34 replies to this topic

[Synaecide]

Yo Cheyne.. ya get around to making that?

PS. this has one of the better EQ guides i've seen. awesomely detailed!

[rhythmboy]

Quote

hey chene see if you can make it electronic music related more

every eq chart you see is all acoustic instruments and stuff, wheres the synth lead guide, and the synth bass guides?? you never see em..leads me to think no-ones bothered

to me the above one (which ironically i suggested!)  aint all the usefull, cept maybe the kick and snare, and occasionally the guitar or piano

Hey Luke I think you'll find two reasons for not much synth action in EQ charts:

1) you're right, most of the charts are from the 70's when most instruments being recorded were acoustic or electric, rather than electronic. A lot of the recommendations come from experienced engineers passing on their acquired knowledge from previous recordings.

2) synths have a totally different range of spectra to acoustic instruments. Acoustic instruments already have a distinct spectral 'blueprint' that is generally common to instruments within that family (with subtle variations of course). They also have a limited note range, piano being the largest. This makes it reasonably easy to make predefined judegment calls about what EQ's will work or not.

To the average listener, a tenor sax sounds like a tenor sax, whether it's an expensive Selmer or a cheap Yamaha. Only experienced sax players would tell the difference, and even then it's subtle. They can't deny it still sounds like a sax - just a good one or bad one.

Synths can go all the way from below 20Hz to above 20kHz, can be played on a MIDI note range a couple of octaves wider than a piano, and can theoretically create any sound you can imagine. Problem with this is - what then is the spectral blueprint? What commonalities are there so we can make blanket statements about EQ? It's much much harder because there are so many options and variables.

I could, for example, offer an EQ quide for 'Moog Bass'. But is this with a real Moog, a sample of a Moog, or a replica/emulation of a Moog by another synth? I also have a sample library with about 10 kinds of Moog Bass. So which one does my EQ guide work for then -the subby one, the dirty one or the clicky one? See the problem?

Then think of all those swirling pads in something like Spectrasonics Atmospheres... how the hell do you do an EQ guide for them?

[Jay Parker]

Fuck you make me think too much. I have far too much other work i should be doing instead of thinking about this shit....


Damn soundpunk... :bang:

























;D

[TankF]

this guide mentions boosting a lot but i read somewhere that its not good to boost with eqs, only cut because it can cause masking. was the author speaking shit? if not, anyone have any tips to avoid masking when boosting eqs?

[Synaecide]

Quote

this guide mentions boosting a lot but i read somewhere that its not good to boost with eqs, only cut because it can cause masking. was the author speaking shit? if not, anyone have any tips to avoid masking when boosting eqs?

i've heard this tip a lot.. and a lot of people swear by it - i think it might be one of those things that people talk about, but don't always do. i've read multiple explainations of it, but it still doesn't make much sense to me.

[Vagrant Producer]

I have heard the cut rule and try to stick to it unless I am using eq more as an effect to alter the sound(not that I am fantastic with my eq's)...

[rhythmboy]

Quote

this guide mentions boosting a lot but i read somewhere that its not good to boost with eqs, only cut because it can cause masking. was the author speaking shit? if not, anyone have any tips to avoid masking when boosting eqs?

There's no hard rule, but in general there is good argument for the cut vs boost idea.

'Masking' occurs when two or more sounds are heard together. If one of the sounds is sufficiently loud, it will affect your ability to hear the other (kind of drown it out). A simple example is watching TV while a heater is running or a kettle boils (happens all the time in my little flat) - the noise of the heater/kettle makes you instinctively reach for the remote and turn up the TV. The noise has masked the TV. Another example is when you you have trouble talking to someone in a loud club or pub - the music is masking your voice.

Another feature of masking is that it is frequency dependant - sounds of similar frequency will mask each other more effectively than those with very different freq's. Time and other factors come into play, but too complicated to get into here

The argument against boosting EQ is that you are effectively making a sound louder in certain frequencies - this in turn has the potential to mask similar frequencies in another sound. This reduces your ability to hear it, and you'll instinctively go and turn up that other sound. This in turn masks something else... you run around chasing your tail turning everything up and up until the whole mix is overloading.

The argument for cutting EQ is that by making the sound quieter in certain frequencies, you actually reduce the masking effect and you'll reveal more of other sounds, making them easier to hear. The result is you may not need to change the levels at all, as you are already hearing things just fine.

[TankF]

oh nice, i get it now. thanks!

[Synaecide]

Quote

There's no hard rule, but in general there is good argument for the cut vs boost idea.

'Masking' occurs when two or more sounds are heard together. If one of the sounds is sufficiently loud, it will affect your ability to hear the other (kind of drown it out). A simple example is watching TV while a heater is running or a kettle boils (happens all the time in my little flat) - the noise of the heater/kettle makes you instinctively reach for the remote and turn up the TV. The noise has masked the TV. Another example is when you you have trouble talking to someone in a loud club or pub - the music is masking your voice.

Another feature of masking is that it is frequency dependant - sounds of similar frequency will mask each other more effectively than those with very different freq's. Time and other factors come into play, but too complicated to get into here

The argument against boosting EQ is that you are effectively making a sound louder in certain frequencies - this in turn has the potential to mask similar frequencies in another sound. This reduces your ability to hear it, and you'll instinctively go and turn up that other sound. This in turn masks something else... you run around chasing your tail turning everything up and up until the whole mix is overloading.

The argument for cutting EQ is that by making the sound quieter in certain frequencies, you actually reduce the masking effect and you'll reveal more of other sounds, making them easier to hear. The result is you may not need to change the levels at all, as you are already hearing things just fine.

that makes sense.. if you make sure the sounds you're introducing are kept tight to only the frequencies they need to be - then you won't be chasing your tail trying to fit things in the mix. this is what i do when producing tunes, is this what you're talking about? if it is, i'm glad i'm doing the right thing!

ie. take the bottom-end out of lead synths, guitars, and your highs out of your basses etc. (removing unnecessary frequencies).

someone's post on another forum read that using the 'cut' method, one must dip the frequencies either side of the frequency they wish to boost.. this really didn't make much sense to me.

[dylab]

where the instruments sit in the whole EQ thing
http://www.independe...ain_display.htm

[MegaHertz9]

To cut or not to cut!

Another helpful equalization chart that describes sound characteristics by frequency. EG a "muddy" sound suggests too much signal in the 200-800 hz range. PDF format.

http://vs840.vjam.net/eqterms.pdf

[Its Too Loud]

love this guide, great reference's for the noobs that walk thru my building thinking they know it all. props man! this made my day.

[freak-guitar]

Nice guide. I have a couple of others as references, but not as in depth as this one! Another to add to the list. Thanks!

[Ashtala]

Thanks a lot

[BOOGA DIGGA]

Heres a good graphic representation of equalisation for trance...
http://www.trancepro...n.com/technique
http://www.trancepro...alization1.html
http://www.trancepro...alization2.html
http://www.trancepro...trancekick.html

Real good referance for eq with electronic music...