Things to consider when Eq'ing

[Cosmonaut]

some of you may already know this, some may not, either way, its elpful to understand some basic fundamentals when Eqing tracks for a mix.

Most of you know that When having many instrument tracks there will be Competing Frequencies between instruments that will turn your mix into a trainwreck

But its important to know how the frequency spectrum is divided and how to apply it musically into your mix

First Of:
Between 30-60Hz is where you feel sound, not to much musical information there, can add kick to your music, but it is not wise to focus on it too much.

Between 60 - 200hz is where fundimental tones exist, ideal for bass instruments that provide single root notes and arent very busy

Between 200hz - 2Khz is where the musical information actuially exist, I.e. the actual tones.

When an instrument is providing Harmoinic support (I.e. Playng chords on the down beat and not being too rhythmically active. For example Playing a guitar chord and letting it ring for the bar) , It may be helpful to boost Lower Mids and cut a bit of higher and lower frequencies to give space for other instruments in the mix.

When an instrument is playing a melodic role, you generally want a brighter sound, so focus on the Higher mids,boost and cut accordingly

From 2K and higher, is where the noise exists, I.e. no relevant musical pitch exists in these bands

When an instrument is playing a Rhythmic role, its musical information is not as important, for example, there is no real defined pitch on a drum kit, other than maybe toms, but its not important really.

You may want to eq accordingly in order to define its role in the mix, so you want @k and higher frequencies to stand out in the mix from these instruments, not that you should ignore the other frequencies. For example a snare has frequencies that define it in the 200k are too, but the attack comes from 2k and up. A kicks attack comes from 2k and up, but its boom coms from 60hz area

same with a piano, the mallet is ppresent in 2k and up, while the music is within 200- 2k, so if its percusive piano, eq accordingly

For example, guitar in ska and reggae is usually playing rhythmic role, with slight harmonic presence, so you may want to focus more one the frequencies that give it brightness to define its role

it may be helpful to know this stuff, not just to boost, but to cut. Sometimes an instrument does not need any boosting, but it has unnesscary information thats competing with another track.

It is more preferable to cut frequencies rather than boosting because wen you boost, all you are doing is making the output of the track louder and you are going to have to do more leveling to achieve a lesser result.

It also helps to know in a compositional standpoint on what is the overall sound of the song and what to focus on and what is less important.

IMPORTANT:
Eq, although very useful, should not be used to compensate for bad source sounds, you dont want to record things just to EQ the hell out of it to get the desired sound. Its important to define it by the source,. so EQ you amps instead, get the proper guitar and the proper gauge strings. You dont want to get Thin gauge strings if you are providing harmony, because the strings dont have much presence in harmonic frequencies. You would if its playing a rhythmic role, like in ska or reggae.

So start form the source, pre recording stage, then Eq afterwards to enhance, not compensate.

 

[jndietz]

From 2K and higher, is where the noise exists, I.e. no relevant musical pitch exists in these bands

Are you serious?

I don't believe it. There's LOTS of important freqs at 2K and higher...

 

[XLR]

It's a bad idea to lecture on a topic when you don't understand it. And it's obvious from the freq range "info" that the OP doesn't understand it.

 

[solo2racr]

A little reference for the people as to what IS above 2kHz.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/

Click on the "Interactive Frequency Charts" button.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

From 2K and higher, is where the noise exists, I.e. no relevant musical pitch exists in these bands

Are you serious?

I don't believe it. There's LOTS of important freqs at 2K and higher...

The 7th octave - the last 8 white and 5 black keys on a standard 88-key piano - exists above 2k. So technically speaking, his statement is incorrect. But in general, it's not that far off to say that there really *isn't* a whole lot in the way in fundamentals above 2k outside of the top end of the piano, piccolo or harp.

The problem with that statement though, is that there is a whole lot in the way of important harmonics up there that contribute very strongly to the perceived pitch and overal timbre of many instruments. In fact, with the exception of the tuba and maybe the contrabassoon, just about every instrument there is has at least some fairly important overtones that can extend for some instruments (and human voices) as far as 5k.

G.

 

[solo2racr]

The 7th octave - the last 8 white and 5 black keys on a standard 88-key piano - exists above 2k. So technically speaking, his statement is incorrect. But in general, it's not that far off to say that there really *isn't* a whole lot in the way in fundamentals above 2k outside of the top end of the piano, piccolo or harp.

The problem with that statement though, is that there is a whole lot in the way of important harmonics up there that contribute very strongly to the perceived pitch and overal timbre of many instruments. In fact, with the exception of the tuba and maybe the contrabassoon, just about every instrument there is has at least some fairly important overtones that can extend for some instruments (and human voices) as far as 5k.

G.

Absolutely Otherwise, why not just strap on a 2kHz LP filter and get rid of the "noise" and irrelevant musical pitch

 

[Dogbreath]

Good link, Solo...
lotsa good info there.

 

[NYMorningstar]

The problem with that statement though, is that there is a whole lot in the way of important harmonics up there that contribute very strongly to the perceived pitch and overal timbre of many instruments. In fact, with the exception of the tuba and maybe the contrabassoon, just about every instrument there is has at least some fairly important overtones that can extend for some instruments (and human voices) as far as 5k.

G.

I think he means "not important" in terms of where to be eqing the mix and I think he's right. I think his point is to EQ the fundimentals only, and as close to the source as/if possible before you record it. I'm sure he can explain what he meant better than me though

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Between 60 - 200hz is where fundimental tones exist, ideal for bass instruments that provide single root notes and arent very busy

Between 200hz - 2Khz is where the musical information actuially exist, I.e. the actual tones.

I think there's a breakdown in terminology here. The "fundamental tone" is simply the note being played. These fundamental notes in the western scale exist all the way up to 3k.

I'm not sure what Cosmo means by "actual tones", but I think this may be a reference to the idea that some instruments such as guitar tend to put out more energy at the first overtone (second harmonic) than they do at the fundamental note. Still, though, this is not an accurate term or description, nor is it limited to the frequency range given.

When an instrument is providing Harmoinic support (I.e. Playng chords on the down beat and not being too rhythmically active. For example Playing a guitar chord and letting it ring for the bar) , It may be helpful to boost Lower Mids and cut a bit of higher and lower frequencies to give space for other instruments in the mix.

And it may not. While it's a good idea to EQ based upon an instrument's relation to the other instruments, and to make sure there's room for everyobdy, to assume that a harmonizing rhythm guitar sould be played through a telephone to make room for the melody lines is to ignore what the melody lines actually sound like.

Fir example, if I were mixing a rhythm track for Eric Clapton, who tends to prefer and accentuate a very midrange-y sound for his lead guitar and vocals (not counting the From The Cradle album ), I'm not going to want a harmonizing guitar to compete for that same territory, but rather probably move it to one side or the other.

it may be helpful to know this stuff, not just to boost, but to cut. Sometimes an instrument does not need any boosting, but it has unnesscary information thats competing with another track.

Now that is sold advice. Can't argue there.

It is more preferable to cut frequencies rather than boosting because wen you boost, all you are doing is making the output of the track louder and you are going to have to do more leveling to achieve a lesser result.

Another oversimplication and misuderstanding of an old truism. The old truism is "use EQ boost to make things sound different/Use EQ cut to make things sound better." As with all truisms, there are exceptions. But the point is there are going to be times when the idea is not to cut out the crap and clean the instrument, but to change the timbre, good and bad. At such times, boosting may well be better than cutting.

And that part about all boosting is doing is making the track louder is true...for that given frequency band. So what? When you're cutting, your just making the track quieter for that band. That's why God created the output gain control, so you can stage the overall gain back to nominal levels before sending it downstram, regardless of which way you're pusing the individual EQ bands..

It also helps to know in a compositional standpoint on what is the overall sound of the song and what to focus on and what is less important.

IMPORTANT:
Eq, although very useful, should not be used to compensate for bad source sounds, you dont want to record things just to EQ the hell out of it to get the desired sound. Its important to define it by the source,. so EQ you amps instead, get the proper guitar and the proper gauge strings. You dont want to get Thin gauge strings if you are providing harmony, because the strings dont have much presence in harmonic frequencies. You would if its playing a rhythmic role, like in ska or reggae.

So start form the source, pre recording stage, then Eq afterwards to enhance, not compensate.

Absolutely true. No arguments there.

I think he means "not important" in terms of where to be eqing the mix and I think he's right. I think his point is to EQ the fundimentals only, and as close to the source as/if possible before you record it. I'm sure he can explain what he meant better than me though

I agree on the "get it right to begin with" part, but with the rest I respectfully disagree. Evidence the buildup that almost always occurs in the 3k-5k range; those ugly, harsh, high-mids favored by guitar, piano, horns and vocals. All the fundamental filtering in the world isn't going to clean that mess up, especially not without ruining the fundamentals themsleves. Hell, most of the EQing I do is done above 2k.

G.

 

[cello_pudding]

From 2K and higher, is where the noise exists, I.e. no relevant musical pitch exists in these bands

Are you serious?

I don't believe it. There's LOTS of important freqs at 2K and higher...

you changed his words.

musical pitch and freqency are two different things (as glen explained ie: fundamental pitches)

i wouldn't write this user off as an ignoramus. you have to actually interpret people correctly before judging them.

 

[jndietz]

you changed his words.

musical pitch and freqency are two different things (as glen explained ie: fundamental pitches)

i wouldn't write this user off as an ignoramus. you have to actually interpret people correctly before judging them.

I hardly think of this guy as an ignoramous. And actually I didn't even judge him. I misunderstood what the heck he was talking about.

Sorry!

 

[Daisy]

I hardly think of this guy as an ignoramous.

I don't either.

I just think he's an idiot.



Just kidding.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The problem I have with his statement, and the thrust of his post, though, is that he is implying that virtually nothing inportant to the pitch or musicality of the track exists above 2k, that up there and beyond it's pretty much all about edge and percussion.

While there is some truth at the core of that, there are frequencies between 2k and 5-6k that can be very important to the perceived pitch and musicality of the instument, even if the fundamentals do cut off at 2k.

I just feel that post as written contains some mis-interpretation and simplification - if not downright cut-and-pasting from other sources without much thought - that is teetering on the edge of misunderstanding, or at least confusion. For example, when one says

When an instrument is playing a melodic role, you generally want a brighter sound, so focus on the Higher mids

and then follows that up just a couple of sentences later with

When an instrument is playing a Rhythmic role, its musical information is not as important...you may want to eq accordingly in order to define its role in the mix, so you want 2k and higher frequencies to stand out in the mix from these instruments

we wind up with a set of advice that says that the melodic and rhythmic tracks should both emphasize the upper mids to make them stand out from each other. Not only does that not make any sense, but it'll wind up with the exact same fatiguing 2-5k hash mash that I mentioned earlier, and that most pro-am recordings wind up having to get rid of anyway.

G.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I just feel that post as written contains some mis-interpretation and simplification - if not downright cut-and-pasting from other sources without much thought - .

That's downright nasty and uncalled for.IMHO Do you have history with this guy or is this a leftover chessrock phobia?

...we wind up with a set of advice that says that the melodic and rhythmic tracks should both emphasize the upper mids to make them stand out from each other. Not only does that not make any sense, but it'll wind up with the exact same fatiguing 2-5k hash mash that I mentioned earlier, and that most pro-am recordings wind up having to get rid of anyway.
G.

You are right about it being confusing but I think it confused you. Reread what he is saying. Going by the way you are interpreting it, ya, it doesn't make sense but that's not the way he wrote it.

He is saying for an instrument playing a rythymic role you "may" want to eq accordingly to define its' role and get it to stand out from the 2k and higher frequencies not to emphasize them.

He gives 2 examples to emphasize the difference. The one where a guitar is giving harmonic support he says to boost the lower mids and cut the higher. The other with guitar in ska and reggae which is usually playing rhythmic role with slight harmonic presence, so you may want to focus more one the frequencies that give it brightness to define its role.

In other words he is saying what you are preaching, do what the mix needs.

 

[DavidK]

The problem I have with his statement, and the thrust of his post, though, is that he is implying that virtually nothing inportant to the pitch or musicality of the track exists above 2k, .

Cut a violin at 2K and it will sound like its being played in a coffin.

 

[Daisy]

Do you have history with this guy or is this a leftover chessrock phobia?

LMFAO



PLEASE don't get him started down that road.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That's downright nasty and uncalled for.IMHO Do you have history with this guy or is this a leftover chessrock phobia?

Nah, ever since Keith went down to Nashville and has his sex change operation we've left each other alone. I'd prefer to keep it that way.

And there was nothing nasty or uncalled for intended in my analysis. Cosmo and I have no history. Do you? I honestly think that post strongly resembles your typical scrapbook/notepad compilation of nuggets of advice taken from desperate sources. Haven't we almost all had something like at when we were starting out? There's nothing intrinsically wrong with such a thing, it's just that IMHO (and only IMHO, I'm not claiming to be writing on stone tablets from a burning bush here) Cosmo is overreaching in his descriptions and conclusions, and is saying some things that just don't quite resemble reality. Enough of them to actually generate a list:

- The misuse and misunderstanding of what a fundamental is and what the actual frequency range for the fundamentals actually is.

- The defined separation of "fundamental" and "actual tone" by frequency range, for which there is no actual corresponding concept in actual music theory.

- The statement that the "significant" musical range ends at 2k is technically incorrect as the 7th octave, naturally playable from piano, many organs, harp and piccolo, and accessible via bending technique from other instruments, doesn't even start until about 2k.

- The heavy implication in the way the post is written that frequencies - and by extension, EQing of those frequencies - above 2k are not very relevant to the musicality of the track.

- The idea that a main reason that boosting EQ is bad is because it decreases headroom (I'm paraphrasing here, but that's pretty much what he describes) is indeed not even a common reason why excessive EQ boosting is sometimes frowned upon, and totally ignores the concept of using I/O level controls to control gain structure.

- The idea that one should consider arrangement when considering EQ and mix of the tracks is a good one, but to reduce that concept to ideas that equate frequently to track part (e.g. that one should EQ a rhythm track to remove the lows and highs in order to make room for the melodic tracks) totally ignores the reality of a mix situation; mainly that parts need to be EQ'd to fit together in the spectrum, not to fit pre-defined parts of it. To say that a melody track should be bright and that a rhythm track should not (or anything along those lines) totally ignores the actual nature of the instruments and the arrangement.

Now, to be fair, maybe it's his writing style or skills that are throwing me because at the core of what he says lie many truths. But his extrapolation, and the way it reads to me is wrought with problems, as I just iterated. And I guarantee that I am not the only one who as going to read it that way. Already, hell, in the very first reply to his post, you can see how the erroneous conclusions spread.

I'm just trying to avoid the time two months down the road, when we would otherwise be bound to get a couple of threads from people saying they read what was in the OP of this thread, and they "followed the instructions" (so to speak) explicit or implicit in that post, and they can't figure out why their mixes sound bad.

This thread was started with the best of intentions, I know. And I did acknowledge where I agreed with him, and agreed strongly. It's amazing how nobody sees that part of it. But sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I just saw so many IEDs in the paving of that post just waiting to explode when some rookie comes along and reads it the wrong way, that I spoke up and joined a debate. Is that evil?

Come on, NYM, after all this time, I thought you knew me better than that. I may eat hot dogs and other salty meats on occasion, but I'm not out to cause trouble.

G.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Ya, I know ya and I love ya but I didn't think it proper to accuse him of plagurism or whatever that was. I still think what he said is pretty solid for just some things to consider when eqing. Certainly not all inclusive but a damn good post.
Hey kudos on your new site!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Ya, I know ya and I love ya but I didn't think it proper to accuse him of plagurism or whatever that was. I still think what he said is pretty solid for just some things to consider when eqing. Certainly not all inclusive but a damn good post.
Hey kudos on your new site!

Well, I didn't mean to imply something as cold as plagerism. If that's how I came across, I didn't mean it and I'm sorry about that.

You know me; I love good, honest debate. It can even get energetic. But I don't seek it out if I don't see it there. I let people know when I do agree with them, give positive points when the software will let me (I owe steve.h some right now), but when I see something I don't understand I ask questions, and when I see something I don't agree with, I say it *and explain why* in the hopes of getting clarification. I actually look forward to Cosmo's response. You may be right, there may be too much misuderstading on my part of just where Cosmo is at. We can hash it out; we're probably closer in belief than it reads like in print now. Wouldn't be the first time that happened, and not just with me. The important thing, I believe, is that when the dust settles, the average reader will come out understanding the topic better for it.

Thanks for the mention and compliment on the website. There's about to be some new and different style stuff released there. Just working to get some of the new content which is currently incubating to chip it's way out of it's shell at this point. (That'll hopefully make more sense once the new stuff is actually released.)

G.

 

[DavidK]

Ya, I know ya and I love ya but I didn't think it proper to accuse him of plagurism or whatever that was. I still think what he said is pretty solid for just some things to consider when eqing. Certainly not all inclusive but a damn good post.
Hey kudos on your new site!

Its not a bad post at all, but its a bit misleading and inaccurate.

Between 200hz - 2Khz is where the musical information actuially exist, I.e. the actual tones.

That leaves the cellos out.