Subject:EQ Advice

Posted by: MECressey

Date:6/12/2002 5:20:36 PM

I'm currently working on my first digital recording. I've got a
pretty good computer, most of the software I need, a reasonably good
mic, Mackie mixer, studio monitors (finally), etc. The recordings
sound pretty good on the monitors but sound marginal at best on my
wife's bomb box & in my truck.

So, I decided to get scientific (like I've been suggesting to this
group that you need to be) and I ran a spectrum analysis on my song.
I also ran a SA on some JT and M. Knopfler songs whose sound I really
like. Here's what I found:

My recording has a bubble in the 98 - 198 Hz region and a strong peak
in the 198 - 298 Hz region and several other peaks from 298 - 498 Hz.
Guess what - the pro recordings have a fairly gentle, downward sloping
curve from 98 - 498 Hz with some peaks but none as large as mine. I
suspect this is the source of my muddy sound.

So guess what my question is: what EQ do I use to "fix" my stuff. Do
I use a paragraphic EQ and try to set several bands to pound down
those peaks. Do I use a parameteric EQ and put in the middle, say
around 300 Hz, with a wide band and try to bring the whole mess down,
or do I go back to the graphic EQ and brute force those offending
frequencies?

Also, I noticed that the pro recordings tend that have a very nice
rounding off at the higher frequencies whereas my recording has a
pretty big drop-off at about 15 kHz and then slopes off rather
quickly.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Mike

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: Edin

Date:6/12/2002 6:28:01 PM

I think that your question is funny. If the recording sounds good, why mess with EQ?
I sometimes find myself doing the same thing, but it is only my personal feelings at that time. As for EQ, I think that Graphic would work best in your case, Paragraphic would be next after it, and then Parametric.
You may adjust a slight increase in high frequencies, as well as lower those spikes of lower frequencies at the same time by using Graphic EQ.

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: MECressey

Date:6/12/2002 6:37:54 PM

No - it doesn't sound good. Please re-read the post.

Mike

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: MacMoney

Date:6/12/2002 6:49:28 PM

Hi Mike
Are you recording with EQ?
How does a store bought CD sound in the Bomb box and truck?

George

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:6/12/2002 8:57:51 PM

You're approaching this all wrong. The source of your problem is in your mixing technique. You need to eq properly in your mixes first on the individual tracks. If it will help, then put a spectral analyzer on your master mix bus and see what happens when you eq individual instruments. You shouldn't have to do drastic EQing on the entire mix, if you properly mix it right the first time. The approach you are currently taking is like putting a band aid on an amputated limb. It will get better than what you had, but you still have big problems. The best songs I've mastered have been ones that started with a well eq'ed mix and then I add multiband compression and then add eq to it, to get back to the original eq curve that the song started with, but got altered due to the multiband compression. And yes, that's why your mixes sound boomy....or Boxy, because 400Hz is exactly where that sound comes from in a mix.

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: VU-1

Date:6/13/2002 12:00:00 AM

Mike -

Sounds like you are trying to Master your tune. Are you? If not, then what you really need to do is (like Red said) go back to the tracks and start adjusting your EQ from there. If you set up your EQs & compressors right on your tracks, you will not have such humps in the FFT graph. Your mixes need to rock BEFORE you are ready for mastering.

Another thing - you mentioned that you "finally" got studio monitors. I would suspect that you have not yet learned how they respond in your room. You need to sit down and spend some time listening to some good commercial CDs until you get used to the way your monitors sound. Not 'til then will you be able to manipulate your own material properly since you won't have a reference set in your head as to what sounds right.

You might also need to check your room to make sure that it allowing you to hear what is really going on in your mixes.

Check FFTs of quite a few tunes and you will find that, although there is a general shape that the graph of good recordings take on, they are not all exactly the same. The song dictates where the tonal balance should sit.

While you are mixing, A/B your mixes to those CDs to see how you are doing in different freq. ranges.

BTW - Lost your e-mail address due to a virus. Please send it to me again. Thanks.

Jeff Lowes
On-Track Recording

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: MECressey

Date:6/13/2002 10:40:27 AM

Thanks - these are all good things I will try. I will fully admit that I have alot to learn. Normally I don't EQ any track on the recording or playback, with the possible exception of adding a little high end to my acoustic guitar.

In the past I've used Sony 7506 headphones to do all my mixing but that has problems as you know, i.e., you can't really get the bass levels correct, etc. So I am just starting to use the monitors. Having said that, I mixed my 1st CD entirely on the headphones and did a good job according to the studio I took it to for the mastering. All what the engineer indicated to me at that time was that "stuff" tends to build up in the 300 Hz region - he didn't say why.

What I'm hearing you guys say, is that there my problems lie on individual tracks, i.e., my vocal track or some other, and not the whole mix. My question is that if that's completely true and if you can get it perfect on a mix, then what does a mastering engineer do?

Last night, I used an envelope filter to drop the 298 Hz region down about 3 dB. That cleaned up the mix quite a bit.

I posted this on rec.audio.pro and the suggestion was to use a multiband compressor on the region giving me problems. Also, it was suggested that I get a different mic than the AKG C3000 that I'm using (no one likes this mic on that site).

BTW - Golden Heart & James Taylor's "New Moon Shine" all sound great on the boom box & in my truck. I know my recordings will never sound this good but if I can just make them sound a little better I will be very happy.

Thanks again.

Mike

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: Vocalpoint

Date:6/13/2002 11:04:48 AM

Red,

Slightly off topic for the thread but what is your favorite mastering chain if you do have a decent EQ'd mix to work with:

Something like Multiband Comp->Broadband/Q10 Type EQ-> L1/L2? Or something completely different?

Appreciate the tips if you have any,

Cuzin B

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:6/13/2002 1:05:05 PM

I agree with all of Jeff's advice completely on the mixing advice, it's all good valuable information. An important part that I think you're missing in your current mixing technique is that you can get a good blend of instruments by just boosting or cutting in a certain frequency rather than increasing the level of the entire track. For example in a rock mix which has 2 guitars there are times when the guitars play similar rhythm parts and you will lose the seperation of 2 guitars playing. What I usually do is take the rhythm guitar and boast around the 3Khz-4.5Khz area, and take the lead guitar and boast around 5Khz-7Khz. This will help in keeping each guitar distinctive and it's own identity in the mix. If you don't do this and have one guitar panned left and the other right, then they play the same rhythm part, then you get one guitar panned center and they start to mask one another. The eq at the different frequencies keep them seperated in the left and right speakers. This problem will happen with other instruments that occupy similar frequency areas. Remember, that mixing is not only a blend of volume levels, it's a blending of frequencies also and you need to use the entire spectrum of frequencies to see where you can slip a particular instrument in, to ensure it is clearly heard. Otherwise, you're doing a constant battling of volume levels and everything ends up masking each other.

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:6/13/2002 1:43:35 PM

My usual mastering chain for a well mixed song:

Paragraphic EQ>Multiband compressor>Limiter>stereo widener (if needed)>Steinberg Magneto>DC offset>normalization (if needed).

I use magneto as my "volume maximizer", it's an analog tape compression simulator, which I find alters my spectral curve the least while still adding overall volume and warmth. I find it sounds much better than L1,Timeworks mastering comp. or Wavehammer and doesn't make my waves look like someone took a pair of scissors and cut the tops off. It also doesn't give that grainy sound (distortion) that L1 does when it does cut the tops off of the waveform and doesn't suck the life out of my dynamics range.

For a badly mixed song, sometimes I will add a de-esser after the multi-band compressor. This is because I will usually have to do some major eqing and multi-band compression in the presence range 3Khz-8Khz, to get the snap of the snare and clarity of the vocals to come through the mix, and this will in return bring up the siblance in the vocals. So I can hammer on that area with eq and have the de-esser attack the siblance when the vocals come in a start to get Essy.

Subject:RE: EQ Advice

Reply by: VU-1

Date:6/13/2002 1:52:33 PM

>>Remember, that mixing is not only a blend of volume levels, it's a blending of frequencies also and you need to use the entire spectrum of frequencies to see where you can slip a particular instrument in, to ensure it is clearly heard. Otherwise, you're doing a constant battling of volume levels and everything ends up masking each other.<<

Well put. Each instrument has to have its own "space" in which to sit within the mix. That space is created not only by location across the stereo field, but by carving out little freq. holes for each instr. to poke out thru.


>>Normally I don't EQ any track on the recording or playback, with the possible exception of adding a little high end to my acoustic guitar.<<

This is a method perfected by the likes of Al Schmidt. I am no Al Schmidt, however, I do understand the prinicple. What happens here is that from the very beginning (pre-production): instruments, players, rooms, mic selection/placement, outboard gear, engineers - get the idea - EVERYTHING is selected with the intention of creating a particular sound of each and every instrument (all this before ANYTHING goes to tape) so that, after the tracks are cut and the mix is created, everything fits together like a puzzle and, collectively, they create the sound that the producer is after.

This is not to say that EQ is never used in the process, it simply means that EQ is only a "spice", not a main ingredient. The same can be said for compression.

The purpose of mastering is NOT to fix problem freqs in a mix - that is supposed to be handled during mixing.


As for the M/B compression, use it carefully - it doesn't ALWAYS sound good. I try only to use it when there is a range of freqs that are out of control - that EQ alone can't handle.

JL
OTR