The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
If you could really EQ a softsynth well...
Old 19th September 2011
  #31
ehhm no
look at this


then look at this


then imagine a filter reducing dB at the low end for instance.
you will see that there's still ±60 db is at 50 Hz while the cutoff frequency of that highpass is ±90 db at 80 Hz (the frequency dailed in)
so there's low frequency information below 80 Hz.
this gets picked up by the second equaliser (in series) in your example.
Old 19th September 2011
  #32
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
ehhm no
look at this


then look at this


then imagine a filter reducing dB at the low end for instance.
you will see that there's still ±60 db is at 50 Hz while the cutoff frequency of that highpass is ±90 db at 80 Hz (the frequency dailed in)
so there's low frequency information below 80 Hz.
this gets picked up by the second equaliser (in series) in your example.
ok so say in a low pass filter at 150Hz how much frequencies above the cutoff would be picked up by the second equaliser? I'm guessing not much say about to 180Hz? i know about two pole, 4 pole how steep the frequencies over the cutoff decrease in volume.
Old 19th September 2011
  #33
Lives for gear
 
metrosonus's Avatar
 

my two cents is the raw sound has to impress the hell out of me. Then the filter & effects. If the oscillators can't do it, why do you think anything else could help it?

True, it's all subjective, but by finding a synth i liked and by by passing the onboards and using "outboard" compression, limiting and EQ, I've made VSTs sound as nice as hardware.
Old 19th September 2011
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivid435 View Post
ok so say in a low pass filter at 150Hz how much frequencies above the cutoff would be picked up by the second equaliser? I'm guessing not much say about to 180Hz? i know about two pole, 4 pole how steep the frequencies over the cutoff decrease in volume.
how much?
that depends on what audio you are filtering (pink noise?)
and on the slope (how many poles) 6 dB 12 dB 24 db is common in analogue audio (digital is a bit different) yes, and the Q (resonance).
Old 19th September 2011
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by StringBean View Post
Do you think that if you could EQ a softsynth really well you could basically make it sound as fat as hardware?
To your surpise, the answer is yes. But not the single softsynth, the whole mix will sound fat in the end, when you compress and EQ correctly. Of course, adding saturation is essential in some situations, too. The limiter adds up to fatness. Just don't worry. You can also make things fatter by stacking sounds and playing unisono, using chorus the right way etc.
Old 19th September 2011
  #36
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeProducer View Post
To your surpise, the answer is yes. But not the single softsynth, the whole mix will sound fat in the end, when you compress and EQ correctly. Of course, adding saturation is essential in some situations, too. The limiter adds up to fatness. Just don't worry. You can also make things fatter by stacking sounds and playing unisono, using chorus the right way etc.
Do you have any insight on EQ techniques that work well for you using softsynths? I'm talking broad here, I think I am now sufficiently shamed into knowing that garbage in will always be garbage out. But let's say I have a pretty solid sound and I wanna beef it up, what frequency ranges are good to target? Also, what is "saturation" and how would I go about trying to add some to my sounds?
Old 19th September 2011
  #37
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringBean View Post
Also, what is "saturation" and how would I go about trying to add some to my sounds?
Saturation, drive, distortion: all similar things. It's when amplification means that the shape of the waveform changes; a sinewave gets flattened tops, saw waves get sagging ramps, etc.
Old 19th September 2011
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by StringBean View Post
Do you have any insight on EQ techniques that work well for you using softsynths? I'm talking broad here, I think I am now sufficiently shamed into knowing that garbage in will always be garbage out. But let's say I have a pretty solid sound and I wanna beef it up, what frequency ranges are good to target? Also, what is "saturation" and how would I go about trying to add some to my sounds?
I am not sure if that is the right approach. I never go this way.

Ok, I am using some good sounding source, like Synthix or Arturia Prophet or just the Logic ES 1. I may add some effects to get a fatter sound. For drums, Decapitator will fatten up a snare etc.

Some synths are not well EQed, for example some from native instruments. Sometimes kind of thin in the low mids (250 Hz). There are no rules in general. EQ what you hear would be required to complete the spectrum.

Try to make things sounding clean and separated, well distinguishable. Then each element has the chance to sound "fat", because you can clearly hear it. Then, in the mastering stage, the track gains additional power using the limiter. More density is also achieved with a summing compression before.

Also use subgroups ... to compress or/and limit the drums on the drum buss. In this way the peaks are rounded off and sound more like one mass, leaving more headroom for the rest of the synths. Try to stack sounds and compress them on a separate subgroup channel until they glue well together. If there are level fluctuations arising from phase cancellation, these are flattened with the compressor. Don't forget to slightly detune.

Having said that, I almost never feel the need to intentionally fatten things up. It happens automatically during mixing and mastering, unless you want a really fat lead sound or whatever.
Old 20th September 2011
  #39
Lives for gear
 

How about re-phrasing the question like this: "If you had to choose between spending 4k on analog EQs or analog synths what would make the most difference?". "Fat" and "hardware" are too vague.

Honestly, analog EQs are great and they can help (me, at least) make anything sound better (if used correctly) digital or analog, hardware or software.

I would say they are massively underrated compared to synths, which I buy mostly on interface and creative possibilities because if those two needs are met I'm confident I can make anything sound "fat". My perspective is if something doesn't sound "fat" it's a problem with your sound design.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump