What EQ setting for masking something?

[eviljoker7075]

Yo. So I've learnt that for tracks that need accentuating (such as vocals, or a guitar solo) it's best to add to the 3k band right...?

But what would be the opposite of that, if I wanted to mask something a little bit. I know I could turn it down perhaps, or add some reverb etc - but is there anything EQ-wise I should look into?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yo. So I've learnt that for tracks that need accentuating (such as vocals, or a guitar solo) it's best to add to the 3k band right...?

Nope. There is no such fixed recipe; it depends upon the timbre of the track and it's relationship to the rest of the mix.

But what would be the opposite of that, if I wanted to mask something a little bit. I know I could turn it down perhaps, or add some reverb etc - but is there anything EQ-wise I should look into?

Again, there is no fixed recipe; it depends upon the timbre of the track and it's relationship to the rest of the mix. You had it right at the start, usually the easiest and best way to deal with that is to just push the track back with levels and verb.

There is one small principle, though, that can sometimes help, but it has nothing to do with masking; the brain can tend to perceive a lack of higher frequencies as indicating distance. *BUT* that really is only usually effective in combination with a loss of gain. You take an in-your-face track and cut the highs, it'll still be in you face, just mudier sounding .

G.

 

[SonicAlbert]

One way to try and mask something is to isolate the frequency that is bothering you about it, and turn just that down.

The way to locate that frequency is to sweep a band of parametric eq up and down until you find the problem spot. You turn the gain up very high on the eq band while sweeping. Once you've found the trouble area, then you turn the eq down, so that you are cutting the level. The amplified band is just to find it, then you turn it down, in other words.

Masking implies laying something over something else in order to hide it. I think it's better, if possible, to address the actual problematic frequency itself and deal with it directly.

 

[masteringhouse]

You can always add noise to mask something, but what would be the purpose in that?

Best as Sonic and Glen say, deal directly with the problem frequency either by re-tracking or EQ.

 

[eviljoker7075]

Right, phew! Glad I asked!

Going back to the original point, I read somewhere that frequencies around 3k are what human ears/brains naturally hone into and that is why human vocals/guitars/snare drums (all focussing around 3k) are so prominent in music...

 

[masteringhouse]

Right, phew! Glad I asked!

Going back to the original point, I read somewhere that frequencies around 3k are what human ears/brains naturally hone into and that is why human vocals/guitars/snare drums (all focussing around 3k) are so prominent in music...

The ear is most sensitive in the 3-4K range due to the length of the ear canal and other things that we evolved with. I think the reason that vocals/guitars/snare drums are prominent though is because that's the way we mix 'em, after all we can just turn those tracks down regardless of the frequency range they occupy.

 

[eviljoker7075]

That's true. If you're interested, I am getting all this from a book entitled: "the illustrated home recording handbook" - no author stated, just general editor: Ronan Macdonald...

Is Ronan giving me a load of rubbish!?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Right, phew! Glad I asked!

Going back to the original point, I read somewhere that frequencies around 3k are what human ears/brains naturally hone into and that is why human vocals/guitars/snare drums (all focussing around 3k) are so prominent in music...

As Tom mentioned, 3k is in the range where the human ear is the most sensitive, that's true. It's also true that 3k falls in the spectral area often associated with "presence" and vocal (spoken word) recognition.

But that can be a case where a little knowledge can take one too far. While the above is all true, that doesn't necessarily extrapolate into the automatic idea that if you want to emphasize something in a mix, that you boost it at 3k. That's too simple of a jump that doesn't account a handful of other factors as well.

Just some quick examples: If you have other tracks/instruments that are strong at 3k, adding 3k to another track in and of itself will not make that third track stand out so much as it will add to the excess energy already at that frequency. Now, what you can sometimes do in such instances is to knock down the 3k on the other two tracks to make more "room" for the third track before deciding if you need to boost the thrid track more.

Similar to the above, but even more "targeted" - and more common - is to use similar technique uf cutting offending frequencies from the other tracks, but not to make any assumptions as to exactly what frequency to target. This is where you woould use the parametric sweep technique that Supersonic Al described. I love that technique myself, and tend to use it quite often.

Also consider that 3k is in the range where too much of it can get real harsh and fatiguing on the ear. Just thinking that boosting 3k is good can get one a real harsh-sounding mix real quick if they're not careful.

I can't comment on that book, as I have not read it myself, but I'd bet that the editor would pretty much agree with everything that's been said in this thread by Al and Tom and myself so far. Just becareful to read the detail of what they say and read between the lines as to what the important concept really is that they're trying to get across. It's not that this stuff is hard to do or understand when explained well, really, but it can be real easy to misunderstand if one looks for oversimplified translations or shortcuts to understanding what's said .

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Just becareful to read the detail of what they say and read between the lines as to what the important concept really is that they're trying to get across. It's not that this stuff is hard to do or understand when explained well, really, but it can be real easy to misunderstand if one looks for oversimplified translations or shortcuts to understanding what's said .

G.

If I may through my 2 cents in here... don't look at the numbers as a "recipe". Read the text, the reasoning. The numbers and knob/button settings aren't what's important. What's important is the reasoning and the methodical approach that led to those settings. The problem with just looking at the settings w/o understanding the "why"--the actual process of getting to those settings--is that every track will have it's unique requirements. Not only that. The same settings on different products will sound different. This is something both to be aware of, be careful of and with experience to exploit.

You may find that in one track you need to cut around 200Hz on the snare. On another track, you may find that you need to boost the same frequencies on the same exact snare, recorded with the same exact microphone, in the same exact studio, just because this track has a bit of a different arrangement.

You may find that the compressor you used on vocals isn't working on another track. You find that another compressor gives it the desired character. So on and so forth.

Don't look for canned numbers. They rarely work and will lead you down the wrong path and over processing. I've been there. I read once that 80Hz is where the thud of the kick drum is, 300 or so where the mud is, 700 or so where the body is, and 2000Hz is the click territory. Well, I decided I wanted my kick to have a thud, a body and click, and raised all these frequencies, with disastrous results

 

[TexRoadkill]

Yo. So I've learnt that for tracks that need accentuating (such as vocals, or a guitar solo) it's best to add to the 3k band right...?

But what would be the opposite of that, if I wanted to mask something a little bit. I know I could turn it down perhaps, or add some reverb etc - but is there anything EQ-wise I should look into?

The opposite would be less 3k. It works the same way to help reduce harshness in a track.

 

[timthetortoise]

You may want to try ReaFir. It's a really great tool for situations like this.