The EQ Thread

[TylerDrums109]

Tyler, I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of useful advice as far as specific recipes for specific frequencies on specific instruments, because that's typically just not how things really work. The chart Rami refers to does provides some general guidelines as to what some frequency ranges can mean can mean to various instruments, but it in no means is intended to provide any advice as far as what to actually DO in any given situation.

There are, however a few general techniques and platitudes regarding the general use of EQ that can be helpful. As always with these kinds of "rules", there are always exceptions; they do not hold true or work 100% of the time. But they do tend to me more useful and helpful to remember than to ignore:

I'd start you out with checking out this article on how to use a parametric EQ for sweeping the crud from your tracks. Hardly a instrument track passes my desk that doesn't wind up benefiting from a parametric sweep, IMHO. After that:

- Use EQ only when called for, not just for the sake of using it. While I understand and kind of agree in principle with the "high pass everything" idea, I personally like to supercede that with the idea of "keep your signal chain as short and clean as possible". In this case, if a buildup of bass mud is not a problem in your mix, then I see no need to add all that extra EQ to the signal processing, myself.

- Use EQ boost to make something sound different, use EQ cut to make something sound the same but better. There are many exceptions, but this is a good principle to use as a baseline.

- Boost wide and low, cut narrow and deep. Again, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, you'll probably most often find yourself successful with EQ if your boosts are mid-to-wider bandwidth of just a few dB to generally shape the sound, and you use more surgical cuts of narrow bandwidth but more dBs to surgically remove trouble frequencies (as in the parametric sweep.)

- Sometimes you can make a radical EQ boost sound better (more transparent and natural) but distributing your EQ across the close harmonics. For example, a fairly narrow but radical boost at, say just for example, 200Hz can *sometimes* sound better by lessening the boost by a few dB but then adding small boosts of a dB or three at 100 and 400Hz. Experiment to taste.

- Often, rather than trying to force one instrument into the mix by excessive EQ boost, you can get it to fit in better by boosting it just a couple of dB and then making room by cutting just a couple of dB from the competing tracks. This is often referred to as "differential EQ".

The tips almost never end, but that's a pretty good starter list, I think.

G.

Thank you and yes i do understand there is no "perfect" thing to do in any given situation and that less is more...im just trying to make a list of some things to give me some sort of organized path to travel on...get what im saying?..and again thank you very much for the advice

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

im just trying to make a list of some things to give me some sort of organized path to travel on...get what im saying?

Believe me, I'm all over what you're saying. But the sooner one understands that there IS NO organized path, no beaten path on which to travel, but rather that every mix has it's own topology and terrain demanding that one beats their own path, the quicker and better they'll get their mixes out of the woods and home safely.

Learn what the frequencies sound like.

Learn what 200Hz, 1kHz and 4kHz sound like, and how they sound different from 400Hz, 2kHz and 8hz, and so on. Then when you have that knowledge, you can take what you want to hear, compare it against what you actually do hear, and use the "general rules" like above to cause the EQ path for that particular situation (if one even exists) to appear before your eyes.

G.

 

[MCI2424]

So basically i would like to start a thread in which we discuss how we tend to EQ different instruments in our mixes to fit and sound better in our final mix...i know very little about Eq'ing but i think i aswell as many others could benefit from such a thread...so if you could just post how you tend to EQ different instruments and what frequences you tend to cut or boost to allow for a more improved qualitiy of individual sound and overall sound of the mix...thanks

The one good piece of advice here is to record cold and mix cold. Recording too hot will kill the 2 buss of any DAW AND analog mixing console. I record about 50% of each track on my HD recorder and keep faders for each track about the same. Once you get to the 2-buss, you HAVE HEADROOM.

EQing is the last thing I do. I avoid it when recording because the best EQ is mic placement. I have nothing against EQing when recording a track on an SSL, but any Mackie or equivalent board, or most EQ plugins are low quality and add more problems than they solve. The "secret" of these home recording gurus is to make the best use of what you have and understand the limitations and how to get around them. If you can master this, you can make a decent recording on anything.

 

[Jaticus]

An EQ is an EQ isnt it? How can a plug-in cause more problems than it solves? Its not going to add noise. I supose if its only got 6 frequencies then thats a bummer but then you just find another surely.

Also tip for everyone here, if your wanting to high-pass a vocalist and want to find his or hers F0, download SFS WIN (speech filing system for windows). It'll calculate the ff and show you where the formants are, and its free!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

An EQ is an EQ isnt it?

No more than a preamp is a preamp, a compressor is a compressor, or a reverb is a reverb. Different EQ circuits and plugs definitely have different tonal personalities just like any other signal processors do - often to a shockingly noticeable degree.

Though I do take issue with the general notion that digital plugs are in general worse than analog EQs. There are a LOT of awful-sounding analog EQs out there that are worse than your average decent-quality plug, just as there are a lot of awful EQ plugs that are worse than your average decent quality analog EQ.

While no plug sounds quite like the EQ on a Trident or Neve board, there's not an analog EQ - or chain of them - on the planet that'll give me the quality control and neutrality of sound of Roger Nichols Digital's Unequalizer.

G.

 

[bkkornaker]

The "secret" of these home recording gurus is to make the best use of what you have and understand the limitations and how to get around them. If you can master this, you can make a decent recording on anything.

H-O-L-Y.....CRAP!!!! you just hit the nail on the head!! that was the best solid piece of advise EVER!

i think this is what ive been trying to get across all these years, but i couldnt find the right words to say....

you nailed it.

 

[promesis]

Harmonics are multiple integers of the fundamental frequency. So if you have a 100Hz fundamental (sometimes called 1st harmonic) the 2nd harmonic will be 200Hz (1 octave). so anything under the fundamental can be rolled off. The point is, anything above the fundamental you probably need, below it, you probably don't.

great point.. to borrow a phrase from elsewhere: "[w/equalization] everything affects everything".. especially with regard to concepts of "upper and lower reinforcement of partials and harmonics".

case in point:
i mix using a mackie 32/8 .. anyone familiar with this console knows that the eq section is rather limiting; hi and lo shelfs, 1 full parametric 'hi-mid' and 1 semi-parametric 'lo-mid' .. and a single hi pass (lo cut) switch that shelfs @ 75Hz. At times i get to a point where i find these options limiting, especially when i would really like more than one "surgical cut", vis á vis, another full parametric band for a channel. Of course, the option and advantage of more than one freq to surgically cut speaks for itself - but there are other things afoot.

Not doing anything ITB, i get somewhat jealous sometimes of these folks whom can just add as many of these fully parametric bands with a simple mouse click. That being said, on the current project i am mixing i decided to experiment a bit. I will use the kick track as my example here.

I took the kick channel on my board and bussed it from its direct out (post fader, eq etc) and sent it to the tape returns of another open channel on the board (*maintaining proper gain structure*). With the original kick channel's master LCR bus left disengaged, the signal now passes through a whole new layer of EQ .. thus giving me access to more EQ options. I found out some cool stuff doing this.

I usually, like a lot of folks here, hi-pass out a lot of the mud etc.. but here i let the signal pass through the originating channel without the lo-cut switch .. in essence letting all those sub freq through, then "trapping" those out in the subsequent bussed channel with the lo-cut switch engaged.. WOW! Kick ass ..

why? well because of exactly what you said about those harmonics and partials .. all that stuff down at 60Hz really - REALLY affects what happens higher up in the harmonic structure .. like at 120Hz and so on.

Not expecting or understanding this sonic characteristic/phenomena it would be reasonable to expect no affect on the sound whether that lo-cut was engaged on the first or the second bussed channel .. but man.. if i lo-cut the original channel and not the bussed channel it sounds totally different. This is (i suspect) because we reinforce the fundamentals by letting those sub freqs through - thus, giving more access to freqs that would be lost because of all of the adjacent freqs associated with that lo-cut shelf. The fundamentals and subsequent harmonics associated with these adjacent freqs can really emphasize clarity of the timbre. Then i slam the lo-cut at 75Hz but all of a sudden, freqs at 80 or 100 and all of their constituent "octaves" are pumping! We in essence have allowed the lowest harmonics to become better represented and distributed upward and throughout the "nice and friendly" bandwidth of the whole project. It sounds better and has more clarity in the low end - and we know we don't have much going on down there below 75Hz - because, we cut them out.

This comes in handy more for the bass freqs because of their overall affect on everything in the mix. basically, what happens at a fundamental of 100Hz can be really affected by a treatment of its lower harmonic constituent of 50Hz .. try boosting slightly at 40 - 50Hz and "trap it" in by lo-cutting at 75Hz. You will hear how much this affects everything higher than your shelf. Try it on bass guitar too.. or use it to create some space between the rhythm section.

Of course, it should go without saying that this will not work too well if the original tracks sound like crap. Take care that what is tracked is what is heard in the room.

- promesis