VST EQ with before/after curve?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

ok one more time to summ it all up!!!

i'm going to play you a GTR track...

by ear tell me EXCATLY how many db of 1k there is @ min 1:23... oh you can't, your not a frequency analyzer you say, hmmm that's odd

OTOH, hey Rami is there too much mids in my GTR for this mix i'm doing in, insert genre here, music??

one is subjective, the other is....

...useless.How much 1k there is in a guitar at a specific time is 99% a function of what note/chord is being played and is not relevant to the foments, resonances, distortions, envelopes, etc. that actually make up 40% of the "tone" of the guitar you're hearing.

As for the idea that an analyzer could get one 50% of the way "there" with an analyzer, let's say that were true., just for a second, and look at that. That 50% is the easy part. If one can't do that without skipping a heartbeat with their ears alone, they'll *never* get that last, far more difficult 50% with their ears either.

And let's say, just for shits and grins, that one accidentally trips across the exact right tone by accident of fortune. If they ain't got the ears, they'd never know it. OTOH. if they have the ears to know it, they have the ears to not need the analyzer to do it to begin with.

them (or is it "the", or is it just "themdla"? ), I know how much sense your view seems to make to you now. But in all honesty, you can argue that point nine ways to Sunday, but the longer you do this stuff, the more you'll realize that view is off target. I'm sorry to sound so harsh about it, but it really is chasing rainbows to believe otherwise.

G.

 

[themdla]

ok i think i get whats going on here so let me just say this one more time.

i do not think that mixing with a spectrum or frequency analyzer is going to tell you how to mix... only your subjective tastes and ears can do that.

i do not think that there is any subset of values you can stick into a box and get a great mix....especially not with a spectrum or frequency analyzer

however... i do think that if you wanted to know the difference between to guitar sounds and wanted to attach a METRIC or value to that difference, a spectrum or frequency analyzer can help get you there.

will it turn your shitty GTR tracks into gold? no.
will it give you the exact sound as another GTR player? no.

will it tell you if the GTR your analyzing has a low pass above 7k? yes.

could you use your ears to find that out?

sure if you know what your looking for and you have seasoned ears. unless of course your a noob like the OP and just want to quickly see whats happening frequency wise.

 

[themdla]

...useless.How much 1k there is in a guitar at a specific time is 99% a function of what note/chord is being played and is not relevant to the foments, resonances, distortions, envelopes, etc. that actually make up 40% of the "tone" of the guitar you're hearing.

As for the idea that an analyzer could get one 50% of the way "there" with an analyzer, let's say that were true., just for a second, and look at that. That 50% is the easy part. If one can't do that without skipping a heartbeat with their ears alone, they'll *never* get that last, far more difficult 50% with their ears either.

And let's say, just for shits and grins, that one accidentally trips across the exact right tone by accident of fortune. If they ain't got the ears, they'd never know it. OTOH. if they have the ears to know it, they have the ears to not need the analyzer to do it to begin with.

them (or is it "the", or is it just "themdla"? ), I know how much sense your view seems to make to you now. But in all honesty, you can argue that point nine ways to Sunday, but the longer you do this stuff, the more you'll realize that view is off target. I'm sorry to sound so harsh about it, but it really is chasing rainbows to believe otherwise.

And I have no idea what else to bother saying about it, so I'm stopping now.

G.

i'm not even sure why i'm arguing this point it's just that i occasionally like to play devils advocate and stir up BS.

i all due honesty i've never used a FA to mix anything, in fact i've even given up constantly looking at the screen when mixing for fear it will distort my perspective.

i've argued because some part of me says that if all other things are equal then one variable could be defined and quantified.

what's the difference between a strat and a les paul? plenty.

if you took both guitars, played the same note on each, then measured the resulting waveforms, i'm sure there would be alot of differences.

but some part of me says that if the frequency differences were exactly nullified then they would both sound an awful lot alike... though after all this discourse i'm obviously wrong.

the friend of mine who mentioned this technique uses it in sound design and post production to mimic "room" tones, not to mix music.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

however... i do think that if you wanted to know the difference between to guitar sounds and wanted to attach a METRIC or value to that difference, a spectrum or frequency analyzer can help get you there.

Analyzers do provide metrics, yes. They are, by definition, a specific form of very specific metric. And yes, in the language of metrics, a spectrogram contains a lot more specific data than even the best ears in the world can provide. I'll grant that.

What we seem to be very poor at getting across, however, is that the actual *value* of those metrics and of that data is extremely limited, and that value they do have is not of the nature that you think it is.

We're only trying to save folks a lot of time and heartache; the quicker they turn their time and attention away from the distraction of spectral analyzers, the quicker they'll reach their goals of being able to copy Dave Gilmour's guitar sound or Alan Parsons' engineering chops.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

but some part of me says that if the frequency differences were exactly nullified then they would both sound an awful lot alike... though after all this discourse i'm obviously wrong.

You're absolutely right, they'd sound identical...like two identical, pure sine waves coming out of a single synth oscillator each.

How's that for "tone"?

G.

 

[themdla]

You're absolutely right, they'd sound identical...like two identical, pure sine waves coming out of a single synth oscillator each.

How's that for "tone"?

G.

Scientific!!!!

 

[anonymous_vkfan]

Wow, lot of passion on this thread. Thanks all for the replies, I appreciate you attempting to lead me in the right direction.

I've been playing guitar since freshman year of high school, now I'm 26.5. Always loved to lay tracks down and have been getting more meticulous with age. Once in a while I'll mix two completely independent projects in a similar manner. One turns out great (to my ears) and another lacks something (to my ears). In this scenario, I can use a frequency spectrum analyzer to compare the two mixes in hopes of identifying something. Not that it necessarily will, but it's one of many tools in the arsenal.

Spectrum analysis has also helped me when attempting to overlap multiple tracks without having them cancel each other out. If I want to add another instrument but I don't want to step on something else, I'll put a spectrum analyzer on the main bus and see if there's a frequency that's under-used. This technique is used with common sense - I won't try to make my bass track fit inside the high frequency range, for example.

And yes, with time and practice I'm sure I'd need to consult the spectrum analyzer less and less as my ears get better at detecting things.

Read a book on mixing last Thanksgiving (in no way making me an expert), and there are many terms and concepts that I'm just now coming up to speed on even though I've been putting stuff together on my PC for years.

I'm in no way advocating that we rely exclusively on visual cues to mix music. I agree with the earlier points that it takes ears and creativity to write, record, mix, etc. I'm not advocating that we develop a way to develop super-music through automation based off of frequency spectrum analysis. Auto-tune has bastardized the music industry enough .

 

[Bristol Posse]

Once in a while I'll mix two completely independent projects in a similar manner. One turns out great (to my ears) and another lacks something (to my ears). In this scenario, I can use a frequency spectrum analyzer to compare the two mixes in hopes of identifying something. Not that it necessarily will, but it's one of many tools in the arsenal.

If they were almost identical songs I guess it's theoretically possible. Practically however the problem with that is there are so many ways to end up with the same looking spectrum in a mix.

If we take a very simple example where the mix finishes up as a completely straight, horizontal line along the spectrum on your good song and we give that an arbitrary value of 100.

Now you take your not so good song iand it is different, at 500hz it is only at 85. so you could add 15 of guitar at 500hz, or you could add 15 of bass, or synth, or vocals. or you could add 5 of guitar, 5 of bass, 2 of synth and 3 of vocals.
Any of those could push the overall spectrum of the mix at 500hz to 100 and all of them would end up sounding completely different to each other and to your good mix.
Some songs are bass heavy and sound great, other songs are much lighter bass and also sound great. some songs have a lot of air and sparkle above 12 kHz and it's just right, but for darker sounding material their spectrum may have less in those airy registers and it still sounds just right.

For individual instruments there are so many variances: Are you playing the guitar clean or distorted, with finges or a pick, what amp are you using, what mic, how far away from the cab is the mic, is it on or off axis, what key are you playing in, what kind of bass and drums are you using for percusion, how many singers, what kind of harmonies, male or female? all of this and so much more could contribute to what you may or may not need to do to get the guitar to sit just right in the mix and if any of it is different from one song to the other then the same EQ decisions could net a completely different result

Seriously..close your eyes and really listen to the song what is good about it and what isnt working. figure that out and then play wih the EQ to make it right (or if it is really bad re track it)

 

[RAMI]

now I'm 26.5

Don't we stop saying "....and a half" at around 9.5?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

What you talking about, Rams; I'm 51.058 today! (give or take a couple of 0.001s)

G.

 

[FunkDaddy]

ok maybe my floyd example is bad so....

what if i went back in time to 1973 when floyd was getting ready to track guitars and...

1) ran pink noise through there rigs with all the mics setup
2) tracked that pink noise
3) flew back to 2010
4) analyzed that pink noise
5) asked gilmore to play the same parts on similar guitars and amps
6) eq'ed the tracks to match the frequency analysis exactly

i think i'd get pretty close then

or should just try to get a different guitar sound

I think when your argument necessitates the inclusion of time travel, you might want to concede the argument

 

[NYMorningstar]

You're not understanding that seeing what your EQ curve is... doesn't tell you anything that will help you.

When I go into a club and see the Happy face on the graphic equalizer it tells me the audio tech is a moron, lol. j/k

 

[themdla]

I think when your argument necessitates the inclusion of time travel, you might want to concede the argument

that's the joke my friend, that's the joke

 

[themdla]

If they were almost identical songs I guess it's theoretically possible. Practically however the problem with that is there are so many ways to end up with the same looking spectrum in a mix.

If we take a very simple example where the mix finishes up as a completely straight, horizontal line along the spectrum on your good song and we give that an arbitrary value of 100.

Now you take your not so good song iand it is different, at 500hz it is only at 85. so you could add 15 of guitar at 500hz, or you could add 15 of bass, or synth, or vocals. or you could add 5 of guitar, 5 of bass, 2 of synth and 3 of vocals.
Any of those could push the overall spectrum of the mix at 500hz to 100 and all of them would end up sounding completely different to each other and to your good mix.
Some songs are bass heavy and sound great, other songs are much lighter bass and also sound great. some songs have a lot of air and sparkle above 12 kHz and it's just right, but for darker sounding material their spectrum may have less in those airy registers and it still sounds just right.

For individual instruments there are so many variances: Are you playing the guitar clean or distorted, with finges or a pick, what amp are you using, what mic, how far away from the cab is the mic, is it on or off axis, what key are you playing in, what kind of bass and drums are you using for percusion, how many singers, what kind of harmonies, male or female? all of this and so much more could contribute to what you may or may not need to do to get the guitar to sit just right in the mix and if any of it is different from one song to the other then the same EQ decisions could net a completely different result

Seriously..close your eyes and really listen to the song what is good about it and what isnt working. figure that out and then play wih the EQ to make it right (or if it is really bad re track it)

the context of my arguement was more about EQ'ing individual tracks to match each other than about using FA's for multitrack mixing.

but your right there are likely too many variables in a final mix to just look at a FA and get good result.

especially when the ultimate high definition spectral, frequency, loudness analyzer backed by the best computer in the known universe is built in to your head.

 

[themdla]

You're absolutely right, they'd sound identical...like two identical, pure sine waves coming out of a single synth oscillator each.

How's that for "tone"?

G.

just for shits, giggles and theoretical bullshit

what if i had a super high definition frequency analyzer and matching EQ??

and when i say high definition i mean capable of measuring and altering every harmonic and timber (on the order of let's say 40,000 bands of analysis and EQ) ...

what then?????

 

[NYMorningstar]

just for shits, giggles and theoretical bullshit

what if i had a super high definition frequency analyzer and matching EQ??

and when i say high definition i mean capable of measuring and altering every harmonic and timber (on the order of let's say 40,000 bands of analysis and EQ) ...

what then?????

This baby analyzes on the fly and is pretty decent:
http://www.tc-helicon.com/products/voicetone-harmony-g-xt/

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

just for shits, giggles and theoretical bullshit

what if i had a super high definition frequency analyzer and matching EQ??

and when i say high definition i mean capable of measuring and altering every harmonic and timber (on the order of let's say 40,000 bands of analysis and EQ) ...

what then?????

Remember, this is all moot. If you ain't got the ears, you'll never know if/when they match - or even if thy *should* match - anyway. And if you do have the ears, it's academic because you wouldn't need a visual aid to begin with.

But let's grin and take that dump, shall we? In such a case you'd have no excuse except to be forced to learn to learn how to play exactly - and I mean exactly - like David Gilmour. Most of what comprises "tone" comes from the fingers, not from the instruments.

Another way to look at it is that no matter how high the resolution of the FFT and the EQ, sound is *dynamic*, and the variables (of which there are many) change from microsecond to microsecond. Unless the instrumentation is exact and the player is exact - Including equally sympathetic strings that are equally built and stretched, not to mention exactly tuned - the EQ curve is not going to match up from one moment to the next.

Then there's coloration caused by the microphone and the rest of the recording chain, which will not match up either. Applying the EQ curve from one chain to another is going to be a mismatch also.

Some ideas are just plain hard to let go of, aren't they? Remember the tale of the man who was trapped stuck against a boulder in the middle of a raging river. He refused to let go because he didn't know what was downstream. But in the meantime the river was literally beating him to death against the boulder he refuse to let go of.

Let go of the boulder; it's better downstream. I promise .

G.

 

[noisewreck]

To the OP, I say forget about spectrum analyzers, and forget about EQ plugins with built-in curve displays.

Grab a parametric with knobs, disable all the bands except for one of the mids.

On the enabled band, set the EQ with narrow-Q, high gain, and sweep it around on an audio track. In fact, do this in a DAW, and use automation to slowly sweep the frequency up and down the entire range. Set the track to loop, shutdown the monitor, close your eyes, and listen to how the timbre changes.

Then, widen the Q, leave everything else the same, and continue listening as before.

Actively listen to what this does. Note ranges where things sound obviously "wrong" (some resonant ringing here and there, harshness, boominess, etc), and where things sounds "good", "right" or "pleasant".

Make a note of these things. Analyze why they sound the way they do. Note the frequency ranges where these changes occur.

Then repeat the above, except instead of applying gain, apply strong cut.

Train your ear.

About the only thing I use spectrum analyzers for is to check the extreme low end (20-40Hz) as my monitors don't go that low, and even then, it's only to double-check what's going on there, rather than altering the fundamental tone.