How to cut certain frequencies?

S

spridle

New member
you see in the EQ how at the top it goes from like 35 to 25k?

he's telling you to select the 200 250 315 and 400 Hz faders and bring them down.

he's hearing something that can be cut out like a certain frequency and he maybe right about its location. to get rid of weird frequencies coming through i sometimes do something i was taught called "seek and destroy"

i make a VERY thin peek and slide it left to right to find the weird frequency's location. when i find it i bring it down like in the pic. thats what it would look like if i were to cut the rage ure talking about. for u it would correspond to the faders.
 
JIMBOdrummer said:
you see in the EQ how at the top it goes from like 35 to 25k?

he's telling you to select the 200 250 315 and 400 Hz faders and bring them down.

he's hearing something that can be cut out like a certain frequency and he maybe right about its location. to get rid of weird frequencies coming through i sometimes do something i was taught called "seek and destroy"

i make a VERY thin peek and slide it left to right to find the weird frequency's location. when i find it i bring it down like in the pic. thats what it would look like if i were to cut the rage ure talking about. for u it would correspond to the faders.
Click to expand...

How about I post a link to the mp3 and you can give me your advice on what needs to be cut? Maybe also more mixing tips? Haha...it'd be a HUGE help.
 
JIMBOdrummer said:
it might help. but it would be easier if it was the individual tracks. drop the drums and bass then send it
Click to expand...

Oh I forgot to mention that I'm just doing acoustic guitar and vocals. So far I have only done the single acoustic guitar track and copied it and panned them left and right and added a little delay. Its just a test song, I'm not gunna put vocals to it, just trying to see how good I can make an acoustic guitar track sound. The style I'm going for is just like www.myspace.com/chasecoy if you listen to Coming Clean. I'll have a similar vocal style as well.

anyway, here is the mp3

let me know what I can do to clean it up? ;)

http://tinyurl.com/nyd5b6
 
hmm i actually disagree. i like the over all EQ. the spread is well done. it just sounds shallower, or deader than i like. how are you micing. you can get a great sound by doing different micing techniques
 
JIMBOdrummer said:
hmm i actually disagree. i like the over all EQ. the spread is well done. it just sounds shallower, or deader than i like. how are you micing. you can get a great sound by doing different micing techniques
Click to expand...

I used a CAD Trion 8000 around the 12th fret 5-6 inches away and pointed very slightly toward the sound hole.
 
i like using two MXL 991's for acoustic guitar. i put one at the 12th fret and one at the acoustic hole. it makes for a well rounded sound. but it looks like you've got a good system going, the track sounds good

marshall%20mxl%20991.jpg
 
I just hate how when fingerpicking the root note doesnt hit as much, I'm thinking of getting an acoustic pickup and recording line in and also micing and mixing the two together, I heard that makes a nice sound. If you listen to "Take Me Away" (3rd from bottom) www.myspace.com/chasecoy it kind of sounds like maybe thats what he's doing, what's your opinion?
 
idk my honest opinion is that acoustic guitar pickups or electric acoustics are for live applications. you don't get a good "body" with JUST that

i've never done what you suggested but it would probably yield good results. it will be bright but you will have control of the pickup in the mix.
 
spridle said:
I just hate how when fingerpicking the root note doesnt hit as much, I'm thinking of getting an acoustic pickup and recording line in and also micing and mixing the two together
Click to expand...

spridle said:
I just hate how when fingerpicking the root note doesnt hit as much,
Click to expand...


don't mean to be a dick about this but you do realize (if you mean what I think you might mean by this) that this has to do with technique, some with guitar and string selection, a little bit of mic placement and nearly nothing with post tracking EQ

it is possible that by attempting dual mono or pseudo stereo you generated phase issues that muffled the very things you want to accent

for a single, intimate, acoustic instrument tracked with a single mic with goal of presenting that performance as accurately as possible there should be virtual no post tracking editing needed . . . you either capture the performance or you don't and best place to 'fix' it is prior to hitting the red button.

I'm not suggesting that you not experiment with all sorts of settings (including things like copying track, notching some arbitrary frequency band, inverting it, delaying it to attempt some sort of pseudo stereo . . . then slathering on obscene amounts of digital reverb . . .) you have to cross boundaries to learn where they are

blending multiple instruments from multiple performances, in myriad spaces, over days, weeks, months; comp'ng a single track from elements of multiple takes and attempting to 'mix' all of this into some type of coherent 'whole' (though sonic profile of that whole can vary more then actual raw material) is where all the tricks of studio magic come to play

yet again when you are recording your own material, with your own performance, are not comp'ng from multiple takes with the goal of presenting the performance as accurately as possible one really should get over the idea that there is anything to 'fix' in post. Reason for this isn't merely hubris (on my part) but the initial A/D capture is as accurate information as you have . . . anything you do to it from there constitutes degrading that signal. There can be nearly infinite list of reasons to do this . . . but all the techniques involve compromise . . . trade off's, you always lose something, you always introduce artifacts and thus work best, are most successful when blending multiple tracks or (OR) when goal is to NOT sound like the initial performance!

While on one of the half dozen forums (or sub forums) on which you solicited advice you stated categorically that you were cognizant of 'mic placement' fact is nature of questions suggests that this is an area to return to for remedial attention. I'm fairly certain I've been doing this stuff for longer then you've been alive (not a boast just the sad fucking truth) and while, in that time, I've placed more then one (or two) mics I'm not sure that I'd consider myself to be an expert . . . every instrument, every room, every performance is a new and typically unique challenge as soon as I slip into arrogance, assume I can just slap mics where I've used them before I end up having to re track stuff I would not have had to, if I'd taken just a little more time up front.

If you take the time . . . record, move mic re-cord . . . learn to hear the subtle as well as gross differences then you learn the instrument, the room, the mic and how they interact . . . and process gets quicker and easier . . . don't take the time and in twenty years you will still be trying to fix in the mix (even when there is no mix)

Now . . . for detailed finger picked (acoustic guitar) transients (that hit of the root) a LDC tube (and certainly not a cheap one) would not be my first second or third choice. Generally speaking small diameter (condensers) will be more accurate (if less forgiving of room artifacts) Additionally cardioid patterns will by design be less accurate and can introduce instrument room interactions that can interfere with transient detail (hit that root)

Then to top it off you indicate that you are in the near field of the guitar (roughly speaking anything closer then two feet though the near not near boundary is fluid . . . but (again generally speaking, specific projects can and do call for very different options) if I were using the mic you indicate (though I don't have any hands on experience with it) I doubt I want it any closer then 18 inches)) 5-6 inches for any acoustic guitar (do a cursory search of the wave length of open low 'E') is pretty damn near . . . so even very small changes in mic position and focus will change the sound significantly

(then to reiterate by doubling, panning, smearing with verb you are more or less guaranteeing that you are going to lose detail in the transients . . . (the hit of that root!) so? well stop doing that if the 'hit of the root' is what you're looking for . . . no amount of post eq is going to help . . . )

I quite frequently use LDC cardioid (K47, C12 capsules, or variously a ribbon) . . . I think acoustic guitar was designed to interact with the 'room', an LDC (or ribbon) can add a dimension to capture of that interaction that is at least different from SDC's . . . this is added because there is no single 'right' way to do any of this. You could use the same guitar, in the same room with the same mic, at the same humidity and temperature as your performance you say is general target and the recording would sound very, very different (as it should . . . otherwise this would all be Rock Band air guitar) . . .

with the goal you've set for yourself your primary tools are instrument, room, mic and anything you do in post is indicative of something that did not go quite right whose influence you are trying to 'mask' . . . with your stated goal the less of this you do the better off you are

that said it is unusual (but not so unusual as to be worth my making a diary entry) when I do not use a little compression (these days seldom more then 2:1 slow attack 33 ms (though this can vary with instrument content and performance technique, 100 ms release, seldom meant to effect more then the 'peak' 6 dB) and I at least think about rolling off some the below 125, or 100 or 80 Hz. Both of these are addressed with idea of smoothing the entire performance, as an entity distinct form any individual note. Once those are executed they might not necessarily be retained . . . I try it then recording might not need even that . . . partially dependent on what the product market is . . . format of finished 'product'.

very, very, very roughly speaking if you don't like the roughs either your actual goal is different then what you think it is or there are issues that should be addressed before the 'mix' with single performance with single instrument via single mic any 'mix' is an artificial construct

if it is your own material for your own edification just go back and retrack it until it sounds like you want it to

While I still believe that respectable mics capture transients with greater fidelity (detail that hit of the root) then any p/u transducer I've heard, there is nothing the matter with mixing and matching mic's with p/u's. If you are thinking of playing out then DI and pickups are quite valuable tools. I go back to D'Armond magnetic p/u days and have used most commercially available systems since. At the moment I'm pretty OK with K & K systems (have several including piezo only as well as piezo + mic with K & K's preamp) But you will spend roughly the same on a pickup + preamp system as you would on an entry level SDC . . . AT4041, 4021, 4051, 4051a . . . get an MXL 603 and replace guts and capsule for $219 (a guess). So for roughly $300 you cross the threshold of functional in way that cost me $2000 when I started (and that was when I could buy a pick up for $1000)

but, yes, some form of DI can provide detail for transients more difficult to obtain via mic & room

in any case good luck with it all
 
oretez said:
don't mean to be a dick about this but you do realize (if you mean what I think you might mean by this) that this has to do with technique, some with guitar and string selection, a little bit of mic placement and nearly nothing with post tracking EQ

it is possible that by attempting dual mono or pseudo stereo you generated phase issues that muffled the very things you want to accent

for a single, intimate, acoustic instrument tracked with a single mic with goal of presenting that performance as accurately as possible there should be virtual no post tracking editing needed . . . you either capture the performance or you don't and best place to 'fix' it is prior to hitting the red button.

I'm not suggesting that you not experiment with all sorts of settings (including things like copying track, notching some arbitrary frequency band, inverting it, delaying it to attempt some sort of pseudo stereo . . . then slathering on obscene amounts of digital reverb . . .) you have to cross boundaries to learn where they are

blending multiple instruments from multiple performances, in myriad spaces, over days, weeks, months; comp'ng a single track from elements of multiple takes and attempting to 'mix' all of this into some type of coherent 'whole' (though sonic profile of that whole can vary more then actual raw material) is where all the tricks of studio magic come to play

yet again when you are recording your own material, with your own performance, are not comp'ng from multiple takes with the goal of presenting the performance as accurately as possible one really should get over the idea that there is anything to 'fix' in post. Reason for this isn't merely hubris (on my part) but the initial A/D capture is as accurate information as you have . . . anything you do to it from there constitutes degrading that signal. There can be nearly infinite list of reasons to do this . . . but all the techniques involve compromise . . . trade off's, you always lose something, you always introduce artifacts and thus work best, are most successful when blending multiple tracks or (OR) when goal is to NOT sound like the initial performance!

While on one of the half dozen forums (or sub forums) on which you solicited advice you stated categorically that you were cognizant of 'mic placement' fact is nature of questions suggests that this is an area to return to for remedial attention. I'm fairly certain I've been doing this stuff for longer then you've been alive (not a boast just the sad fucking truth) and while, in that time, I've placed more then one (or two) mics I'm not sure that I'd consider myself to be an expert . . . every instrument, every room, every performance is a new and typically unique challenge as soon as I slip into arrogance, assume I can just slap mics where I've used them before I end up having to re track stuff I would not have had to, if I'd taken just a little more time up front.

If you take the time . . . record, move mic re-cord . . . learn to hear the subtle as well as gross differences then you learn the instrument, the room, the mic and how they interact . . . and process gets quicker and easier . . . don't take the time and in twenty years you will still be trying to fix in the mix (even when there is no mix)

Now . . . for detailed finger picked (acoustic guitar) transients (that hit of the root) a LDC tube (and certainly not a cheap one) would not be my first second or third choice. Generally speaking small diameter (condensers) will be more accurate (if less forgiving of room artifacts) Additionally cardioid patterns will by design be less accurate and can introduce instrument room interactions that can interfere with transient detail (hit that root)

Then to top it off you indicate that you are in the near field of the guitar (roughly speaking anything closer then two feet though the near not near boundary is fluid . . . but (again generally speaking, specific projects can and do call for very different options) if I were using the mic you indicate (though I don't have any hands on experience with it) I doubt I want it any closer then 18 inches)) 5-6 inches for any acoustic guitar (do a cursory search of the wave length of open low 'E') is pretty damn near . . . so even very small changes in mic position and focus will change the sound significantly

(then to reiterate by doubling, panning, smearing with verb you are more or less guaranteeing that you are going to lose detail in the transients . . . (the hit of that root!) so? well stop doing that if the 'hit of the root' is what you're looking for . . . no amount of post eq is going to help . . . )

I quite frequently use LDC cardioid (K47, C12 capsules, or variously a ribbon) . . . I think acoustic guitar was designed to interact with the 'room', an LDC (or ribbon) can add a dimension to capture of that interaction that is at least different from SDC's . . . this is added because there is no single 'right' way to do any of this. You could use the same guitar, in the same room with the same mic, at the same humidity and temperature as your performance you say is general target and the recording would sound very, very different (as it should . . . otherwise this would all be Rock Band air guitar) . . .

with the goal you've set for yourself your primary tools are instrument, room, mic and anything you do in post is indicative of something that did not go quite right whose influence you are trying to 'mask' . . . with your stated goal the less of this you do the better off you are

that said it is unusual (but not so unusual as to be worth my making a diary entry) when I do not use a little compression (these days seldom more then 2:1 slow attack 33 ms (though this can vary with instrument content and performance technique, 100 ms release, seldom meant to effect more then the 'peak' 6 dB) and I at least think about rolling off some the below 125, or 100 or 80 Hz. Both of these are addressed with idea of smoothing the entire performance, as an entity distinct form any individual note. Once those are executed they might not necessarily be retained . . . I try it then recording might not need even that . . . partially dependent on what the product market is . . . format of finished 'product'.

very, very, very roughly speaking if you don't like the roughs either your actual goal is different then what you think it is or there are issues that should be addressed before the 'mix' with single performance with single instrument via single mic any 'mix' is an artificial construct

if it is your own material for your own edification just go back and retrack it until it sounds like you want it to

While I still believe that respectable mics capture transients with greater fidelity (detail that hit of the root) then any p/u transducer I've heard, there is nothing the matter with mixing and matching mic's with p/u's. If you are thinking of playing out then DI and pickups are quite valuable tools. I go back to D'Armond magnetic p/u days and have used most commercially available systems since. At the moment I'm pretty OK with K & K systems (have several including piezo only as well as piezo + mic with K & K's preamp) But you will spend roughly the same on a pickup + preamp system as you would on an entry level SDC . . . AT4041, 4021, 4051, 4051a . . . get an MXL 603 and replace guts and capsule for $219 (a guess). So for roughly $300 you cross the threshold of functional in way that cost me $2000 when I started (and that was when I could buy a pick up for $1000)

but, yes, some form of DI can provide detail for transients more difficult to obtain via mic & room

in any case good luck with it all
Click to expand...

alright hot shit, how do you think 'take me away' at www.myspace.com/chasecoy was recorded? I have a decent mic, the only mic in his set up, but numerous people have told me it sounds like he mic'd it and used line in, or just straight line in and recorded from the pickup. there are tons of ways so mess with a song to get the mix you want, I just don't get anywhere near that quality. You actually weren't any help at all...I know a lot has to do with the rough mix and mic, but even with a decent rough mix it doesnt sound as bright as I want to, and thats after numerous tracking and mic placements.
 
oretez said:
don't mean to be a dick about this but you do realize (if you mean what I think you might mean by this) that this has to do with technique, some with guitar and string selection, a little bit of mic placement and nearly nothing with post tracking EQ

it is possible that by attempting dual mono or pseudo stereo you generated phase issues that muffled the very things you want to accent

for a single, intimate, acoustic instrument tracked with a single mic with goal of presenting that performance as accurately as possible there should be virtual no post tracking editing needed . . . you either capture the performance or you don't and best place to 'fix' it is prior to hitting the red button.

I'm not suggesting that you not experiment with all sorts of settings (including things like copying track, notching some arbitrary frequency band, inverting it, delaying it to attempt some sort of pseudo stereo . . . then slathering on obscene amounts of digital reverb . . .) you have to cross boundaries to learn where they are

blending multiple instruments from multiple performances, in myriad spaces, over days, weeks, months; comp'ng a single track from elements of multiple takes and attempting to 'mix' all of this into some type of coherent 'whole' (though sonic profile of that whole can vary more then actual raw material) is where all the tricks of studio magic come to play

yet again when you are recording your own material, with your own performance, are not comp'ng from multiple takes with the goal of presenting the performance as accurately as possible one really should get over the idea that there is anything to 'fix' in post. Reason for this isn't merely hubris (on my part) but the initial A/D capture is as accurate information as you have . . . anything you do to it from there constitutes degrading that signal. There can be nearly infinite list of reasons to do this . . . but all the techniques involve compromise . . . trade off's, you always lose something, you always introduce artifacts and thus work best, are most successful when blending multiple tracks or (OR) when goal is to NOT sound like the initial performance!

While on one of the half dozen forums (or sub forums) on which you solicited advice you stated categorically that you were cognizant of 'mic placement' fact is nature of questions suggests that this is an area to return to for remedial attention. I'm fairly certain I've been doing this stuff for longer then you've been alive (not a boast just the sad fucking truth) and while, in that time, I've placed more then one (or two) mics I'm not sure that I'd consider myself to be an expert . . . every instrument, every room, every performance is a new and typically unique challenge as soon as I slip into arrogance, assume I can just slap mics where I've used them before I end up having to re track stuff I would not have had to, if I'd taken just a little more time up front.

If you take the time . . . record, move mic re-cord . . . learn to hear the subtle as well as gross differences then you learn the instrument, the room, the mic and how they interact . . . and process gets quicker and easier . . . don't take the time and in twenty years you will still be trying to fix in the mix (even when there is no mix)

Now . . . for detailed finger picked (acoustic guitar) transients (that hit of the root) a LDC tube (and certainly not a cheap one) would not be my first second or third choice. Generally speaking small diameter (condensers) will be more accurate (if less forgiving of room artifacts) Additionally cardioid patterns will by design be less accurate and can introduce instrument room interactions that can interfere with transient detail (hit that root)

Then to top it off you indicate that you are in the near field of the guitar (roughly speaking anything closer then two feet though the near not near boundary is fluid . . . but (again generally speaking, specific projects can and do call for very different options) if I were using the mic you indicate (though I don't have any hands on experience with it) I doubt I want it any closer then 18 inches)) 5-6 inches for any acoustic guitar (do a cursory search of the wave length of open low 'E') is pretty damn near . . . so even very small changes in mic position and focus will change the sound significantly

(then to reiterate by doubling, panning, smearing with verb you are more or less guaranteeing that you are going to lose detail in the transients . . . (the hit of that root!) so? well stop doing that if the 'hit of the root' is what you're looking for . . . no amount of post eq is going to help . . . )

I quite frequently use LDC cardioid (K47, C12 capsules, or variously a ribbon) . . . I think acoustic guitar was designed to interact with the 'room', an LDC (or ribbon) can add a dimension to capture of that interaction that is at least different from SDC's . . . this is added because there is no single 'right' way to do any of this. You could use the same guitar, in the same room with the same mic, at the same humidity and temperature as your performance you say is general target and the recording would sound very, very different (as it should . . . otherwise this would all be Rock Band air guitar) . . .

with the goal you've set for yourself your primary tools are instrument, room, mic and anything you do in post is indicative of something that did not go quite right whose influence you are trying to 'mask' . . . with your stated goal the less of this you do the better off you are

that said it is unusual (but not so unusual as to be worth my making a diary entry) when I do not use a little compression (these days seldom more then 2:1 slow attack 33 ms (though this can vary with instrument content and performance technique, 100 ms release, seldom meant to effect more then the 'peak' 6 dB) and I at least think about rolling off some the below 125, or 100 or 80 Hz. Both of these are addressed with idea of smoothing the entire performance, as an entity distinct form any individual note. Once those are executed they might not necessarily be retained . . . I try it then recording might not need even that . . . partially dependent on what the product market is . . . format of finished 'product'.

very, very, very roughly speaking if you don't like the roughs either your actual goal is different then what you think it is or there are issues that should be addressed before the 'mix' with single performance with single instrument via single mic any 'mix' is an artificial construct

if it is your own material for your own edification just go back and retrack it until it sounds like you want it to

While I still believe that respectable mics capture transients with greater fidelity (detail that hit of the root) then any p/u transducer I've heard, there is nothing the matter with mixing and matching mic's with p/u's. If you are thinking of playing out then DI and pickups are quite valuable tools. I go back to D'Armond magnetic p/u days and have used most commercially available systems since. At the moment I'm pretty OK with K & K systems (have several including piezo only as well as piezo + mic with K & K's preamp) But you will spend roughly the same on a pickup + preamp system as you would on an entry level SDC . . . AT4041, 4021, 4051, 4051a . . . get an MXL 603 and replace guts and capsule for $219 (a guess). So for roughly $300 you cross the threshold of functional in way that cost me $2000 when I started (and that was when I could buy a pick up for $1000)

but, yes, some form of DI can provide detail for transients more difficult to obtain via mic & room

in any case good luck with it all
Click to expand...

LMFAO do really expect people to read this? its like a page long
 
spridle said:
alright hot shit, how do you think 'take me away' at
Click to expand...

don't know . . . what difference does it make?

Nothing after initial 'capture' (mic-A/D) is going to add information. It might modify signal in a way that is more or less pleasant, matches a goal more or less closely . . . but those outcomes are very species specific.

An MP3 by definition can not provide an accurate frequency profile of the source . . . comparing mp3 'a' to 'b' while knowing nothing of signal chain of 'b' is not particularly productive for the question you've laid out . . . that is not my opinion that is unfortunate reality. I listen to your sample . . . went to myspace and was informed I'd need to load a 'new' player to access your comparative info and chose to not do that . . . went to youtube and looked at some material posted by your target recordings.

First your sample is perfectly OK. that it might not match what you hear in your head is not particularly unusual. My main point is that no amount of 'mixing' on a single acoustic instrument is going to add transient detail that was not part of the original recording. Accumulating tracks is not necessarily going to help and can hurt. I tried to end by indicating that, yes, using a DI to capture transients while using the LDC to get some ambient interaction can work nicely. But which frequencies one would attenuate would depend on specific recording (content instrument performance room mic, etc.) and is not really 'guessable' from an MP3 . . . generally speaking you would need both tracks to even begin to guess . . .

And the better way to approach a single instrument two file situation where the goal is to accurately present source is simply to not worry so much about the numbers of the frequency bands (partially because even in software not all EQ's are equivalent the under the hood details can make any 12 dB/octave filter significantly different from the one sitting next to it) but simply sweep a much of bands in the cluttered areas (roughly mid range, but any and all bands from 110 to 1k with interesting interactions rippling up the harmonic sequence) If you're Barry Gordy you can cut by the numbers most of the rest of us have to listen.

So DI is absolutely appropriate . . . but a functional system is going to cost roughly the same as entry level SDC and the mic (since this is a home recording forum) is a more flexible tool

The second main point (after trying to indicate 'why' . . . ) was that without adding gear your best strategy to obtain the type of recording you want, if you insist on an cardioid LDC tracking in the guitars near field is to keep moving the mic around until you find a location that works for you

and very subtle adjustment can produce interestingly different results . . .

If you are going to try for better detail on material already tracked via doubling those tracks, in addition to choosing some frequency bands to attenuate I'd also suggest using some dynamic processes on the second track designed to allow your transient to pass but attempting to 'compress' (a bit) of the sustain, decay portions of the envelope. This is also very much, not merely to taste, but dependent on specific content. But If I remember correctly in one OP's initial posts he indicated he used Audition and the dynamics processor in that is actually well suited for that type of task. The specific variables are dependent entirely on specific content so this is . . . well it is what ever it is . (and the assumption here is that I'm trying to improve the transient detail on an acoustic guitar track I can not re-record) So? well in the hypothetical example I'd normalize the track to 0 dB, would not touch anything in the first 33 ms (again the specific number is dependent on content), it is doubtful I'd worry about anything above -15 dB (more typically if I have to do this I'm worrying about signal well below -20) then I either start with small ratio and work down or pick a huge ration (with attenuated noise gating) and nudge it up to that fine line of useful. typically I'd do make up gain as a separate process. Typically, when I've had to do this (in restoration work) I tend to have to comp a single track from more then one pass. once the process track is ready you can certainly look at each track in spectral display and get an idea for specific areas of high energy in each. This can provide some decent clues concerning frequency bands to address

(and to other poster, question length then reposting the entire initial post: no, I do not expect anyone to read it . . . perhaps more to the point I could give a shit . . . info is either useful or it's not I seldom post purely to OP . . . all too often OP's apply filters as which to response(s) they can and/or will accept that make any response an exercise in futility . . but I learned (a bit) of this stuff by making every damn mistake possible based on every self deluded magical think assumption possible. When I started even interning was not all that useful unless one cracked the 1000 page tech tomes (still my primary recommendation) . . . and the more bad recording there is out there the better it is for my bottom line so I often wonder 'why' I bother to reply . . . it sure aint for the applause)
 
The most important part of recording ac guitar is the original source sound at the instrument... the player, the instrument, the room. Nothing after that can make one guitar/player/room sound a whole lot like another. Not the mic even, and certainly not EQ.
 
XLR said:
The most important part of recording ac guitar is the original source sound at the instrument... the player, the instrument, the room. Nothing after that can make one guitar/player/room sound a whole lot like another. Not the mic even, and certainly not EQ.
Click to expand...

you are correct sir but you should have used more words....................
 
  • Like
Reactions: XLR
But to answer the OP question directly...
spridle said:
I was given advice about a
recording I did that I should 'try cutting 200-400hz'
I have no idea how to do this. Do I do this in the EQ?...
Click to expand...
Yes. That's the simplest way.

How do I go about cutting those frequencies mentioned above...?
Click to expand...
Look at the controls on your EQ. Turn knobs and listen to the result. Read the software app manual. Most people find the basics of EQ to be simple after doing that for an hour or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top