Help with EQ design frequency choice...

[TRW]

Right so I'm going over a new EQ design and would like some feedback on the features. This isn't commercial (maybe a kit in 1million light years who knows) - it's for me and I know what I'd like, trouble is I've always been bad at making decisions! LOL so could use some discussion from fellow engineers.

What EQs do you have where you wish you could add a freq or feature than you always find lacking?

4-bands

• LF - 6-freqs bell and shelf option
• LMF - sweepable - two Q positions
• HMF - 6-freqs bell and shelf option
• HF - 6 freqs bell and shelf option
• HPF & LPF - single position, either 1st or 2nd order

My picks are:

• LF - 33, 56, 82, 120, 180, 270
• LMF - sweepable from 100 to 2700, Q either 0.8 or 3
• HMF - 820, 1k2, 2k2, 3k3, 4k7, 6k8
• HF - 5k6, 6k8, 8k2, 10k, 16k, 22k
• HPF - 75 1st order
• LPF - 7k5 1st order

What would you change and why?
Thanks Tom

[thenoiseflower]

i'd only say that 7k2 is really a nice option to have. as is 400hz.

for vocals weather im boosting it to trigger a de-esser or boosting it to bring some life back to a de-essed vocal, 7k2 is my best buddy.

For the low band 400 is the right tonic on many many things. I love a dip on the kick at 400, and a push on the bass at the same.

hell looking at the 550b's now, someone had 400 shelved at+ 9db last night. wonder what thats all about, .

Other than those two small things, that looks like a very useful eq.
though is its not too hard, go 2nd order on the HPF... 1st is easier to do if you build it yourself, but second sounds way better in the end.. and maybe a lower point too, being the digital age I like to be able to use a HPF at a pretty low freq. say 38 or 45 AND 75.

[TRW]

Thanks for the reply...

Is that 7k2 on the HMF or HF?

I'm considering making both the HMF and HF bell/shelf switching so you can shelve off at 16k and shelve up at 6k8 on shit that is too zingy etc.

Concerning the 400Hz - I figured the sweepable LMF band would get you there?
Allowing you to say bump up 56Hz on a kick while scooping 400Hz? which is something I do a bunch...

would you rather see a 400Hz on the LF too?

I have another scale for LF which is: 33, 56, 100, 180, 270, 390 - is that better for you?

Personally like having the 82Hz LF option - that is kick central for me.

+9dB at 400 on the 550b! LOL bet that sounded ace... maybe on a really thin trumpet!?

I agree on the 2nd order HPF/LPF... that is one area I still need to decide upon.

Thanks again
Appreciate it.
T

[warhead]

What if you took the LMF variable down below 100hZ?

This way you could filter excess subsonic stuff (using the 33) out of kicks / bass but still boost in that 60 to 80-ish area.

???

Just a thought.

War

[TRW]

Entirely possible - I considered bringing it down.

But am concerned that the 300 degree pot sweep will then cover too much range to be really tuneable. I guess I could do a x3 or x10 switch to alter the range. Easy enough.

Thanks - personally not too worried about bringing down 33 as I'd do that ITB before bringing the track out on to the EQ to boost LF etc ... tracking - I doubt I'd be that ambitious with the EQ LOL!

-T

[thenoiseflower]

Originally Posted by TRW

Thanks for the reply...

Is that 7k2 on the HMF or HF?

I'm considering making both the HMF and HF bell/shelf switching so you can shelve off at 16k and shelve up at 6k8 on shit that is too zingy etc.

Concerning the 400Hz - I figured the sweepable LMF band would get you there?
Allowing you to say bump up 56Hz on a kick while scooping 400Hz? which is something I do a bunch...

would you rather see a 400Hz on the LF too?

I have another scale for LF which is: 33, 56, 100, 180, 270, 390 - is that better for you?

Personally like having the 82Hz LF option - that is kick central for me.

+9dB at 400 on the 550b! LOL bet that sounded ace... maybe on a really thin trumpet!?

I agree on the 2nd order HPF/LPF... that is one area I still need to decide upon.

Thanks again
Appreciate it.
T

7k2 on the HMF

and yeah, the first scale for the LF was better.
I need a HPF that goes low and still have the low band to bell up a bit somewhere near 80-150

But if you do some HPing ITB, thats fine too.

I guess what I was saying is I may use your LF as a chelf to cut at 56 and then The LF band is taken, so Im already into the sweep band for bumping a specific freq, (say 82, or 100) that would be my concern.

what about 38 and an x 2 for 76, instead of 75 on the HPF.

yeah, +9 at 400 - I'm sure it sounded good, but I'm curious what they were doing with it. maybe distorting something?!? I dont know. no other bands are touched. fvckers shoulda zeroed shit, now I gotta know.
400 is just a solid point to have, and having the freq and q vari is great. but having 400 on bell and shelf right there is great too.

but yes, yo have this very well thought out so far.
kinda reminds me of the old neotek desk (series Ie? ) that had one sweepable band, and a buch of fixed freqs on other bands, very practical in use!

[u b k]

i'd like things more dead-on at 4k and 5k, they're so different and hitting in the middle makes me unhappy. generally, when I need to cut it's 4k and when I need to lift it's 5k.

three cheers for 800, incredibly useful to boost on vox and cut on acoustics.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[dwall]

Can someone please explain what the numbers after the "k" mean? 7k2, what is that? Thanks!

[TRW]

k = kilo = 10^3

7k2 = 7.2k = 7200 Hz etc

[TRW]

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

7k2 on the HMF

I wondered about going that high on the HMF... I don't often boost in that region myself unless I use a shelf. To me it was 5-6k for snare etc. But it may be useful to have - you guys got me thinking thanks...

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

I need a HPF that goes low and still have the low band to bell up a bit somewhere near 80-150

Right, I'm also wondering if two HPF/LPF positions would be more useful. Something like 50 and 100 or 450 and 80, with maybe 10k and 6k on the LPF.
It's tough, if I was to make this my ultimate EQ then I'd have to stick 3 positions in on the HPF/LPF... I love the Neve/Calrec 12 or 18dB octave stuff for guitars and keys etc - use that a bunch at mix time.

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

But if you do some HPing ITB, thats fine too.

Its the one thing I like the URS N and UA Cambridge for...

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

I guess what I was saying is I may use your LF as a shelf to cut at 56 and then the LF band is taken, so Im already into the sweep band for bumping a specific freq, (say 82, or 100) that would be my concern.

Fair enough, if you want to pull some 400 as well then that wouldn't be possible, say on a kick. WIth a HPF @ 40/50, bump 82 on the LF and pull whatever you want on the LMF... you could be rocking right?

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

400 is just a solid point to have, and having the freq and q vari is great. but having 400 on bell and shelf right there is great too.

So which LF freq would you sacrifice to get a 400Hz in there?

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

but yes, you have this very well thought out so far.... very practical in use!

Thanks - I'm trying to make it my ultimate shaping EQ.

For the low down, its all discrete, inductor driven except for the LMF sweep, which uses ICs for the resonant section. Transformer in and out. I'm thinking cinemag with nickel cored output. Discrete amps can be most 990 footprint jobs... 2520, 99V, 990C, Avedis etc.

How useful is an output level control for you guys on outboard EQs? It's something lacking on many products but I would find it very useful. Less so when used in conjunction with a console.

-T

[TRW]

Originally Posted by u b k

I'd like things more dead-on at 4k and 5k, they're so different and hitting in the middle makes me unhappy. generally, when I need to cut it's 4k and when I need to lift it's 5k.

Thanks Gregoire I find that also, but was trying to stick with resistor series as it works so well for Neve, my Calrecs etc

- so something like this on the HMF:

820, 1k2, 2k, 3k, 4k, 5k for you?

three cheers for 800, incredibly useful to boost on vox and cut on acoustics.

Thanks - something I find very useful on bass guitar too.

-T

[thenoiseflower]

I'd get rid of 33 on the LF and add another HPF point down there.

then it could be 56, 82, 120, 180, 270,and 390/400

I see what ubk is saying about 4 k and 5 k - don't know what I'd decide there.
the low stuff is more technical, concept and application based, higher freq stuff is more personal aesthetic.

[TRW]

Yeah maybe you're right about starting 56... I doubt I'd use the 33Hz boost much... Pultecs rule down there anyway for me.

Could go 47, 82, 120, 180, 270 and 390 to keep the spacing smooth.

I'm actually leaning towards the original 820, 1k2, 2k2, 3k3, 4k7 and 6k8 on the HMF.

To me it will deal with sibilant regions on both male/female voice (4k7 and 6k8) as well as get high enough to really open a snare etc and low enough to deal with some boxiness.

The bandwidths of those inductor driven freqs will be quite wide so I doubt 7k2 and 6k8 will be all that different, sure they'll sound different but I think I'd forget about it.

Thanks again guys. Where would you like your HPF/LPF points?
T

[TRW]

Also I could trade output level control for more switched HPF/LPF points or something cool like a tilt EQ...

Hmmm
-T

[TRW]

Anyone else?

-T

[u b k]

Originally Posted by TRW

820, 1k2, 2k, 3k, 4k, 5k for you?

yeah, i'm pretty much a round numbers guy, which is why i adore the low band on the 550a. if it had 4k on the mid i'd consider it the perfect eq.

also, i don't ever reach very high on a snare, i use minimal mic'ing and tend to get the majority of the snap from the kit/room mics. i do see what you're saying about the sibilance, but i don't ever use eq for that, i much prefer the lil freq.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[TRW]

Cool man. Thanks.

I'm really hoping Dave Derr's desser for the 500 rack will be killer. I'm pretty tempted by a 500 rack now. Too many cool dynamics on the way. I actually don't use EQ much for sibilant stuff. Dynamic changes are always preferred.

I think I'll do a bunch more listening on this EQ before I commit.
Whats funny though, so many hardware EQs that have 4k, 5k and 6k on the front panel aren't actually centred at 4k, 5k etc. Cap tolerances often push a 4k labelled band to 3k9 or 4k1 etc.

Also so many are interactive and move over pot motion etc.

Thanks again.
Tom

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by TRW

Anyone else?

-T

LF-70 or 75hz instead of 82hz.

Why?

Because it works for kicks.

Also add 12khz to the HF.

Why?

Not as edgy sounding as 10khz(why people prefer the HF boost on the 1073 instead of the 1066).

[Kadden Heart]

Originally Posted by TRW

Yeah maybe you're right about starting 56... I doubt I'd use the 33Hz boost much... Pultecs rule down there anyway for me.

Could go 47, 82, 120, 180, 270 and 390 to keep the spacing smooth.

I'm actually leaning towards the original 820, 1k2, 2k2, 3k3, 4k7 and 6k8 on the HMF.

To me it will deal with sibilant regions on both male/female voice (4k7 and 6k8) as well as get high enough to really open a snare etc and low enough to deal with some boxiness.

The bandwidths of those inductor driven freqs will be quite wide so I doubt 7k2 and 6k8 will be all that different, sure they'll sound different but I think I'd forget about it.

Thanks again guys. Where would you like your HPF/LPF points?
T

disagree, it can be a really nice option for people like me who like some thump down under, especially when i'm cutting some of the other lows and lets the bass ride it. (talking about a kick obviously)

otherwise i really like where you're going so far.

i wish i could create an EQ, that covered it all though,
like,...8 or 10 bands,
hi and lo pass, allowing you to roll to the EXTREMES, two shelfs, that also roll to extreme freqs.
and 4 bell bands, that roll almost all the frequencies for each one, one band can be designed ot cut, the other to boost.
i.e: 50hz-1K, boost. 50hz-1Kcut, 100hz-3K boost. 100hz-3K cut. 500hz-10K boost. 500hz-10K cut.

i know that sounds ridiculous, but i would use that freaking EQ on everything.
and furthermore:
i hear too many harsh high-ends, let's clear up the high end, and let eh low end be more "harmonic distortion-y"

make me one?
:)

[Kadden Heart]

i was talking about plugin format though,...
maybe a little off topic
:/

[TRW]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

LF-70 or 75hz instead of 82hz.

Why?

Because it works for kicks.

Also add 12khz to the HF.

Why?

Not as edgy sounding as 10khz(why people prefer the HF boost on the 1073 instead of the 1066).

Thanks Thrill, you know the first scale I had for LF before I started getting all and started posting was:

33, 50, 75, 100, 160, 220

but could easily make it 50, 75, 100, 180, 270, 390.

I had another for HF, which funnily enough has 12k in it... I agree 12k just opens stuff up. Like it on a Neve style EQ. I've seen you ask for it before on another post here! LOL

HF alternative: 5k6, 6k8, 8k2, 12k, 16k, 24k

Thanks a bunch man. Would tilt or more HPF/LPF be useful to you?
-T

[TRW]

Originally Posted by Kadden Heart

disagree, it can be a really nice option for people like me who like some thump down under, especially when i'm cutting some of the other lows and lets the bass ride it. (talking about a kick obviously)

otherwise i really like where you're going so far :)

Noted. Thanks. I think your EQ idea would need to be an entirely different design to this one! Maybe someone else? LOL

NO PLUGINS HERE!
T

[rob S]

dont know if anyone cares but
another interesting and sometimes useful
eq point is thinking in terms of the key of the song.

E is around 80hz and 160hz
A is 110hz and 220hz.