Smart EQ plugins

[Bob Womack]

Agreeing with Kev,

In order to become a recording engineer/producer I spent a lot of time training my ears. In fact, forty years later I am still training my ears. If you want to do your own recording, I am the guy who you are competing against. If you want to compete, you need the right tools, and that means skills, not toys. Virtually all the automatic tools I've tried can only get you part the way there, even when operated by a skilled operator. One of your best tools in learning is comparison. Does anyone here remember Tom Scholz of Boston? Tom started out with no knowledge but, as a mechanical engineer, a lot of analytical skill. Tom bought a real time analyzer and played sounds he liked through it. He would snapshot the sound and then take a polaroid picture of it. Then he'd set up his own sound and compare the reference signal to his own via the RTA. Now, eventually the record company brought in a producer, John Boyland, who taught Tom how to record and mix.

These days we have EQ plugs that can offer some of the same training to an analytical mind. These combine a comprehensive parametric EQ with a real time analyzer display and place the EQ curve and the RTA display together on the same screen. See a peak, move the EQ center to its center, set the Q to its width, and adjust the gain to eliminate it. The latest editions of the Waves Rennaissance EQs, for example, offer this. I can look at a vocal track, spot the capsule resonances, and take care of the most significant ones easily.

The same is true of room resonances. While a trained ear gets you close, the RTA dials things in far more precisely. Once you get your skills up on basic EQ you can try dynamic EQ which is perfect for eliminating room resonances.

So, my suggestion is to invest in developing your skills. In his Third Law, futurist Arthur C. Clarke stated, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Florence Ambrose developed his idea: "Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." And there is a further correlate of it: "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science." We spent hours analyzing guitar woods, construction, etc. Perhaps, if we are going to take on acoustic recording, we should study enough to distinguish between science, magic, and art, and learn to intelligently manipulate as much of it as we can.

Bob

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Actually all kidding aside, that idea ("use your ears" ) is exactly the point,, AND it very definitely does help, and is (Arguably) the only consistent, reliable path to actually learning "Critical Listening" (which is by the way is 90% +,,an intentional learned skill, and result of experience and time spent and maybe 10% natural hearing ability)
The notion that some algorithm can circumvent the required time (and intention) that it takes to learn that skill, is a false hope, and was part what Aloha Chris was referring too, with the "generation robbed " comment .

Now make no mistake I often start with a preset and go from there, as Doug mentioned.

And no doubt auditioning presets is also valuable and viable time spent.

But that does not change the fact that taking the time to practice and learn to listen critically,, will be the single most valuable endeavor and accomplishment you will undertake to record and mix better.
In other words try to "enjoy the journey" as per my sig, rather than the just the result .

I know in our fast food, instant gratification, world many people do not want to hear it BUT,,,,, as far as "limited time" consider what an old horse "whisperer" / trainer once said to me , when I complained about finding the time.

"We can almost always find the time for things that are "really" important to us, and usually can't when they "really", are not that important" .....
And in all honesty when I pulled back and took a good hard, "objective" look in the mirror ,,,he was right.

Thanks Kev - fair comments.

I do spend a lot of time listening and my mixes have improved - the help I have received on our forum has been a big part of that.

So, I will save my hard earned money and keep listening ;-)

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Agreeing with Kev,

In order to become a recording engineer/producer I spent a lot of time training my ears. In fact, forty years later I am still training my ears. If you want to do your own recording, I am the guy who you are competing against. If you want to compete, you need the right tools, and that means skills, not toys. Virtually all the automatic tools I've tried can only get you part the way there, even when operated by a skilled operator. One of your best tools in learning is comparison. Does anyone here remember Tom Scholz of Boston? Tom started out with no knowledge but, as a mechanical engineer, a lot of analytical skill. Tom bought a real time analyzer and played sounds he liked through it. He would snapshot the sound and then take a polaroid picture of it. Then he'd set up his own sound and compare the reference signal to his own via the RTA. Now, eventually the record company brought in a producer, John Boyland, who taught Tom how to record and mix.

These days we have EQ plugs that can offer some of the same training to an analytical mind. These combine a comprehensive parametric EQ with a real time analyzer display and place the EQ curve and the RTA display together on the same screen. See a peak, move the EQ center to its center, set the Q to its width, and adjust the gain to eliminate it. The latest editions of the Waves Rennaissance EQs, for example, offer this. I can look at a vocal track, spot the capsule resonances, and take care of the most significant ones easily.

The same is true of room resonances. While a trained ear gets you close, the RTA dials things in far more precisely. Once you get your skills up on basic EQ you can try dynamic EQ which is perfect for eliminating room resonances.

So, my suggestion is to invest in developing your skills. In his Third Law, futurist Arthur C. Clarke stated, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Florence Ambrose developed his idea: "Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." And there is a further correlate of it: "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science." We spent hours analyzing guitar woods, construction, etc. Perhaps, if we are going to take on acoustic recording, we should study enough to distinguish between science, magic, and art, and learn to intelligently manipulate as much of it as we can.

Bob

About room resonances... the main thing about that isn't that there's too much of certain frequencies, it's that those frequencies hang around for too long, after the rest of the sound has gone away. And if you're recording and monitoring/mixing in the same flawed room, the magnitude of the flaws will sound like it's doubled. Skillfully used EQ, dynamic or otherwise, is a band-aid at best. Not a fix.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

About room resonances... the main thing about that isn't that there's too much of certain frequencies, it's that those frequencies hang around for too long, after the rest of the sound has gone away. And if you're recording and monitoring/mixing in the same flawed room, the magnitude of the flaws will sound like it's doubled. Skillfully used EQ, dynamic or otherwise, is a band-aid at best. Not a fix.

Have you ever gone into a public restroom stall and absent-mindedly hummed to yourself? If you do, you'll usually experience a room resonance - a standing wave that is excited by your humming. Now, I'm just nerdy enough that when I'm sitting there alone I'll play around and excite the resonance just to play with it. You can sweep up and down the frequencies to find the right resonant peak point and BAM! it jumps out. It is there during and after your humming. In my work I end up with tracks to mix where I've had no control over their recording. In the current pandemic, lots of material is being recorded in flawed, home locations. The dynamic EQ allows me to find the room resonances and, using the dynamic component, make it go away without doing much harm to the foreground sound. I do wish everyone who sent me tracks had spent more money and effort on their recording spaces but I don't have control over that.


Bob

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Have you ever gone into a public restroom stall and absent-mindedly hummed to yourself?

That's a good example of the effect of a standing wave and an experiment that anyone can repeat.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

People seem to hate Har-bal and I have also seen one called Voxengo curve that seems to offer a similar thing.

Yes, there are tons of tools that do this, so it just comes down to what visualization you prefer. I find the Har-Bal one very easy to see, but I could get used to others. I don't use the other 99% of the Har-Bal features, which I think is what some people object to.

Do you ever use any simpler EQ plugins with a more analogue tone - Sonible Sweetone for example? (Which is also a tilt EQ)

I used to make more use of the UAD Pultec EQs, which are quite unique - try to wrap your head around both boosting and cutting the bass :-) as well as the Neve EQs, which also have a distinctive sound. But my experience with EQ has been a long time learning thing, where I tried to learn what to do so I don't have to EQ. If you have a good room acoustics, a good instrument, good mics properly placed, I just don't find EQ to be something I do much of. I do almost always do a sharp high pass filter to cut out mud below, say, 40Hz. Maybe a slight high end lift . But that's about it for my own recordings most of the time. I have been playing around with FabFilter's EQ, and it seems quite useful in the way it lets you grab a peak in the spectrum and pull it down (mostly just a UI thing) - especially if you use it in dynamic EQ mode, so you're just taming a transient peak rather than applying an overall EQ that affects the whole track.

Recording EQ discussions remind me of the similar threads that go on in the amplification section, where some people seem to need lots of fully parametric EQ to tweak their pickup sound. I suspect what they're trying to do is "fix" a bad pickup sound, or a bad PA sound. Others have found that if you choose a good sounding pickup and play thru a good sound system, then surgical EQ becomes far less important. Same with recording. Room acoustics, especially are huge, and you can't really address that with EQ.

It's likely different if you're doing a full band mix, where you may need to carve out space for different instruments, but for solo guitar, if you get the sound right going in, EQ's just not as big a deal, for me, at least. If I have the track mastered, the mastering engineer may tweak things, of course, but that's a different stage.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Yes, there are tons of tools that do this, so it just comes down to what visualization you prefer. I find the Har-Bal one very easy to see, but I could get used to others. I don't use the other 99% of the Har-Bal features, which I think is what some people object to.



I used to make more use of the UAD Pultec EQs, which are quite unique - try to wrap your head around both boosting and cutting the bass :-) as well as the Neve EQs, which also have a distinctive sound. But my experience with EQ has been a long time learning thing, where I tried to learn what to do so I don't have to EQ. If you have a good room acoustics, a good instrument, good mics properly placed, I just don't find EQ to be something I do much of. I do almost always do a sharp high pass filter to cut out mud below, say, 40Hz. Maybe a slight high end lift . But that's about it for my own recordings most of the time. I have been playing around with FabFilter's EQ, and it seems quite useful in the way it lets you grab a peak in the spectrum and pull it down (mostly just a UI thing) - especially if you use it in dynamic EQ mode, so you're just taming a transient peak rather than applying an overall EQ that affects the whole track.

Recording EQ discussions remind me of the similar threads that go on in the amplification section, where some people seem to need lots of fully parametric EQ to tweak their pickup sound. I suspect what they're trying to do is "fix" a bad pickup sound, or a bad PA sound. Others have found that if you choose a good sounding pickup and play thru a good sound system, then surgical EQ becomes far less important. Same with recording. Room acoustics, especially are huge, and you can't really address that with EQ.

It's likely different if you're doing a full band mix, where you may need to carve out space for different instruments, but for solo guitar, if you get the sound right going in, EQ's just not as big a deal, for me, at least. If I have the track mastered, the mastering engineer may tweak things, of course, but that's a different stage.

Thanks Doug and others - a very educational thread for me.

[chasapple]

I have voxengo Curve, and while I have not explored the 'Match EQ' abilities yet, I do like this plugin a lot.

Just draw the curve you want and hear the results. No messing with Q knobs or gain/freq knobs. I find it simple and effective and fast.

But the best feature is hidden. If you click the command key (on Apple keyboard) and click on the display, it 'solos' only that part of the freq spectrum. Scroll mouse wheel up and down at same time to make it even more precise in terms of frequency.

So.... It really helps you learn what 300 Hz sounds like on your acoustic guitar, if you click on 300 Hz for example.

This helps A LOT to learn the freq spectrum as it applies to our beloved acoustic guitar. It has been very helpful for me so far.

-Charles

[min7b5]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

.. Does anyone here remember Tom Scholz of Boston? Tom started out with no knowledge but, as a mechanical engineer, a lot of analytical skill. Tom bought a real time analyzer and played sounds he liked through it. He would snapshot the sound and then take a polaroid picture of it. Then he'd set up his own sound and compare the reference signal to his own via the RTA..

Fantastic!

[TBman]

I was just looking at Voxengo's CurveEq. You can just draw the curve you want. Not sure if I want to blow $60 on it, though I think I'm going to get the trial version.