EQ on Drumbus

[namoclay]

Is it ok to first EQ lets say the kick, clap independed and then again on the kick/clap bus again?
I always send my drumsounds to a buss and than a compressor on it.
So whats the best way to EQ?

[abechap024]

However the F*ck you want to.

Incase you haven't noticed all these "rules" people have when they mix are just made up!

[007]

Originally Posted by namoclay

Is it ok to first EQ lets say the kick, clap independed and then again on the kick/clap bus again?
I always send my drumsounds to a buss and than a compressor on it.
So whats the best way to EQ?

There is no single best way.
There are however, fundamentals, and even those can often get tossed.
The ears always prevail and while we can all hear sound, just learn to listen.

It's ok to do whatever the f**k has to be done to get the right sound.
I myself, try to get all the single drums sounding great with each other before any bussing.
This means eq and comp on the individual tracks.
After that, I buss them to a group, and later, as the mix takes form and gains density, I might eq the buss every so slightly, or compress the crap out of it, who knows, whatever it needs to sit properly with everything else. So yeah, it's ok, it's all ok, it's also ok to do the complete opposite of what I just said, as long as you like what you're hearing.

[manman]

Yes its ok, just gotta make sure you are using at least UAD plugins for equing. Other plugins can make it sound worse.

There is nothing wrong with digital equalizing. it does not degrade quality as long as its high quality DSP processing.

[atma]

Originally Posted by abechap024

However the F*ck you want to.

Incase you haven't noticed all these "rules" people have when they mix are just made up!

indeed!

[Reptil]

yes, that's why music is so interesting.

what you can try is find the key in which this drumkit is tuned.
if atonal, that's also useful information.
next, find the overtones of the sound, it may be a snare, a bassdrum, anything with harmonic content.
by lowering with eq the overtones, or lower the frequency which are not the overtones, you can emphasise different parts of the drumkit, shape it tonally.

You can do this by ear of course, just be careful to limit sweeping: the effects of the sweep cause our brains to focus on that, instead of the frequency: The ear focusses on changing sounds, that's why. You could have a sweep that sounds cool, but actually pick the wrong frequency. So my personal way of working is find the offending frequency I want to cut, stop and listen, boost it, stop and listen, adjust if needed and repeat, then if I'm happy that is the thing that is "in the way", I cut it a little, stop and listen, cut a bit more if needed.. etc. I'm exaggerating a bit to get the point across.

[geminee]

Sometimes it can be useful to do a little notchfiltering on the drumbus, when sum of all drummics cause phase problems, which you cant get rid of by eqing the single tracks.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by geminee

Sometimes it can be useful to do a little notchfiltering on the drumbus, when sum of all drummics cause phase problems, which you cant get rid of by eqing the single tracks.

getting it right at the source is obviously best.
that doesn't work for loops, obviously.

[evosilica]

I would try to eq all drum elements seperatly, but there's no reason why you shouldn't use a drumbus eq, if you want to change the genereal balance of your drum sounds.

Originally Posted by manman

Yes its ok, just gotta make sure you are using at least UAD plugins for equing. Other plugins can make it sound worse.

There is nothing wrong with digital equalizing. it does not degrade quality as long as its high quality DSP processing.

Yes, that's the secret! It's gotta be a dsp based EQ, otherwise it will sound bad.

No, seriously, every stock EQ plugin of your daw is perfectly fine, as long as you know what you're doing. Digital minimum phase EQ is in fact the cleanest way to equalize possible, at least from the technical point of view.
Some people prefer the "dirtier" sound of analog eq's that's why they prefer analog modeled EQs and call it higher quality. Technically such EQs are lower quality because they add distortion and sometimes noise, but they can often sound more interesting.

[offki]

Originally Posted by namoclay

Is it ok to first EQ lets say the kick, clap independed and then again on the kick/clap bus again?
I always send my drumsounds to a buss and than a compressor on it.
So whats the best way to EQ?

It's fine, but if you're boosting by over 6db it might be a problem with something else (levels/source), thats just a general rule for mix eq.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by evosilica

Technically such EQs are lower quality because they add distortion and sometimes noise, but they can often sound more interesting.

I agree wholeheatedly with everything else, but digital eqs are such a different process, I wonder if you can compare the technical aspects.
If you talk about linear eq, yes you got a point; no phase shift. For the rest, they're an emulation of the filtering process of a continuous current of their analogue counterpart, by means of using an algorhythm on data that is a representation of the audio. Including the emulation of the phase shift. A very different process.

While this digital emulation is certainly sounding good now, I'd rather have the analogue counterpart, because it's much cleaner and more precise sounding to my ears at least. IMO they're close but not quite there yet. Digital Weiss equalisers excluded those just sound faultless. These machines scare me. (though I'd never buy one since I'm not a mastering guy)

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with using digital eqs. But I'll not replace my hardware for EQ in the box, cause it grabs and sounds different. Most distortion in analogue gear can be solved by using modern high spec parts: While it's not been a revolution, it's been a quiet but significant evolution.

sorry for the nitpick

[mike vee]

yes its fine but MODERATION in each step is key....i rarely eq drums alone, but i always eq the buss and always eq the 2 bus as well

[W-W-Int]

Originally Posted by namoclay

Is it ok to first EQ lets say the kick, clap independed and then again on the kick/clap bus again?
I always send my drumsounds to a buss and than a compressor on it.
So whats the best way to EQ?

so aside form the "whatever works" philosophy...

i'm gonna say something is off if you eq the 2 elements seperately then when bussed together have to eq again. the first eq should take care of the frequency clashes/balancing. if you find yourself eq'ing again on the buss, eq instead on the seperate eq's on the individual tracks, or drop the seperate eq's and just eq on the bus. the reason being you are just wasting cpu cycles and or degrading the sound of the tracks with the added eq stage.


and always sending all the drums to a single buss then compressing that is a bit of a trap. you will lose dynamics in the drums doing this and you may not need to compress everything.

try bussing the kick seperately (is useful for keyed ducking).
then the toms except the low tom to a buss.
low tom to a buss on it's own.
hats and cymbals to a buss.
snare and cowbell clap etc... on a buss.
buss the kick buss to the low tom buss.
buss the toms and snare, cowbell, clap etc... to a new buss.
buss all these busses to one drum buss adding the cymbals and hats buss to this as well.

now experment with the drum busses and leave the effects off the individual tracks.
you should be able to carve a nitch for the low tom and kick to sound distinct and clear using the kick and low tom buss with some cuts in the eq. on the combined bus if something's too heavy light compression should get you where you need to be.
on the hats buss eq to taste
same for the snare, percussion buss. get that eq'd so everything is sitting well.


and go on down till you have the frequency domain handled with your drums by eq'ing the busses. compression if you need it on those busses with too much presence when the combined elements boost too much. and if something is lacking on another buss boost the overall buss and use light compression again or boost a track feeding the buss for the missing element.


it's a lot of bussing but you can control the sound of the drums with more precision than just eq'ing seperate tracks and compressing the whole of the drums. plus it saves you time as you are eq'ing the elements most likely to clash with each other and if you can't get them to eq on a buss, then you go back to the individual source track and tame it there knowing you are doing it where it needs to be handled.

[evosilica]

Originally Posted by Reptil

If you talk about linear eq, yes you got a point; no phase shift.

Linear Phase is not "clean" at all. The phase response is linear, that's all. Since it's FFT based you have all the problems that come with FFT, window functions, window size, pre ringing .... can mess up the audio in a bad way when not implemented correctly.
Personally i try to not use it for that reason.

Originally Posted by Reptil

For the rest, they're an emulation of the filtering process of a continuous current of their analogue counterpart, by means of using an algorhythm on data that is a representation of the audio. Including the emulation of the phase shift. A very different process.

Min Phase eq is NOT emulating analog! It is simple math ... simple equations. There's no emulation of phase shift either, it's part of the equations.

And while a digital processor can execute this math perfectly, an analog eq can not, because it's components are not ideal.
If analog components would be perfect - if a resistor would be a resitor, and not a resistor + a parasitic capacitor and inductivity - if an inductor would act only like an inductor and not have nonlinearities and so on - then the difference between analog and its digital "emulation" would be virtually zero.

So from that perspective - who is emulating who?
Is digital an oversimplified emulation of analog, or is analog a technically not very accurate way to process filter equations?

Noone is emulating anyone. Both try to behave like a Min Phase Filter! And when it comes to precision - digital wins by far ... when it comes to sound, it's a matter of taste and I agree analog has something pleasing going on

[Dudley]

personally speaking, yes ; i will generally always eq the kick, snare and hat individually, and compress too, in most cases.

1. kicks - if an acoustic kick from a drum rompler, then i will hi-pass filter out the really low stuff, and compress it, then possibly put a low pass filter there depending on what sound i want. I'll often also add tape sat to this individual channel.

2. Snares - i'll very often hipass a bit too, as i like a slightly unnatural 'breaks' sound to my snares. So, then i'll EQ then at around 2khz and probably around 9khz if i want some crisp snap. i may or may not compress it, but i i do, it'll be before the eq.

3. hats - again, i often like to clean up the lower mush with a hpf. i don't often compress them, but will if i'm going for a chunkier sound. then i may boost 1-2khz if i want a scrapy break type of sound, then either roll off some very high end, or boost 8-12khz if i want bright sound.


That process is to get the drum break sounding how i want. in many cases, it may not need much else, bar some gentle buss compression/saturation.
Or, i may want to go totally the other way, and slam it into a limiter like the Abbey road TG limiter, add some UAD tape sat, then run through a colourful EQ.
EQ at this stage will large be used to tie the snare and hi hat together a bit, if that's what i want.


For the above i'm talking largely about acoustic sounding drums. they take work.
If i'm using drum machine samples, i may do virtually nothing.

[offki]

Be aware that different styles of music follow very different EQ guidlines and different EQ's can perform different tasks and will act differently at the same settings.

If you look on the SPL website there's a manual for 'SPL Rangers' which at the end has some great general pointers on what frequencies of a sound may control.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by evosilica

Linear Phase is not "clean" at all. The phase response is linear, that's all. Since it's FFT based you have all the problems that come with FFT, window functions, window size, pre ringing .... can mess up the audio in a bad way when not implemented correctly.
Personally i try to not use it for that reason.

Yes, you are correct.
There are one or two that got it right. (At least it sounds good.)

Originally Posted by evosilica

Min Phase eq is NOT emulating analog! It is simple math ... simple equations. There's no emulation of phase shift either, it's part of the equations.

And while a digital processor can execute this math perfectly, an analog eq can not, because it's components are not ideal.
If analog components would be perfect - if a resistor would be a resitor, and not a resistor + a parasitic capacitor and inductivity - if an inductor would act only like an inductor and not have nonlinearities and so on - then the difference between analog and its digital "emulation" would be virtually zero.

So from that perspective - who is emulating who?
Is digital an oversimplified emulation of analog, or is analog a technically not very accurate way to process filter equations?

Noone is emulating anyone. Both try to behave like a Min Phase Filter! And when it comes to precision - digital wins by far ... when it comes to sound, it's a matter of taste and I agree analog has something pleasing going on

Aah I wasn't clear enough: I meant "For the rest" = the emulations of analogue equalisers. (bit crummy translation of "voor de rest" = dutch) = everything else except the linear eqs.
oh well sorry for the confusion

In case of the non-linear filters (with all the "artefacts" of specific analogue ones) these are two fundamentally different processes, since in different media. the results are emulated not the process itself. That's what I tried to say, but the words didn't quite come out.
now I gather that there is software out there in which actually the seperate components of an analogue circuit are emulated, and so make up the digital eq? if so, that's something else.

[Augsy]

If you are using sample CD's the samples should sound pretty good to begin with. I use the nerve drum sampler, it does not have an individual EQ for each sound only filters, so I do some low/high pass filtering if the sounds need it, as well as some mild soft clipping. Next I usually run an EQ over the whole bus tiding up a bit if needed, most times I just choose good samples to begin with so it is not required. I would also use some parallel compression to add some weight to the drums. I find this to be more useful than downward compression because it will keep your transients in tact. Lastly I add a limiter at the end so if any snares or claps are hitting at the same time as the kick, they are compressed to the same level.

[sftd]

Up until about two days ago I thought parallel comping was gods gift to the drum buss, then the realization punched me hard in the face that too much is simply horrible and will destroy your chances of kick/bass balance

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com App

[Augsy]

Originally Posted by sftd

Up until about two days ago I thought parallel comping was gods gift to the drum buss, then the realization punched me hard in the face that too much is simply horrible and will destroy your chances of kick/bass balance

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com App

yes agreed, if your doing even a 50/50 balance its too much. Usually my un- comped signal is peaking close to 10db higher than the comped.

[3phase]

Originally Posted by namoclay

Is it ok to first EQ lets say the kick, clap independed and then again on the kick/clap bus again?
I always send my drumsounds to a buss and than a compressor on it.
So whats the best way to EQ?

whatever sounds best to you.. before or after the compressor is a total different thing for example.. officially you filter after the dynamics section because the other way around the dynamics might negate your changes .. but sometimes that is just what you want.. But in your case you have the cahnnel eq for that ..So an eq after the buss compression is maybe just what you need to place that group better in the mix...

The only general rule is that less is often more...

[mattg082]

I say eq seperate then send to a buss and then parellel one clean and one squashed. If you want to eq the clean maybe just some slight cuts and boosts to even things out. When eqing parellel I may get creative, but for the clean buss I would look at it as a mastering like clean up job making very slight notches, nothing noticable..just fitting things better as a whole or processing with console emulation, tape, slight distortion ect.

If using full sampled patterns then probably cuts first to fit in the song and any boosts after to sweeten. I don't normally do much to samples, but I never use samples. Most like the vengance stuff and all that are pretty processed already. I mangle the hell out of any full pattern samples.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by mattg082

I say eq seperate then send to a buss and then parellel one clean and one squashed.

If you do that, there's a big chance of phase issues, and bands cancelling each other out. Software does not compensate for the EQ phase shift. So I try to avoid that myself. But everyone has their own methods, I'm just saying.

[007]

Originally Posted by Reptil

If you do that, there's a big chance of phase issues, and bands cancelling each other out. Software does not compensate for the EQ phase shift. So I try to avoid that myself. But everyone has their own methods, I'm just saying.

+ 1.

Which is why I just route the outputs of each drum track directly to a buss instead of a 'send', I've always had phasing issues when doing true parallel ITB, so this other method works quite well for me.

[Chris Luzz]

Originally Posted by 007

+ 1.

Which is why I just route the outputs of each drum track directly to a buss instead of a 'send', I've always had phasing issues when doing true parallel ITB, so this other method works quite well for me.

i do that too but been curious if i been doing this wrong all along but i would basically paralell compress the bus's and not the elements themselves but basically, i would first individually eq and compress each drum part then route the outputs of each part to one bus (the drum bus) which would have a cytomic the glue compressor then on that drum bus, i would insert a send (pre fader) to another bus which i would call the parallel compression bus which would have another cytomic the glue slamming the signal very hard, i then would make the send to unity gain and then use the channel fader on that second bus to mix the signal in? is there anything wrong with this method? i have to admit, i've had phasing issues in projects before but never figured out why so would always scrap the parallel compression but want to make sure i'm doing things right.

btw using logic 8.

[Tarkovsky]

Often EQ on the drumbus makes sense, because you may need the drums tonally darker or brighter compared to the rest of the track.