Surgical Analog EQ
Ruairi
Verified Member
#31
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Thanks Simon, will look into those options.
IUnknown
Thread Starter
#32
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #32
Gear maniac
 
IUnknown's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruairi View Post
"Narrow Q, boost, sweep around, then notch"
What is wrong with that approach, besides the room equalisation?
#33
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #33
Try Equilibrium in FIR mode with the highest impulse length setting. I use Equilibrium often and just tried this on a master the other day. My jaw dropped a lil' bit at how smooth it sounded. Pretty impressive shit.
Quote
5
#34
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #34
Gear maniac
 

Surgical cuts only Digital, only Phase-Linear (except under ~200Hz) and only with Algorithmix. In the bass region with the Algo Blue, higher Frequ. with Algo Orange.

I do not like phase shift with "normal" Eq´s for that task and the EQ itself should not make "sound" for this kind of work.
Quote
1
Ruairi
Verified Member
#35
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUnknown View Post
What is wrong with that approach, besides the room equalisation?
Hearing adapts very quickly to excess energy at certain frequencies, subjecting ourselves to say +10dB at various frequencies even for 20 seconds can really effect perception. Do that a few times and I have to take a break, I lose complete track of what's right.

Boosting and sweeping around in mastering is much like soloing the hi-hat in mixing, sure you might have "fixed" a problem but what about the song? It takes a little more practice but I recommend listening to the whole track. Make gentle cuts or boosts while listening to the whole track, and access your choices in the context of the big picture.

Roll a chorus and cut half a dB on whatever you are working on, listen to the song, how does it feel? The whole song? Often when we focus intently on removing a resonance for example we lose track of the fact that we are damaging something more important like the vocal...
Quote
1
#36
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #36
Gear maniac
 

That´s why we use Dynamic-Eq´s or also DAW´s where you can put FX on a simple cutted part of the song
Ruairi
Verified Member
#37
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Sure, I'm using both on a track I'm printing as I type. Not sure what it has to do with sweeping around though?
#38
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #38
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by engmix View Post
plugin by Wholegrain Digital Systems. Don't let the old school looks fool you. All of the power in this thing went under the hood, and it's flexibility is uber deep
Required quite some time to really get a hold on this plugin but I am now pleased I put that time in as it's one of the most flexible and natural sounding plugins. It doesn't get the praise and mention it deserves, likely due to Quartet starting out as a soundBlade exclusive and so it may not be as widely known.

Quartet/Trio and the SonicMEQ are the two plugins I always turn to, everything else really is just fluff.

cheers,
Reynaud
#39
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by reynaud View Post
Required quite some time to really get a hold on this plugin but I am now pleased I put that time in as it's one of the most flexible and natural sounding plugins. It doesn't get the praise and mention it deserves, likely due to Quartet starting out as a soundBlade exclusive and so it may not be as widely known.

Quartet/Trio and the SonicMEQ are the two plugins I always turn to, everything else really is just fluff.

cheers,
Reynaud
Without a doubt the dynamics sections are a bit of a learning curve. Be prepared for some manual reading. I don't know about everything else being fluff, but the dynPEQ is a powerhouse.

I had a mix where there was a lot of open space where the vocal was on its own, and there was a fair bit of hiss in the very high frequency range pumping in and out around the vocal. It was amazing how well it dynamically and gracefully attenuated the hiss with pretty much no alteration to the perceived top end of the vocal.

I want to love Equilibrium, it can yield excellent eq results, but when I tried it I felt like I was using Nebula. The cpu load for high impulse rendering was just insane. Made it impossible to A/B with and without, and the delay introduced is highly irritating. Maybe when used in other daw's it's fine, but in SoundBlade, not so good.
Ruairi
Verified Member
#40
13th June 2014
Old 13th June 2014
  #40
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by engmix View Post
I want to love Equilibrium, it can yield excellent eq results, but when I tried it I felt like I was using Nebula. The cpu load for high impulse rendering was just insane. Made it impossible to A/B with and without, and the delay introduced is highly irritating. Maybe when used in other daw's it's fine, but in SoundBlade, not so good.
I ignore the FIR mode completely, it's just a great IIR eq.
Quote
1
#41
14th June 2014
Old 14th June 2014
  #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruairi View Post
I ignore the FIR mode completely, it's just a great IIR eq.
It's a great IIR EQ for sure. Super clean. I definitely don't ignore the FIR mode though. Again, set the impulse length on the highest setting when you're working on one stereo track, i.e. a master. Don't slap it on your 2-buss and try that shit, your machine will age 10 years. I have no trouble running it on its highest settings as a single ITB mastering EQ, with one audio file open.
Ruairi
Verified Member
#42
14th June 2014
Old 14th June 2014
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
FWIW I ignore the FIR mode for sonic reasons, not performance.
#43
14th June 2014
Old 14th June 2014
  #43
Gear maniac
 
Giuseppe Zaccaria's Avatar
 

eq

ARREL Audio: ML-116

ARREL Audio: ML-117

Sound the same .. one is continuos variable the other is modular and all stepped knobs

Not famous around globe,but trust me that it can beat the top brand in terms of clean operation
#44
15th June 2014
Old 15th June 2014
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Huntley Miller's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruairi View Post
I really dislike the concept of "surgical" eq, all to often people are eqing the sound of their speakers or room resonances rather than the music. It's incredibly rare for the Q on any band of eq I use to go above 1.
Exactly.
#45
16th June 2014
Old 16th June 2014
  #45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirochandler View Post
That´s why we use Dynamic-Eq´s or also DAW´s where you can put FX on a simple cutted part of the song
+1

If it sounds good, it IS good.

sometimes to much superficial knowledge destroy the intuitive approach.
so learn to use this very technical tools again and again, till you can use them intuitive.

sometimes dynamic notches can improve a mix dramatically, but sometimes a simple static dip on a analog eq sounds more organic and "muisical".

it's sounds so noble to give the advice "make just gentle broad equalisations", but sometimes "demage control" is the key & my experience is, that most mastering engineers are really bad, when the have to fix a shitty mix... that's a own discipline
Quote
2
#46
16th June 2014
Old 16th June 2014
  #46
Lives for gear
 
polybonk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
that most mastering engineers are really bad, when the have to fix a shitty mix... that's a own discipline
+1 on that!
Ruairi
Verified Member
#47
16th June 2014
Old 16th June 2014
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
it's sounds so noble to give the advice "make just gentle broad equalisations", but sometimes "demage control" is the key & my experience is, that most mastering engineers are really bad, when the have to fix a shitty mix... that's a own discipline
I'm not trying to appear noble or zen in some way, just trying to pass on some of the experience gained having engineered for 20 years and mastering for 10. I've spent many many thousands of hours eqing badly mixed records and my conclusion is that narrow cuts and boosts are the solution far less often than most magazines/plug in manufacturers and forum posts would have you believe.

Again for EDM/Electronica almost anything goes but for music with organic elements I find the above to be true.
Quote
1
lowland
Verified Member
#48
16th June 2014
Old 16th June 2014
  #48
Lives for gear
 
lowland's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruairi View Post
I've spent many many thousands of hours eqing badly mixed records and my conclusion is that narrow cuts and boosts are the solution far less often than most magazines/plug in manufacturers and forum posts would have you believe.
For me this goes with the use of multiband compressors, reverb, parallel compression and MS manipulation: all these things can have their uses, but contrary to popular belief tend to be used by long-serving MEs occasionally, if at all, rather than habitually.
Quote
2
#49
16th June 2014
Old 16th June 2014
  #49
Lives for gear
 
polybonk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruairi View Post
I'm not trying to appear noble or zen in some way, just trying to pass on some of the experience gained having engineered for 20 years and mastering for 10. I've spent many many thousands of hours eqing badly mixed records and my conclusion is that narrow cuts and boosts are the solution far less often than most magazines/plug in manufacturers and forum posts would have you believe.

Again for EDM/Electronica almost anything goes but for music with organic elements I find the above to be true.
10 years mastering full time will result in some high levels of theata brainwave control though. I recon you could probably give most zen monks a run for there money Ruairi.

I find I tend to be well into your camp when it comes to mastering. I very find it vary rare to use narrow Q even in EDM. Almost all broad strokes here.

I am eying off the Charter Oak eq for more of this kind of option. I know its drifting off topic but anyone use one of these? Opinions?

Here is a vid showing how useful (its) wide Q can be.

CharterOak PEQ1 - EQ on Full Mix Video Demo - YouTube

If you ever need sharp Q work I would recommend the DMG Equilibrium myself.
Quote
1
#50
16th June 2014
Old 16th June 2014
  #50
Gear maniac
 

I often seen big open eyes of clients when they heard their mixes after very special controlled surgical EQ´ing.

I believe the most natural thing you can do is to use Dyn-EQ´s in M/S and also EQ only on simple problematic parts of the song. A lot of clients ask me "How do you made those great correction on a simple stereo-file?"

Then I must laugh and in the next second I wonder that also good engineers don´t know this simple tricks.
Quote
2
#51
16th June 2014
Old 16th June 2014
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruairi View Post
I'm not trying to appear noble or zen in some way, just trying to pass on some of the experience gained having engineered for 20 years and mastering for 10. I've spent many many thousands of hours eqing badly mixed records and my conclusion is that narrow cuts and boosts are the solution far less often than most magazines/plug in manufacturers and forum posts would have you believe.

Again for EDM/Electronica almost anything goes but for music with organic elements I find the above to be true.
my 20 years as a mastering engineer still didn't brought me the holy grail of sound treatment who works all the time ;-)

your'e right, edm is often less delicate about heavy treatments & for shure, narrow boosts sounds nearly all the time shitty.
but my daily experience is, that the source tell me, what i have to do & there are no rules who work all the time.
narrow, often dynamic cuts, are a part of my toolset. broad analog bells and shelfs too.
music is changing, aesthetics are changing, new posibilitys arise, we should stay open minded & at the same time trusting our senses & follow our intuition
Quote
4
#52
30th June 2014
Old 30th June 2014
  #52
Lives for gear
 
api2500's Avatar
SPL PassEQ?
#53
30th June 2014
Old 30th June 2014
  #53
Lives for gear
 
archfrenemy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by api2500 View Post
SPL PassEQ?
I clicked on the thread just to see if you recommended the API2500.
#54
30th June 2014
Old 30th June 2014
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by api2500 View Post
SPL PassEQ?
A lovely and very useful EQ but not surgical at all. The high mid cut is fairly narrow but that's about it.
dave-G
Verified Member
#55
1st July 2014
Old 1st July 2014
  #55
Lives for gear
 
dave-G's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocratic Mastering View Post
A lovely and very useful EQ but not surgical at all. The high mid cut is fairly narrow but that's about it.
Agreed. The high-mid boost is a little bit narrow, too. I don't use that band often, and/or have occasionally wished it were wider, but it can be useful at the edge of an adjacent band's broader curve ..

It can end up being a fairly unique approach to EQ, but it's about as surgical as a serving spoon.
#56
1st July 2014
Old 1st July 2014
  #56
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
No, it's not. What you're experiencing is the typical side-effect of phase distortion: It increases the max peak! Most filters not only change the frequency magnitude, they also delay certain frequencies in time, which in turn can stack up with regard to max peak.

btw, I think that 96dB/oct is unreasonably steep for most music tasks. No analogue EQ does this, for good reasons.
Hi Fabien

Can you explain phase distortion a little further please. this anomaly has always intrigued and confused me somewhat. try and use small words as I'm a simple man.
#57
1st July 2014
Old 1st July 2014
  #57
Lives for gear
 
FabienTDR's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundroid View Post
Hi Fabien

Can you explain phase distortion a little further please. this anomaly has always intrigued and confused me somewhat. try and use small words as I'm a simple man.
First of all, realize that this is not an anomaly. This is just the normal way nature filters the frequency response of whatever source, no matter if these are reflections from a wall or a blanket covering a loudspeaker.

Mix two sine waves at the same frequency, both peaking at -6dB. If possible, re-create it in your favourite audio editor.

In the normal case, both sines will perfectly stack up to 0dB.

You're probably aware that inverting the phase of either sine will totally cancel out both signals, silence.

Now, observe what happens as soon you shift one of both channels in time: Depending on the delay, the original sine will be recreated at an arbitrary level ranging from -infinity dB to +6 dB. That is, the simple time shift directly controls the output level of the original sine. Much like an amplifier would do.

Do you follow me? The delayed copy of whatever single frequency (a sine-wave) gives direct access to the amplitude of that specific frequency.

This is essentially how typical audio filters work. They delay the signal at certain frequencies and mix that signal back to the original. Usually with feedback.

Say, a filter has to reduce 10Hz by 6dB. The wavelength of 10Hz is 100ms. To achieve -6dB at that frequency, the filter will have to "copy" the original 10Hz sine and delay it by 25ms in order to half the amplitude (see experiment above).
Quote
2
#58
1st July 2014
Old 1st July 2014
  #58
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
First of all, realize that this is not an anomaly. This is just the normal way nature filters the frequency response of whatever source, no matter if these are reflections from a wall or a blanket covering a loudspeaker.

Say, you have a mix two sine waves at the same frequency peaking at -6dB. If possible, re-create it in your favourite audio editor.

In the normal case, both sines will perfectly stack up to 0dB.

You're probably aware that inverting the phase of either sine will totally cancel out both signals, silence.

Now, observe what happens as soon you shift one of both channels in time: Depending on the delay, the original sine will be recreated at an arbitrary level ranging from -infinity dB to +6 dB. That is, the simple time shift directly controls the output level of the original sine. Much like an amplifier would do.

Do you follow me? The delayed copy of whatever single frequency (a sine-wave) gives direct access to the amplitude of that specific frequency.

This is essentially how typical audio filters work. They delay the signal at certain frequencies and mix that signal back to the original. Usually with feedback.

Say, a filter has to reduce 20Hz by 6dB. The wavelength of 10Hz is 100ms. To achieve -6dB at that frequency, the filter will have to "copy" the original 10Hz sine and delay it by 25ms in order to half the amplitude (see experiment above).
thanks so much for explaining that. Does using a Linear Phase eq make the problem any less prominent?
Joe_caithness
Verified Member
#59
1st July 2014
Old 1st July 2014
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundroid View Post
thanks so much for explaining that. Does using a Linear Phase eq make the problem any less prominent?
The answer is: sometimes. LP can sound weird as hell, but can also sound completely transparent, it really depends on the frequency and transient content of the program.

I have only just discovered an EQ I feel comfortable doing actual "surgical" cuts with an it's the DMG like most people seem to say, it really is a giant leap in digital EQ technology.
#60
1st July 2014
Old 1st July 2014
  #60
Flux Epure also does surgical very well. TBH Epure does basically anything extremely well.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.