Jan 24, 2003 07:54 pm It's not stealing, if we give some to you :-)
www.dbmasters.net/hrc/new...story&id=38
some guitar and bass EQ settings
Posted on Jan 24, 2003 07:17 pm
fortymile
Member Since: Jan 18, 2003
hey.
its me again, still working on my EQ settings. i was hoping that jues, or anyone who has a methodology for EQing instruments, could perhaps give me some boost/cut specs to try out for rock bass, drums, and vocals. as a starting point, im going to begin shaping distorted guitar based on the specs jues gave me in the subject header "compressed guitar" a little ways back on this board. i dont really know what im looking for in bass or drums yet--just something that fits well with a big guitar-sound. i like a bit of growl in the bass but i also like a smooth bassy sound so i could go either way. as for drums sometimes i program electronic sounding, mangled beats and other times i go for a straight room-set with a little short reverb--im split between industrial and grunge, basically. but how to EQ these things? im sort of looking for a complete recipe for the full set of instruments, a recipe that one of you has used and verified and loves. i dont want to spend a lot of time tinkering because im using up a lot of songwriting time, and my frequency education is still incomplete--i'm looking for a jumping off point, some EQ settings that are at least coherent in themselves, from which i can jump away from and experiment. basically, i want to steal from you.
[ Back to Top ]
Jan 24, 2003 07:54 pm It's not stealing, if we give some to you :-)
www.dbmasters.net/hrc/new...story&id=38
Jan 24, 2003 09:12 pm Hmmm.
Now you see, fortymile, what you have asked is not as straight forward as you want it to be. I could quite happily sit here and reel off a list of the eq treatments that I usually apply to the various instruments that I mix - however, I will always then go on to tweak these eq settings to cater the specific needs in a particular track.
Most EQ tretments are very basic - the article that dB has reffered to above is a very good starting point and makes for interesting reading. Have a sift through it and then come back to us if it raises any more questions.
Oh and as a side note - yes I will get round to writing that "Mixing drums" tutorial that has been in the pipline for a while (and I kinda wrote my guitar one - hmmm, I will polish that and do that too - oneday ;)
jues.
Jan 26, 2003 05:13 pm come on man. :(
just a place to start. im into learning your recipes because i've never SEEN the eq signatures of someone who actually knows what theyre doing.
i know its not as easy as i want it to be. every situation is different and a lot depends on the sound quality of the incoming source, as far as what to tweak or what not to tweak. yet i bet you all have freq ranges that you tend to focus on. i bet you know, in general, which freqs of your bass sound are typically 'acive' and which are not important. i don't have that kind of know-how.
the EQ article on here echoes what i've read in books. unfortunately, it seems overwhelming for me right now. i dont know quite what 'boom' or the other terms mean. i'm sure i will learn by playing with the freqencies, and i fully intend to. but what would help me most is to have a set of settings that other people have found can paint a complete sonic picture. that is the place i want to start building my own knowledge from, the point of departure. without something like that, i literally dont trust my own ears. i mean, there's a reason that amateur recordings sound bad. a beginner might play with the EQ and think he's making good choices, but if he literally doesnt know what he's looking for, because he has not learned to hear/apprehend/understand the frequency spread within a pro mix, then often it's random. for me its been a random process. id very much like to take someone else's settings, listen/evaluate them, and go from there. unfortunately, the EQ settings aren't listed on the back cover of Nevermind.
Jan 26, 2003 06:57 pm It's hard to explain, everything sounds different when recorded.
You've room acoustics, equipment, recording techniques and so on...all of which make the recording what it is and how it sounds before any Eq.
The only thing you can do is get a decent pair of monitors and use your ears.
The article suggested by dB is a good starting point, anything else has to be done by experience, trial and error.
Sometimes it can be very painful, but that's life!!
Jan 26, 2003 07:50 pm Okay, fine, you want EQ settings here you go:
Bass Guitar:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Roll off at 80Hz, apply a LF boost at 120Hz of about 3dB depending on taste, leave the Q nice and open. Next notch out at 400Hz, tight Q, loose about 5dB of gain. Boost at 1Khz with an open Q by about 3dB. Roll off above 1.8Khz.
Vocal:
-=-=-=-
Roll off under 120Hz, apply a boost at 2Khz with a fairly tight Q to bring out the clarity of the vocals. Boost at 4.2Khz with a wide Q to give them space to breathe in the mix. Boost sparingly around 10Khz to add air (but don't add too much)
Drums:
-=-=-=-
Kick: Roll off under 60Hz, boost at 80Hz by 8dB plus, medium Q. Cut at 450Hz, again, medium Q - loose about 8dB. Boost at 2.5Khz, Tight Q by about 8+ dB. High Shelf above 5Khz, boost by about 2-4dB.
Snare: Roll off under 80Hz, boost at 450Hz, medium Q by about 3-6dB. Boost at 2.5Khz by about 3dB with an open Q.
Toms: Boost around 500Khz for presence.
Overheads: high shelf boost aboe 4khz by about 3db ish. (if they need more sparkle)
Electric Guitar:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Covered this in another post, cant be bothered to retype it.
There you go, rough EQ setting for an entire band, now please, sit down and learn to use your ears, not your eyes.
jues.
Jan 26, 2003 09:42 pm If I may throw in a bit of advice, I would suggest that you EQ each instrument in the context of the entire mix. I do that with any effect I add. It's real easy to get a gut-wrenching guitar sound when solo'd, only to find that it doesn't sound good at all when played with the whole mix. I personally like to do that with everything. I might solo something to get a decent starting tone, but when it comes to final tweaking, the solo buttons are left alone. You need to hear how each component sounds in the big picture. One thing you'll find out is that you need to learn to live with a guitar tone that has a bit less low end than what you may think sounds good. When I mix my guitar tracks, I almost always have to cut the lower frequencies. Which brings me to another point. Try subtractive EQ first. It's usually better overall if you can decrease frequencies to get the sound to sit in the mix, rather than boosting everything that sounds like it's not there. On the other hand, if you spend a little extra time at the front end getting a good sound to begin with, you sometimes don't really need to EQ at all, and that will go a long way in avoiding the eventual sonic mess that results from over EQ'ing. I'm sure you don't want to hear this, but there really isn't a standard map of EQ settings that work for every bass, and every kick drum. Who's to say that my guitar sound shares the same frequencies as everybody else's? Just a few random thoughts.
Ed
Jan 27, 2003 03:25 am ah how can i explain it.
first off, thanks, everyone. i'm not trying to be a hassle here. but at a certain point you realize "ok this isn't working. obviously i dont know what i'm listening for. can't waste any more time spinning my wheels further into this ditch. so lets get some written advice. see if anyone out there will actually provide a roadmap from which---(and here is my only desire)--from which i can begin to come to my own conclusions as to what works and what doesn't." a starting point that i can, if all else fails, take pleasure in rejecting. at least then i've made a conscious judgement about EQ that i feel 'right' about, all things remaining relative.
this board came through again. thanks jues. i really appreciate it. even if i fail to learn anything that helps me from these specs, i've still learned something.
i do use my ears. im first and foremost an ear-trained musician, and thats the way i love to do things. who would have thought getting a good sounding mix would have been so difficult. recognizing intervals is second nature to me. but recognizing frequencies is like developing a 6th sense. freqs are still primary colors to me, like a restaraunt-pack of 4 crayolas. a deftones song comes on and i hear what i think of as a general bassy thump in a certain freq range that i can't yet identify. and i hear something drop out, which i think must be mids. the general mix of a deftones song seems spread out and flattened with a lot of low freq info and perhaps highs and 'air.'
it would be easier to learn the ins and outs of this if i had the ability to apply EQ after i've recorded, but my studio is limited and my only option right now is to get the EQ right on the input. to fail to do this is to fail to record a listenable song. to fail to record a listenable song is lose faith. to lose faith is to miss the opportunity of writing a new song. thats why i was looking for some specs to try out. eventually i will learn this. in the meantime thanks for not judging me too much. i'm not looking for an easy way out of this pit of ignorance, a quick cure-all. just a temporary way around and some ideas to play with.
Jan 27, 2003 07:36 am Please, jues, relax a little, no need to be rude. Some of these people are new and just looking a for a little guidance. Maybe I misinterpreted your response, but it came off as a little rude to me...
Jan 27, 2003 09:13 am Yeah, I'm pretty tense at the moment - don't know why - probably a lack of ciggarettes and being made to take on extra shifts at work.
But then again, I gave him exactly what he wanted and I got thanked for it - interpretation of a message is up to the reader.
Jan 27, 2003 09:43 am "it would be easier to learn the ins and outs of this if i had the ability to apply EQ after i've recorded, but my studio is limited and my only option right now is to get the EQ right on the input. to fail to do this is to fail to record a listenable song."
I think this is the problem. It's difficult enough to get a song and all its parts recorded properly in the first place, without having to think about the final mix EQ settings! You really need to get your studio upgraded so you can worry about all this at the mix stage, and concentrate on the crative bit of writing and recording as a separate operation.
I don't know how you manage! When recording a song I personaly find it exhausting thinking about what overdubs to do and the thousand and one possibilities for arrangements, without having to think about eq settings, which I'm gonna leave till the mixing phase (having actualy done a final mix yet!).
Jan 27, 2003 11:10 am I imagine that being a complete nightmare! Trying to record it right first time, I think your best bet is to get a mixer and channel it back through, you'll find it much easier.
Jan 27, 2003 02:34 pm yes it has been a nightmare. i figured that since my aim was to record about 12 songs with a consistent feel to them and just the standard instruments--bass, drums, distortion, vocals--that if i just found a recipe that worked, i could apply it to everything and be done. until i conceive of a different kind of project with different sounds.
i will possibly soon have $1000 to spend on an upgrade to my studio. my current setup is a korg triton for effects and to EQ incoming instruments/voice, and from which i program drums. and i have a boss br-8 8 track. it uses zip disks, which are a hassle. everyone tells me i should get a dedicated desktop recording computer. i suppose that to switch to pro tools or something, i'd have EQ built in and a lot more flexibility.
Jan 27, 2003 04:16 pm I couldn't recommend computers enough, you've the ability to do anything with a descent recording program, sound card and plugins and compared to digital mixers, they come cheap!
With $1000 you could have a really good setup.
Jan 27, 2003 06:21 pm really? a grand is enough?
dont suppose you'd care to recommend anything a setup?
as far as sequencing programs, i already have some sequencing programs that are considered good (dont ask).
but my computer isn't a dedicated music computer, it belongs to my whole family and the drive is full and its not very fast. so thats why i was thinking i could just get a dedicated music computer.
Jan 28, 2003 08:31 am Well my computer isn't fast, I've had the same one for 4 years, P3-500Mhz and I've had no trouble. I have updated the sound card and hard drive and bought a mixer and so on...
Have a look at some of the profiles of members, see what they're using.
There's also a 'Gear recommendations' post at the top of one of the forums.
Jan 28, 2003 08:40 am Heck I am still using a PIII 600 and it works great for me...
Jan 28, 2003 04:30 pm I use a PIII 600 myself, and it's great. I ran a 233 for almost 2 years, so you can imagine how I was flippin out with the 600. I kinda peruse a few other forums on the net (no offense), and I seem to notice lots of problems with the P4. Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just imagining it? P4, XP, and the Audigy card seems to be a problem combo for lots of people.
Ed
Jan 28, 2003 06:22 pm The early P4's (pre NorthWood Core) sufferend from an interesting "oversight" (as Intel put it) whereby the CPU's 'Normalling Threshold' was set a bit too high - meaning (put very simply) the CPU goes into an 'ulta intensive processing mode' when numbers start getting very, very small - This wasn't a problem on the P3 chips (and they fixed it for the Northwood), but on early p4's it means that your CPU meter will suddenly jump up to 100% when complex small numbers start getting crunched (eg: the end of high quality reverb tails, etc)
There are work arounds, but they are a long way from ideal. It sucks :(
Hmm, guess what CPU I have ;)
Jan 28, 2003 09:02 pm P3 667 coppermine. runs just peachy now with XP Pro in the box. dB had to twist my arm really hard to make me put in XP but now I am the happy little boy with a new toy. I will say though, 786 meg of ram helps a bit.
Jan 30, 2003 12:29 pm geez sounds like everyone is happy with thier computer set ups and I was sittign back in the day with a pii 500 complaning how slow it was.
Back then I was doing a lot of work that required a lot of processing power (3d graphics/animation, Autocad work) when I moved into Video editing, thats when I was ripping out my hair. So I decided to build my own customized computer just for Video editing and 3d graphics rendering.
Now Im running a 1.4 Athlon, 1.1gb SDRAM, 2 7200rpm hard drives for a total of 120 gb, a GeForce 4 titanium video card, Pinnacle 1394 firewire card, and one NIC card. All the usual drives are on there too... zip, cd-r, DVD... All on a Windows 2000 Professional Platform. Too bad I got into homerecording later, Im stuck with an onboard soundcard that has TONS of noise... but Im doing my research and Hope to have something great... Might look into a firewire system since I have the card ... need $$$ though.
You'd be surprized how fast a computer system runs with minimal hardware and software. Oh and make sure your system runs cool, it helps a lot. I just changed the thermal paste with artic silver and it runs 20 degrees cooler.. and my system was processing faster plus I only keep the things I need installed on my computer and do weekly defrags... it helps too.
and for something on topic.... I usually just EQ by ear using those settings you provided as a starting point...
Jan 30, 2003 12:52 pm I can personally vouch for the issues with the early P4s. I have a P4 1.4GZ that I bought from Dell the very first day they released the P4 machines. I should have known better! I'm constantly having to work on it to keep it in shape. And even with 1.3GB of RAM, it still has performance issues. Nothing too bad, but enought to annoy me to say the least.
On the other hand, I recently purchased another P4 2.4GZ machine from Dell to use as a dedicated recording computer. With 768MB of RAM and 2 7200 RPM hard-drives (120BG and 40GB), this new one really kicks! Plus, it only cost me about $1K. Well worth the investment.
Jan 30, 2003 12:59 pm Hey, I'am using a P4 1.3Ghz 128 Rambus RAM (planning to expand, still too expensive)
and have no problems.
My projects are 25+ tracks with compressors, eq and tape emulators in some of them and even with amplitube in some guitar tracks and is fine.
I use the Aux sends for reverbs and sometimes when I'am really happy with an effect that takes a lot of processing, I apply the effect and archive the original track.
Before my actual setup I was using a Celeron 333 and I was able to run 10-15 tracks with a couple effects in each track.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.