VST EQ with before/after curve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anonymous_vkfan
  • Start date Start date
A

anonymous_vkfan

New member
Hello, all. I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a VST EQ plugin that displays a before/after curve or plot. That is, it would draw a frequency graph for the original audio, and another plot line would represent the frequency after the EQ takes place.

I've read that experienced mixers use their ears to do this sort of thing but I'm not that talented at this point in time and could benefit from feedback like this.

I'm using Sonar 8 but a VST plugin should be cross-DAW.

Any information would be appreciated. I haven't found much when searching the forums, possibly because there's a term for this kind of before/after monitoring that I'm unaware of.

Thanks
 
I don't think you'll learn anything from seeing what EQ does to audio. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're looking for.
 
I'm not sure either. The "frequency graph" for the original audio would be a flat line. An EQ doesn't analyize the audio you're giving it, so as far as the EQ is concerned, any audio going into it is "flat".
 
I gotta mostly agree with the Funkster; what you''l learn from that approach will be very limited.

Probably the best thing you'll learn from it is that without the ears, the eyes are next to useless. When you do develop the ears, the eyes can help better, but the times and the way they will help will be highly specific and not the way you think now.

Instead of looking for visual replacements for the ears, your time would be better spent working on the ears instead, because there are no visual replacements.

But if you insist, I don't know of any VSTs that'll do that off hand, but what you could do is to simply make a copy of the track you're working on, apply the EQ to that copy and use a standard FFT display on each of them and compare the two displays.

G.
 
Again, I agree with all previous posts.. however unlike them.. I DO have a solution...

I have a VST plugin from FabFilter. Rubbish name but their product FabFilter Pro-Q gives a pre-EQ and post-EQ optional spectrum of the audio behind the curve as you make it... Its a great little EQ which I throw on a few of my tracks.

http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-q.php
 
Thanks to all for the replies.

Regarding the "flat line" - say you're looking at a frequency spectrum analyzer for your mix or your track. Then you apply some EQ, which will boost or reduce certain frequencies. The frequency spectrum analyzer would now report something different as a result of the EQ.

What I'd like is a way to see those two plot lines side by side so I can get a feel for the effectiveness of the equalization I've applied.

Without this it's a multi-step process for me. I look at a spectrum analyzer for the unmodified audio and observe that a specific frequency section (say the high mids) is too loud. So I'll slap an EQ on that track and reduce the high mids. Then I'll jump back to the spectrum analyzer and observe again to see if it had the desired effect.

I agree with the point about letting my ears do the work, and I hope to get to that point eventually.
 
You've got it completely backwards. If you can't judge by hearing, seeing will never solve anything. It's right when it sounds right, not when the frequency content is one way or another.
 
anonymous_vkfan said:
What I'd like is a way to see those two plot lines side by side so I can get a feel for the effectiveness of the equalization I've applied.
Click to expand...
It's a nice idea, but unfortunately a spectrum analysis won't tell you anything anything at all about the effectiveness of your EQ. It'll look pretty and mean nothing.

If you ain't got the ear yet, you can't mix or master yet, and your tracking will probably suffer too. Work on your critical and analytical listening skills; learn what the various frequencies actually sound like, and learn the details of what the various instruments actually sound like in person. Only after you have a decent handle on that stuff will you have a fighting chance of doing this stuff with any proficiency.

In the meantime and until then, a spectral analysis will be useless.

G.
 
RAMI said:
I'm not sure either. The "frequency graph" for the original audio would be a flat line. An EQ doesn't analyize the audio you're giving it, so as far as the EQ is concerned, any audio going into it is "flat".
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that the line for the original audio is like a frequency analyzer. It's not a line of the EQ being "applied"... it's a line of what is THERE.. and as soon as he applies the EQ, it shows the post-frequency analyzer.
 
anonymous_vkfan said:
What I'd like is a way to see those two plot lines side by side so I can get a feel for the effectiveness of the equalization I've applied.
Click to expand...

you could just listen to the track with the EQ bypassed and then again with the EQ in operation. That would let you HEAR THE DIFFERENCE which is actually what matters

anonymous_vkfan said:
..and observe that a specific frequency section (say the high mids) is too loud. So I'll slap an EQ on that track and reduce the high mids. Then I'll jump back to the spectrum analyzer and observe again to see if it had the desired effect.
Click to expand...

How can you tell by looking at a spectrum analyzer that the high mids are too loud? it would be completely case by case, instrument by instrument, song by song dependent. what "looks right" in one case could sound wrong on a different instrument/track/mix. What if after the your process you like the shape on the spectrum analyzer but the music sounds like sh!t?
Personally I much prefer EQ that has no kind of graph or even frequency line along which points are plotted. just virtual knobs (for plugins) to turn. I usually EQ without looking at the screen at all. YMMV of course

in much the same way that you can't tell if a painting looks like something you personally find attractive by closing your eyes and sniffing it, you can't tell if music sounds right/appealing to you by looking at it (unless you have some very unusual neurological abnormalities at least)
 
austinm08 said:
I'm guessing that the line for the original audio is like a frequency analyzer..
Click to expand...

Well, that was my point. An EQ doesn't do that. An analizer does. But, like almost everyone else has already said, even an EQ/Analizer would tell you absolutely nothing that you need to know.

Another visual analogy would be like having a "Color Analizer" tell you that there's too much red in a painting. How would that help you if it's a painting of an apple on top of a fire truck, sitting in a pool of blood?
 
I like the last analogy :) .

I guess it goes back to the conference of reference tracks for me. If I worked on a mix where I really like how the bass turned out (using my ears exclusively), and I know for that mix that the bass was ~3db lower than the lead vocals, then the tools I'm talking about would help me apply the same bass/vocal relationship to a mix currently being worked.

Another argument in my favor is that a mix can sound different in my headphones, through my monitor, and in my car. A visual cue like a spectrum analyzer should not output variation like that (provided you have adequate lighting to see it whenever you use it).

So you guys honestly wouldn't find a before/after curve interesting, I must just be a visual kind of guy.
 
Voxengo puts out a freebie called SPAN. It's a spectrum analyzer that you can insert into an FX slot. I don't know how much help it will be.

Google Voxengo.

A visual cue like a spectrum analyzer should not output variation like that (provided you have adequate lighting to see it whenever you use it).

So you guys honestly wouldn't find a before/after curve interesting, I must just be a visual kind of guy.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will give you the detail to base adjustments/tweaks. Not accurately, anyways. You want to mix in a known environment like a treated room where you know what to expect. When you are talking about getting a mix to sound good in a car, earbuds, stereo, etc.. you're talking about translation. The best way is to treat your mixing environment so you get a good response from the room then listen to a lot of commercial releases and learn how your room reacts. A spectrum analyzer isn't going to give you the visual cues necessary to get a good mix. You need your ears for that.

peace,
 
anonymous_vkfan said:
So you guys honestly wouldn't find a before/after curve interesting, I must just be a visual kind of guy.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with that. You're not understanding that seeing what your EQ curve is, before or after, doesn't tell you anything that will help you. It's not a matter of coming up with "arguments in your favor" or "being visual". It simply doesn't help one bit.
 
anonymous_vkfan said:
I like the last analogy :) .

I guess it goes back to the conference of reference tracks for me. If I worked on a mix where I really like how the bass turned out (using my ears exclusively), and I know for that mix that the bass was ~3db lower than the lead vocals, then the tools I'm talking about would help me apply the same bass/vocal relationship to a mix currently being worked.
Click to expand...

At best that would get you in the ballpark and you'd still need to listen to make it sound right.

anonymous_vkfan said:
Another argument in my favor is that a mix can sound different in my headphones, through my monitor, and in my car. A visual cue like a spectrum analyzer should not output variation like that (provided you have adequate lighting to see it whenever you use it).
Click to expand...

You need reliable audio monitoring that translates well to other systems. Visual representation would not guarantee consistent good sound.

anonymous_vkfan said:
So you guys honestly wouldn't find a before/after curve interesting, I must just be a visual kind of guy.
Click to expand...

Interesting, yes. Useful, not so much. And I'm about as visual as it gets for a sound guy. I've always had pictures in my head that relate to the sounds I hear. But that just refines how I think about sound. It all rests on listening carefully to the music.

Eqs change frequency response and their displays, those that even have them, simply reflect what they do.
 
I think EQUALIZERS are badly named. Their goal isn't to make everything EQUAL. If it was, then looking at the waveform for a bass, you'd end up cutting all the low end just to make it EQUAL, since it would visually show you that there's a lot more bass than mids and highs on a bass.

They should have been called "cutter/boosters" or something, because that is what you do with them to get them to work properly. But you're not trying to make anything EQUAL.
 
anonymous_vkfan said:
I guess it goes back to the conference of reference tracks for me. If I worked on a mix where I really like how the bass turned out (using my ears exclusively), and I know for that mix that the bass was ~3db lower than the lead vocals, then the tools I'm talking about would help me apply the same bass/vocal relationship to a mix currently being worked.
...
So you guys honestly wouldn't find a before/after curve interesting, I must just be a visual kind of guy.
Click to expand...
If you insist on trying to do things by sight instead of using your ears, frankly, you're in the wrong hobby/vocation. Take up photography, where your painting of the Grannysmith apple on top of the yellow fire truck in the pool of green Vulcan blood will obviously have problems without you're even needing to pull up the histogram of the picture to show that it's all red when it's not supposed to be ;) :D.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but frankly, you have no argument here; it holds no water, for several reasons.

First, if one track is 3dB louder (which is really a statement that means nothing on it's own unless you specify whether you're talking about RMS levels or peak levels or something else) than another in one song does not mean anything at all when it comes to what it should be in another song. You might as well say that every person on the planet should have such-and-such an eyeglass prescription because that's the prescription that this person wears.

Second, even if you do find a song where in can be argued that two tracks should be mixed relatively the same way as some reference track, there's no way that you'll be able to see and/or match that by looking at their FFTs in a spectrum analyzer. It just doesn't work that way. It just doesn't. Trust us.

Third, if you can't tell by listening whether the relative volume between two tracks sounds "right" to you or not, then there's no reason to even be doing this stuff. It would be like taking photographs for a hobby and not having any idea whether you even like the way they look or not.

Nothing personal, dude; you're not the first newb who's thought that all you need are enough of the right kind of plugs along with enough visual aids, and the computer will practically mix the music for you, and you won't be the last. But honestly and respectfully, the sooner you learn the hard fact that it is just plain impossible for it to work that way, the better off you'll be

G.
 
RAMI said:
Hey! You ruined my painting!!!! I even put a piece of food in there to keep you away!!!!
Click to expand...
Sorry, Rams, just using your apple to make a point about how assuming how things should look - or sound - all the same is a mistake.

MMMMMMmmmmmmmm.....apple.....Gagghhhgh....

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top