dobro
Well-known member
...go about using CEP EQ in your mixes? For example, do you favor either parametric or graphic?
Kelly Holdridge
New member
I'll go 31-band graphic, with a high accuracy number in there. There's a cool link somewhere around here that identifies the important frequencies of typical instruments; you might want to use parametric for boosting these (as 31-band rarely has freqs of these... freqs). I usually just use 31-band, trying to boost/diminish these frequencies by using the two bands surrounding a given frequency.
Why? Well, parametric EQ in CEP seemed like I'd have to boost/diminish certain frequencies at a time. By using the 31-band, I can boost the bass presence while reducing bass buzz without CEP having to compute the damn thing twice.
Yup. That's what I use.
Why? Well, parametric EQ in CEP seemed like I'd have to boost/diminish certain frequencies at a time. By using the 31-band, I can boost the bass presence while reducing bass buzz without CEP having to compute the damn thing twice.
Yup. That's what I use.
dobro
Well-known member
Hm? So you prefer 31-band graphic because of its precision, is that it?
So how do you use it? One band at a time, boosting and cutting to see what sounds good/bad?
So how do you use it? One band at a time, boosting and cutting to see what sounds good/bad?
Kelly Holdridge
New member
Well, I'll use the 31-band because it saves time over the parametric. The 31-band ISN'T more precise (you have to use the pre-set bands), but if you're adjusting more than one frequency on a given track then the 31-band will save a hell of a lot of time.
I don't mind CEP taking a while to compute some of the changes I make, but I hate having to wait on it to give it yet another command. So the 31-band gets around this by allowing me to EQ many bands at once, whereas the parametric only allows one (or a couple?). Who knows? Maybe the parametric allows for screwing around with more than one frequency, but I'm not patient enough to go back and "master" yet another CEP function.
31-band works fine for me.
I don't mind CEP taking a while to compute some of the changes I make, but I hate having to wait on it to give it yet another command. So the 31-band gets around this by allowing me to EQ many bands at once, whereas the parametric only allows one (or a couple?). Who knows? Maybe the parametric allows for screwing around with more than one frequency, but I'm not patient enough to go back and "master" yet another CEP function.
31-band works fine for me.
Kelly Holdridge
New member
BTW: always press the "accuracy response" (or whatever) button to see how the 31-band will affect the signal. If you have big adjustments, the lower tones will NOT match your EQ settings unless the accuracy value is changed to a higher number.
Dig it.
Dig it.
Kelly Holdridge
New member
*looks around for Monty to whack Kelly's head...*
I forgot the rest of your question, sorry. I'll overshoot on the EQ, just to see if whatever tones I don't like can be changed in the first place, and to see if I got the right tones to begin with.
For example: You can reduce @ 200Hz to decrease the muddiness in vocals/horns. So I'll reduce the shit out of a lead vocal and listen to it in the mix to see if that was really what was causing the muddiness, and to see if this will really screw the vocal quality. If it works, I'll go back and HALF the EQ setting, and listen to it again. If muddiness comes back, then I'll set the EQ between the prior settings. And if it still isn't right, I'll just "UNDO" a couple of times to my orignal "test" EQ, which solved the problem in the first place.
BTW: in this case, I'd use the 31-band as opposed to parametric because I might also want to mask some out-of-tune vocals. So I'll try reducing the 3000Hz range at the same time as the 200Hz, which saves having to tell CEP to do an EQ again.
I forgot the rest of your question, sorry. I'll overshoot on the EQ, just to see if whatever tones I don't like can be changed in the first place, and to see if I got the right tones to begin with.
For example: You can reduce @ 200Hz to decrease the muddiness in vocals/horns. So I'll reduce the shit out of a lead vocal and listen to it in the mix to see if that was really what was causing the muddiness, and to see if this will really screw the vocal quality. If it works, I'll go back and HALF the EQ setting, and listen to it again. If muddiness comes back, then I'll set the EQ between the prior settings. And if it still isn't right, I'll just "UNDO" a couple of times to my orignal "test" EQ, which solved the problem in the first place.
BTW: in this case, I'd use the 31-band as opposed to parametric because I might also want to mask some out-of-tune vocals. So I'll try reducing the 3000Hz range at the same time as the 200Hz, which saves having to tell CEP to do an EQ again.
dobro
Well-known member
That's something new for me, so I'll give it a go.
Recently I've been using the parametric to boost and sweep for undesirable frequencies. When I find something I don't like, I cut it about 6 dB. (I'm going to do it your way from now on, though - first a drastic cut and listen, then halve it and listen again to compare, etc.) I use a pretty small Q - about 2. I wonder if this is precise enough, or whether I'm cutting frequencies that don't need cutting.
Anyone?
Recently I've been using the parametric to boost and sweep for undesirable frequencies. When I find something I don't like, I cut it about 6 dB. (I'm going to do it your way from now on, though - first a drastic cut and listen, then halve it and listen again to compare, etc.) I use a pretty small Q - about 2. I wonder if this is precise enough, or whether I'm cutting frequencies that don't need cutting.
Anyone?
M
mrclay
New member
Q or Hz?
>I use a pretty small Q - about 2. I wonder if this is precise enough, or whether I'm cutting frequencies that don't need cutting.
Width in Q and in Hz are related inversely, so Q=2 should be VERY wide and 2Hz very narrow.. You can really get in there and find individual notes by sweeping with a wide boost at like 24dB, then when the note glares at you, reducing the width until you're right on it with a width of 1Hz or even .5Hz..
Kelly, you get 5 frequencies to fiddle with and all can have different widths so it's really quite useful. Kill a single bad harmonic note and boost qualities of certain instruments w/o affecting other frequencies all in one process.
>I use a pretty small Q - about 2. I wonder if this is precise enough, or whether I'm cutting frequencies that don't need cutting.
Width in Q and in Hz are related inversely, so Q=2 should be VERY wide and 2Hz very narrow.. You can really get in there and find individual notes by sweeping with a wide boost at like 24dB, then when the note glares at you, reducing the width until you're right on it with a width of 1Hz or even .5Hz..
Kelly, you get 5 frequencies to fiddle with and all can have different widths so it's really quite useful. Kill a single bad harmonic note and boost qualities of certain instruments w/o affecting other frequencies all in one process.
R
Razor
New member
I definitely prefer the parametric to the graphic though I do use both. I like CEP's parametric a lot. However, to my ears, its power lies in attenuating not boosting. Sometimes boosting (especially a narrow Q) can cause weird phase artifacts, though I think that is true of any eq.
dobro
Well-known member
"Width in Q and in Hz are related inversely"
mrclay - yup, I just learned that myself last night over a Prorec. Lionel Dumond's written a really good series of articles on EQ. Here's the link for the first one:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/AFFCBC3A0382C83A862565D6001E69A8
I learned more from that series in one evening than anything else I've picked up in bits and pieces over the last year, I think. It puts what people like Shailat, Razor and Resistor Man (the latter not on this board yet I think - wait for it) have been saying into an understandable framework.
mrclay - yup, I just learned that myself last night over a Prorec. Lionel Dumond's written a really good series of articles on EQ. Here's the link for the first one:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/AFFCBC3A0382C83A862565D6001E69A8
I learned more from that series in one evening than anything else I've picked up in bits and pieces over the last year, I think. It puts what people like Shailat, Razor and Resistor Man (the latter not on this board yet I think - wait for it) have been saying into an understandable framework.
camn
Active member
god, I hate to say it... cuz Im so "use what you got"... but you goota get some dsp plugins. I only say this, cuz I read your post and thought to myself "self, which do you use.." and I havent touched CEPs eqs since I got that effects pack from Echo. Its another level of power and precision
xoxo
xoxo