Do you ever chain EQ plug-ins together?

[144dB]

Hey guys,

 

A quick question for you:

 

Do you ever daisy-chain EQ's to get more bands?

 

A lot of hardware and software EQ's only have 4 or 5 bands, and sometimes you need just a bit more control to dip out a problematic frequency. I have the Waves Q10 (10 bands) but I can't stand the harshness. Most of my EQ duties are now handled with the UAD Cambridge EQ or occasionally the Waves Renaissance EQ or UAD Pultec.

 

So if I wanted to pick up some more bands (particularly for cutting frequencies), could I put two Cambridges in series to achieve more bands?

 

I've done it already, but I'm just curious if it's a common practice in the professional realm.

 

Again, just curious. Thanks in advance.

 

Todd

[WRGKMC]

Never. If I need that much EQing I have serious tracking issues I need to deal with.

In fact I've refined my tracking to the point where ai often need no EQing at all which is the goal you want to achieve.

EQ's are band aids for fixing things you couldnt get right with the gear you have at hand. When you track, the mic captures

what it actually hears. If you are needing to use more than a band or two of EQ, you're likely trying to shape frequencies that

dont exist. If the source doesnt produce certain frequencies, there nothing there to cut or boost.

 

You do what you have to do if your tracking is that bad, but haveing to use allot of track EQing is a sign you got to focus on

capturing good tracks and getting a good sound for a mix to begin with. If my guitars have too much bass, I may EQ it out for that song,

but next one I record, I cut the bass on the amp so I dont have to use an EQ plugin for that next time.

 

After that, If dont have enough upper mids, I boost that at the source. Then when I get the source set where I need little or no mixing

I mark my settings on the amp so I can get that sound from the source anytime I need it. Then I'll get amp EQ settings marked for lead, rythum, Funk, etc.

 

Then I'll only have to do minor shaping later when mixing. It just takes time to experiment getting all those tones at the source to work with,

dealing with your amp and mic limitations, and some may just make playing the parts more more difficult.

but as they say, Noone said recording or performing was easy.

 

What you wind up doing EQing only to get your sound with say a guitar, is making some notes come through loud and others soft.

If you can hear every chord on a neck evenly or a guitar scale and not have dead notes then the root notes have been captured.

You mainly only have to limit the top and bottom ends so they fit into a mix which is the key item here.

 

If you arent EQing an instrument so it fits into a mix properly, Then you really arent mixing. You're trying to change what notes have been played.

Then if you one instruments frequency responce so complex with hills and valleys, every other instrument will have problems with masking or

being masked by that track. You should only need broad brush strokes to get things balanced.

 

If anything, try compression and see if that evens up the dynamics. You may be trying to use an EQ to bring out notes so they're even

instead of focusing on the strength of those notes. You'll find that harshness go away using waves EQ if your dynamics are tamed.

Comps tend to warm the soound up quite a bit too. Just go easy with their use and try not to flaten the crap out of a singal.

Always preserve some of the original signal and mix it with the effects. i use the 50% rule. If I ever get to 50% effect vs dry I have

a really bad track. I try to keep things no mre than 30% unless I'f doing something really ratical as in making the effect and instrument.

[Lee Knight]

Sure. Sometimes I want something from each. For instance, I don't like the HPF on the Ren EQs but I love their high shelf. So I might use a 1 band DIGI III for the HPF followed by a Ren 4 band for shelves and bells, etc.

[Lee Knight]

 

What you wind up doing EQing only to get your sound with say a guitar, is making some notes come through loud and others soft. If you can hear every chord on a neck evenly or a guitar scale and not have dead notes then the root notes have been captured. You mainly only have to limit the top and bottom ends so they fit into a mix which is the key item here.

 

 

That can be true, and for someone new, it's probable... but it isn't a given. Sometimes a track will have resonances that, once tamed, open up a sound. And those resonances can be many. Sometimes. So, while I totally respect your purist slant on this, it isn't the only way. Yes, tracking it right is the key. But... we don't always track what we mix. Or what's "right" changes as the arrangement evolves, prompting some radical EQ sculpting. What you envisioned while tracking now doesn't fit the bill.

 

So, while I agree with this: "If I need that much EQing I have serious tracking issues I need to deal with.", it isn't the end of the world to stack EQs to get what you want or need.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't use multiple EQs often, but when I do, it's often due to:

- one EQ acting as more of a utilitarian EQ while the other is for color. For example, I may use a more precise EQ to roll off some stuff, notch a frequency out, that kind of thing, and then a Pulteq-style EQ to color it and perhaps do a some broad EQing.

- one does utilitarian stuff, such as a high-pass filter, etc. while the other is a giant effect EQ, such as using the "Kill EQ" or some other sort of odd effect.

- Sometimes, I'll use it as Lee has described above

[WRGKMC]

Yes Lee, you got my main point there. believe me I'd had to EQ the crap out of awful tracks at one time or another.

It may ghave been a one shot deal where it couldnt be retracked, something live, stuff like that. In those cases you really

have to be good at using the tools as a first aid box. I may even use a low/high pass along with a parameteic at some time.

Its so rare though, I dont look at it as a serious work method.

 

The built in Sonitus EQ in Sonar has 6 bands which is plenty. I have buttloads of others I can and have used including some

32 band graphic EQ plugins. Back when I used to record drums through a mixer to a stereo track I used to have to EQ the crap out of them

to make them sound really good. I think I used every trick invented and it still came down to setting the mixers EQ just right for the best sound quality.

 

Targeting specific notes is common too. I find bass more than any other instrument has these problems. you may get one note and

have to target thet note with an EQ to even up the responce so thet note doesn boom through and destroy what would otherwise be a

good balance. I still wouldnt need multiple EQ's for that, and I'd likely give that bass a going over and find the cause of it producing a loud note

like that. bad strings, truss, intonation, pup height, all have effects in the notes.

 

The big one though deals with analog gains staging presence.

Guys who were into analog recording are probibly allot more familure with its use.

I know when I went to digital it was like, where did it go? I relied on it so heavily

recording analog I was handicapped for a good period of time when I first went digital.

 

Its still there in the analog section or interfaces and preamp and getting those preamps

to produce maximim fidelity is still a key item. What it comes down to electronically is

a solid state preamp weather its an op amp or transistor, has a slope wehre at the bottom is noise and weak

reproduction, and at the top you get clipping. Somewheres between 50~75% maximum gain will be the preamps

sweet spot and where it reporduces maximum fidelity.

 

With that knowlege you can vary both the preamp gain and mic position to dial in all kinds of different EQ curves and

amounts of presence. It was much more apparent hitting a tape cause due to its limited dynamic range and smooth saturation

charecturistics. You could peak say a guitar mdrange frequency and have just that peak saturate with much more presence

over the other frequencies that remain fairly tame.

 

With Digital that effect is strictly limited to the mic and preamp.

Preamps weather they be part of the interface or separate all have different coloring curves.

If i wanted a rythum guitar part to sound thinner and fit into the beckground more I may record the track

cooler and have a little more distance on the mic. The track can be boosted in the box with little problems

with the noise floor so I'm not too worried about that aspect. The result of a cooler track will be less bass responce

due to mic proxcimity and running the preamp cooler will give the track less in your face presence. I may not need to roll off any bass at all

and the highs may have natureal roomey sounding tones. I can always turn the amp up instead of boosting the track in the box as well.

 

On the other hand, if I crank the preamp up, turn the amp down and have the mic up tight to the speaker, I'd be getting maximum mic proxcimity

which boosts the bass allot, and dynamics will really be jumping from min to max. The sound will be much beefier and in your face sounding like recording direct.

If its too much for the mix then I may wind up having to use EQ to get instrument pushed back into the mix removing bass, taming dynamics, scooping mids and

thinning the sound out to blend in. I could have saved myself that troubble by changing my tracking tactics to my first example.

 

It does come down to how you track. If I'd doing a solo recording and I'd starting with say a drum track and rythum guitar, I got to give it my best guess

for all these things. Then if its an original tune and I'm adding additional tracks, those tracks can be much more balanced tracking because I have something recorded to

mix the parts to and thus target the sound I really want for them. I may wind up using more EQ on that first track than the others.

 

Then you have another option. I'm not sure how others have their setups running but I often use my monitors instead of headphones to track.

I can dial up my actual tone and hear it in the monitors. I often use guitar preamps and effects abnd track direct too so I can hear the part

without an an actual amp blowing chunks in the room. I'm able to pull up any commercial CD and play it through the daw and adjust my guitar

or bass to match those songs. then I can track with those tones dialed up and virtually have to do nothing but pan the part and adjust its volume

when I'm done. I used to do this allot when I recorded covers and it worked quite well.

 

Heres an example of that stratogy. I basically match my instruments to a Johnny Winter tune.

I may have used a little track compression mixing but in general, it was minimal everything mixing

mostly just matching gains and tones tracking. I'd play along with the song till I nailed the guitar tones

then tracked my own parts. Did this for every instrument and vocals and it worked out fairly good.

 

I play mostly originals and well into finding my own tones and sounds, but a beginner can learn more in a short period

of time then all the books and trial and error put together. If you have a commercial track there as a role model where you can A/B against

you'll find the right settings you need to match that same sound. Its how most learn to mplay their instrument live and dial up their tones

in most cases so its not a huge leap for most. Just import a commercial track, record your own tracks, then delete the commercial track.

your only limitations will be your gear and matching those tones.

 

Heres an example of that process

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1682170/Out%20On%20A%20Limb%20%5BMaster%5D.wav

 

Then compare it from a completely intuitive method where I let the canvas in my minds eye tell me what I needed.

Not my best work but sufficiant to convey the different stratogies. These are only two out of a limitless number of methods.

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1682170/Trance%20%5BMaster%5D.wav

[144dB]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for the detailed replies.

 

I should have been a bit more clear... In this situation, I'm not using multiple EQ's to correct my own recording shortcomings, and I'm actually not using these EQ's for tracking/mixing. In this particular case I am using EQ as a band aid to fix someone elses less-than-stellar mix. It was a two-track-live demo done in the late 80's and the source material is pretty rough. I've been using my DAW to "remaster" it as best I can, knowing that there is only so much I can do. It *does* sound better than it did, but I've had to do a lot of dipping and a lot of listening in different environments to find the best balance. I don't even have access to the original master tapes, but since this is really just a project for fun, I'm not hanging my career on it.

 

I do think there is at least one legitimate need for multiple EQ stages, and that is pre- and post-compression. I like to roll-off the bottom 30 Hz or 40 Hz of a track or mix with an HPF to get rid of rumble, and it reduces the likelihood that the compressor will over-respond. Then I'll typically do some subtle EQ after the compressor, and finally finish the song off with a high quality limiter. But getting rid of the ultra-low-end before the compressor I think is a good idea.

 

Thanks again for the insight.

 

Todd

[UstadKhanAli]

Good point about post or pre compressor. Forgot about that one.

[TBush]

 

Good point about post or pre compressor. Forgot about that one.

 

 

Dittos- that's usually the only time I 'chain' EQ's as well.

[WRGKMC]

 

Hi guys, Thanks for the detailed replies. I should have been a bit more clear... In this situation, I'm not using multiple EQ's to correct my own recording shortcomings, and I'm actually not using these EQ's for tracking/mixing. In this particular case I am using EQ as a band aid to fix someone elses less-than-stellar mix. It was a two-track-live demo done in the late 80's and the source material is pretty rough. I've been using my DAW to "remaster" it as best I can, knowing that there is only so much I can do. It *does* sound better than it did, but I've had to do a lot of dipping and a lot of listening in different environments to find the best balance. I don't even have access to the original master tapes, but since this is really just a project for fun, I'm not hanging my career on it. I do think there is at least one legitimate need for multiple EQ stages, and that is pre- and post-compression. I like to roll-off the bottom 30 Hz or 40 Hz of a track or mix with an HPF to get rid of rumble, and it reduces the likelihood that the compressor will over-respond. Then I'll typically do some subtle EQ after the compressor, and finally finish the song off with a high quality limiter. But getting rid of the ultra-low-end before the compressor I think is a good idea. Thanks again for the insight. Todd

 

 

Yea thats a whole different ballgame. Something like Harbal would do wonders for a project like that.

Then use a good multiband limiter to even up the lows, upper lows, mids, upper mids and highs so they

are running on all cylanders and pushing with equal power. Then if you need some final brightening and sweeting

another EQ can be used before brickwalling it with a limiter.

 

Har bal is your best bet though, because instead of only having 4 or 5 bands it has thousands and since you're

working with the musics actual frequency responce curve, any wierd peaks dips, phase cancellation is going to be right there to see.

you dont have to scan back and forth with a parametric to find the bad responce curves, its all right there to see.

The program scans what you got and then you just tame it all in one step. Probibly the best program made for RXing frequency issues.

[Lee Knight]

 

Hi guys, I am using EQ as a band aid to fix someone elses less-than-stellar mix. It was a two-track-live demo...

 

 

Just buy Har-Bal.

[144dB]

I'm not quite ready for Har-Bal... I still want to learn things the traditional way, and the apply that learning to a tool like Har-Bal. But on the flipside, it might actually help me learn more.

 

Todd

[144dB]

As an aside...

 

I was looking at a picture of Bob Ludwig's setup at Gateway Mastering, and it's clear that he has three Manley Massive Passive's in his rack.

 

I wonder how he uses them... Maybe they are for multi-channel surround, or maybe he dials up different settings and flips among them for the best individual treatment. Or maybe he actually does do some processing in-series.

 

Anyways, it was an interesting photo given this discussion.

 

Todd