EQing - The Ol' Boost and Sweep

[stratatonic]

well I actually sat in on a mix session where the engineer automated the HP filter to follow the piano chords. I thought it was rather crazy but had to agree the result was pro.

I never understood internet mixers saying for example something like 'boost around 50 for your bass', but around 50 hz is where g and g# is. So what happens is that those notes would be louder than your other bass notes. uh...
It kinda makes sense to track the notes/chords somewhat with the EQ with automation to keep levels consistent. Still learning. Relearning...

[stratatonic]

Yeah, I like that guide. How hard to put that keyboard on any EQ plugin out there? Over time, you may not even need it anymore...it's just a nice handy reference.

[Peter]

This is something I've been advocating for a long time, that musicians relate more to pitch than frequency. Thinking of the audio spectrum more in terms of octaves and even semitone as opposed to Hertz has always made more sense to me, once I realized there was a direct relationship when EQ'ing.

I often look at a banner image of a keyboard and all of the keys labeled with corresponding frequencies. Everything makes more sense to me from that perspective especially when doing something like tuning/mixing drum samples. That's a whole 'nother topic though methinks.

[avasopht]

Searching what to boost or cut affects your eq decisions, putting you in a completely different mental mode of operation.

[selig]

You're the expert boss. I fail to see how, other than quoting a myth as an opinion, has drawn so much of your attention? I guess that's why they created linear phase EQs (but many would argue that it's a myth as well). Think that's why it's called music theory....no?

So here is something that is completely true. Music sounded so great that man invented equalizers and the use of which has spawned a database worth of opinions/myths/facts/science etc etc. Other than my mention of phase shift, do you find anything wrong with what I suggested?

Now that the thread has become about my opinions maybe it's best to lock the thread or move it to the general discussion board?

To your question. I first learned about subtractive EQ while watching a tutorial on standing bass notes presented by Bob Katz. He suggest turning it down rather than turning everything else up. Then there is Joe Barresi. He was asked about subtractive eq and he said he only turns his eq's to the right and would rather move the mic than turn the eq to the left. Even the greats can disagree (even disagree if either of those guys are truly great or just a part of the vast subjective universe of music)

I didn't see an opinion, I saw a post that made a very specific claim that I knew wasn't true, and I posted a correction. I in no way meant it as an attack on your person, reputation, or knowledge. If it had been posted as a question or opinion, I still would have clarified it so that others can understand how EQ works.

This is not your thread to lock, so unless something else happens I can't see any reason to lock it!

I agree with what you say that Bob Katz says, but only because I take the most simple approach. All other things being equal, IMO it's better to turn one band down than multiple bands up. It's also better to turn one band up rather than multiple bands down as I previously mentioned. This is simply a "use as little processing as required to get the job done" approach on my part, nothing more.

And while it IS subjective to choose whether to boost or to cut, it is ONLY subjective because of the facts that started our conversation: EQ cuts have the same amount of phase shift as EQ boosts. That is to say, you are free to choose which ever you prefer, safe in the knowledge there is no technical difference one way or the other

Generally speaking, while one cannot logically have an "opinion" on physics and scientific fact, one CAN have an opinion on which you approach one prefers. Hopefully I've cleared up the difference between the two?

[selig]

well I actually sat in on a mix session where the engineer automated the HP filter to follow the piano chords. I thought it was rather crazy but had to agree the result was pro.

I never understood internet mixers saying for example something like 'boost around 50 for your bass', but around 50 hz is where g and g# is. So what happens is that those notes would be louder than your other bass notes. uh...
It kinda makes sense to track the notes/chords somewhat with the EQ with automation to keep levels consistent. Still learning. Relearning...

I would think this only makes sense when speaking of broad curves. All they are saying in that context is to center the curve around that general frequency. It would of course be very different if using a narrow boost! Or maybe they are suggesting a low shelf EQ , which would affect a wider area more "equally"?

However, if a narrow boost is required for any reason, this is where a tracking EQ can shine IMO, in that you can move the EQ tuning with the notes played.

[selig]

This is something I've been advocating for a long time, that musicians relate more to pitch than frequency. Thinking of the audio spectrum more in terms of octaves and even semitone as opposed to Hertz has always made more sense to me, once I realized there was a direct relationship when EQ'ing.

I often look at a banner image of a keyboard and all of the keys labeled with corresponding frequencies. Everything makes more sense to me from that perspective especially when doing something like tuning/mixing drum samples. That's a whole 'nother topic though methinks.

The problem for me is that most EQs are not tunable to semitones, which means for certain work you can never land right on the desired pitch.
;(

[selig]

There has to be a better way than using a chart to know what frequency to EQ…
I mean, there SHOULD be a better way…
I mean, I'll shut up now…

Can anybody recommend any good interactive resources on ear training?

Missed this earlier - I've had a lot of fun with Train Your Ears:
https://www.trainyourears.com

They just recently released a v2.0 that has a few new features including a different way to match frequencies (suggested by Bob Katz).

[cosignsessions]

[/quote]However, if a narrow boost is required for any reason, this is where a tracking EQ can shine IMO, in that you can move the EQ tuning with the notes played.
[/quote]

As mentioned, here an EQ that tracks automatically. http://www.soundradix.com/products/surfer-eq/

[selig]

However, if a narrow boost is required for any reason, this is where a tracking EQ can shine IMO, in that you can move the EQ tuning with the notes played.
[/quote]

As mentioned, here an EQ that tracks automatically. http://www.soundradix.com/products/surfer-eq/

[/quote]

Saw this at AES, even reviewed one of their other plugins (Drum Leveler), but the latency is HUGE for this to work correctly, and as such needs a host that can compensate automatically IMO. The pitch detection is great but that's about the only unique attribute to this EQ - you can already achieve the same thing with an EQ in a Combinator FWIW, although with more work upfront. That is to say, it won't give you anything you can't already get, it just gives it to you with less work! Still, has it's place for certain things IMO…

[tibah]

Never worked for me, the boost and sweep until you find a resonance or ringing that is. I found myself overusing this too much, as at a certain gain level it seemed nearly everything was annoying. Nowadays, I also prefer EQs that *kinda* give you *less* ways of even doing that Q levels to do these kind of techniques. Like the EVE bundle or the channel EQ in the SSL mixer versus something like the GQ-7 or even the MClass.

[selig]

Never worked for me, the boost and sweep until you find a resonance or ringing that is. I found myself overusing this too much, as at a certain gain level it seemed nearly everything was annoying. Nowadays, I also prefer EQs that *kinda* give you *less* ways of even doing that Q levels to do these kind of techniques. Like the EVE bundle or the channel EQ in the SSL mixer versus something like the GQ-7 or even the MClass.

Don't know if this will work for you, but next time try only doing the boost/sweep trick after hearing that there's actually a problem - it's great for finding existing issues, but I have had similar experiences to yours where if you're not going after something specific you'll find all sorts of things that aren't really problems in the first place!

[The_G]

I thought the advantage of subtractive EQ was that it imposes self-discipline?

[selig]

I thought the advantage of subtractive EQ was that it imposes self-discipline?

It definitely imposes limitations. Let's say you need a 6 dB one octave boost at 1 kHz - how to best achieve that with subtractive EQ? You'll need to use at least twice the bands as with additive EQ, and it will be much more difficult to know what frequency and gain amounts to use to achieve the same curve. In fact, I'm not even sure you CAN achieve the same curve with subtractive EQ in this simple case, let along more complex cases.

OTOH, if what you need is a 6 dB one octave CUT at 1 kHz, you'd be equally crazy to try to achieve it with boosts. Horses for courses?

[Stranger.]

ΣΣΣ

[The_G]

I thought the advantage of subtractive EQ was that it imposes self-discipline?

It definitely imposes limitations. Let's say you need a 6 dB one octave boost at 1 kHz - how to best achieve that with subtractive EQ? You'll need to use at least twice the bands as with additive EQ, and it will be much more difficult to know what frequency and gain amounts to use to achieve the same curve. In fact, I'm not even sure you CAN achieve the same curve with subtractive EQ in this simple case, let along more complex cases.

OTOH, if what you need is a 6 dB one octave CUT at 1 kHz, you'd be equally crazy to try to achieve it with boosts. Horses for courses?

I use a combination of boosts and cuts, and tend to be fairly conservative with both.

My understanding is that schools and courses teach to be subtractive first not because it's "better," but because there can be an urge to just BOOST BOOST BOOST until you're not really doing EQ work anymore (but just increasing gain).

[selig]

This is not your thread to lock, so unless something else happens I can't see any reason to lock it!

I'm gonna call you out on this selig-a good percentage of threads that have been locked lately, are not even posted by the mod team at all.. I actually think the 'mod team' here needs a kick up the arse,and possibly re-assigning elsewhere -=- Locking threads for no reason other than a personal decision or choice is totally un-acceptable imo.

Now.

Generally speaking, while one cannot logically have an "opinion" on physics and scientific fact, one CAN have an opinion on which you approach one prefers. Hopefully I've cleared up the difference between the two?

This in itself would appear 'illogical'--- surely,as an aged human,you should well know that there is no such thing as a given fact.
All are theories and current socially/laboratory tested-accepted measurements, that can and very much do change accordingly- over course of human histories and by who is observing datas..

The problem for me is that most EQs are not tunable to semitones, which means for certain work you can never land right on the desired pitch.

Again bs,you have limited knowledge in this case,sorry to inform you.

you can already achieve the same thing with an EQ in a Combinator FWIW

^Lol? so,your combinators also now have 7main and 13 auxillary dials?-...is that correct,lord,...selig??

There's so much to quote it would get tedious-quickly... yeah-why not now lock the thread- & satisfy that desire for control guys.
Tired of this.
Tired of seeing how people "instabuy" and still accept upgrades they never asked for-- loyal customers are not being heard it appears-carry on waiting for a combinator 2 yeah?? i don't think so...
Tired of this type of bs also.
Rant has just started,or wait no,it just ended.

Seems we should agree to disagree so we can get back on topic.

[selig]

I thought the advantage of subtractive EQ was that it imposes self-discipline?

It definitely imposes limitations. Let's say you need a 6 dB one octave boost at 1 kHz - how to best achieve that with subtractive EQ? You'll need to use at least twice the bands as with additive EQ, and it will be much more difficult to know what frequency and gain amounts to use to achieve the same curve. In fact, I'm not even sure you CAN achieve the same curve with subtractive EQ in this simple case, let along more complex cases.

OTOH, if what you need is a 6 dB one octave CUT at 1 kHz, you'd be equally crazy to try to achieve it with boosts. Horses for courses?

I use a combination of boosts and cuts, and tend to be fairly conservative with both.

My understanding is that schools and courses teach to be subtractive first not because it's "better," but because there can be an urge to just BOOST BOOST BOOST until you're not really doing EQ work anymore (but just increasing gain).

I prefer to teach the intended goal, but I'm with you that the goal should be a balance of boosts and cuts using the what's best for the particular situation.

[Stranger.]

ΣΣΣ

[selig]

Seems we should agree to disagree so we can get back on topic.

No,i do not agree with that at all.. i was quoting your 'on topic statements' - you choose not to reply adequately-your call i guess gilesselig.
Please,explain...?

OK then, agree to agree, your call.

You spoke of other mods locking threads, which is not on topic. If you have a question about EQ, let's hear it.

[Ostermilk]

This was put forward as an assertion, not an opinion

Cutting the undesirable frequencies has a similar effect and introduces less phase shift artifacts.

...then....

Other than my mention of phase shift, do you find anything wrong with what I suggested?

I've read through the thread and all I can see is that your previous assertion was the ONLY thing that was being pointed out. I can't see where Giles took issue with anything else.

It is a common myth that the same filter will produce something other than the inverse phase shift given opposing cuts or boosts so AFAICS it was correct that particular assertion was called out, no?

If there are any benefits in making cuts rather than boosts, then clearly fewer phase shift artifacts isn't one of them.

[cosignsessions]

Didn't really think I would have to do this but here it goes. The key word in the sentence is 'artifacts'. We are talking about audio. So by cutting the frequency you don't hear the phase shift because it's 'turned down' (not like I have bionic ears and can hear phase shift unless done on purpose to be heard as an effect. I never said phase shift does not occur. I wrote cutting introduces less phase shift 'artifacts'.

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

Not my problem people troll and stick to a few words and not the context.

[The_G]

Maybe everyone be a little more charitable to everyone else, eh?

I have my issues with that too--don't get me wrong. I think it's a disease of online discourse. But hey...let's have fun talking about EQ, right?

[cosignsessions]

If Peter is still tracking this thread (which I doubt....why would he?) Here is a fairly straight forward piece on EQ'ing. https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec08/articles/eq.htm

[selig]

Didn't really think I would have to do this but here it goes. The key word in the sentence is 'artifacts'. We are talking about audio. So by cutting the frequency you don't hear the phase shift because it's 'turned down' (not like I have bionic ears and can hear phase shift unless done on purpose to be heard as an effect. I never said phase shift does not occur. I wrote cutting introduces less phase shift 'artifacts'.

Read it as you wish. Take the word 'artifacts' out and you guys are right and I am wrong. But it is 'logical' that cutting reduces the introduction (to our ears) the 'artifacts' of the phase shift (which I did not state does not occur from cutting).

Not my problem people troll and stick to a few words and not the context.

Hang on now, I wasn't trolling and didn't take your comments out of context in any way - I was completely respectful and civil in every way. You see, I don't know what you KNOW, I only know what you SAY here and I can only reply to what you say. Don't you agree it's a good thing to have these conversations, or would you rather we all just agree with each other? FWIW, I DID agree with most of what you said, something that may have been lost because there was one point where we didn't agree.

To be clear, my ONLY point of disagreement is the general idea that the phase shift used to actually create an EQ curve is an artifact, and the specific idea that there is more phase shift with boosts than cuts!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_artifact
IMO using the word "artifacts" implies there is something undesirable being added such as distortion, crackle, wow/flutter, aliasing, etc. Maybe better to say that when you reduce energy (turn something down), it's less audible, something I've already mentioned early in this thread. It's commonly accepted that narrow cuts are less audible than narrow boosts, which is why many suggest wider boosts than cuts. If my pointing out that phase shift has nothing to do with this phenomenon is seen as "trolling" and "taking words out of context", then what hope is there for an energetic exchange of ideas here?

As far as why some say to cut EQ, another reason is because in the analog world you cut to avoid clipping. If you boost a lot you will eventually run out of headroom in the EQ/channel, in which case you WILL introduce artifacts!

Personally I LOVE these sorts of discussions, talking audio concepts and techniques, comparing notes, and all trying to learn something (even at my age). I sincerely hope you won't shy away from this sort of discussion based on how you feel about my comments!