PSA Article "How to chose the right EQ"

[KevWind]

Another Production Expert brief article on EQ probably known to some, but may help some

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/pro...eid=3af5b4ba3b

Me for the most part I tend use the Digi 3 EQ's bundled in Pro Tools mostly for subtractive but occasionally with mild boost for different instruments

[Bob Womack]

Nice article!

i arrived on the professional recording scene in 1981, shortly after parametric EQ did. The first recording console to have parametric EQ, I think it was the SSL SL4000, arrived about the same time as me. The Neve consoles I was working on didn't have it. They had fixed-frequency EQ. The 1073 preamps had a single-frequency 10k treble and multi-switched-frequency mid and bass controls. The 33102 EQs on the 8058s made the treble control a three-frequency EQ and added a High-Q switch to the mids! In a way, putting in years on those consoles helped - I trained myself to recognize frequencies based upon the thirteen very musical bands on the 33102s and tend to run back to them when working on music when I want to keep things sweet. It was great to move into the SSL 4000 console with two bands of great-sounding fully parametric EQ and then sweepable shelving/bell EQ for the top and bottom.






But UREI and Orban offered their parametric EQs to the studios. The place where I worked had two bands of parametric per control room, two rooms worth of UREI and one of the blue Orban 622b. I ended up with one channel of the UREI in my closet for old times sake.

As an indicator of how hard it was for some engineers to grasp parametric, in 1979, the recording school I went to had an interesting take on the parametric called the S.E.I. Paragraphic EQ. This unit had slider control for all parameters but placed the frequency and Q controls horizontally and the boost/cut control vertically.

Dynamic EQ is becoming increasingly useful in the home stuio/mothership world where people record at home and then ask a professional to mix for them. Room resonances are dynamic, and jump out at you when you drive them with their frequency. The dynamic EQ allows you to find and control resonances easily without damaging the foreground sound. Lovely. They are also useful in post-production for the same reasons.

Bob

[jim1960]

I've asked this question of a bunch of people and there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer... is there a significant difference between a dynamic eq and a multi-band compressor? The little bit of time I've put in playing around with a dynamic eq it seems to be doing the same work as a multi-band.

[min7b5]

Good article. Thanks.

I don’t use much eq, sometimes none. But I do like Fabfilter’s Pro Q3 the piece mentions quite a bit -the mid/side processing sure is nice. I also sometimes use Logic’s 1073 emulation on the stereo bus for a tiny lift to the highs with a little saturation..

[MikeBmusic]

I've got a bunch of EQ plug-ins, but my go-to is always ReaEQ (I use Reaper) - parametric with unlimited number of set points; shelf, pass and band EQs available.
Transparent, as far as I can hear.

[rick-slo]

Tried Gullfoss. Somewhat heavy handed and non specific for my uses.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Nice article!

i arrived on the professional recording scene in 1981, shortly after parametric EQ did. The first recording console to have parametric EQ, I think it was the SSL SL4000, arrived about the same time as me...

Flickinger consoles were among the 1st to have parametric eqs. They predate SSL by at least 10 years.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

Flickinger consoles were among the 1st to have parametric eqs. They predate SSL by at least 10 years.

You know, I stand corrected. I've never seen a Flickinger, even in the texts I taught from. Interestingly, Sphere offered Graphic EQ on their console channels in the '70s. I saw pics of the one at Hedden West in Chicago and got to visit the one at Pyramid Records near Chattanooga.

Bob

[Brent Hahn]

Scant mention in the article of graphic EQ's. Those old, used 2-channel 31-band jobbies were originally intended for fixing the unevenness in your control room or your PA, but they can be great for other things, too. Not parametric, but the individual bands are so narrow that you can do the same job. Usually cheap and available on eBay and Reverb. The Achilles' heel is those 62 individual sliders, which you want working and clean and smoke-free. So look out for that.

Also worth exploring is the idea of extreme high- and low-pass filtering in parallel. Very powerful. You clone the track you want to treat in your DAW and filter the clone, while leaving the original track alone. I use the McDSP Filterbank F2, but there are others out there.

Here are two examples of this kind of treatment turning an ordinary acoustic guitar miked in an ordinary way into something pretty different. In this first one it's at around 1:35...



... and the "twin leads" in this one are at 1:55.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

You know, I stand corrected. I've never seen a Flickinger, even in the texts I taught from. Interestingly, Sphere offered Graphic EQ on their console channels in the '70s. I saw pics of the one at Hedden West in Chicago and got to visit the one at Pyramid Records near Chattanooga.

Bob

The only reason I know this is because my friend, the late John Horton, worked at Ike Turner's Bolic Sound which had perhaps the last Flickinger board produced and yet another friend did a bit of work in a Chicago studio that had one.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I've asked this question of a bunch of people and there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer... is there a significant difference between a dynamic eq and a multi-band compressor? The little bit of time I've put in playing around with a dynamic eq it seems to be doing the same work as a multi-band.

I recently saw an article on exactly this, but for the life of me can't remember where. But the upshot was, IIRC, that a multiband compressor tends to have wider(ish) bands, and that the entire band is compressed. A dynamic EQ is better at surgically eliminating specific problem frequencies as it can be targeted much more narrowly, and the reduction effect "tapers off" away from the target frequency, thus affecting the rest of the track less.

Somebody please tell me if I remembered that all wrong.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

]

"The Second Most Favorite Child" is terrific in every way, the song and the recording. It's my current favorite song.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by runamuck

"The Second Most Favorite Child" is terrific in every way, the song and the recording. It's my current favorite song.

Garsh, thanks.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

Garsh, thanks.

Ha haven't heard that one in a while guess it still "A Big Ol' Goofy World"