[JBI]

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here knows of a free plug-in that will match
one track's EQ to another? I was hoping to find something for Audacity,
either on Ubuntu or Win. The closest Audacity one I came across seemed
to be experimental at best and difficult to work with so was hoping to
find something better. I'll download a ten day trial, like for Ozone 7,
if I have to if no other choice, but thought I'd check out any possible
options first.

Thanks in advance,
Jon

[geoff]

On 5/05/2019 4:04 AM, JBI wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here knows of a free plug-in that will match
one track's EQ to another?Â* I was hoping to find something for Audacity,
either on Ubuntu or Win.Â* The closest Audacity one I came across seemed
to be experimental at best and difficult to work with so was hoping to
find something better.Â* I'll download a ten day trial, like for Ozone 7,
if I have to if no other choice, but thought I'd check out any possible
options first.

Thanks in advance,
Jon


Match an overall EQ pf one track to another track, or simply copy the
same settings of one track to another.

If the latter simply save one track's plugin EQ setting as a preset.

geoff

[James Price[_5_]]

On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 2:51:10 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

Match an overall EQ pf one track to another track, or simply copy the
same settings of one track to another.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the former.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 2:51:10 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

Match an overall EQ pf one track to another track, or simply copy the
same settings of one track to another.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the former.

That's really kind of a misguided idea.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 05/05/2019 22:13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 2:51:10 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

Match an overall EQ pf one track to another track, or simply copy the
same settings of one track to another.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the former.

That's really kind of a misguided idea.
--scott

What can be done, is to match the frequency spectra of two recordings in
a attempt to make them sound similar.

https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/t...atch-eq-584814

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:
On 05/05/2019 22:13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 2:51:10 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

Match an overall EQ pf one track to another track, or simply copy the
same settings of one track to another.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the former.

That's really kind of a misguided idea.

What can be done, is to match the frequency spectra of two recordings in
a attempt to make them sound similar.

https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/t...atch-eq-584814

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily make them sound similar. It's apt to
do more damage than good. The spectral envelope comes out of the
arrangement and instruments as much as the recording.

Yes, I know people sell gadgets to do this, but people also sell lots
of similarly misguided things. Brown dye to put on your scalp to hide
your bald spot? You can buy it, and it does what the label claims, but
it's as bad an idea as these plugins.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[gray_wolf]

On 5/5/2019 2:51 AM, geoff wrote:
On 5/05/2019 4:04 AM, JBI wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here knows of a free plug-in that will match one
track's EQ to another?Â* I was hoping to find something for Audacity, either on
Ubuntu or Win.Â* The closest Audacity one I came across seemed to be
experimental at best and difficult to work with so was hoping to find
something better.Â* I'll download a ten day trial, like for Ozone 7, if I have
to if no other choice, but thought I'd check out any possible options first.

Thanks in advance,
Jon


Match an overall EQ pf one track to another track, or simply copy the same
settings of one track to another.

If the latter simply save one track's plugin EQ setting as a preset.

geoff

~ 20 years Steinberg, I think, had a plugin that would match a target sound
track to the master track. IIRC it work on unrelated tracks.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 5:06:07 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 05/05/2019 22:13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 2:51:10 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

Match an overall EQ pf one track to another track, or simply copy the
same settings of one track to another.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the former.

That's really kind of a misguided idea.

What can be done, is to match the frequency spectra of two recordings in
a attempt to make them sound similar.

https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/t...atch-eq-584814

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily make them sound similar. It's apt to
do more damage than good. The spectral envelope comes out of the
arrangement and instruments as much as the recording.

Yes, I know people sell gadgets to do this, but people also sell lots
of similarly misguided things. Brown dye to put on your scalp to hide
your bald spot? You can buy it, and it does what the label claims, but
it's as bad an idea as these plugins.

For an entire mix, sure. For individual instruments, such as guitar,
it can be useful for maintaining continuity between sessions, in
my opinion.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/5/2019 9:53 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
~ 20 years Steinberg, I think, had a plugin that would match a target
sound track to the master track. IIRC it work on unrelated tracks.

It faded out of popularity when people found out that it couldn't make
their guitar solo sound like the one on a famous record.

I think the idea was to use it on a mix (which could be a mix of the
drum mics) to match the overall tone of a target song, sort of like one
of the many small tweaks that have become part of "mastering." I don't
know if it worked for that in a useful way.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JBI]

Just wanted to update here. Audacity had an "experimental" EQ match
plug in that I tried. It seems to work ok, but I was better off just
using different source material with better SN ratio, although I do now
have the plug in installed for future reference. Thanks for your responses.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 5:51:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2019 9:53 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
~ 20 years Steinberg, I think, had a plugin that would match a target
sound track to the master track. IIRC it work on unrelated tracks.

It faded out of popularity when people found out that it couldn't make
their guitar solo sound like the one on a famous record.

It's still popular for matching the tone of an individual track (frequently guitar) rather than an entire mix.

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 5:51:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2019 9:53 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
~ 20 years Steinberg, I think, had a plugin that would match a target
sound track to the master track. IIRC it work on unrelated tracks.

It faded out of popularity when people found out that it couldn't make
their guitar solo sound like the one on a famous record.

It's still popular for matching the tone of an individual track
(frequently guitar) rather than an entire mix.



Wouldnt there still be obvious problems just based on what notes are being
played on the two tracks? Lets say that I love the sound that JimBob
MetalGod got playing power chords on the bottom strings of his guitar, but
Im strumming all six strings. Wouldnt such a plug-in suck all the treble
out of my track to match the absence of high frequencies in the reference
track?

[Scott Dorsey]

Ralph Barone wrote:
James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 5:51:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2019 9:53 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
~ 20 years Steinberg, I think, had a plugin that would match a target
sound track to the master track. IIRC it work on unrelated tracks.

It faded out of popularity when people found out that it couldn't make
their guitar solo sound like the one on a famous record.

It's still popular for matching the tone of an individual track
(frequently guitar) rather than an entire mix.

Wouldnt there still be obvious problems just based on what notes are being
played on the two tracks? Lets say that I love the sound that JimBob
MetalGod got playing power chords on the bottom strings of his guitar, but
Im strumming all six strings. Wouldnt such a plug-in suck all the treble
out of my track to match the absence of high frequencies in the reference
track?

Right, so you would want the reference to be in the same key as the thing
you're equalizing.

The thing is... once you bring up the rest of the tracks, the guitar sound
will change, and how the guitar is equalized needs to be a matter of making
it fit in. If the arrangement has guitars and vocals at the same time, you
likely want to scoop the midrange out of the guitar in order to make the
vocal sit right. But how you want to do this depends a lot on the register
the vocalist is singing in. Equalizing tracks in isolation without taking
the whole mix into account is nearly always a mistake, whether you do it with
an automated system or by ear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Price[_5_]]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:51:36 PM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 5:51:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2019 9:53 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
~ 20 years Steinberg, I think, had a plugin that would match a target
sound track to the master track. IIRC it work on unrelated tracks.

It faded out of popularity when people found out that it couldn't make
their guitar solo sound like the one on a famous record.

It's still popular for matching the tone of an individual track
(frequently guitar) rather than an entire mix.



Wouldnt there still be obvious problems just based on what notes are being
played on the two tracks? Lets say that I love the sound that JimBob
MetalGod got playing power chords on the bottom strings of his guitar, but
Im strumming all six strings. Wouldnt such a plug-in suck all the treble
out of my track to match the absence of high frequencies in the reference
track?

Yes. It's recommended to play the same chords / notes in the same key during the matching process.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:58:12 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ralph Barone wrote:
James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 5:51:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2019 9:53 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
~ 20 years Steinberg, I think, had a plugin that would match a target
sound track to the master track. IIRC it work on unrelated tracks.

It faded out of popularity when people found out that it couldn't make
their guitar solo sound like the one on a famous record.

It's still popular for matching the tone of an individual track
(frequently guitar) rather than an entire mix.

Wouldnt there still be obvious problems just based on what notes are being
played on the two tracks? Lets say that I love the sound that JimBob
MetalGod got playing power chords on the bottom strings of his guitar, but
Im strumming all six strings. Wouldnt such a plug-in suck all the treble
out of my track to match the absence of high frequencies in the reference
track?

Right, so you would want the reference to be in the same key as the thing
you're equalizing.

The thing is... once you bring up the rest of the tracks, the guitar sound
will change, and how the guitar is equalized needs to be a matter of making
it fit in. If the arrangement has guitars and vocals at the same time, you
likely want to scoop the midrange out of the guitar in order to make the
vocal sit right. But how you want to do this depends a lot on the register
the vocalist is singing in. Equalizing tracks in isolation without taking
the whole mix into account is nearly always a mistake, whether you do it with
an automated system or by ear.

The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference. Granted, the sound will change to a
degree when you start mixing guitars with other instruments, but that applies
to guitars that have been dialed in with or without EQ matching.

[geoff]

On 7/05/2019 2:14 PM, James Price wrote:


The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?



That's generally at the guitar (and/or amp/speaker if electric). If you
are trying to make everything sound the same, then that's where to start
and hopefully no significant amounts of EQ needed anyway. And better to
learn it by ear rather than have a tool do your thinking for you.

That is if you want everything to sound the same in the first place ....

geoff

[geoff]

On 7/05/2019 4:29 PM, James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Generally that is what the guitarist does, and he/she complains muchly
if you overly dick with it ! The recorded guitar tone is a decision
between the guitarist and the 'producer' - whoever that entity is in the
particular recording situation.

Granted, the sound will change to a
degree when you start mixing guitars with other instruments, but that applies
to guitars that have been dialed in with or without EQ matching.


This EQ matching thing starts to sound like a universal automatic
hyper-compressor idea.

Just get it right in the first place. If the tracks are significantly
disparate to the point of not sitting well in an album worth of
material, that is where 'mastering' comes into play.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 07/05/2019 09:17, geoff wrote:

Just get it right in the first place. If the tracks are significantly
disparate to the point of not sitting well in an album worth of
material, that is where 'mastering' comes into play.

The plugin was sold as a way to make the "sound" of a radio station or
compilation album a little more even. It's another tool such as the
ubiquitous Orban radio compression, introduce to make life a little
easier for the station staff and improve intelligibility at the edge of
the range.

Other uses and abuses are up to the production team.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/7/2019 12:29 AM, James Price wrote:
The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Why is this so hard? It can't add something that isn't there, and it
doesn't really even teach you anything that you can use on your own.

It's like not learning how to multiply because you always have a
calculator. Sure, I use a calculator pretty often, but I don't need one
to decide how much I should leave for a tip at a restaurant. I can
decide what percentage of the bill to tip - the equivalent of "the
guitarist's preference" - based on what kind of restaurant it is and how
good the service was. And I can calculate close enough in my head to
calculate 15% or 18% or 20% or decide to leave a $5 bill based on my a
combination of my knowledge and experience.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:17:40 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 4:29 PM, James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Generally that is what the guitarist does, and he/she complains muchly
if you overly dick with it ! The recorded guitar tone is a decision
between the guitarist and the 'producer' - whoever that entity is in the
particular recording situation.

Agreed, and many guitarists use EQ matching specifically for the purpose mentioned.

Granted, the sound will change to a
degree when you start mixing guitars with other instruments, but that applies
to guitars that have been dialed in with or without EQ matching.


This EQ matching thing starts to sound like a universal automatic
hyper-compressor idea.

Just get it right in the first place. If the tracks are significantly
disparate to the point of not sitting well in an album worth of
material, that is where 'mastering' comes into play.

My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

If a guitarist wants to replicate a particular tone, EQ matching can simplify
the process. If the tone a guitarist wants can be dialed in by ear, great,
then there's no need to employ EQ matching. However, in situations where a
guitarist wants a specific tone(assuming there are reference tracks for it),
EQ matching can be faster than dialing it in by ear. It's not something you'd
use in every situation. In fact, you may find you rarely (if ever) need to use
it, but it can be useful in certain situations.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:16:14 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/7/2019 12:29 AM, James Price wrote:
The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Why is this so hard? It can't add something that isn't there, and it
doesn't really even teach you anything that you can use on your own.

It's not that it's so hard. Dialing in a specific tone by ear may
ultimately be more time consuming by comparison. EQ matching is a
time saving tool that's used in very specific circumstances.

It's like not learning how to multiply because you always have a
calculator. Sure, I use a calculator pretty often, but I don't need one
to decide how much I should leave for a tip at a restaurant. I can
decide what percentage of the bill to tip - the equivalent of "the
guitarist's preference" - based on what kind of restaurant it is and how
good the service was. And I can calculate close enough in my head to
calculate 15% or 18% or 20% or decide to leave a $5 bill based on my a
combination of my knowledge and experience.

When you use a calculator, you do so because it saves time. When there's
no time saving advantage, you don't use one. The same applies to EQ
matching. For those who use it, they do so because it saves time and often
produces a more accurate result.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:11:39 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 2:14 PM, James Price wrote:


The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?


That's generally at the guitar (and/or amp/speaker if electric). If you
are trying to make everything sound the same, then that's where to start
and hopefully no significant amounts of EQ needed anyway. And better to
learn it by ear rather than have a tool do your thinking for you.

That is if you want everything to sound the same in the first place ....

I don't follow your logic. How do you figure EQ matching makes everything sound the same with respect to matching the tone of an individual instrument, such as guitar?

[geoff]

On 8/05/2019 2:03 PM, James Price wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:17:40 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 4:29 PM, James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Generally that is what the guitarist does, and he/she complains muchly
if you overly dick with it ! The recorded guitar tone is a decision
between the guitarist and the 'producer' - whoever that entity is in the
particular recording situation.

Agreed, and many guitarists use EQ matching specifically for the purpose mentioned.


None that I've ever met.


My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

I've certainly never felt the need.


If a guitarist wants to replicate a particular tone, EQ matching can simplify
the process. If the tone a guitarist wants can be dialed in by ear, great,
then there's no need to employ EQ matching. However, in situations where a
guitarist wants a specific tone(assuming there are reference tracks for it),
EQ matching can be faster than dialing it in by ear. It's not something you'd
use in every situation. In fact, you may find you rarely (if ever) need to use
it, but it can be useful in certain situations.

Especially great for lazy guitarists, or guitarists who don't know how
to get what they want for themselves I guess...

geoff

[geoff]

On 8/05/2019 2:25 PM, James Price wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:11:39 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 2:14 PM, James Price wrote:


The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?


That's generally at the guitar (and/or amp/speaker if electric). If you
are trying to make everything sound the same, then that's where to start
and hopefully no significant amounts of EQ needed anyway. And better to
learn it by ear rather than have a tool do your thinking for you.

That is if you want everything to sound the same in the first place ....

I don't follow your logic. How do you figure EQ matching makes everything sound the same with respect to matching the tone of an individual instrument, such as guitar?


Everything that you are 'matching' to sound the same, or at least highly
similar. Which is surely the whole point ?

geoff

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:13:02 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 8/05/2019 2:03 PM, James Price wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:17:40 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 4:29 PM, James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Generally that is what the guitarist does, and he/she complains muchly
if you overly dick with it ! The recorded guitar tone is a decision
between the guitarist and the 'producer' - whoever that entity is in the
particular recording situation.

Agreed, and many guitarists use EQ matching specifically for the purpose mentioned.


None that I've ever met.

None that you're aware of anyway, not that that's relevant.

My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

I've certainly never felt the need.

Then what are you basing your opinion on?


If a guitarist wants to replicate a particular tone, EQ matching can simplify
the process. If the tone a guitarist wants can be dialed in by ear, great,
then there's no need to employ EQ matching. However, in situations where a
guitarist wants a specific tone(assuming there are reference tracks for it),
EQ matching can be faster than dialing it in by ear. It's not something you'd
use in every situation. In fact, you may find you rarely (if ever) need to use
it, but it can be useful in certain situations.

Especially great for lazy guitarists, or guitarists who don't know how
to get what they want for themselves I guess...

It's a matter of efficiency, not laziness. Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:14:38 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 8/05/2019 2:25 PM, James Price wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:11:39 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 2:14 PM, James Price wrote:


The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?


That's generally at the guitar (and/or amp/speaker if electric). If you
are trying to make everything sound the same, then that's where to start
and hopefully no significant amounts of EQ needed anyway. And better to
learn it by ear rather than have a tool do your thinking for you.

That is if you want everything to sound the same in the first place ....

I don't follow your logic. How do you figure EQ matching makes everything sound the same with respect to matching the tone of an individual instrument, such as guitar?


Everything that you are 'matching' to sound the same, or at least highly
similar. Which is surely the whole point ?

That didn't answer my question. How does EQ matching make everything
sound the same?

In the case of guitar, EQ matching simply allows a guitarist to copy the
tonal characteristics of a given reference audio signal. In essence, it
allows one to copy / clone the tonal characteristics of a certain reference
signal.

[geoff]

On 8/05/2019 6:52 PM, James Price wrote:


It's a matter of efficiency, not laziness. Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.


Could be a hindrance to ever developing that skill if used exclusively
or excessively.

But whatever works for your guitarist, if you find the thing that makes
everybody involved happy, then go for it I guess.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/7/2019 10:03 PM, James Price wrote:
My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

You're correct. I've never used it. Nor do I work with musicians who
want to "dial in" a specific tone.

Sorry, but I think this is a misguided attack on what isn't really a
problem. If you have a record and you want to get a similar guitar tone
on a project you're working on, how close does it have to be? Why do you
think that a program can do what you can't?

And, if you recorded a song 10 years ago and want to remix it with a new
guitar track with the same tone as the original, maybe that can help,
but if you aren't using the same guitar setup, how can you expect to
match the tone with any tools? And if you are using the same guitar
setup, how hard can it be to get it pretty close - as close as a program
would get it - with the tools you have already?

Save your money and buy a better vocal mic. Or use a free EQ matcher and
use that to get started.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/8/2019 2:52 AM, James Price wrote:
Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 08/05/2019 11:11, Mike Rivers wrote:

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

Sometimes "good enough" is the enemy of excellence, though without your
ability, quick'n'dirty can be a good starting point.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 5:11:40 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 2:52 AM, James Price wrote:
Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

Quite possibly. EQ matching is well suited in the case of a guitarist who has
a specific sound they're interested in replicating and to which they have a
reference track. If you can find a tone that the guitarist or producer agrees
is better than the reference, all the better.
than the reference,

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 5:10:16 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/7/2019 10:03 PM, James Price wrote:
My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

You're correct. I've never used it. Nor do I work with musicians who
want to "dial in" a specific tone.

Sorry, but I think this is a misguided attack on what isn't really a
problem.

I wasn't suggesting that EQ matching necessarily solves a problem. It
simplifies the process of replicating a given tone.

If you have a record and you want to get a similar guitar tone
on a project you're working on, how close does it have to be? Why do you
think that a program can do what you can't?

I never said EQ matching can do something I (or anyone else) can't. You
might very well be able to match the tone of a previous session, however
EQ matching makes it super simple. Sure, if you find it's quicker to match
it by ear, you should do that.

And, if you recorded a song 10 years ago and want to remix it with a new
guitar track with the same tone as the original, maybe that can help,
but if you aren't using the same guitar setup, how can you expect to
match the tone with any tools?

That's precisely the beauty of EQ matching; you can generally match the tone
of a guitar setup that's different from the one you're using so closely that
most people wouldn't bat an eye in a blind test if they didn't know better.

And if you are using the same guitar
setup, how hard can it be to get it pretty close - as close as a program
would get it - with the tools you have already?

Depends on the recording. If you're using the same mic, in the same
position, with the same cab and guitar, the differences may be negligible.

Or use a free EQ matcher and use that to get started.

As far as I know, there aren't any free EQ matching plugins or software,
though there are quite a few with free trials.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 5:11:40 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 2:52 AM, James Price wrote:
Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

Quite possibly. EQ matching is well suited in the case of a guitarist who has
a specific sound they're interested in replicating and to which they have a
reference track. If you can find a tone that the guitarist or producer agrees
is better than the reference, all the better.

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price wrote:

It's a matter of efficiency, not laziness. Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.

I wouldn't want to use EQ if I could help it, I'd move the microphone or
change the amp position or change out the microphone. The better you track,
the more you get the sound in the room and at the mike, the less EQ you need
to get things to work. EQ is a crutch.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/8/2019 1:02 PM, James Price wrote:
EQ matching is well suited in the case of a guitarist who has
a specific sound they're interested in replicating and to which they have a
reference track. If you can find a tone that the guitarist or producer agrees
is better than the reference, all the better.
than the reference,

But wouldn't the first step be to listen to what comes out of the
amplifier and adjust the amp, the guitar, and the playing to get the
sound you want - using your reference track as . . um . . a reference?

Or are we assuming that you're mixing a track that's fully baked, must
be part of the production, and will not be replaced? I'm glad that I
don't have to take jobs like that.

What might be handy along those lines, though, is a tool that identifies
an effect applied to a reference guitar track and helps you to reverse
engineer it. Like, you know it's reverb, but you don't have a good
estimate of the reverb time, initial delay, reflections, damping, etc.
Or if there's delay, what's the delay time or times, or if it's a
chorus, what delay and what modulation. Those are some things where
smarts can be applied wisely. EQ is just frequency response distortion.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/8/2019 1:23 PM, James Price wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that EQ matching necessarily solves a problem. It
simplifies the process of replicating a given tone.

Isn't the problem: "I don't know how the heck they got that tone?"

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:36:30 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:

It's a matter of efficiency, not laziness. Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.

I wouldn't want to use EQ if I could help it, I'd move the microphone or
change the amp position or change out the microphone. The better you track,
the more you get the sound in the room and at the mike, the less EQ you need
to get things to work. EQ is a crutch.

If you don't have to use EQ, don't use it. That said, a calculator is a
crutch, albeit a very useful one.

[david gourley[_4_]]

James Price said...news:5ad95c4f-6e95-4d15-972c-
:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 5:11:40 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 2:52 AM, James Price wrote:
Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a
given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching
software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

Quite possibly. EQ matching is well suited in the case of a guitarist who
has
a specific sound they're interested in replicating and to which they have
a
reference track. If you can find a tone that the guitarist or producer
agrees
is better than the reference, all the better.
than the reference,

AS a guitarist, I use different amps, guitars, and effects (when called
for) for any particular sound, and the rest is down to using favorable
microphones and positioning them.

If you didn't get the right tone the first time, try something else and re-
record it.

Or try re-amping. Anything like that will work better. Sometimes
"efficiency" just does not rock !

david

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus