EQ Cheat Sheet and Iinteractive Frequency Chart

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaleVO
  • Start date Start date
when did 'knowledge', become 'cheating'?

Rather than post the link that re-directs to the other forum, here is the information that I found. This information was posted by DragonMusic, on another forum.

I agree with the pearls of wisdom that were shared in this thread: "mix with your ears." I acknowledge that as 'experience' speaking. Understanding that developing a mixing skill-set will take years of practice and experimentation, the information that I glean from you on this forum is invaluable and very much appreciated.


Granted this is one person's opinion, my questions are:
Would this 'cheat sheet' be useful as a starting point, for a novice like me and others, (answering the questions- what frequencies do the sounds lie in/ where do I start focusing attention?), to target the frequencies for tweaking or experimentation?
AND
Is any of this information valid?


Quoted from: DragonMusic 04-17-10 05:59 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EQ cheat sheet.

Here is a cheat sheet of basic settings I found on the web, handy for beginners but can be handy for the pro's too.

These are not golden rules but they can help you to get things right. However all recordings will need their own tweaks to get the desired sound.

Thanks to the many people that contributed to this ....

EQ basics
20 Hz and below - impossible to detect, remove as it only adds unnecessary energy to the total sound, thereby most probably holding down the overall volume of the track
60 Hz and below - sub bass (feel only)
80(-100) Hz - feel AND hear bass
100-120 Hz - the "club sound system punch" resides here
200 Hz and below - bottom
250 Hz - notch filter here can add thump to a kick drum
150-400 Hz - boxiness
200 Hz-1.5 KHz - punch, fatness, impact
800 Hz-4 KHz - edge, clarity, harshness, defines timbre
4500 Hz - extremely tiring to the ears, add a slight notch here
5-7 KHz - de-essing is done here
4-9 KHz - brightness, presence, definition, sibilance, high frequency distortion
6-15 KHz - air and presence
9-15 KHz - adding will give sparkle, shimmer, bring out details - cutting will smooth out harshness and darken the mix

60Hz with a Q of 1.4 -- Add fullness to kicks.
100Hz with a Q of 1.0 -- Add fullness to snare
200Hz - 250Hz with a Q of 1.4 -- Adds wood to snares
3Khz with a Q of 1.4 -- Adds attack to snare.
5Khz with a Q of 2.8 -- Adds attack to Kicks
7Khz with a Q of 2.8 -- Adds Sharpness to snares and percussion
10Khz with a Q of 1.0 -- Adds brightness to hats and cymbals

Kick drums I usually cut the bass below 90 to keep the phatness without conflicting with the bass
I usually notch somewhere around 250 which seems to clear up a bit of muddiness
cut all sounds below 20hz as they also muddy up the mix.

kick drums which I cut below 75Hz.

For your vinyl masters make a harsh cut at 12khz or preferably de-esser in that region.(this applies to mastering tasks for vinyl only)
for cd masters, that gives the desired air on top.

The 4500hz region is the main content of any human vocals. So if no one understands your voice sample and you want it to be understood, boost it.


To find the sweet spot of a sound...

solo it.

make the q as small as it will go and boost the eq 6dB and sweep the frequency untill you really hear the sound come out (usually on the attack).

then reduce the amount of q and gain.

this also works if there is something you want to get rid of in a sound.. find that sound by using this same method and reduce the gain.

if you want to add OMMPH to the kick or snare.

tune an oscillator to the same pitch as the kick or white noise to the snare.

and KEY it with the Kick or the Snare and it will add that ommf your looking for.
heard a lot in hip hop on the kicks and in the 80's on the snare..

another way of doing it if you don't know how to key an oscillator... is just get a sample and have it play at the same time as the kick or the snare.. the keying just does that for you. hehe

Something that often gets over-looked is COMPARING to the original. Whenever you re-EQ something you NEED to be able to cut everything you've just done and compare it to the original sound. Theres no use doing it if you can't look back on how it was to see why you EQ'd it in the first place.

Basically make sure whatever you use to EQ has some form of bypass so you can flip between before-after. If you have something that will take 'snapshots' then thats even better as you can listen to a few different versions of EQ setting to see which fits best.

probably one of the most important things to remember with eq if you ask any engineer; i haven't seen anyone mention it, so i will.

when it comes to eq, try as hard as possible to use a cut rather than a boost. this will give you more room to work with. one of the most common uses for eq is to resolve conflicting instruments. rather than boosting the one that you want to stand out, try cutting the frequency in the instrument that doesn't quite require it.

but i normally cut off kicks at 80-100 (with a not-too gentle roll off) and take a big piece out at 300ish. i also usually boost snares aroung 150-200 and 1000-1500. 150-200 is where the meat of the snare is, and 1000-1500 is where the snap is.

Boost or Cut? Or both in combination?

I just recently read an article that recommended EQing sounds in the mix (not solo) and then finding the most prominent frequency range (by sweeping a heavily boosted paramteric EQ) and boost that just as much as needed to bring out the target sound in the mix, not more.

Then use a heavily cut parametric EQ and sweep below the frequency you just boosted, to see if you can find a frequency range that is good to cut in order to bring the target sound out in the mix even further.

I find I often use cutting frequencies to remove irritating ringings, rumble, noise etc but I don't think I've thought about it in terms of actually listening if it brings out the sound more in the mix by subtracting some of the frequencies of said sound.


on some sounds where it seems too sharp & hurts your ears, lower/notch it at around 3KHz

i definitely think that its best to start by cutting frequencies rather than boosting as this gives you a lot more room to play! you can allways boost things a bit more later if you need more OOMPH in that freq range!

fatness at 120-240Hz
boing at 400Hz
crispness at 5kHz
snap at 10kHz

Voice: presence (5 kHz), sibilance (7.5 - 10 kHz), boominess (200 - 240 kHz), fullness (120 Hz)
Electric Guitar: fullness (240 Hz), bite (2.5 kHz), air / sizzle (8 kHz)
Bass Guitar: bottom (60 - 80 Hz), attack (700 - 1000 Hz), string noise (2.5 kHz)
Snare Drum: fatness (240 Hz), crispness (5 kHz)
Kick Drum: bottom (60 - 80 Hz), slap (4 kHz)
Hi Hat & Cymbals: sizzle (7.5 - 10 kHz), clank (200 Hz)
Toms: attack (5 kHz), fullness (120 - 240 Hz)
Acoustic Guitar: harshness / bite (2 kHz), boominess (120 - 200 Hz), cut (7 - 10 kHz)

Bassdrum:
EQ>Cut below 80Hz to remove rumble
Boost between 80 -125 Hz for bass
Boost between 3 - 5kHz to get the slap
PROCESSING> Compression 4:1/6:1 slow attack med release.
Reverb: Tight room reverb (0.1-0.2ms)

Snaredrum:
EQ> Boost above 2kHz for that crisp edge
Cut at 1kHz to get rid of the sharp peak
Boost at 125Hz for a full snare sound
Cut at 80Hz to remove rumble
PROCESSING> Compression 4:1 slow attack med release.
Reverb: Tight room reverb (0.1-0.2ms)

Hi-Hat:
EQ> Boost above 5kHz for sharp sparkle
Cut at 1kHz to remove jangling
PROCESSING> Compression use high ratio for high energy feel
Reverb: Looser than Bass n Snare allow the hats and especially the Rides to ring a little

BASS:
Compressed, EQ'd with a full bottom end and some mids

I find myself often having to boost the midrange in my drums lately, last night I did a track and had to put a +3 dB EQ in the 800-3000 Hz range on the final mix (obviously not the most optimal choice but I'll fix it in the sequencer later with specific channel EQing and so on).

EQ Reference: Frequencies

50Hz
Boost: To thicken up bass drums and sub-bass parts.
Cut: Below this frequency on all vocal tracks. This should reduce the effect of any microphone 'pops'.

70-100Hz
Boost: For bass lines and bass drums.
Cut: For vocals.
General: Be wary of boosting the bass of too many tracks. Low frequency sounds are particularly vulnerable to phase cancellation between sounds of similar frequency. This can result in a net 'cut of the bass frequencies.

200-400Hz
Boost: To add warmth to vocals or to thicken a guitar sound.
Cut: To bring more clarity to vocals or to thin cymbals and higher frequency percussion.
Boost or Cut: to control the 'woody' sound of a snare.

400-800Hz
Boost: To add warmth to toms.
Boost or Cut: To control bass clarity, or to thicken or thin guitar sounds.
General: In can be worthwhile applying cut to some of the instruments in the mix to bring more clarity to the bass within the overall mix.

800Hz-1KHz
Boost: To thicken vocal tracks. At 1 KHz apply boost to add a knock to a bass drum.

1-3KHz
Boost: To make a piano more aggressive. Applying boost between 1KHz and 5KHz will also make guitars and basslines more cutting.
Cut: Apply cut between 2 KHz and 3KHz to smooth a harsh sounding vocal part.
General: This frequency range is often used to make instruments stand out in a mix.

3-6KHz
Boost: For a more 'plucked' sounding bass part. Apply boost at around 6KHz to add some definition to vocal parts and distorted guitars.
Cut: Apply cut at about 3KHz to remove the hard edge of piercing vocals. Apply cut between 5KHZ and 6KHz to dull down some parts in a mix.

6-10KHz
Boost: To sweeten vocals. The higher the frequency you boost the more 'airy/breathy' the result will be. Also boost to add definition to the sound of acoustic guitars or to add edge to synth sounds or strings or to enhance the sound of a variety of percussion sounds. For example boost this range to:

Bring out cymbals.
Add ring to a snare.
Add edge to a bass drum.

10-16KHz
Boost: To make vocals more 'airy' or for crisp cymbals and percussion. Also boost this frequency to add sparkle to pads, but only if the frequency is present in the original sound, otherwise you will just be adding hiss to the recording.

Specific Instruments

Vocals

General:
Roll off below 60Hz using a High Pass Filter. This range is unlikely to contain anything useful, so you may as well reduce the noise the track contributes to the mix.

Treat Harsh Vocals:
To soften vocals apply cut in a narrow bandwidth somewhere in the 2.5KHz to 4KHz range.

Get An Open Sound:
Apply a gentle boost above 6KHz using a shelving filter.

Get Brightness, Not Harshness:
Apply a gentle boost using a wide-band Bandpass Filter above 6KHz. Use the Sweep control to sweep the frequencies to get it right.

Get Smoothness:
Apply some cut in a narrow band in the 1KHz to 2KHz range.

Bring Out The Bass:
Apply some boost in a reasonably narrow band somewhere in the 200Hz to 600Hz range.

Radio Vocal Effect:
Apply some cut at the High Frequencies, lots of boost about 1.5KHz and lots of cut below 700Hz.

Telephone Effect:
Apply lots of compression pre EQ, and a little analogue distortion by turning up the input gain. Apply some cut at the High Frequencies, lots of boost about 1.5KHz and lots of cut below 700Hz.

Hi-Hats

Get Definition:
Roll off everything below 600Hz using a High Pass Filter.

Get Sizzle:
Apply boost at 10KHz using a Band Pass Filter. Adjust the bandwidth to get the sound right.

Treat Clangy Hats:
Apply some cut between 1KHz and 4KHz.


Bass Drum

General:
Apply a little cut at 300Hz and some boost between 40Hz and 80Hz.

Control The Attack:
Apply boost or cut around 4KHz to 6KHz.

Treat Muddiness:
Apply cut somewhere in the 100Hz to 500Hz range.


Guitar

Treat Unclear Vocals:
Apply some cut to the guitar between 1KHz and 5KHz to bring the vocals to the front of the mix.

General:
Apply a little boost between 100Hz and 250Hz and again between 10KHz and 12KHz.


Acoustic Guitar

Add Sparkle:
Try some gentle boost at 10KHz using a Band Pass Filter with a medium bandwidth.

General:
Try applying some mid-range cut to the rhythm section to make vocals and other instruments more clearly heard.

kick>> bottom depth at 60 - 80 Hz, slap attack at 2.5Hz

snare>> fatness at 240HZ, crispness at 5 KHz

hi hats/cymbals>> clank or gong sound at 200 Hz, shimmer at 7.5 kHz - 12 kHz

rack toms>> fullness at 240 Hz, attack at 5 kHz

floor toms>> fullness at 80 - 120 Hz, attack at 5 kHz

horns>> fullness at 120 - 240 Hz, shrill at 5 - 7.5 kHz

strings>> fullness at 240 Hz, scratchiness at 7.5 - 10 kHz

conga/bongo>> resonance at 200 - 240 Hz, slap at 5 kHz

vocals>> fullness at 120 Hz, boominess at 200 - 240 Hz, presence at 5 kHz, sibilance at 7.5 - 10 kHz

When mixing bassline and kick drum, give the kick some extra dBs at 90-something Hz (listen to the sound and find where it has it's punch) and remove a few dB from the bassline sound at this same frequency. Then go to around 400 Hz on the kick drum (where it's boxiness resides) and remove a few dB, this will make it feel more punchy and thumpy, in a nice way (at least it has worked well for me in the sound I am trying to achieve). Finally add a few dB to the bassline at this same 400-something frequency, this will increase the presence and audibility of the bassline when played at the same time as the kick.

Good point - those frequency tips are taken from many different sources and I think I've learned more over the time now so I wouldn't say that particular tip is really something to rely on. I more often cut at around 400 Hz, add at around 100 Hz, notch at 250 Hz and also I always cut my kicks at 70-80 Hz. Though sometimes I also layer sub hits underneath

just to add to the bass-kick debate, for those using fm kicks ala; teebee, dom n roland. I found that cutting 16-30hz and boost at 250hz worked a treat. But I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that there really is no one size fits all rule when it comes to kicks, apart from getting rid of the lower end of the bass spectrum to make way for any basslines in your tunes.
~end of quote~
Thank you in advance,
Dale
 
All bullshit.

Have we forgotten that processing is subjective to the music on a case-by-case basis?

Cheers :)
 
All bullshit.

Have we forgotten that processing is subjective to the music on a case-by-case basis?

Cheers :)

I wouldn't say it so bluntly, I mean this is definetly all good starting point material, but It's not something I would tape to my mixing desk. If I where new this would most definetly help me find what qualities reside in what GENERAL frequency spectrums.

For example, one kick might have thump at 200 hz, another might be at 250, but it's never gonna be at 4k. That's the type of stuff you need to know about EQ

One thing I would say is that this talks more about Boosting than I would suggest. It's always better to cut, IMHO.
 
I'm sorry, but that's also nonsense.

Cutting over boosting is internet "wisdom" that is not based in reality and it all keeps coming back to the infinitely subjective nature of audio. Boosting has just as much place as cutting and should not be avoided for the sake of it not being as "natural", what ever that means.

Equalization is a tool to restore a correct tonal balance for a given source. This includes equal consideration for both cutting AND boosting to achieve this, not one over the other. Cutting seems to be more popular, imo, because it's easier to hear what a given source has too much of instead of what it's lacking. This idea of cutting being "more natural" just doesn't compute for me.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

And on the topic of relative frequency ranges, yes, the thump of a kick is not going to be in the upper midrange, but I think that's common sense even a novice can grasp. I personally just thought that list went into too much detail and was too specific. If you really want to come to terms with EQ, it's far more worth your while to learn the typical fundamental ranges of specific instruments and their subsequent harmonics.

Cheers :)
 
Totally agree with Mo Facta about boosting, however, I feel the chart is not a bad place for beginners to start. It's not a whole lot different than using a somewhat vague recipe to learn to cook. Of course it's completely programme dependant, but so is all presets that come standard on every plugin. They're good starting points for the inexperienced. Some recordists have had the luxury of learning in a real studio with a trained ear as their teacher giving them verbal instruction about where to start, and others, have to learn on their own with no reference points and tips for a difficult thing to master such as EQ. They shouldn't be taken as gospel, but some of them serve a purpose.
 
I'm sorry, but that's also nonsense.

Cutting over boosting is internet "wisdom" that is not based in reality and it all keeps coming back to the infinitely subjective nature of audio. Boosting has just as much place as cutting and should not be avoided for the sake of it not being as "natural", what ever that means.

Equalization is a tool to restore a correct tonal balance for a given source. This includes equal consideration for both cutting AND boosting to achieve this, not one over the other. Cutting seems to be more popular, imo, because it's easier to hear what a given source has too much of instead of what it's lacking. This idea of cutting being "more natural" just doesn't compute for me.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

And on the topic of relative frequency ranges, yes, the thump of a kick is not going to be in the upper midrange, but I think that's common sense even a novice can grasp. I personally just thought that list went into too much detail and was too specific. If you really want to come to terms with EQ, it's far more worth your while to learn the typical fundamental ranges of specific instruments and their subsequent harmonics.

Cheers :)

I'm not saying that I don't like boosting because it's "inherent wisdom". I personally think that most of the time I boost it sounds unnatural, and it can be fixed easier with a cut. But like you said,t hat could just be my relatively untrained ears having a hard time hearing what isn't there, and having a much easier time hearing what is there thats not supposed to be. But I'd like to think the majority of beginning home recordists have the same or less amount of ear training and mixing experience. So I still think that kind of stands true the the majority of home recorders.

I completely agree with you about learning the common fundamentals of the sources your recording. That will go way farther than this cheat sheet will.

The best way to learn EQ though is actually recording and EQing things. All the knowledge of freq and fundamentals won't do you jack with a set a virgin ears.
 
Turtis, Rhino, Mo':

Thank you for the discussions. Learning in isolation and not having a guide-on-the-side/mentor to help learn the nuances correctly, that type of discussion helps me (a novice) winnow the chaff of a list like that. Adding the 'why/why not- you think its BS' really helped me sort through the 'just because it is posted on the internet, doesn't make it true.'

Thanks again folks. Much appreciated!
Dale
 
I think the important thing to keep in mind is a chart is really no different than someone telling you to boost or cut a specific frequency without hearing your material. It may or may not work....your ear has to be the judge in the end. It does however, gives you a starting point, although it may be entirely incorrect. Only you'll know that. This stuff can be daunting, so if it gives you a foot in the door as to figuring it all out, and seems to do what you want it to do, based on what your ears tell you, not sure why anyone would have a problem with it.
 
, not sure why anyone would have a problem with it.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the fact that a chart exists. It's how it will be mis-used and mis-interpreted by people without the experience, knowledge and common sense. It's just like pre-sets on a plug-in. Nothing wrong with having them, but there's absolutely no good reason to use them.
 
I don't think anyone has a problem with the fact that a chart exists. It's how it will be mis-used and mis-interpreted by people without the experience, knowledge and common sense.

And this affects you how? The people lacking experience and knowledge need to gain ummmm, oh ya, experience and knowledge. Perhaps a visual aid makes them feel like they're not entirely in the dark. If they're going to be any good at it, they'll soon realize that even a good EQ chart (which is just some ones recommendations based on supposed eq experience) only gets you so far regardless.

The people that lack common sense are never going to get it anyway... who cares. I'm not even sure why I'm spending time on this... I don't care either. Use it, don't use... no one needs either our approval.
 
And this affects you how? .

Oh, I don't know...how the hell does it affect you? We're both discussing it. Get that chip off your shoulder and then maybe you'll be worth conversing with. You gave your opinion, I gave mine. The difference is, you take meaningless shit like this personally, for some strange reason, even tholugh you claim you "dont' care". :laughings:.

Anyway, people with no experience need to get experience? Is that what you said.? Fine. Reading a chart that tells them nothing useful is not the way to do it. Don't start crying, it's just my opinion. :D
 
Oh, I don't know...how the hell does it affect you? We're both discussing it. Get that chip off your shoulder and then maybe you'll be worth conversing with. You gave your opinion, I gave mine. The difference is, you take meaningless shit like this personally, for some strange reason, even tholugh you claim you "dont' care". :laughings:.

Anyway, people with no experience need to get experience? Is that what you said.? Fine. Reading a chart that tells them nothing useful is not the way to do it. Don't start crying, it's just my opinion. :D

Nice over-reaction.
 
Nice over-reaction.
You mean, almost as god as this one?

And this affects you how? The people lacking experience and knowledge need to gain ummmm, oh ya, experience and knowledge. Perhaps a visual aid makes them feel like they're not entirely in the dark. If they're going to be any good at it, they'll soon realize that even a good EQ chart (which is just some ones recommendations based on supposed eq experience) only gets you so far regardless.

The people that lack common sense are never going to get it anyway... who cares. I'm not even sure why I'm spending time on this... I don't care either. Use it, don't use... no one needs either our approval.

:)
 
I don't understand the concept of this chart if you can't open up a 10 band eq, move a fader up and tell what kind of sound is coming out of the speakers you might as well find a new hobby. That is unless there are some oddly specific trade secret frequencies I don't know about.

its stuff like this that was in the first book I bought for home recording called "home recording for musicians for dummies" i think it was. and it set me back a long way. I was novice and dumb couldn't figure out why my sharp Q 4khz didn't give me the click on the bass drum or the 5khz boost on the snare didn't give it the "snap" like the book said it would. Looking back I was a real dumb ass. =P
 
I don't understand the concept of this chart if you can't open up a 10 band eq, move a fader up and tell what kind of sound is coming out of the speakers you might as well find a new hobby.
Exactly my point. The best way to "gain experience" is to......meh, never mind.....

:D
 
Back
Top