The Philosophy of EQ

[@?,*???&?]

Been listening to many current releases lately and have been attempting to find that 'center point of real sound' on them.

Any of you guys find that EQ can take on a really false sense of reality if not administered carefully?

What should a vocal sound like? Shouldn't it just sound like the singer in the band?

Where does the low end of a track come from?

Don't pure organic sounds make for the best result?

I know what I do in these instances, but what do you guys think about when grabbing the knob, fader, pot, etc.?

[tommy]

Im from the zen school when it comes to eqing. I generally try to get good appropreate sounds for each instrument when tracking so that when it comes time to mix I mainly eq to create a sonic space for all the instruments to live in and work nicely together. Sometimes you through the faders up and all the instruments work perfectly together without touching the eq. Sometimes not. To each his or her own but creating a false sense of reality in recording is half the fun sometimes. Not only through eqing but through other means like compression, time based fx or whatever. OMMMMMMM.

[apropos of nothing]

Don't pure organic sounds make for the best result?

I opened the CD, and there was a guy with an acoustic guitar. Just jumped right out of the packaging and started strumming and singing right there in my living room.

Show me an organic sound in a rock band, and I'll show you a tranceiver and twenty five feet of cabling inbetween the sound source and your ears.

That said, the hope is that signal going to tape is as close to what will be on the finished product as possible.

A singer's voice isn't even really their voice. Granted that the voice is the origin of the signal, but the microphone, other portions of the signal chain, and the amplifier (be it bookshelf stereo or stadium P.A.) are all part of the equation. Welcome to the age of post-humanity.

[Al]

I try to avoid as much as possible in the mix. I would much rather spend time messing around with a mic at source.

If i had to hammer loads of e.q. on a vocal,i think it would be time to look at how they were being recorded i think!

[rainsinvelvet]

Im from the zen school when it comes to eqing. I generally try to get good appropreate sounds for each instrument when tracking so that when it comes time to mix I mainly eq to create a sonic space for all the instruments to live in and work nicely together. Sometimes you through the faders up and all the instruments work perfectly together without touching the eq. Sometimes not. To each his or her own but creating a false sense of reality in recording is half the fun sometimes. Not only through eqing but through other means like compression, time based fx or whatever. OMMMMMMM.

I was thinking of a way to reply,but Tommy beat me to it.

[trashy]

Believe it or not, I do have a general philosophy of eq-ing and it goes like this: Subtract First. Maybe that's a motto, but it is also a philosophy. If I have to eq, I always start by removing interfering frequencies, rather than by boosting frequencies. I started doing this back in my Tascam cassette 4-track days, when boosting frequencies just made everything muddy and gross.

[cassembler]

Yeah, Trashy's right on. Subtractive EQ, as long as it's not a really, really crappy EQ, tends to help mixes even if the sources by themselves don't seem to need it. For example, I haven't called a mix finished until I low cut the vocals at some point in over three years. The exact points depends on a lot of factors, but vocals don't need 30 Hz. Nether do most instruments except the bass and kick.

Same goes for a lot of things, but I generally never high cut anything. High shelf, cool. Sucking some 2-500 Hz out of a kick can do wonders for a beefy guitar.

But I don't have all of the answers. I can just say that I find subtractive EQ to be absolutely vital to 100% of my work. Additive EQ isn't exactly the devil, it's kind of a seductress representing the devil.

[timbaier]

"Low end" is just an illusion. Like hot weather. You only know its there because it was once cool out. If you never give it to them, they'll never miss it. So "low end" can be defined by pretty much anything in my opinion. And it doesn't have to be at 80 Hz or whatever...

As mentioned by others, everything in recorded music gives a false sense of reality. The "falser", the better, I say. Most people want music to transport them someplace else, like a good book or movie can. A colleague of mine determines whether a movie is good by whether he "is aware of his own ass at any time during the movie." If, when you hear the vocal, you are aware of your own ass, its not good enough.

As a clarification, "wacky" synth sounds, Autotune and the like are not what I would consider "good" false sounds. They are the kinds of things that make you aware of the producer (otherwise known as your ass).

[tiger vomitt]

lately ive been noticing something about eq. i dont often boost, but when i do, even with the best eq's i have (which would be metric halo channel strip or the UAD1 pultec) i end up feeling like im not really changing the character or the track. im just adding eq to it.


in other words, say we have 2 sounds

-one being a well tuned and well recorded bass drum with a thump at 70 hz.

-the other is a thin bass drum with eq boosted at 70hz.

the first one sounds like a thump in the bass drum and the other sounds like boosted eq. even if the frequency response is the same.

after boosting, the thinner bass drum doesnt sound bassier, it sounds the same but with some eq at 70hz. it's very false, even with good eq (and i absolutely do consider those 2 i listed as as being good eq's, even tho they are digital)

im finding this is a tough thing to describe.

anyone else experience this?

[JES]

Hey All,

I'm much less wise and experienced than some, but I find a mix of boost and cut works best for me. But with boost, I always do the same thing: wide bandwidth, find the exact frequency I want to punch up, and then turn it down until I can just barely hear the difference. Small amounts of boost seem to work best. I also tend to cut in other tracks around the area I want to boost in a given track. Lots of complementary boosts and cuts seem to make for a rich mix.

Best,
--JES

[djslayerissick]

i like to create an illusion that the band is actually just one large complex instrument, rather a bunch of instruments in a room together.

the last track i mixed needed some serious low end/low mid rumble from the down-tuned guitars. it took forever for me to realize that that rumble didnt have to actually come from the guitars. *using subtractive EQ*, i took out most of the low end out of the guitars. then i put a ton of distortion on the 5-string bass and cut some of it mids. the bass and guitars mixed together so well that they sounded like one instrument.

[PatrickBrown]

Great discussion. I've been trying to stay away from EQ, and using subtractive more, lately, than before. A little, if additive, goes a long way. I definitely agree, in my small amount of experience, with the use of low cut for all but the bass and kick, unless there's something you want, ambience wise, in that region. Not likely,,but possible. Great for quietening stuff up when recording alot of acoustic inst. with mikes. I own no piezo's. Have alot of acoustic inst. though.
One place I find subractive in the highs works nicely is with the fiddle.
I envision a recording studio with no EQ. Just great equipment, and mikes, proper placement, etc.
I don't have 9 grand, but that Manley 16 x 2 shore is purty. I'd probably ask for one stereo return, and a pair of master buss inserts. The mike version has inserts in each channel. The line version doesn't. (??)(something about patching them in) I'm grasshopper, at this point. So I listen, and hope the answers will come.

[@?,*???&?]

the first one sounds like a thump in the bass drum and the other sounds like boosted eq. even if the frequency response is the same. after boosting, the thinner bass drum doesnt sound bassier, it sounds the same but with some eq at 70hz. it's very false, even with good eq (and i absolutely do consider those 2 i listed as as being good eq's, even tho they are digital)

And what you are describing is exactly what happens with digital EQ. No harmonic related boost high or low, just the exact frequency you've chosen. With analog EQ you get octave boost to some degree and with equipment like a vintage Neve, you get intrinsic sympathetic frequencies from the hardware that are pleasing to the ear. Two artifacts not found in the digital domain. I find digital EQ pretty hollow. The subtractive route is most certainly preferred in that domain.

If I am eq'ing at 400 hz, it's probably best to do some work at 200 hz and 800 hz as well. I learned that from Joe Chiccarelli and while it mattered some in the analog realm, it matters alot in the digital domain.

[cassembler]

Agreed Jeff... Very few digital EQ's are usable, notable exception being some of the Wave's stuff.

But I have to defend additive EQ; it's not generally the best method of achieving something, but it is a useful tool.

[@?,*???&?]

Well, my point was not that digital EQ is unusable so much as it requires one to think it thru to fruition. You need to sort of fake what is normally a given with an analog EQ in the digital domain.

I've noticed the difference too with regard to cloudiness of a mix in the digital domain. With analog, one is always brightening the sound along the way from tracking to mixing. You are clearing out the murkiness. With digital you get the sounds at face value. I've yet to be hyper-successful having to do major EQ surgery with a DAW. The flexibility of the Antares Mic Modeler is cool, but you give up a 3 dimensional open-ness in a trade for EQ.