EQs - are they all that?

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:53 am

This is just a general observation, but it relates to my trials of the demos of SL9000 and Poltec, but is probably applicable to other EQs. So here's the winter deals - i'm hearing all this talk about channel strips and 'that' sound (whatever that is) and i thought i'd give them a go.

So i start fiddling, this is fun, hit a button accidently and WOW! what a sound, punchy, clear - what did i just do? i eventually realised i'd hit the Bypass button and was getting the raw sound with no processing. i couldn't find a setting i liked. This may in part be due to my lack of understanding of these devices, but i do know what EQ is

So this begs the question: what the hell do you use these things for? i tend to use EQ to cut - just a highpass usually to clean up those lows, but rarely use EQ within a mix. Is it a case of picking the right sounds to begin with (which is what i hope i'm doing)? Are EQs really necessary? i've occasionally used GraphEQ but apart from the cutting shelves, that's it.

i feel i'm using an inadequate amount of EQ.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:27 am

wow - exactly my own feelings, experiences, listening...

a 2nd item we have in common

cheers, Tom

Post by **hubird** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:45 am

I use EQs a lot, but mainly to cut lows or highs, to fit the sounds together in a mix.
If I start feeling I need eq for real cutting/boosting, I try to check why the sound is not working in the mix, and change filtersettings or whatever.
But sometimes you need real eq-ing, f.e. when a mix is done and you don't wanne or can't start over, or when the used sample is bad but unique, etc.
But if you need to boost more than a little there definitely is something wrong with earlier choices

Bifop · Post by **Bifop** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:30 am

Appart from cutting hi/low freq, I use eq to shape (acoustic & electronic) sounds in a mix when more than a few tracks are involved. Lets say you have a nice acoustic guitare picking + a fretless bass + strings + 8 backing vocals + a solo sax + lead singer + percs + synth gimmicks, now how do you gonna fit all these in the mix ?
At some point you have to make room for the other tracks, so you can use a little substractive eq (cuts in the mud zone), then you might want to boost some frequencies for the fretless, the vocal etc.... It's when eq comes handy.

Sometimes (especially with acoustic guitar) you'll have one note sounding much louder than others (due to resonance) and you can cut that frequency right where it hurts with a narrow Q. etc....
Some people use a multiband comp for more or less the same result, or other various methods.

As a general rule, less is more, so everything doesn't have to be eq'ed, but a soloed nice sounding instrument doesn't always work in the mix context (eg : too big)...

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:24 am

I think I look at them in a slightly different light to a lot of people. I do sometimes use them in the traditional ways that they're most commonly used, but I see just about any EQ as also being a sculpting tool. Ever since I first tweeked the EQs on a little Spirit rack pack, I've always loved to boost & tweek frequencies. It's a technique that can add a whole new dimension to electronic drum machines or samples. Kicks, snares, claps, percussion & even whole breaks. That's why so many breakbeat samples have that filtering sound, where either the whole break or just certain elements of the break (like a snare) are dynamically being alterred, normally with some boost & a frequency band sweep. I suppose doing such things could be considered as using EQs for special effects, like using a Wah effect. I have to say that Martin's MOVEQ+ excels in this area having highly controllable dynamic capabilities for frequency, quality factor & gain. There's just endless creative possibilities with such a tool. In the past I would set up midi controller manipulations either by recording live midi controller info or by programming ramps etc in Cubase to sweep EQ frequencies on a midi controlable EQ. Obviously not everyone will be interested in doing such things, but I don't think using EQs creatively is confined to electronic & dance music production. in fact, I know for sure that some much more unusual uses of EQs have appeared on many commercial pop, rock & indie albums and on everything from vocals to drums to guitar.

I also use EQs for creating 'a sound', for getting a certain tone on drums, percussion, synth fx (blips, bleeps etc), synth leads, basses. The list goes on.

I'd say that I definately view them as tools with more possibilities than cutting or trimming frequencies in a mix.

firubbi · Post by **firubbi** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:03 am

yes tom, i was really looking for a great eq ... very musical to use on every channel. it would be great if bx ppl can comeup with short version of bx for regular eq

i'll have to try moveeq also...

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:22 am

i was really looking for a great eq ... very musical to use on every channel

Which raises another point. When does an EQ become 'musical'? OK, a vintage or vintage emulating channel will add some coloration, but surely in the digital world a transparent EQ would do what it says on the tin: boost or cut the frequencies you choose with no coloration of the signal.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:53 am

afaik that's only possible with a strictly phase linear eq, which I don't think the Scope based eqs are (due to implementation), but I don't claim to be right on this specific detail... someone more knowledgeable may explain

cheers, Tom

wolf · Post by **wolf** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:17 am

well guys, I'm now about 27 hours on the road, so don't take serious what I'm writing.

1st you need to define what "musical" or "coloring" means.
I always pretend to stress such nomenclatura as anyone means something different by mentioning it.

You'll have to think about what an EQ should and could deliver.
And what makes it easier to use for you ?

Coming back to the intial question:
I use EQs mainly to cut low signals like the others do. This can be done by a lowcut, which i.e. can be combined with a low shelf to get better "connection" to the other sounds floating around.
Other applications are to make a sound fit better to my expectations, i.e. removing disturbing freq. by cutting them with a narrow cut. In contrast to others I think it is ni problem to use extreme settings in this regard.
On a complete mix this is a completely different issue, but even here a narrow Q can do wonders and helps you understand the mix better and finally helps you to fix it.
That said an EQ can also be used temporarily - just to find the culprit.

I could go on endless, but in the end it boils down to the things already mentioned: an EQ is used to fix and/or enhance sound - be it musically or coloring or whatever.

cheers from Cupertino
Wolfgang

Post by **hubird** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:45 am

Heyyyy...you are in Cupertino??
So you are visiting Steve Jobs, to check out the latest details about the new Scope cards that will fit in the PCI-e slots of the new Apple Intel macs?!
That's great news!

(yet it is remarkable guys, our Wolf is a mac specialist at Creamware's...and he's not there for a Portal Software, Symantec, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, or Sun Microsystems...).

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:11 am

Yes, muscially can be defined in 1001 ways.

In the case of MOVEQ+ I define it as:

musically = one (in most cases

)audible thing changes in dependence of another thing in time

music seems in most cases to be sounds reacting on other sounds or thoughts or actions or ... What of those reactions and interactions is recepted as musically depends on the individual listener, but there are some "classical" things too which more or less are independend of the listener (of at least a specific cultural background)...

audible musically = the one thing changing in dependance of the other makes an audible "sense". Something which refers to our hearing manners...
for example: rhythmically = specific aspect of musically = something changing periodically in time

for example: pumping bass: You may like it or not, it's somehow musically...

Martin

P.S. i can't really specifiy a specifical movement manner to be musical or not. In some cases you will like hard changes in other more soft and round movements in the soundcharacter. Musically is in a way the contrary of statically for me, although there may be static elements in some types music...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:43 am

I found your SatEQ prettty good on my groovebox, but a pita on my bass

'musical' in this context is most likely associated with the magazine-producer-interview BS where someone just pops up some metallic box, preferably from Deutsche Rundfunktechnik of the late 60s, and all the parts of the mix just fit magically.

it's one of those myths to keep alive for business sake or to refresh your aura
also required as the ultimate competance button to finish endless discussions
like the fake 'vocalist fader' (recently mentioned) to satisfy the artist's ego

you cannot defend synaesthics

cheers, Tom

firubbi · Post by **firubbi** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:32 am

What I meant to say musical is sweet. Its not wired. What I found is all eqs are sound different form one to another? So its wise to buy the best one(even if it is expensive ) one more thing is it not possible to sound just like great digital mixer(ssl neve)
thanks

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:50 am

You own BX, right?
So it would be really nice to have it compared to the MOVEQ+ MS functionality (using the special ms-insert from MOVamily) - just mentioning the sound (I know BX has some other functions).

I used the BX - demo when it was out and soundwise I have to say... No, I will let you judge on your own

I'm not in the need of marketing MOVEQ+ because I'm not making money with it. Everybody has to decide on his own, which one he likes best.

Martin

firubbi · Post by **firubbi** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:09 am

Thanks MCCYRANO

i'll test your eq.

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:46 am

only a small part of SAT EQ is an EQ.... Its more something like PSY_Q to fatten up drumloops and other sounds, or to distore it in a nice way....

The best really is the insert: try inserting Vinco and play around with the plug-in, you get nice analog compression.

(BTW, I really miss a frequency splitter plug-in like this XOVER tool, but with more than 2 bands...

For example a 3 or 4 band, to place Vinco inside to get different results on different bands...)

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:37 am

If I remember correctly you can take Alfonso's XOVER insert slot and load two more into the inserts, giving you efectively 4-bands (or is that 3? Can't remember). Anyway, It's messy, but it works

It would be nice to have this mutli-band feature in a single device though.

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:06 am

sharc wrote:If I remember correctly you can take Alfonso's XOVER insert slot and load two more into the inserts, giving you efectively 4-bands (or is that 3? Can't remember). Anyway, It's messy, but it works

It would be nice to have this mutli-band feature in a single device though.

jep Sharc,

agreed,
but shouldn`t be a big problem to build something like this with SDK?

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:30 am

Funny somehow...
I worked on one today without reading this

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:33 am

...but it is not that easy ...

I had some tricks in mind to avoid that phase things, but no chance in an 8 band version. Nah.... i forgot one thing I should have done, but that will not be the easy way to build it with my new knowledge...