Rules of thumb for EQing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saltine
  • Start date Start date
SouthSIDE Glen said:
As the author/builder of those charts, I have a pretty good idea what they contain ;) :D

I originally created that chart as part of a series I'm writing on critical/analytical listening. (I am in fact currently writing a column on the whole using the EQ to learn the frequencies thing I mentioned earlier.) It was (and is) meant, quite frankly, meant mostly to help teach floks how to do without it.

When I gave it to a few folks for beta testing, they all recommended that I release it on the site on it's own merits and not wait. I'll be honest with you; I almost wish I had not done that, as it has become a favorite tool for those who do not want to go through the "hassle" of actually learning how to use their ears without it, as easy as that may actually be.

Frankly, the only reason I still have it up there is because it is *by far* the most popular feature on my website, practically everywhere on the planet that has internet access; and if I pulled it off now, I'd have more people pissed at me than I could count.

G.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to say thanks glen for making that chart, (in case you read this).
I have a serious hearing loss and for me, it helped explain a few things
I didn't understand before.
My guess is that while different instruments are capable of projecting a given range of frequencies, with a lot of overlap, they are obviously tonally different for their construction and how they are played. ie different sound, same frequency.

I've seen a couple of other charts that were a bit more comprehensive in terms of instruments, but didn't elaborate the same way has your interactive page does.

I also recall a website that had an entire range of individual frequency wav files to listen to. it was quite comprehensive but I've forgotten the page.
 
Twinhit said:
Just wanted to say thanks glen for making that chart, (in case you read this).
I have a serious hearing loss and for me, it helped explain a few things
I didn't understand before.
My guess is that while different instruments are capable of projecting a given range of frequencies, with a lot of overlap, they are obviously tonally different for their construction and how they are played. ie different sound, same frequency.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the kind words :). Regardless of my views in this thread, I'm always glad to have helped anyone at all.

You bring up a good point, and one which is often forgotten or overlooked; that a middle C is the same frequency on a piano as it is on a guitar or a cello. What's different is the shape of the waveform, the relative strengths of the different overtones and other natural resonances and foments of the particular instrument, many of which also overlap (and should overlap).
Twinhit said:
I've seen a couple of other charts that were a bit more comprehensive in terms of instruments, but didn't elaborate the same way has your interactive page does.

I also recall a website that had an entire range of individual frequency wav files to listen to. it was quite comprehensive but I've forgotten the page.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the books and online world are loaded with frequency charts and info. I am actually offering nothing new that couldn't already be found elsewhere. I just added some fancy colors and popup presentations, the combination of which seems to have stuck a chord (pun intended) with the general public. Go figure.

Yeah, there's a number of sites that offer frequency files. The thing about those is they are okay for testing one's hearing range and sensitivity, but lousy for actually figuring out what frequencies sound like. Most of them are just generated sine waves, which don't actually sound much at all like the most of the real life sounds that happen at those frequencies. Take, just for example, a 6kHz sine wave; it actually sounds almost nothing like the vocal sibilance, cymbal shimmer or guitar pick attack that one usually finds inhabiting that frequency range in their recordings.

G.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I cannot believe this thread went on so long. There are two rules of thumb to using eq:

1. Make it sound good.

2. Don't make it sound bad.

If that is too hard you need more practice.
Click to expand...
Is there a chart that gives me settings so my EQ~ing and mixing won't sound bad ?






:laughings:
 
grimtraveller said:
Is there a chart that gives me settings so my EQ~ing and mixing won't sound bad ?
Click to expand...

:D

One of my outboard EQs has in the manual a specific mix/mastering setup.
This is a dynamic equalizer (CLM Expounder)...and there is a combination of settings that actually DOES create that classic punchy mix with that big bottom and clear/sparkling highs.

It doesn't sound great on everything...but I would say 7-out-of-10 mixes DO sound substantially better when you kick it in!
I was at one point going to use it on my mixes when I was experimenting with various "mastering" approaches...but then decided against it.
I just felt it was like too much of a really good thing...and I prefered to go with a bit more "neutral" sound. :)
 
But, but, if I need settings to tell me what to do before I do it because I don't know what to do, hence the need for the pre~settings, being told after the fact that it was actually OK becomes something of a misnomer because without the EQ settings I wouldn't have done it in the first place because I wouldn't've known what to do unless I had the magic settings.
Besides, what do Billboard know ?
 
miroslav said:
I think bouldersoundguy was being facetious and just pointing out the irony of it all. :)

Well…I thought it was pretty funny. :D
Click to expand...

It was just another way of saying "If it sounds good it is good." If you get a song on the charts it can't be too bad. Who cares how you got there? Of course, you can do a stellar engineering job and still not get on the charts for any number of reasons.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
It was just another way of saying "If it sounds good it is good." If you get a song on the charts it can't be too bad.
Click to expand...
But nothing says it has to be any good either. A song doesn't have to sound good to make it to a Billboard list, and plenty that do make it sound average, at best, and more than a few can sound downright awful.

Billboard does not rank music by quality of anything, only by general popularity; and general popularity is not necessarily a reflection of quality sound.

G.
 
Subtractive EQ

After all the techie talk and dust dies down, I think there really is a rule of thumb and perhaps only one: Adjust EQ by subtraction if at all possible.

If you've done much work with this stuff the idea is obvious. If you're starting it is anything but obvious. But when you add signal in a console, mixer or whatever, you are also adding whatever noise is going to be associated with that increase in gain. And the more you add, the lower the signal / noise ratio seems to be for that added increment. So if you are adding signal by increases when eq'ing (by whatever method) you are also adding all kinds of noise.

So - Need to raise the mids a little? Drop everything but the mids and perhaps smooth it out with a bit more gain overall.

Subtractive EQ is the only real rule of thumb I can think of. All else is bitter experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top