[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 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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 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.

[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

[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 2:25 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 12:14:38 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.