EQing SOLO Acoustic guitar?

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

User avatar
meldar produxshunz
gettin' sounds
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:06 am
Location: seattle
Contact:

EQing SOLO Acoustic guitar?

Post by meldar produxshunz » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:44 pm

hey. so ive been recording some solo acoustic guitar (some picked single notes and thicker chords) stuff and have a few questions as to EQing suggestions. ive been using a TS1 (on neck) and a C414 (below bridge) in stereo and its definitely on the crisp side. i always find myself cutting 100 and 200 a bit, then trying to find some upper freqs to cut down on string noise. any suggestions as to specific freqs that string noise tend to spike at?
waaaaaaaam...doggy.
http://matthewmeldonguitar.com

User avatar
Ryan Silva
tinnitus
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Ryan Silva » Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:01 pm

I often use that exact set up TS-1(neck) 414blus(body).

I tend to use dynamics (desser sometimes) to tame these kinds of sounds. But if I had to guess what frequencies you are hearing (just guessing) pulling out 7k might help that 'Tee' or 'Ting' sound.

Sometimes I will use the TS-1 in omni if mixed more in the background, but seeing how you?re trying to keep it upfront neck would seem to be a good place to start.

Good luck,

Post results.
"Writing good songs is hard. recording is easy. "

MoreSpaceEcho

User avatar
Dakota
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:14 am
Location: West of Boston
Contact:

Post by Dakota » Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:30 pm

String squeaks: you can fish around w/EQ cuts in the 4k to 8k region to try and find some relief, but in an exposed acoustic you're risking cutting out some of what's pretty/chimy in the sustained portions of the notes.

Instead, a carefully dialed-in de-esser can work wonders. It'll tug down only on the squeaks, and let up on the sustained pitches.

Getting the lows nice: find the lower components of the body resonance (something around 80-100 hz is typical for the lowest one) and try cutting them a bit with a narrowish Q to attempt to even out the low response. Then see if additionally boosting the lows overall a little bit with a wide Q gets the low end back into proportion with the mids and highs.

Add hi-pass to get rid of un-needed rumble and keep the lows tight, try the knee of that around 40-60hz-ish (the fundamental lowest frequency of a standard tuned low E string is apx. 82.5hz).

Would not hurt to check the high-lows, low mids, and mids for anything ugly or overly resonant by sweeping through 200hz up to 2k with a narrow Q boost, noting down any spots that seem ugly or awkward, and then cutting those a bit with narrow-ish Q's. Same applies with mids through highs, all the way up.

After all that is dialed in, try reducing all the above boosts and cuts by half. A/B that with the full cuts, and no EQ. Whatever sounds the most musical and does the least harm, go with that.

User avatar
bestmixerever
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:23 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by bestmixerever » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm

Try a de-esser for the string noise. Hack off everything from 80-100hz with a 24dB/oct hpf. And try a sharp (narrow "q") cut around 300. Some soft compression (LA2A??) will help out too
Mixing "In The Box" beats the crap outta "Living" in A box
http://www.protools-mixing.com

???????
resurrected
Posts: 2383
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:15 pm

Post by ??????? » Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:30 pm

bestmixerever wrote:Try a de-esser for the string noise. Hack off everything from 80-100hz with a 24dB/oct hpf. And try a sharp (narrow "q") cut around 300. Some soft compression (LA2A??) will help out too
Just to politely dissent/question, what would the high-pass filter accomplish, exactly? If it's a 'solo' acoustic guitar, my instinct would be to allow it to extend as far down as possible. There IS information there on an acoustic, and it adds to the fullness and depth. If it's the lone instrument in a mix, removing all it's low-frequency information isn't making room for anything... it's just truncating the bandwidth of the entire recording and such a steep filter will mangle the phase at the low end of the spectrum, too.

Also, what would be the purpose of the precise cut at 300? It seems like it would be hard to determine if something like that would hurt or help without having heard the track. Maybe I'm just missing something but it's hard to imagine something like that as some kind of panacea for all acoustic guitars in all rooms recorded with all types of chains. Actually, that applies to the HPF and the comp, too.

If the problem is string noise, you can play with a de-esser to see if it can give you some help, but honestly, in my experience those kinds of things just become part of the character of the recording. They are there. In a solo recording, there are fewer places to hide. You either have to accept it as a document or make a do-over.

User avatar
bestmixerever
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:23 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by bestmixerever » Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:54 pm

??????? wrote:
bestmixerever wrote:Try a de-esser for the string noise. Hack off everything from 80-100hz with a 24dB/oct hpf. And try a sharp (narrow "q") cut around 300. Some soft compression (LA2A??) will help out too
Just to politely dissent/question, what would the high-pass filter accomplish, exactly? If it's a 'solo' acoustic guitar, my instinct would be to allow it to extend as far down as possible. There IS information there on an acoustic, and it adds to the fullness and depth. If it's the lone instrument in a mix, removing all it's low-frequency information isn't making room for anything... it's just truncating the bandwidth of the entire recording and such a steep filter will mangle the phase at the low end of the spectrum, too.

Also, what would be the purpose of the precise cut at 300? It seems like it would be hard to determine if something like that would hurt or help without having heard the track. Maybe I'm just missing something but it's hard to imagine something like that as some kind of panacea for all acoustic guitars in all rooms recorded with all types of chains. Actually, that applies to the HPF and the comp, too.

If the problem is string noise, you can play with a de-esser to see if it can give you some help, but honestly, in my experience those kinds of things just become part of the character of the recording. They are there. In a solo recording, there are fewer places to hide. You either have to accept it as a document or make a do-over.
Ummm...The mic in question is a 414, which suffers from a significant proximity effect. That's why the roll off. And please read what i write if you're going to quote me. A sharp cut "around" 300 is not a "precise" cut at 300. The poster was asking for an opinion and I gave it to him. And I based that opinion on 23 years of studio time. I never implied either implicitly or explicitly that this is the final solution to acoustic guitar sounds. Hey, some people love boomy sounding guitars with excessively loud string noise, but I'm goin' out on a limb and guessing that the poster doesn't, THAT'S WHY HE POSTED HIS QUESTION.
Mixing "In The Box" beats the crap outta "Living" in A box
http://www.protools-mixing.com

???????
resurrected
Posts: 2383
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:15 pm

Post by ??????? » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:12 pm

Okay then, teach me, since I probably don't understand. Share the benefit of your massive experience--

What is the purpose of a sharp cut around 300 Hz?

Why would a sharp, 24dB/oct high pass filter be the ideal solution to compensate for excessive proximity effect, as opposed to something like a gentle shelf? Why is "hacking off everything below" a certain frequency better than gently and progressively attenuating the proximity-boosted information?

Is there no situation where proximity effect of a 414 might be desirable on a particular instrument with a particular player in a particular space? Wouldn't the amount of attenuation needed depend upon distance of the microphone from the instrument?

User avatar
bestmixerever
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:23 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by bestmixerever » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:36 pm

??????? wrote:Okay then, teach me, since I probably don't understand. Share the benefit of your massive experience--

What is the purpose of a sharp cut around 300 Hz?

Why would a sharp, 24dB/oct high pass filter be the ideal solution to compensate for excessive proximity effect, as opposed to something like a gentle shelf? Why is "hacking off everything below" a certain frequency better than gently and progressively attenuating the proximity-boosted information?

Is there no situation where proximity effect of a 414 might be desirable on a particular instrument with a particular player in a particular space? Wouldn't the amount of attenuation needed depend upon distance of the microphone from the instrument?
You're right. I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. I'm legally deaf. 23 years of seat time has taught me nothing, so please forgive my ignorance. I'll make sure that I add a very sharp 300hz boost across my mix buss for now on. I dunno, sounds "ideal" to me. There is NO situation where this will be inappropriate. And I'll make sure that you ok my mixes for me before I play to them clients, so I can benefit from your massive experience. Thanks!!

I-MADE-A-FUGGIN- SUG-GES-TION.
Pronunciation: \səg-ˈjes-chən, sə-ˈjes-, -ˈjesh-\
Function: noun
a slight indication
Mixing "In The Box" beats the crap outta "Living" in A box
http://www.protools-mixing.com

???????
resurrected
Posts: 2383
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:15 pm

Post by ??????? » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:43 pm

I was just asking for the benefit of your experience. Hoping you could explain your reasoning so we could all learn. Sorry it didn't work out, conversationally. Better luck next time, I guess.

kingtoad
pushin' record
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:12 am

Post by kingtoad » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:47 pm

Wow. This thread sure took a turn for the nasty.

User avatar
bestmixerever
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:23 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by bestmixerever » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:56 pm

??????? wrote:I was just asking for the benefit of your experience. Hoping you could explain your reasoning so we could all learn. Sorry it didn't work out, conversationally. Better luck next time, I guess.
Look, you came across a a fuggin wise-ass with your "massive experience" pejorative.
For the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept your latest comment and please excuse my saltiness. Just gimme a wink or smile next time. I'm hear to learn as much as I might be able to reciprocate. Now, about last nights South Park episode. I give it a 7 outta ten. Cartman get turrets syndrome is as close to a 10 as possible. What say you?
FORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mixing "In The Box" beats the crap outta "Living" in A box
http://www.protools-mixing.com

???????
resurrected
Posts: 2383
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:15 pm

Post by ??????? » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:57 pm

I wasn't trying to be snide. If the credits on the web URL in your signature are accurate, you really do appear to have "massive experience." I was assuming they were accurate with no evidence to the contrary.

User avatar
bestmixerever
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:23 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by bestmixerever » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:11 pm

??????? wrote:I wasn't trying to be snide. If the credits on the web URL in your signature are accurate, you really do appear to have "massive experience." I was assuming they were accurate with no evidence to the contrary.
They're accurate.
But what about last nights South Park episode?
Mixing "In The Box" beats the crap outta "Living" in A box
http://www.protools-mixing.com

User avatar
meldar produxshunz
gettin' sounds
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:06 am
Location: seattle
Contact:

Post by meldar produxshunz » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:38 am

okay then. now that we are all made up...
excuse my total lack of knowledge of Eqing. i am a guitarist and know very little about frequencies, though i have learned a little from looking at the "analyzer" on my logic's EQ plugin.

my next question has to do with what is considered a reasonable amount to cut a specific frequency? to my ear i am dealing with alot of bass, and a lot of highs. little in the way of mids that doesnt come across as boxy.

maybe i should post some of my track. how do you do that? sorry. yes, i am a newb but would appreciate the input.
waaaaaaaam...doggy.
http://matthewmeldonguitar.com

User avatar
bestmixerever
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:23 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by bestmixerever » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:58 am

meldar produxshunz wrote:okay then. now that we are all made up...
excuse my total lack of knowledge of Eqing. i am a guitarist and know very little about frequencies, though i have learned a little from looking at the "analyzer" on my logic's EQ plugin.

my next question has to do with what is considered a reasonable amount to cut a specific frequency? to my ear i am dealing with alot of bass, and a lot of highs. little in the way of mids that doesnt come across as boxy.

maybe i should post some of my track. how do you do that? sorry. yes, i am a newb but would appreciate the input.
I think that you're taking a misstep we all do. You are "looking" instead of listening. Try not to get too hung up on whats an acceptable/reasonable amount of eq/compression. The bottom line is how any particular track sounds. If you're tracking and you find that you're grabbing the eq first, think about changing the mic. Or moving the mic by an inch or so. But in this case we're gabbing about mixing. So here's my 2 bucks: Take out the trash before you shine the floors.
The 300 hz is a reference point. Slap your favorite parametric across said guitar. Turn the "q" setting on the lo-mid freq to it's narrowest point and crank the gain as far up as it will go. Then start adjusting the frequency up and down around 300hz. At some point you'll hear the offending frequency. It will sound like a low dog bark whenever the guitarist plays in the" boomy range". Now that you've isolated the fugger, cut it as much as you can. You'll hear a kinda "hole in the sound. Now, gradually lessen the amount of cut and widen out the "q" a bit. The offender might be as lo as 120 or be as high as 380, but sweep it until you find it. The sound should open up. And to control the boominess a bit more, put an aggressive hpf on it. If it sounds too skinny, back off some. There are no rules (I know I'm gonna hear about this) here. Twist knobs until it feels good. Eq knobs that is. If someone tells you that you should never cut anything by xyz amount or compress by no more than abc amount, try it. But if what you're working on still doesn't sound right, cut and hack away! And when you play it for someone and they say "wow! what a great guitar sound" I'm pretty sure that you won't change their opinion if you told them that you cut 283hz by 12 dB to get that great sound.
String noise is a bear. Try de-essing it by again sweeping the frequency around until you start getting some results. And try the above parametric method starting around 5k or so and sweep until you find the bastard. Now that the trash has been thrown out you can do a bit of polishing. You'll find that by getting the crap outta the sound you won't need to add too much of anything. Using additive eq should be the last part of the chain. Hope this helps.
Mixing "In The Box" beats the crap outta "Living" in A box
http://www.protools-mixing.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests