Subtractive or Additive EQ?
- Plat
- Push Comes to Shove
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:54 pm
- Instruments: teeth and other bones
- Recording Method: cubase, native instruments, waves, izotope, ears
- Submitting as: The Cow Exchange, Eat It 'n' Mattress
- Location: Green Bay, WI
- Contact:
Subtractive or Additive EQ?
I keep reading that I'm supposed to cut frequencies, but it's so tempting to just boost a yummy one.
Home stereo systems don't count.
Home stereo systems don't count.
-
- Push Comes to Shove
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:36 pm
- Instruments: Guitar
- Recording Method: Cubase/Stenberg CI2+/Roland VG-99/RolandGR-55
- Submitting as: stueym
- Location: Lebanon, TN
- Contact:
I suck cos "more is better" and "red onez go fassstaaaa!" so additive is the answer...always
Its a nasty habit and one I am trying to kick so I was reading about Har-Bal's Harmonic Balancing program (see here). ANyone else heard of this. Sound on Sound gave it a very nice review and although I have only used it on one track so far, it was pretty good at takin my normally pretty woody sounding mix and making it sound more....commercial is the only word I can use.
Any other Har-Bal izers out there?
Its a nasty habit and one I am trying to kick so I was reading about Har-Bal's Harmonic Balancing program (see here). ANyone else heard of this. Sound on Sound gave it a very nice review and although I have only used it on one track so far, it was pretty good at takin my normally pretty woody sounding mix and making it sound more....commercial is the only word I can use.
Any other Har-Bal izers out there?
"You know, I rather like this God fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that."
- Adam!
- Ice Cream Man
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:10 am
- Instruments: Drum 'n' Bass (but not THAT Drum 'n' Bass)
- Recording Method: Reaper + Stock Plugins
- Submitting as: Max Bombast
- Pronouns: he/him
- Location: Victoria, BC, AwesomeLand
- Contact:
I basically only use additive EQ to get weird effects or to boost the fundamental of a thin instrument. Otherwise, it's all low/hi passes and shelves. And BBE. Always BBE.
As for Har-Bal, I'm terrified of auto-mastering programs. My mastering process is probably similar to what it does, only very manual. I guess I also tend to use one wide EQ boost for the mids when mastering, to compensate for my monitors.
As for Har-Bal, I'm terrified of auto-mastering programs. My mastering process is probably similar to what it does, only very manual. I guess I also tend to use one wide EQ boost for the mids when mastering, to compensate for my monitors.
-
- Beat It
- Posts: 5316
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:14 pm
- Instruments: Synths
- Recording Method: Windows computer, Acid, Synths etc.
- Submitting as: Heuristics Inc. (duh) + collabs
- Pronouns: he/him
- Location: Maryland USA
- Contact:
Puce, your mastering rocks, so stick with the manual method.
I picked 75% but it's more like 90%. I only use the additive for effect. I cut to make room in a mix or whatever.
-bill
I picked 75% but it's more like 90%. I only use the additive for effect. I cut to make room in a mix or whatever.
-bill
152612141617123326211316121416172329292119162316331829382412351416132117152332252921
http://heuristicsinc.com
Liner Notes
SF Lyric Ideas
http://heuristicsinc.com
Liner Notes
SF Lyric Ideas
Mostly the same as Puce, for me. Except I always need some kind of high EQ boost on piano. But otherwise, it's roll-offs and notches. Depending on the arrangement, I usually bus all the non-bass instruments, and roll them off below ~120Hz.
Something to consider: Boosting a specific frequency is the same as cutting the rest and turning the level up ... So it's always possible to accomplish what you want with subtractive EQ.Plat wrote:but it's so tempting to just boost a yummy one.
Hometracked: Tips for better home recordings
- Adam!
- Ice Cream Man
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:10 am
- Instruments: Drum 'n' Bass (but not THAT Drum 'n' Bass)
- Recording Method: Reaper + Stock Plugins
- Submitting as: Max Bombast
- Pronouns: he/him
- Location: Victoria, BC, AwesomeLand
- Contact:
Not really. Most EQs have fixed Q widths for their high and low shelves, making it impossible / extremely difficult to simulate a boost with a non-standard Q using just subtraction. Also, it will take two cuts to simulate one boost; if you're worried about artifacts like phase shift this is a step in the wrong direction.deshead wrote:Something to consider: Boosting a specific frequency is the same as cutting the rest and turning the level up ... So it's always possible to accomplish what you want with subtractive EQ.Plat wrote:but it's so tempting to just boost a yummy one.
Ya, I agree Puce. I was mostly giving Plat some (poorly worded) food for thought. I'm not sure if most folks realize "subtractive EQ" doesn't have to mean "taking something away from the sound."
Stueym, I've played with Har-Bal, but I have a hard time committing to the advice it gives, propbably 'cause I've read so many "mix with your ears not your eyes" admonitions. I'm always more comfortable with a final result I arrived at by A/B'ing my mix against a commercial reference.
Tangentially related, here's Bob Katz's CD Honor Roll, and John Vestman's list of reference CDs: http://www.johnvestman.com/commercial_cds.htm .. Well mixed and mastered stuff to use for the aforementioned A/B'ing
Stueym, I've played with Har-Bal, but I have a hard time committing to the advice it gives, propbably 'cause I've read so many "mix with your ears not your eyes" admonitions. I'm always more comfortable with a final result I arrived at by A/B'ing my mix against a commercial reference.
Tangentially related, here's Bob Katz's CD Honor Roll, and John Vestman's list of reference CDs: http://www.johnvestman.com/commercial_cds.htm .. Well mixed and mastered stuff to use for the aforementioned A/B'ing
Hometracked: Tips for better home recordings
- Plat
- Push Comes to Shove
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:54 pm
- Instruments: teeth and other bones
- Recording Method: cubase, native instruments, waves, izotope, ears
- Submitting as: The Cow Exchange, Eat It 'n' Mattress
- Location: Green Bay, WI
- Contact:
I'm probably missing something stupid here... how does the phase shift come into play? I remember reading something about when you boost frequencies (or maybe change EQ in general) you're introducing some sort of phase or delay in the chain.Puce wrote:if you're worried about artifacts like phase shift this is a step in the wrong direction.
Is this an issue with software EQ'ing? If so, how does the phase shift get introduced?
- Adam!
- Ice Cream Man
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:10 am
- Instruments: Drum 'n' Bass (but not THAT Drum 'n' Bass)
- Recording Method: Reaper + Stock Plugins
- Submitting as: Max Bombast
- Pronouns: he/him
- Location: Victoria, BC, AwesomeLand
- Contact:
Phase shifting is at the very heart of how an EQ works. EQs take the incoming signal, delay it a certain amount, and then mix it back in with the original signal. This produces a phase shift that will cancel out certain frequencies. The more of the delayed signal you mix back in, the more pronounced the frequency attenuation (technically speaking I'm describing a comb filter here; EQs use allpass filters instead, which are similar but harder to explain. The theory is basically the same).
To work through an example, if you want to cut the 5 khz band by 3 db, you'll want to use a 100 microsecond delay, which is just the right amount to produce a phase shift of 180 degrees at 5000 hz. If we mixed these two out-of-phase signals together at equal volumes the 5khz band would be completely cancelled out; to get just 3 db of attenuation we'd mix in the shifted signal at only 1/8th strength.
The result is a) frequencies near 5khz are shifted partially out of phase, and b) a tiny, quiet echo is introduced to the whole signal. At the microsecond level it is utterly impossible to hear the delay itself, but repeated EQing can compound it, causing a sort of "smearing" that sounds indistinct and phasey, and can wreck havoc on the signal's transients.
All good EQs will use some tricks to reduce the artifacts produced by the process. Also, there are some EQs that do phase compensation to avoid the artifacts altogether, but these always have a certain amount of built-in delay, which can make them impractical for anything other than mastering.
Math!
To work through an example, if you want to cut the 5 khz band by 3 db, you'll want to use a 100 microsecond delay, which is just the right amount to produce a phase shift of 180 degrees at 5000 hz. If we mixed these two out-of-phase signals together at equal volumes the 5khz band would be completely cancelled out; to get just 3 db of attenuation we'd mix in the shifted signal at only 1/8th strength.
The result is a) frequencies near 5khz are shifted partially out of phase, and b) a tiny, quiet echo is introduced to the whole signal. At the microsecond level it is utterly impossible to hear the delay itself, but repeated EQing can compound it, causing a sort of "smearing" that sounds indistinct and phasey, and can wreck havoc on the signal's transients.
All good EQs will use some tricks to reduce the artifacts produced by the process. Also, there are some EQs that do phase compensation to avoid the artifacts altogether, but these always have a certain amount of built-in delay, which can make them impractical for anything other than mastering.
Math!
-
- Somebody Get Me A Doctor
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:17 pm
- Location: Phila-smells like piss even in winter-delphia
- Contact:
I like to boost the QE2 whilst filtering out the excess "stalfos" frequencies. Depending on the sound I am going for, I also try to amplify the freshkes, but only up to one three-hundredth of the QE2 variable, unless I am going for a "Cher" sound, then I reverse everything and pass it all through the lower quadrant of the mandingo filter. I have all this worked out on my talking graphing calculator, which features the voice of St. Elsewhere star/hybrid car enthusiast Ed Begley Jr.
Aren't you the guy that hit me in the eye?
It's a neat program. I use it for visualization, though not actually in final mixes anywhere. It basically shows you how and where your mix differs from a typical "commercial" production (or whatever reference mix you want to use).stueym wrote:so I was reading about Har-Bal's Harmonic Balancing program (see here). ANyone else heard of this. Sound on Sound gave it a very nice review and although I have only used it on one track so far, it was pretty good at takin my normally pretty woody sounding mix and making it sound more....commercial is the only word I can use.
Any other Har-Bal izers out there?
I wouldn't call it "automatic mastering." It is just a parametric EQ with a very useful interface. Deshead's point about mixing with your ears is good but you shouldn't neglect your other senses either. Using your eyes can help get you where you want to go more efficiently sometimes.
-
- Push Comes to Shove
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:36 pm
- Instruments: Guitar
- Recording Method: Cubase/Stenberg CI2+/Roland VG-99/RolandGR-55
- Submitting as: stueym
- Location: Lebanon, TN
- Contact:
Thanks Ben...I think it will help me as my ears apparently suckbzl wrote:It's a neat program. I use it for visualization, though not actually in final mixes anywhere. It basically shows you how and where your mix differs from a typical "commercial" production (or whatever reference mix you want to use).stueym wrote:so I was reading about Har-Bal's Harmonic Balancing program (see here). ANyone else heard of this. Sound on Sound gave it a very nice review and although I have only used it on one track so far, it was pretty good at takin my normally pretty woody sounding mix and making it sound more....commercial is the only word I can use.
Any other Har-Bal izers out there?
I wouldn't call it "automatic mastering." It is just a parametric EQ with a very useful interface. Deshead's point about mixing with your ears is good but you shouldn't neglect your other senses either. Using your eyes can help get you where you want to go more efficiently sometimes.
"You know, I rather like this God fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that."
- Bjam
- Ice Cream Man
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:24 pm
- Instruments: Singin', Guitarin', Mandolinin'
- Location: Atlanta, GA
When you record, don't let your levels(the pretty green-yellow-orange-red bars) go into the red. That means it'll clip, because it's way too loud and horrible sounding. Turn stuff down basically. (And now someone will come along with technical skillz and describe it exactly.)
Songfighter since back in the day.
- Plat
- Push Comes to Shove
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:54 pm
- Instruments: teeth and other bones
- Recording Method: cubase, native instruments, waves, izotope, ears
- Submitting as: The Cow Exchange, Eat It 'n' Mattress
- Location: Green Bay, WI
- Contact:
Wheeee!Bjam wrote:(And now someone will come along with a misquote and schmuckily suggest to search for "clipping" in the "Help and How To" thread.)Jolly Roger wrote:Clipping!
- mc3p0
- Somebody Get Me A Doctor
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:14 pm
- Location: PDX OR US
- Contact:
I do everything with massive compression, close to stereo - but not too distinct, almost no realistic EQ, filter by hand on the fly and entirely with headphones. Viola, my bitches! Do these things and you will have a Cheap Bastards-sounding mix. The red lines mean RIPE!
"The toot of a flute with the flavour of fruit!" - Caractacus Potts, 1968