would this only apply if the tracking were stereo, right, and not dual mono? Or mono tracks?

This video is for beginners who are just learning about EQ. Basic concepts (Sound, frequency, frequency bands, 0dB, instruments...) are explained.

here is the link

YouTube

Graphic eq are of tremendous help. Blindly Sweeping is good for resonances. But sometimes there are very vague problems that need like measly 1-2dB of reduction to fix, and it's impossible to figure out by sweeping the range where something is wrong without looking at the graph... Later when your ears are trained it's less of a problem but for a beginner FabFilter stuff is invaluable.

Great video.
I watched it cos you can never know too much or know everything.
After watching this I ended up going down the rabbithole and watching two trevor horn videos on the breakdown of Yes's "owner of a lonely heart", followed by a 1 hour 20 minute talk with Bob Power, so I picked up some great tips. Every day's a school day

I have parametric equalizers on my Tascam 4 track cassette. They sound different compared to graphic equalizers.

How about artificial hangover or resonance circuits? You could make circuits like this using transistors.

https://od.lk/s/OV8xNjI2OTYxNDRf/Rad...1-Hangover.pdf

https://od.lk/s/OV8xNjI2OTYxNDJf/Aud...lementbass.pdf

https://od.lk/s/OV8xNjI2OTYxNDNf/Aud...-23-VarRes.PDF



https://od.lk/s/OV8xNjI2OTYxNDZf/Aud...assFig5-BW.jpg

https://od.lk/s/OV8xNjI2OTYxNDVf/Var...e_EQ_schem.jpg

I purchased an 8200. I got luckey and found a mint one for $3,000. One of the best EQ's ever. He designed or at least speced that unit I don't know all of it's history. It defined the term perametric EQ. My most used piece of outboard.

RIP. One of the great audio engineers of all time.

Thanks for the share Matt. Question for you though.

Is there an easier way to find peaks to cut besides the boosting method and using your ears. On my Parametric EQ I have 7 knobs, I leave the 1st knob and 7th knob to add warmth to the low end and high end like the video mentioned. It's very time consuming to find all peaks and I seem to be using all 5 knobs (knobs 2-6 on my EQ) every single time. Sounds great... just looking for a more efficient/faster way to get things done as I'm lazy.

I get the feeling that if you have to constantly reach for 5 or more parametric bands to notch out peaks then something is up with the sounds you're working with... or your monitoring... or we just have 'different' ideas of what things should sound like.

It's not that I've never used that many bands, I have, but it's in all reasonable scenarios an exception, not a general thing...

I know it's annoying, but we're supposed to listen to whatever it is that you create, not look at it or measure it. Sometimes peaks sound 'right'. You'll know that by listening to it. So, use your ears I think.

PS: Some EQs include a spectral display overlaid on top of the EQ graph. That typically helps as long as the spectral curve response is timed to your liking.

I didn't read all the post so, if this has already been suggested - it's cause it's true -

1. Close your eyes. Great way to EQ.

2. Follow Kush Audio on YouTube Watch the Electra vid. Clariphonic too.

3. Read manuals of brands you love. Again Kush puts out some good ****.

4. Check for blogs on the brands you love.

5. Presets help.

Happy recording

I was listening to this on my crappy Logitech computer speakers (easy - I'm a newbie). I couldn't really hear any of this **** he was talking about while he was making all those adjustments. I went ahead and put on my headphones (sony mdr7506) and listened again and couldn't believe how drastically different the listen was. I suddenly could hear all the changes he was making and it was amazing. Are there exercises I can do to train my ears to pick out specific frequencies like he did? I hope that makes sense =-)

Rodney

First, get some better more neutral accurate headphones. Most are not, by a long shot. Second, open up any decent EQ plugin on a full range track and start sweeping through the frequencies with the gain boosted about 6dB with a Q of somewhere around 2 and notice what you hear. You'll get the hang of it pretty quickly.

Thanks for responding. Are there any entry level headphones that won't break the budget? I really don't have a lot to spend and am trying to get a basic setup for simple recording at home. If you have time would you take a look and let me know what you suggest as far as what direction to go with my limited budget?

Here is the link to my post:
Advice - Which interface should I get?

I'm planning on using Reaper unless someone convinces me otherwise. Do you know if it has a decent EQ plugin?

How do I know if a track is full range?

Is the Q the slope of the curve when boosting/cutting?

Rodney

There are apps and websites for ear training.

Awesome! Can you or anyone else recommend one (especially if it's free)?

Rodney

The best "affordable" cans that I know of are the Denon AH-D2000 available only used for around $200.

Full range means that it has sounds through the entire frequency range from low bass through highs. Most relatively full arrangements will cover that ground.

Any DAW will include an EQ plugin that will do what I described. Yes, the Q is the slope of the curve. Use a bell curve boost so you're boosting only a relatively narrow range at a time while you're sweeping slowly through the frequencies.

Thanks for the advice. I can't afford new headphones right now, but I'll add it to my wish list for future purchases to consider. Once I find a good deal on a used interface I'm going to get into Cakewalk and start playing around with the EQ exercise you mentioned.

Rodney

It'll be even more obvious if you boost 12dB instead of 6. After you get a feel for it, you can boost only 3dB and listen for the difference. That or less will be more likely the typical range that you'll be using to adjust. Boosting just highlights the frequency for identification. Often, cutting is a bit more common than boosting, but it can be useful to boost first to find the offending frequency that you want to cut. You may also want to experiment with low cuts aka High Pass Filter to reduce mud and clarify a track. Even Bass can sometimes benefit from a very low HPF. Also, a very high shelf boost at 20k, or higher if you are using a high sampling rate, can be useful in adding air and texture to female vocal, fiddle or flute, without adding to the sibilance or grit range which is a bit lower around 8k.

These are just some starting points to experiment with once you are in the saddle with your DAW of choice.

BTW, your Sonys are not the best, but they're not the worst, by any means.

Awesome! Thanks for the advice. I don't have an interface yet so I can't record anything on my own. Could I just load a random song into a track and practice on that or would it need to be raw, unaltered tracks?

Rodney

You're welcome! As I had said, a full range track as in a whole band can work. In actual practice, you will more likely be doing it in individual tracks, but for practice, something that exhibits all frequencies is best. You can even practice on pink noise if you want, but it'll be more meaningful on music.

Another thing that can be helpful down the line is to purchase an EQ that has a realtime frequency display such as FabFilter ProQ that shows you what you are hearing. You'll notice that there is usually a surprising amount of useless low bass rumbling below the actual notes of a singer or acoustic guitar that can be gotten rid of with a HPF to good effect. You can usually choose the steepness of the filter. I usually prefer a first order or 6dB per octave HPF which is the most gentle and consequently the most natural sounding.

Golden Ears by Dave Moulton Labs

This is the "gold" standard for audio ear training for sound engineers. Several university level engineering programs use it (Berklee College of Music is one of them) and A LOT of well known mixing and mastering engineers swear by it.

It's boring as hell... but if you follow the workbook and the audio and you practice it... it really works. It works incredibly well, actually.