Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ged Leitch Are you mainly *Correcting* or *Shaping* perhaps both ( which is what I do BTW) |
Hello Ged -
I tend to go for Correcting (notching) problem (overly resonant) freqs first, possibly these:
Giant Lows @ 50 or 73Hz, HPF @ 21Hz, or whatever is needed.
Boomy upper bass @ 120-180Hz
Muddy lo-mid @ 240Hz
Honky vocal mids @ 620Hz
Edgy guitars & vocals @ 2.8k
Harsh hi-hats & tambourines @ 7-8k
Vocal sibilance @ 6-10k (use a de-esser here)
usually EQ these pre-compression, maybe even pre-DAC.
Then Additive or "Shaping" EQ possibly these:
add a little air @ 21k bell
a touch of presence @ 3-4k
some vocal warmth @ 350 or 420Hz
a bit of punch @ 62 or 90Hz
sometimes pre-comp, sometimes post-comp... whatever the music requires.
Also tend to use tighter Qs for corrective (esp mid EQ) cuts (except for LF roll-off),
Wider Qs for Shaping EQ.
I think that's what you're asking for Ged, of course these freqs are just general examples, may or may not apply to any given situation (insert standard disclaimer here).
About a year ago I posted a similar thread on BBs forum: "EQ: Boost more -or- Cut more ?", got some really intestesting replies, some parodying the query, & eventually the thread devolved into a discussion of "what kind of car do you drive" & lug nut installation.
But Mike Fossenkemper really grokked it with:
"I think it's more of a question of how you hear something. some people listen to something and say to themselves, I think it needs
more of this or that. Others listen and think it needs
less of this or that. "
I tend to Cut problem freqs first for Correction, and then Boost or "fill in the holes" for Shaping and Enhancement.
Cheers JT