EQ

[Klosure]

I was mixing a track.

I decided to look at the presets and chuck them onto my tracks and tweak them to suit and thought GOD they sound so much better than my attempts.

Who says presets are no good!

But seriously, Ive been messing with EQ for years what am I doing wrong?

 

[Skinny Viking]

maybe you have learned well enough what EQ actually does? Not saying that in an asshole kinda way, I'm being serious. Maybe you haven't actually learned what is happening when you "mess" with the EQ and why it effects the sound the way it does

Having a better understanding of the fundamentals of EQ will help shape the EQ choices you make based more off of actual knowledge as opposed to stabs in the dark

Can you dig it?

 

[timislegend]

Having a better understanding of the fundamentals of EQ will help shape the EQ choices you make based more off of actual knowledge as opposed to stabs in the dark

this is true...

building the critical listening techniques and allowing for harsh/muddy/boxy signals to be observed is key.

a great method is: surgical eq-ing (notch eq-ing)... this is an aggressive technique but it lends to a more simple comprehension of equalization fundamentals.

but @viking is right...

 

[Deebo]

...surgical eq-ing (notch eq-ing)... QUOTE] I've heard this used a bunch of times. What is the exact technique used? Is it when you make a peak and move it from left to right and either boosting or cutting bad frequencies?

 

[timislegend]

I've heard this used a bunch of times. What is the exact technique used? Is it when you make a peak and move it from left to right and either boosting or cutting bad frequencies?

yes...

- sharpen the quality (Q) as narrow as it can go
- increase gain 100%
- sweep through passband until you find something UNBEARABLE!
- and cut the frequency to taste / widen the (Q) to taste


you can develop an ear for the fundamental frequencies by:

- a lot of practice
- adapting to a myriad of critical listening techniques

 

[Klosure]

yes...

- sharpen the quality (Q) as narrow as it can go
- increase gain 100%
- sweep through passband until you find something UNBEARABLE!
- and cut the frequency to taste / widen the (Q) to taste


you can develop an ear for the fundamental frequencies by:

- a lot of practice
- adapting to a myriad of critical listening techniques

Everything is unbearable like that!

Im being difficult sorry.

But seriously if you do that it results in removing important information.


And the presets dont do that

 

[timislegend]

Everything is unbearable like that!

not quite...

there are significant differences if you listen closely and those unwanted characteristics are what you are looking for in an effort to attenuate them.

george massenburg/john storyk had a clinic a while back at my school displaying this method... after the lecture and still this day, i have never eq'd any other way.

that rhymes!

 

[Klosure]

hmmmmm will try it again how do you know what to boost

 

[timislegend]

hmmmmm will try it again how do you know what to boost

• 300Hz - 700Hz = "muddiness/boxiness"

• 1kHz - 4kHz = "harshness/irritation"


these are typical frequencies that lend to some undesirable characteristics.

try increasing gain around these areas and focus on observing the nuances in comparison.


*there is additive and subtractive equalization... use subtractive FIRST... then listen to the performance to identify whether or not it requires any additive equalization.

 

[Skinny Viking]

Everything Tim said is legend

 

[John_C]

use ears. mess around with eq and find different things that sound good.

repeat for years

 

[reg3n]

maybe you can use some preset that accidentally fits some parts of the audio that your mind likes, but i prefer to look at this in a very very simple way:

Facts:
- Mixing is an art.
- Take Leonardo's pencils/paints/canvas.
- Immitate his exact same pose while punishing the canvas with awesome godly strokes.
- Try to paint the fucking Mona Lisa.
- Get rid of presets.

A preset should be in any case just a reference of what you did for a certain piece of audio, unles you're working with the same piece of audio, what's the logic of using the same setup?

 

[John_C]

A preset should be in any case just a reference of what you did for a certain piece of audio, unles you're working with the same piece of audio, what's the logic of using the same setup?

This

EQ is a tool for adjusting the frequency balance of a track. Imagine this:

You record a guitar amp and it sounds great, but it's a little bit over-enthusiastic in the low mids. What do you do? If you can't fix it with the amps controls, you set up an eq to cut a bit of low mids. Later on you realise there's too much low end so you cut a bit of that. Then even further on in the mix you realise you want more 1k to help with the clarity and you low pass at 11k just to stop it messing with the cymbals too much.
Then you save this as a preset.

The next time you record guitars, you haven't changed the settings on the amp, but you used a slightly different mic position, say closer to the dustcap for example. You put on the preset from before. Because you moved closer to the dustcap, the low pass isn't hard enough, the cut in low mids and the high pass are making the whole thing sound empty and tinny and the boost at 1k is picking out a nasty overtone that wasn't being picked up before.

The preset was a special set of adjustments made to a particular source and won't translate properly to a different source

A preset is at best a time saver and most of the time an inappropriate disaster.

 

[timislegend]

a preset can be a fantastic guide for the beginner.

anecdote:
prior to the infancy stages of my career, i would use presets because i didn't understand audio engineering vernacular ...until i focused my disciplines.

comparing art to physics is cumbersome at best... before 1967 engineers were not able to apply their "art" to the sophisticated method of parametric equalization. (it simply didn't exist).

so... the concept is fairly new in the respect that "parametric" isn't as much as a household name as... "crayon" or "paint brush."

ignorance on the subject is ambivalent.


there is no right or wrong way to equalize a signal... just methods and techniques.

 

[reg3n]

A preset is at best a time saver and most of the time an inappropriate disaster.

I learnt that the hard way.

a preset can be a fantastic guide for the beginner.

anecdote:
prior to the infancy stages of my career, i would use presets because i didn't understand audio engineering vernacular ...until i focused my disciplines.

comparing art to physics is cumbersome at best... before 1967 engineers were not able to apply their "art" to the sophisticated method of parametric equalization. (it simply didn't exist).

so... the concept is fairly new in the respect that "parametric" isn't as much as a household name as... "crayon" or "paint brush."

ignorance on the subject is ambivalent.


there is no right or wrong way to equalize a signal... just methods and techniques.

i don't kind'a agree with the relation between art and ignorance you make, if any, anyway, starting from the point that there are waaay lots of "pro" individuals of any speciality/career that suck big time at their stuff & knowing the book won't give you the absolute true formula of success (no matter how much you read), you can at least consider the concept of a (maybe) small precense of art in the material you hear and enjoy in a good ideal case, if then we're going into the physics then we can't agree more, if you apply different functions to the same piece of info in separate cases, you'll get different results from both operations, and if you apply the same function to 2 different pieces of info, you get different results too (we're talking about perfectly mesurable stuff here right?), maybe close it sure can be, but in escence, different.

Oh, did the "ole times" engeneers at least have a volume knob? 'cause if they did, just dialing the mere level of a track in relation to others, is art.

 

[timislegend]

i don't kind'a agree with the relation between art and ignorance you make, if any, anyway, starting from the point that there are waaay lots of "pro" individuals of any speciality/career that suck big time at their stuff & knowing the book won't give you the absolute true formula of success (no matter how much you read), you can at least consider the concept of a (maybe) small precense of art in the material you hear and enjoy in a good ideal case, if then we're going into the physics then we can't agree more, if you apply different functions to the same piece of info in separate cases, you'll get different results from both operations, and if you apply the same function to 2 different pieces of info, you get different results too (we're talking about perfectly mesurable stuff here right?), maybe close it sure can be, but in escence, different.

Oh, did the "ole times" engeneers at least have a volume knob? 'cause if they did, just dialing the mere level of a track in relation to others, is art.

i think you misunderstood me. i do realize one can compare the two. i was identifying the tedium.

if you observe art and science as separate entities in an effort to educate yourself... you will find it to be less tedious to exemplify a mixing scenario without being bombarded by subjective insight to the material.

another concept you may have misconstrued was my comparative notion that all engineers are ignorant in the sense of disrespect...

what i meant by this was... both contending arguments placate to the certifiable.

if someone suggests to the OP, @Klosure... he should try using a subtractive/additive equalization method.

and another person advises @Klosure... he should follow his heart, or use his ears.

most likely he will incorporate both methods.



the speed of sound is approx. 1,130 ft/sec and the human hearing is approx. 20Hz - 20kHz... loudness is perceived (according to the flecture munson curve)... and every thing after that is subject to one's autonomy.

however there is a library of physics at the disposal of the autonomous... most of these books are fact, it depends on the individual to associate the art within the subject.

 

[reg3n]

knowing facts is always good, i even enjoy those you write up this forum, but i guess i should stop mixing the way i percieve better, and start searching for facts for every single piece of my sound, it's in a fact book anyway(?), no matter it sounds like shit. Art is perception. You can't put facts over perception, you can refine your perception, that's what you can do. Or maybe my experience in other artistic fields for the last 20 years is bullshit, but i know it's completely offtopic. And sorrily, everything is subjective in a mix (as in any other piece of art that involves more than a single concept), no matter what i think. And lastly, yes, i'd be using my ears for audio material.

After the rant, what i'm trying to say here is, don't go for the preset way, take a shortcut, learn to difference frequencies and how to choose/get rid of the ones you're thinking of, reference from the stuff you enjoy, when you start learning that, you'll be aware of many concepts you weren't before, start differencing amps, cabs, getting good t4c7.

 

[timislegend]

knowing facts is always good, i even enjoy those you write up this forum, but i guess i should stop mixing the way i percieve better, and start searching for facts for every single piece of my sound, it's in a fact book anyway(?), no matter it sounds like shit. Art is perception. You can't put facts over perception, you can refine your perception, that's what you can do. Or maybe my experience in other artistic fields for the last 20 years is bullshit, but i know it's completely offtopic. And sorrily, everything is subjective in a mix (as in any other piece of art that involves more than a single concept), no matter what i think. And lastly, yes, i'd be using my ears for audio material.

i believe we are saying the same thing. i (personally) prefer not to discuss art.

we would be forced to assume the OP was looking for something of an evolved suggestion, not a mundane response to an honest question.

we could also try to simplify the concept of equalization to technique instead of artistic endeavor until he posts an example. then maybe this would be the appropriate domain to trample over eccentric ideologies in harmonious discrimination.

no offense to you personally... i consider art to be something of a personal introversion and not sustain a public opinion regarding the subject.

 

[reg3n]

Agreed, if he posts something that's coming out of any suggestion of your's, you'll say it's your facts, i'll say it's your artsy self revealing trhough knowledge. (even if it sounds like a drama novel), so ok, i think for me it's honestly like this:

Get to know the do's and don'ts.
Use'm like a musician would, giving something to the material, not just "tyding the thing up".

My personal, humble, fact. Ha!

 

[Klosure]

Maybe i was lucky, I know that I was not completely lucky.


But way the presets were useful it they showed how heavy handed I was being - in the wrong way.


And this subtractive thing.... Im sorry I dont buy it.

What the plugins also showed was that a few boosts really brought to life my vocals and kept the warms that I had subtracted out in my attempts.


I copied the SSL presets onto my logic EQ, the SSL was definitly a more aggressive sound but I was able to tweak the logic EQ close to and see what was going on and the curves were a lot softer than mine but definitly hit the attack of the notes and brought them out .


Whatever these sweep techniques are they have never helped me im afraid and I think this is bad approach.