How do you decide deep vs wide on eq?

[[email protected]]

What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?

[Luxey]

On Monday, 30 March 2015 08:34:38 UTC+2, wrote:
> What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?

Trial and error.

[geoff]

On 30/03/2015 7:34 p.m., wrote:
> What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?
>


Find the most significant frequency (identify either by cutting or
boosting), widen the Q until things you don't want start boosting (or
cutting, whichever you're after), then slide the whole caboodle up and
down F-wise to check upper and lower ends are where you want. Then
tweak some more.

At least that's what I'd do, if that's what you meant.


geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

> skrev i en meddelelse
...

> What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?

Determining the actual problem works well for me.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?

Why am I eqing it?

Am I trying to deal with a single honky note, or am I trying to get a broad
change in feeling? Or am I trying to shoehorn one track around another
one (ie. trying to get the piano to be heard over the sax)?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 2:34:38 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?

I see you've been asking elsewhere.

Anyway, my man Ethan explains...

http://realtraps.com/art_narrow.htm

[JackA]

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 6:07:45 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 7:34 p.m., wrote:
> > What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?
> >
>
>
> Find the most significant frequency

3kHz!!!

Jack :-)

(identify either by cutting or
> boosting), widen the Q until things you don't want start boosting (or
> cutting, whichever you're after), then slide the whole caboodle up and
> down F-wise to check upper and lower ends are where you want. Then
> tweak some more.
>
> At least that's what I'd do, if that's what you meant.
>
>
> geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
> "Peter Larsen" > wrote:
>> > skrev i en meddelelse
>> ...
>>
>>> What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?
>>
>> Determining the actual problem works well for me.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Peter Larsen
>
> Boy, THAT'S a loaded answer.
>
> Yeah, it's true, but determining the actual problem *can* be harder than it
> sounds.
>


Usually, I can identify a "note" to EQ that need fixin' and start from
there - "It's an A flat". I will cheat and use a piano as a reference.

If a note sticks out, this is especially true - then you can easily
identify the note. You gotta watch that on say, sax, because sax has
notes that are louder.

Room modes and such - just set the Q low and sweep for it. You'll
hear it.

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Jeff Henig" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> "Peter Larsen" > wrote:
>> > skrev i en meddelelse
>> ...

>>> What do you go through to determine how you eq something depth vs width?

>> Determining the actual problem works well for me.

> Boy, THAT'S a loaded answer.

> Yeah, it's true, but determining the actual problem *can* be harder than
> it
> sounds.

One has to be aware of how perception works, included being aware that the
start of a broad dip in response can sound like a peak. If you want to fix a
mix, then often very small amounts of broad eq makes a drastic difference,
if you want to fix a transducer response peak then surprisingly large
amounts of very narrow eq can be to the point. And then using some analyzer
tool to get it right is a very good idea.

Taking the just the peak and exactly the peak and nothing but the peak out
of a mic and thereby fix sibilance is a lot better for the total fidelity
than using a de-esser that does all kinds of dynamic stuff that fixes the
peak only when the sound source is loud. Remember: resonance peaks from
transducers and rooms are frequently in the 8 dB magnitude range. And if it
is dentures or a whistle caused by a gap between teeth that lead to the
perceived sibiliance, then just the right static and very sharp and to the
point EQ still may be the better - and simpler - solution that narrow band
dynamics, they are in fact still transducer resonances, just from another
transducer. Just my opinion ...

> ---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" > writes:

snips

>One has to be aware of how perception works, included being aware that the
>start of a broad dip in response can sound like a peak. If you want to fix a
>mix, then often very small amounts of broad eq makes a drastic difference,
>if you want to fix a transducer response peak then surprisingly large
>amounts of very narrow eq can be to the point. And then using some analyzer
>tool to get it right is a very good idea.

Yes, indeed.

>Taking the just the peak and exactly the peak and nothing but the peak out
>of a mic and thereby fix sibilance is a lot better for the total fidelity
>than using a de-esser that does all kinds of dynamic stuff that fixes the

A little caution here; depends on the voice and the de-essers. With a trained voice
doing something more along the classical lines, there is often quite a bit of
tonally-critical harmonic information that's also right in the typical "sss"
range -- a likely problem were one going to statically put an EQ notch in that
range.

A good de-esser should be able to get in, do the job, and get out without doing harm
elsewhere. If you look at waveform displays, it's easy to see the burst of siblant
energy separate from the real tone of a voice. And, in fact, when I haven't liked
how a de-esser was working in some rare case, I'd go after that enery burst manually
with a dip in a gain line. Tedious as hell (and it's possible to take out too much).
Fortunately that need is not common.

The Protools de-esser does a reasonable job if you take time to set it up right; the
SPL de-essers are amazing most of the time. You can even "roll your own" by putting
an equalizer on the side chain of a fast attack/release high-ratio compressor.
(Probably the least effective approach, though, as a modern, dedicated de-esser does
more for better detection than just a bump in the HF of the detector circuit.)

I have no quarrel with the idea of a static EQ notch to do this job, but potentially
it's not without a sonic cost. For most of what I do I'll start with a conventional
de-esser.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "3kHz!!!

Jack :-)
- show quoted text -"


Your new profile pic:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/121017-nails-chalkboard-kb-1209p.jpg