The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Which frequencies you need in mastering equalizer? Equalisers (HW)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #1
Here for the gear
 
Mysticman's Avatar
Which frequencies you need in mastering equalizer?

For example you have 4 band equalizer with 12 stepped knobs to choose frequencies.
Which frequencies would you like to see on these knobs?

Example:

35, 50, 70, 90, 120, 140, 160, 180, 190, 220, 250, 300.

200, 270, 320, 370, 420, 500, 600, 700, 900, 1100, 1300, 1500.

1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000, 4500, 5000.

4200, 4700, 5200, 5600, 6000, 6500, 7000, 8000, 10000, 12000, 15000, 20000
Old 3 weeks ago
  #2
I always quite liked the Maselec approach, with essentially two "low" bands and two "high" bands, each with different frequencies but in the same range. I'm not sure that approach is quite practical with only 12 steps, though.

I do think it's useful to have some overlap below 100hz - I often wish my Barry Porter low-mid band went lower than 100.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
Your example frequencies would be acceptable if the overall sound of the EQ and the shape of EQ curves worked for me. I hate to be “that guy”, but the question doesn’t have much to do with how I choose EQs. Are the end bands shelving, or switchable to shelving? Are there LP filters and do those have frequency selection? I wouldn’t buy an EQ because I liked the selection of frequencies, although I have sometimes wanted different or additional frequencies on EQs I like.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #4
Here for the gear
 
Mysticman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman View Post
Are the end bands shelving, or switchable to shelving? Are there LP filters and do those have frequency selection?
Ok, let's that hypothetical EQ has the end bands switchable to shelving. And we also have HP and LP filters with frequency selection.
Which frequencies would you prefer in this version?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
What are your Q options? That will help decide frequency overlaps and spacing.

I would like to see more overlap between bands. Something like:

Band 1: 20 - 300
Band 2: 60 - 1k
Band 3: 400 - 4k
Band 4: 2k - 25k

Spacing needs to be thought about from a logarithmic perspective. Wider Qs work with wider spacing and fewer steps. Narrow Qs need narrow spacing and more steps. In your example, on band 4 you don't need 6k AND 6k5. There's barely a difference between the two. Spread them out. This will give you some room to work and an actual audible difference between adjacent centers.

I have three four band EQs. The Barry Porter Q goes down to about 0.7 and up to about 4 with 12 steps per band. The Sontec has higher Qs with 24 steps so it can be a bit more surgical. The A&M/Davelizer is fixed at something like 0.5-0.7 so it's a broad brush with wide frequency spacing and a lot of overlap. Different tools for different jobs. Not to mention they each have their own sound...

When I build an EQ I think about band range first and then model the controls. This helps me understand if the steps are well placed. Then build it up and test each frequency center with pink noise to see if the model agrees with the build. Don't make the labels until you know the actual, as-built frequency centers.

Last edited by Greg Reierson; 3 weeks ago at 09:35 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
knif soma
the perfect balance of versatility and manageability - exactly enough possibilities to do what you want and not get lost.

Knifaudio

if it's supposed to be surgical:

maselec mea-2
Maselec MEA-2 Home Page
Old 3 weeks ago
  #7
Here for the gear
 
Mysticman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
knif soma
the perfect balance of versatility and manageability - exactly enough possibilities to do what you want and not get lost.
Thank you! Those EQs are very good examples! I'll keep it in mind.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #8
Here for the gear
 
Mysticman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson View Post
What are your Q options? That will help decide frequency overlaps and spacing.
I would like to see more overlap between bands.
Thank you for your comment! It was very useful!
Yes I'm planning to build my own EQ. There will be proportional Q. And the question is how many steps do I need in frequency section?
Now I see that I need much more steps. At least 20 or even more.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Paul Gold's Avatar
 

Verified Member
My T Filter EQ is four band with 11 frequency selections per band. No overlap between bands. FWIW. Q covers the available range in five steps. Gain +/-3dB in 11 steps.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Gold View Post
My T Filter EQ is four band with 11 frequency selections per band. No overlap between bands. FWIW. Q covers the available range in five steps. Gain +/-3dB in 11 steps.
reduced to the max!

i like devices that don't just simply offer everything, but where you can tell that the builder had a vision
Old 3 weeks ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Paul Gold's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I've been building my console for about twelve years now with two and a half year break. I've started back up. I saved the most complicated builds for the end. The EQ's have the most controls. Since they are four channel units for lacquer cutting there is a lot to stuff into a chassis. Two four channel units for a total of eight channels.

I've been thinking about the builds for years and have refined what I want and what I don't want. I attempted to build a Barry Porter EQ about seven years ago but wasn't happy with it. I knew I needed more experience before I would be happy with the build.

I started tweaking out the T filter EQ with pots about a month ago. I have ten channels and figured I would destroy two in process of tweaking everything out. I figured right. I got the gain range where I wanted it. Made sure the frequency ranges would work for me. Then I worked on the sound with different capacitor and op amp types. I'm very happy with the sound now.

There were a lot of mechanical issues that had to be worked out for a clean build. I'm a nut for ergonomics and serviceability. Now I'm assembling the final units. There is a lot of custom metal work involved that will make it easy to service.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 
gyraf's Avatar
 

There is no simple rule-of-thumb for deciding on fixed eq frequencies. Too many things interacting.

You need to build the actual eq, then let a number of competent engineers try it, noting their use and response. Then change and have it tried again.

After a number of iterations you hopefully have something that all your engineers agree about, and THAT is the answer for your specific eq..

Just don't expect to get there from a theoretical point of view.

And don't expect the numbers you arrive at to be usable for any other eq design - they won't be.

Jakob E.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Paul Gold's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by gyraf View Post
You need to build the actual eq, then let a number of competent engineers try it, noting their use and response. Then change and have it tried again.
What kind of observations and feedback would you expect and how would you interpret the information to make changes?
Old 1 week ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
gyraf's Avatar
 

Ideally I'd start out having no freq markings, and ask for a wishlist of upward/downward tuning (usually as pencil markings on faceplate). After implementing the openly wished-for, I'd observe (either directly or via logging pots/switches), what frequencies/Qs are used IRL, and when engineer tends to move to next-band - this gives some information on ideal overlap ranges for that particular use case. Then make a new version based on following this use-case, and run procedure again..

Procedure variations apply - but my feeling is that you always need to iron out the major user interface problems first in order to get detailed and usable information about ranges etc.

Jakob E.
Old 1 week ago
  #15
Here for the gear
 
Mysticman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gyraf View Post
Procedure variations apply - but my feeling is that you always need to iron out the major user interface problems first in order to get detailed and usable information about ranges etc.

Jakob E.
Thank you Jakob for reply!
It leads me to rethink many things in building EQ.
Old 1 week ago
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I like the ones GM and Burgess chose for the Sontec 432.

but if it’s something super specific i need to notch for instance,

i’ll go digital ITB for surgical procedures.

cheers, JT
Old 1 week ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Paul Gold's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysticman View Post
Thank you Jakob for reply!
It leads me to rethink many things in building EQ.
If the EQ is only for you there is only one customer to please. My EQ is +/-3dB with no overlap of bands. That would never make it to a commercial product but is good for me.

I started out with pots and made sure everything would work for me. I just chose frequencies spaced out to be useful to me within my ranges. I have no idea whether 1500hz or 1505hz is a magic frequency. That doesn’t concern me too much.
Old 1 week ago
  #18
Here for the gear
 
Mysticman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Gold View Post
If the EQ is only for you there is only one customer to please.
Yes, the EQ I build is only for my purposes.
At this time I've stuck at choosing frequencies and the number of bands. But now I see the way I should go more clear.
Thank you Paul!

Last edited by Mysticman; 1 week ago at 05:57 PM.. Reason: Deleted a couple of words.
Old 1 week ago
  #19
Lives for gear
 
XAXAU's Avatar
 

For me a Pultec with a bell in the bass with bandwidth and instead of the low pass a boost with shelf down to 1k
Old 1 week ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
audioforce's Avatar
 

Kind of a “crazy” question, imo. No offense intended. People hear differently, you know. So trying to get real specific with answering is perhaps inherently problematic.


Best,

audioforce
Old 1 week ago
  #21
Here for the gear
 
Mysticman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioforce View Post
People hear differently, you know.
You are right, sound is a very subjective thing. And I do really understand that my question is quite "crazy". Just wanted to hear some opinions.

Thanks!
Topic:
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
amit monga / So much gear, so little time
0
batepesho / Mastering forum
10
carlos269 / Mastering forum
7

Forum Jump
Forum Jump