Types of EQ - do you use hardware or software EQ and why?

[frank1985]

I've become inspired to experiment with EQ in a mix I'm working on. I'm using ReaEQ to do so, and am pleased with the results so far. I just did some tweaks here and there. I've done real basic stuff in the past but I am trying out new (to me) concepts as I go along.

I'm not completely new to EQ theory, but I am applying what I have learned from Kenny Goia's videos on YouTube.

I really appreciate all the input from everyone!

I'm not an expert by far, but best thing with EQ is to not overcomplicate it.... Broad Q for boosts and narrow for cuts. A lot of the time you only need high and low pass. You should already have a good balance with volume levels only, with EQ providing finishing touches. Also arrangement ties in to EQ....if everything is in its own range then EQ doesn't have to be as extreme. I spent years getting bogged down, blindly making micro adjustments to EQ, wasting time trying to achieve the perfect mix, when actually 80 percent of the work is down to the song itself, it's arrangement etc. Once you're happy with that....ask yourself, how can EQ accentuate what's already there...? That's my two cents...as I say I'm no expert, I'm always learning,.but this was my latest breakthrough

 

[Eric V]

I'm not an expert by far, but best thing with EQ is to not overcomplicate it.... Broad Q for boosts and narrow for cuts. A lot of the time you only need high and low pass. You should already have a good balance with volume levels only, with EQ providing finishing touches. Also arrangement ties in to EQ....if everything is in its own range then EQ doesn't have to be as extreme. I spent years getting bogged down, blindly making micro adjustments to EQ, wasting time trying to achieve the perfect mix, when actually 80 percent of the work is down to the song itself, it's arrangement etc. Once you're happy with that....ask yourself, how can EQ accentuate what's already there...? That's my two cents...as I say I'm no expert, I'm always learning,.but this was my latest breakthrough

That sounds like wise advice to me, thanks Frank.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I've become inspired to experiment with EQ in a mix I'm working on. I'm using ReaEQ to do so, and am pleased with the results so far. I just did some tweaks here and there. I've done real basic stuff in the past but I am trying out new (to me) concepts as I go along.

I'm not completely new to EQ theory, but I am applying what I have learned from Kenny Goia's videos on YouTube.

I really appreciate all the input from everyone!

EQing tracks, like pretty much everything related to mixing, is one of those things that will take a lot of practice and a lot of experience to get good at, and the best way to get that wxperience and practice is to just do it a lot, and expect that you'll feel like you're flying blind and and fumbling for a long time, but you'll eventually "fail up" with time.

So, just go and experiment a lot. Don't worry about adding anything on input, just get tracks into your computer and experiment a lot, and over time you'll get hang for this and you'll start to hear what needs to change before you even reach for your EQ. It'll take a long time, years, likely, but put the work in and you'll get there.

 

[Eric V]

EQing tracks, like pretty much everything related to mixing, is one of those things that will take a lot of practice and a lot of experience to get good at, and the best way to get that wxperience and practice is to just do it a lot, and expect that you'll feel like you're flying blind and and fumbling for a long time, but you'll eventually "fail up" with time.

So, just go and experiment a lot. Don't worry about adding anything on input, just get tracks into your computer and experiment a lot, and over time you'll get hang for this and you'll start to hear what needs to change before you even reach for your EQ. It'll take a long time, years, likely, but put the work in and you'll get there.

That also sounds like good advice, thanks Drew.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I do wide or narrow cuts and boosts all the time as needed. It's the occasional super narrow filter that I generally apply only as a cut in cases where there's some weird resonance.

 

[Eric V]

Another question, does anyone have a specific workflow when using EQ, such as starting with lower frequencies? Or anywhere that issues stand out?

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

Touching on what I said before - and prefacing this with the fact that I am a borderline novice-know-nothing who no one should ever take any advice from - I use EQ to tweak just a little when tracking/capturing with the aim of trying to get the sound as close to "good" as possible. <--- This is subjective and I'm the only judge. This follows what probably most of us have heard from "pros" - that getting it right at the source is a very good goal - and a good start.

After the ball of clay is largely formed and everything is tracked - I use EQ (ReaEQ) to 1) fix any annoying characteristics or obvious problems with this or that - and to 2) try to give everything it's own space. I'm still learning how to do that. I find it a tedious process - trying to get everything to sit right.

In fact - out of the entire process of making a recording - from beginning to finish - I find using EQ during the mixing and polishing process to be the most tedious and my least favorite part of the process.

I think that's why I've really taken to ReaEQ - because it's made something that can be a drag.... uh.... less so. Because I can just use the mouse and sweep things around and kinda get to where I think I need to be so... um.... efficiently.

 

[Eric V]

Touching on what I said before - and prefacing this with the fact that I am a borderline novice-know-nothing who no one should ever take any advice from - I use EQ to tweak just a little when tracking/capturing with the aim of trying to get the sound as close to "good" as possible. <--- This is subjective and I'm the only judge. This follows what probably most of us have heard from "pros" - that getting it right at the source is a very good goal - and a good start.

After the ball of clay is largely formed and everything is tracked - I use EQ (ReaEQ) to 1) fix any annoying characteristics or obvious problems with this or that - and to 2) try to give everything it's own space. I'm still learning how to do that. I find it a tedious process - trying to get everything to sit right.

In fact - out of the entire process of making a recording - from beginning to finish - I find using EQ during the mixing and polishing process to be the most tedious and my least favorite part of the process.

I think that's why I've really taken to ReaEQ - because it's made something that can be a drag.... uh.... less so. Because I can just use the mouse and sweep things around and kinda get to where I think I need to be so... um.... efficiently.

Thankyou PHM, for the thoughtful and insightful reply.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Another question, does anyone have a specific workflow when using EQ, such as starting with lower frequencies? Or anywhere that issues stand out?

I try to do most of my eq while listening to the whole mix. I will solo tracks on occasion in order to hear things more clearly, but it all has to work together in the mix. I tend to think in terms of five broad tonal bands. I'll set the level of a track based on one of those bands, then I'll mix the rest of the bands with eq.

It's not a bad idea to take a break from mixing now and then to recalibrate your ears with reference tracks.

 

[Papanate]

I try to do most of my eq while listening to the whole mix. I will solo tracks on occasion in order to hear things more clearly, but it all has to work together in the mix. I tend to think in terms of five broad tonal bands. I'll set the level of a track based on one of those bands, then I'll mix the rest of the bands with eq.

It's not a bad idea to take a break from mixing now and then to recalibrate your ears with reference tracks.

I usually mix in a method - Drums - then Add Bass - Then add Vocal - etc…and At first I EQ the drums bass and vocals so nothing walks on the other - mostly sidechain EQ - like the bass and drums - I side chain the bass to the Kick and use a Dynamic EQ so for a second it ducks the frequencies I choose on the kick letting the bass come through - lead/background vocal I side chain so that everything steps outta of the way of vocals - Guitars are ducked under the vocals as well - with a Dynamic EQ It’s barely noticable that things are getting EQ’d.

 

[Eric V]

Thanks for the tips @bouldersoundguy and @Papanate .

 

[Eric V]

I found a Reaper Mania/ Kenny Goia YT video that explains sidechaining using dynamic EQ. Thanks for the inspiration @Papanate. @bouldersoundguy thanks to you as well. Thanks everyone who has responded so far.

 

[Eric V]

So I built my first dynamic EQ sidechain. Not hard to do. But I know that using it properly will take time.

 

[BADGUD]

Is there a huge difference between EQ plugins? I've always gotten a lot of mileage out of the stock Logic EQ

 

[TalismanRich]

I think it's debatable. With hardware EQ you can introduce some changes that people might or might not desire, such as saturation which is really a distortion plus compression, and phase shifting. Sometimes certain distortions are deemed pleasing. As to how audible any phase shift is, that will depend on the source material and to some degree, your aural acuity. It's like someone saying they don't like garlic... if they don't know it's in there, it doesn't bother them, but too much becomes apparent and a problem. If you don't know about phase shift, you probably don't pay any attention to it.

With EQ plugins, you can take some of those issues out. In software, you can have linear phase EQ. Done properly, an EQ won't introduce significant distortion as long as you stay below the point of overload. The math has been worked out for years, and the basic theory doesn't change. So it comes down to what other signal effects are you wanting to introduce? Want to add a bit of second and fourth harmonic distortion? That might make it a bit more pleasant sounding since people seem to like even harmonics. Add some third harmonic to make it sound edgy.

Sometimes complexity can be a problem. Simple tone controls can be effective in gently shaping sound. Give someone a 1/3 octave graphic EQ and it can be unnecessarily confusing. ReaEQ will let you put a couple or 10 bands if you want. Set the notch as narrow or wide as you want. It can notch out 60 cycle hum very effectively. But sometimes you just want a gentle wide nudge or dip at 6-8K... It can do that as well.

Maybe you prefer something that looks like an old hardware Pultec or Baxendall EQ. A few simulated knobs, one for bass, one for highs, and a mid sweep doesn't seem as scary and might lead you to make some more gentle adjustments that sound nice. Underneath, it's probably using the exact same mathematical calculations and FFT analysis as the one with a graph version.

I suggest you give this video a look. It explains a lot about EQ, and you can determine how audible some effects are. It can be pretty technical, but it gives you a bit of a starting point.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

All "normal" (minimum phase) eq introduces phase. But I doubt that's particularly audible unless you're mixing two copies of the same signal with different eq (e.g. doing parallel compression with different eq on one branch of the signal path than the other). Linear phase eq doesn't induce phase changes, but it has other disadvantages, like being less audible, causing pre- and post-ringing, and causing substantial delay (which matters more in a live sound situation than in recording).

 

[Eric V]

How do you select between zero latency and linear EQ in ReaEQ? I noticed in FabFilter Pro you can apparently choose?

 

[TalismanRich]

YOu can't change ReaEQ to linear phase.

You can use ReaFIR in EQ mode as a linear phase EQ.

"Reduce artifacts (less effective): by default ReaFIR operates in a non-linear FFT-based filtering fashion. The downside is that in certain instances the filter can introduce aliasing artifacts, in exchange for extremely high filtering effectiveness. If you check this box, ReaFIR will operate as a FIR filter, meaning it will be limited in its effectiveness by the length of the filter, but will respond linearly and without artifacts."

 

[Eric V]

Thanks @TalismanRich

 

[Eric V]

Another question if I may, if I use EQ judiciously on a per-track basis, should I expect NOT to have to EQ the master track?