Starter EQ Settings

[Freddy G]

You know what I love to see in a mix? Flat EQ! It's the sign of a well thought out mic selection & placement

[bugbrain_04]

Well, here it is: http://corsair.x10hosting.com/freq.swf

It's worth re-stating: These are by no means the "hard set rules of EQing." Such rules do not exist. Let your ears be the judge above all else.

Besides which, this is really just a compilation of the information in the first post, presented in a different form.

[Funkylebafin]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

The problem is, by doing that, you're only hurting the people that want to know. There is no "visual" way to quantify what you're doing to something you listen to. Teaching someone how to EQ correctly requires that they actively listen and hear what's happening to the source, otherwise they will only have a fancy flash animation to hold their hand throughout their prospective careers. A good saying is:

"Catch a man a fish; Feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; Feed him for life"

Teach people how to hear the difference and what to look for, and they won't need a graph. Just my thoughts...

just wanted to quickly say that the guideline which is the topic of this post is very important for the beginner. The reason for this being that in order for someone to learn, they must ask the correct question. When you have a question, it means you have a direction. For example, where is the resonating frequency of a kick drum? I know there is no CONCRETE answer, but there is sort of a "general" freq range where the resonance falls. So now the beginner has a focus point in his ears. Taking the high Q and sweeping the area and trying to listen.

All this opposed to having no "map" at all. If this person already doesn't have an idea of where to focus, then aimless wondering around is what will happen.

All the best to you guys. Great site and forum.

Funky

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Funkylebafin

just wanted to quickly say that the guideline which is the topic of this post is very important for the beginner. The reason for this being that in order for someone to learn, they must ask the correct question. When you have a question, it means you have a direction. For example, where is the resonating frequency of a kick drum? I know there is no CONCRETE answer, but there is sort of a "general" freq range where the resonance falls. So now the beginner has a focus point in his ears. Taking the high Q and sweeping the area and trying to listen.

All this opposed to having no "map" at all. If this person already doesn't have an idea of where to focus, then aimless wondering around is what will happen.

All the best to you guys. Great site and forum.

Funky

I disagree slightly. I think the "why/when" is exponentially more important than the "what"... Context is everything. If I told a beginner "you don't want mud in your recordings", they'd probably shelve off all the low from their recording, to adhere to a sense of static rules. We all know rumble is good, just not too much.... What is too much? Why is it too much? I could make pie charts, graphs, frequency charts to the yin yang, it won't account for every potential circumstance.

The greatest revelations can be found when one has no direction. It makes you focus more on the context and circumstance, rather than "put peg A into slot B". On the flip side of your argument, having a direction already dissuades the beginner's bearings by telling them where... One can over-look, over-think, and over-analyze something just as easily as the diametric opposite. If one thinks they know where something is, they'll never venture into uncharted waters, where they think it's not.

"Why don't I hi-pass my kick drum at 500hz? Simple. The wise ones don't."

Part of being in this business is developing yourself, and it's a slippery slope. You should only do enough of what's told to keep clients coming in, and be adventurous enough to make a name for yourself, EQ included. There is *never* a rule that will *always* apply. The only certainty is uncertainty...

/mindf*ck

[garageband]

If anybody learns anything from this forum, it should be how to sweep a parametric EQ. Do it today, do it often.

If I told a beginner "you don't want mud in your recordings", they'd probably shelve off all the low from their recording

If that happened, they'd be using incorrect methodology, i.e not following the rules. A high-pass or low-freq shelf is NOT how you reduce mud (Rule #21). Mud is reduced by equalizing resonant peaks that swell up between about 100Hz and 400Hz. Boxiness between about 400 and 700. Rumble from about 100 on down. See? Rules. Read a book on the physics of acoustics (a redundancy, I know) and familiarize yourself with the rules of sound production and transmission, basic psycho-acoustic principles, acoustics, digital sampling theory, basic computer logic, music theory and orchestration, basic electronics and on and on. The way things work. Rules, rules, rules and more rules. Mix yellow and red and get orange. Nobody said anything about not experimenting or pushing the boundaries of what's possible.

I would go so far as to say, "The people who say 'There are no rules' are people who are too lazy to study - a quick and easy rationalization: four words are definitely easier than hundreds of hours of dedicated study and concentrated analysis."

There is *never* a rule that will *always* apply.

Probably the silliest and most useless idea I have recently heard. I suppose with that crap you can fool some of the people some of the time... If a tree falls in the forest.. How many angels can dance... "Who needs a car when a car can get stolen?"...If a liar says, "I am lying", is he telling the truth? This sort pseudo-philosophical late-night college sophomore "deep thought" could go on for hours.

That sig file is very revelatory in a decidedly unflattering way.

[jrhager84]

Wow, a smartie. Here's where I lay into you for your elitism and condescension.

You're absolutely right, if you want to talk physics/psycho-acoustics/etc. etc., you'd be absolutely correct in your rantings. The problem is as simple as this:

We're making MUSIC, not mathematically/physically sound reproductions of manipulated sound waves. I'm surprised you could spew all of this drivel out without even thinking. The chart you just referenced is terminology of corresponding frequency ranges, having NOTHING to do with the source file at all (in the context of EQ), only a term to reference each corresponding range. Ok, so we know what "honky" means... What now? Just because you know the term "honky" does NOT mean you automatically have the ability to control the "honkiness" in every source file you encounter... Even the instruments listed on said list aren't always in the ranges listed. It's only meant as a basic template. You've not only completely missed the point of my post, but you've just fallen on your own sword by acting holier-than-thou. How's that crow taste?

If I want to pan my drums completely to the left, you bet your ass I will. Not normally something you'd do, but you can for an effect. If I want clipping in a file for dissonance, I'll damn well do it. If I want to defy the laws of physics by having massive phasing issues in my recordings, I will. The fact of the matter is you can do whatever you want if it's the desired effect. Just because a recording is "technically sound" does NOT mean it's musical. Hell, you want sterile, go to a hospital. Not very exciting is it??? The minute you limit yourself based on "rules" that someone else made, you'll never grow as an engineer. People always say you need to ask the right question. The right question should be "Why?". Why shouldn't I do this? Why can't I do this? Please point out a rule that you'd ALWAYS follow, and I'll eat my hat.

Thanks for your pearls of wisdom oh enlightened one. You assume I'm an idiot, which is a fallacy, and a horrible mistake on your part. My respect for you is diminishing, as it is directly proportional to your civility... Good day,

-Joel

P.S. Hundreds of well-spoken words don't equate talent. A master guitar-maker isn't necessarily a virtuoso at the guitar. They're NOT mutually inclusive. Grow up.

[mindundermatter]

rules, concerning the relationships of certain perceptions to a range frequencies.

This is the key here: perceptions. I suggest reading "This is Your Brain on Music" by Daniel J. Levitin for some insight into this very topic. It is science, and it is art. The words we use to describe it are merely a means of communicating a mutually understood idea so as to share it with others.

We're making MUSIC, not mathematically/physically sound reproductions of manipulated sound waves.

Actually that's exactly what we're doing! See my above statement for the explanation.

If I want to pan my drums completely to the left, you bet your ass I will. Not normally something you'd do, but you can for an effect. If I want clipping in a file for dissonance, I'll damn well do it. If I want to defy the laws of physics by having massive phasing issues in my recordings, I will. The fact of the matter is you can do whatever you want if it's the desired effect. Just because a recording is "technically sound" does NOT mean it's musical.

And no one here is arguing otherwise. I'm curious though, how would you defy the laws of physics? Or do you mean the laws of psycho-acoustics? Even still, I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that.

Please point out a rule that you'd ALWAYS follow, and I'll eat my hat.

A microphone must be plugged into a preamp in order to use it to record sound. Would you like some ketchup?

Thanks for your pearls of wisdom oh enlightened one. You assume I'm an idiot, which is a fallacy, and a horrible mistake on your part. My respect for you is diminishing, as it is directly proportional to your civility.

I know he can speak for himself, but I'm going to vouch for him anyway. I find garageband to be very knowledgable and very helpful to many people on this forum. Yes, he sometimes comes off as sarcastic, arrogant, or even crass (I've been accused of it myself a time or two!), but the fact of the matter is he knows what he's talking about. If you want to be a big baby, then go cry to your mommy and let us big boys play our game.

[mindundermatter]

By the way, the OP is suspiciously similar to the terminology used in the book for my Critical Listening class in college. The whole ten octaves thing with descriptive words for each octave... creepy.

[jrhager84]

The rule I was talking about was pertaining to the art of mixing/EQ/panning/etc. I mean, c'mon...

"Thou must have power to record."

Priceless!

I never would have thought of that. *rolls eyes*

The "defy the laws of physics" was a poorly-phrased joke. Enlightened one was dripping with sarcasm. I can totally respect somebody disagreeing with me, but automatically assuming ill of someone, and speaking with condescension gets my proverbial goat.

I'm more than able to take care of myself. The comment about his civility was a warning. I respect peoples' opinions until they stop respecting mine. I have no problem debating up and down the aspects of recording. I do, however, have a problem with pissing matches and disrespectful banter.

You both seem like very intelligent individuals, of which I am honored to have the ability to go back-and-forth with. Let's just keep this respectful, eh?

[mindundermatter]

The rule I was talking about was pertaining to the art of mixing/EQ/panning/etc. I mean, c'mon...

Fine. How about this: Thou must mix all individual tracks/busses to one stereo master buss. Perhaps you're more of a mustard kind of guy?

The comment about his civility was a warning.

I'm sure he's shaking in his booties!

I do, however, have a problem with pissing matches and disrespectful banter.

You both seem like very intelligent individuals, of which I am honored to have the ability to go back-and-forth with. Let's just keep this respectful, eh?

Agreed. Try not to take it so personally when someone corrects/disagrees with you. I don't mean to sound like I'm siding with GB here, but I've been involved in a significant amount of discussions with him on this forum. If you hang around for a while, you might find the same. He's layed into me a few times too, especially when I was a noob like you. But I'm still here.