a very sparse mix with probably just vocals and whatever little adjustments I need to make I can do it once the vocals are there.

If anyone is interested I attached the EQ I used.

So you did subtractive eq with no makeup gain, but the track is louder?

Also, what is that stereo plug? is it on both tracks?

 

[danny.guitar]

i like 2 more.. even though they are really close. sounds fuller

but man id really like to hear about how your capturing this great acoustic sound.. maybe its just the player and the guitar?

Well, I'm not the best guitarist and my guitar isn't that great either. My guitar lacks low end and has muddy mids in my opinion. I mic'd it right up to about the 17th fret, about 4 inches away. Gotta be careful getting that close to the soundhole though, or it will sound boomy. I did that to add some natural low end because a low-end boost in EQ just sounds muddy and shitty.

It was mic'd with the MSH-1M.

 

[danny.guitar]

So you did subtractive eq with no makeup gain, but the track is louder?

Also, what is that stereo plug? is it on both tracks?

mda Stereo takes a mono track and creates a stereo image using the Haas effect. I used it on both of them.

I rendered the track twice, once with EQ on it, the other with it turned off. Then I opened the WAV files in an editor and normalized them.

 

[ecktronic]

What are you judging your guitar quality on?
The price tag or the sound?
Cause to me that sounds like a nice guitar, independent of price tag.

Eck

 

[danny.guitar]

What are you judging your guitar quality on?
The price tag or the sound?

Sound, of course. Thanks though. I've been happier with it since I've been able to get a decent recorded sound (which took a lot of experimenting with mic placement and playing technique).

 

[ez_willis]

Which color is better, maroon or brown?

Maroon .

 

[XLR]

Interesting. Can you post the mono files without the stereo effect?

 

[danny.guitar]

Here they are Tim. I think the difference is pretty subtle but I think I removed some of the 'grittyness' of the low end and a little muddyness from the mids with the EQ.

Tell me what you think.

With EQ · Without EQ

 

[XLR]

I think the cuts made in the original post weren't all that noticeable. The "pivotal" freq ranges in the unprocessed file that I'm hearing are the area below 200 Hz, and the area around 4 kHz. But to the credit of the plug used it didn't make it sound phasey or processed either, as some EQs do. If you make a low shelf cut with a gentle curve from 0 dB @ 350 Hz to -4 dB @ 100 Hz, and fairly narrow bell cut @ 4kHz it brings things more into balance for a gtr-as-sole-accompaniment type sound IMO. I tried those settings out with Reaper's ReaFir and the PLPar EQ3 and liked them. More low end rolloff and less upper mids cut would suit a strummed part in a busier mix, to my ear. Just my own opinion. YMMV.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Would you consider this a usable guitar track? Just curious.

Sound quality-wise, absoluetly. They both sound fine, and frankly better than some "pro" recordings I've heards on commercial CDs (though worse than others, of course. But it's right in there with the keepers ).

And yes Glen I am aware it's about how it sounds in a mix but it will be a very sparse mix with probably just vocals and whatever little adjustments I need to make I can do it once the vocals are there.

I felt obligated to mention that, because without that couching the concept of "better" has several incompatable meanings in this context, and is also very subject to subjective opinion. As general principle (with exceptions), when accompanying vocals as a simple acoustic mix fuller acoutsic guitar tracks IMHO sound better with thinner or higher register vocals (like EQ1), whereas a higher-timbred guitar track (like EQ2) works better with deeper or more chocolaty voices. The idea is that the two voices (human and guitar) coexist in a balance instead of a competition.

Anyway, good work on the micing and on the gentle use of EQ on acoustic. It's real easy to OD the EQ on acoustic until the instrument sounds like it's made by Fisher-Price. You have learned "the touch" quite well. Also a great ad for MSH's mics. I may just have to pick up one or two myself when I get my tax return.

G.

 

[danny.guitar]

I think the cuts made in the original post weren't all that noticeable. The "pivotal" freq ranges in the unprocessed file that I'm hearing are the area below 200 Hz, and the area around 4 kHz. But to the credit of the plug used it didn't make it sound phasey or processed either, as some EQs do. If you make a low shelf cut with a gentle curve from 0 dB @ 350 Hz to -4 dB @ 100 Hz, and fairly narrow bell cut @ 4kHz it brings things more into balance for a gtr-as-sole-accompaniment type sound IMO. I tried those settings out with Reaper's ReaFir and the PLPar EQ3 and liked them. More low end rolloff and less upper mids cut would suit a strummed part in a busier mix, to my ear. Just my own opinion. YMMV.

Yea I've noticed the phasey sound sometimes with EQ before with severe boosts/cuts, especially in the wrong frequencies. EQing an acoustic instrument takes some practice.

I'm gonna try your suggestion on the EQ and see what it sounds like, thanks.

Sound quality-wise, absoluetly. They both sound fine, and frankly better than some "pro" recordings I've heards on commercial CDs (though worse than others, of course. But it's right in there with the keepers ).I felt obligated to mention that, because without that couching the concept of "better" has several incompatable meanings in this context, and is also very subject to subjective opinion. As general principle (with exceptions), when accompanying vocals as a simple acoustic mix fuller acoutsic guitar tracks IMHO sound better with thinner or higher register vocals (like EQ1), whereas a higher-timbred guitar track (like EQ2) works better with deeper or more chocolaty voices. The idea is that the two voices (human and guitar) coexist in a balance instead of a competition.

Anyway, good work on the micing and on the gentle use of EQ on acoustic. It's real easy to OD the EQ on acoustic until the instrument sounds like it's made by Fisher-Price. You have learned "the touch" quite well. Also a great ad for MSH's mics. I may just have to pick up one or two myself when I get my tax return.

G.

Thanks, Glen.

There will be female vocals with it, so I'm sure I'll have to make some more adjustments, but for now I was just trying to get rid of what I thought were the 'nasty' frequencies that wouldn't sound good at all, by itself or in a mix.

But there's no way to know really until I get the vocal track in there.