Garden Variety PlugIn EQs and Low Freq Control Issues

[Bob's Mods]

I've noticed that the plugins I've tried, at least lower end EQs, have problems dealing with low frequency info (100 Hz and below). They just don't seem to have the horsepower to deal with these low freq waves. Sometimes I can even hear artifacts. This was another issue I discovered that made getting good bass difficult. Just another dirty secret of the industry....advertise that your plug can handle the complete spectrum but it really doesn't handle the lows well at all. It kind of sucked because I never used a real studio and so did not have the hardware experience to compare plugin response to. I bought a really good EQ but even it couldn't handle the very low freqs well. It wasn't until I got good a shareware EQ called NyquistEQ5 (which the code writer specifically stated that he wrote it with the horsepower to handle low freq data) that I realized how poorly my other EQs were dealing with low freq data. Now I layer two EQs for the bass where NyquistEQ5 handles the really low stuff well and the other EQ handles the rest. Being able to record and contour the bass is simply fundamental to getting a good sounding mix...it cannot be stressed enough. Good sounding bass can make or break a mix even.

What has been the experience of other users on this newgroup relating to the above issue? Have others noticed this problem?

Bob

 

[CoolCat]

HR level1...here....and yeah the bass is the beast to deal with.

seems the highs and some mids are easier to deal with...but its always the bass, and then in hobby HR land anyway...its hard to tell if its the budget speakers, the room, the recording.

not familiar with horsepower and EQ's though?

if a person can't even hear the bass well, its obvious why there could be mistakes being made.

how do you determine its the EQ plugin thats your problem?

 

[Ethan Winer]

What has been the experience of other users on this newgroup relating to the above issue? Have others noticed this problem?

I've never heard of such a thing. EQ is EQ unless it's broken. The notion that an EQ cannot deal with low frequencies makes no sense from a DSP standpoint. I'm with COOLCAT when he asked, "how do you determine its the EQ plugin thats your problem?" My guess is your problems mixing bass are due to poor speakers or a lack of bass traps.

--Ethan

 

[Bob's Mods]

Bass Beast

It took a long time to figure this one out. First, when I compared, my two garden variety EQs to the NyquistEQ5, I heard the difference right away. Secondly, one of my plug in EQs could generate odd low level vibration sounds depending on how its used in the low range. I never could get my bass track to sound fattened by contouring with an EQ. I now use a combination of the Seymour Duncan Paranormal Bass DI box and the NyquistEQ5 to get a reasonable bass track.

This is just another example of suppliers yanking our chains. Most garden variety EQs are only good for low mid, mid and high freq work and then cutting and not boosting. Many of these suck when boosting.

The code writers of these plugins generally write code that tries simulate a mathematical model of what an EQ is suppossed to do. This is easier than trying to write code that simulates how an analog device would perform the EQ function. Writing code like that is fine for non audio work but when it comes to audio, our ears are tuned to the way analog devices handle the signal chain....not a math model of how its suppossed to work. This is why the UAD-1 is so successful. Those guys actually use the original analog gear as the model and copy how all the controls manipulate the audio data.

This is probably why mixing in the box is so contraversional. The code writers are using pure math to mix the tracks rather than try to simulate how an analog console would mix the signal chain. I sent a suggestion over to Cakewalk that they look at developing an "analog modeled mix engine" rather then the pure math model they now use. Code writers have to get away from the math formula method of doing business and actually have the gear in hand and understand what its doing electrically to the signal and write code for that. I'm guessing that there are not many code writers who understand the guts so well though.

I would urge other Sonar users to send the suggestion to create an "analog modeled mix engine"

Use this link to send this suggestion. If enough people do it, they may look at it.

http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/FeatureRequest.asp

This is a bit off topic but related to the same subject.

Bob

 

[mixsit]

Hmm. It may be that I'm just not really getting exactly where you're going with this. Is it really subtle tone issues, noises?
If I can't get the bass to go where I want it I believe it is nore often because it doesn't have the shape (time here- envelope, attack -not frequency), or 'handles (let's say, related to shape' but meaning overtones, hair' ..that I expect or perceive it needs.
As far as freq, I don't get the problem. Straight sounding plugs, UAD, whichever(?)
Compared to 'shape', freq seems rather straight forward.

BTW, that's an interesting DI. (I looked to see if your new addition to your solution was adding saturation ('handles again I guess not.
How is the eq? Broad at 30 and 650?

 

[Bob's Mods]

The problem is shaping the low freq with moderate plug ins. The Paranormal Bass DI box has an on board active eq that works better at shaping that low end than the plugs I've been using. I can shape the bass track the way I want it before I record then tweak it with NyquistEQ5. I'm getting rather good results with this rather than the way I was doing it. Before I was just plugging my bass into a standard DI then trying to contour the low end to sound fat....that just never worked well. Much more pro sounding now and on the cheap.

Bob

 

[Ethan Winer]

one of my plug in EQs could generate odd low level vibration sounds depending on how its used in the low range.

Again, this makes no sense. If you hear "odd vibrations" it sounds like a room problem.

This is probably why mixing in the box is so contraversional.

No controversy here. If you want added distortion or other coloration, well, in that case a tape-sim plug-in might make sense.

I'm guessing that there are not many code writers who understand the guts so well though.

And even fewer end users understand the guts.

I'm mostly funnin' with ya here, but your understanding of how digital EQ works is lacking. I'm not there so I can't comment on what you're hearing, but it's not a failing of digital EQ unless your plug-ins are poorly written. Since you mentioned Cakewalk, I suggest you use the Sonitus EQ - that one does exactly what it's supposed to, very precisely, and with no added artifacts.

--Ethan

 

[mamm7215]

Or if you have Sonar 7, try the LP64 Eq. It is one of the best mastering EQ's out there, comparable with PSP NeonHR. Heavy on the cpu's though. Oh, and trap the hell out of your room. Ethan's dead on there!

 

[Bob's Mods]

I use the Kjaerhus Golden EQ. Its the one that provides underperformance on the very low range. I just tried out the Sonitus EQ and it seems to handle the very low end fairly well. I never really gave that one a fair shake. It seems to work fine. Its hard for me to be very precise because my monitors have a small speaker. I use my ears and do the best I can (which is not that bad at all). I get pretty good results now with the new bass DI box. That box did a lot in helping to get better bass lines. The answers to the original question have given me in a reality check.

thanks, Bob

 

[mamm7215]

Also, FWIW, I just got a sub yesterday to help with my low end and it's SICK!!! how much it helped. I can't believe I lived without it. Seriously, get a sub to hear what your
low end is REALLY doing...

 

[Ethan Winer]

Its hard for me to be very precise because my monitors have a small speaker.

LOL, so I was right all along. It sounds like you're blaming EQ for a problem caused by using speakers that are inadequate.

--Ethan