# EQ curves folks use on CSS (and CSSS)?



## Rob Elliott (Nov 28, 2018)

One good thing about this library is that it does NOT require radical eq curves to make sound good.

I personally just cut a moderate swath out at about 4K and maybe bump up 12K (narrorwer Q) to give a little 'air'. If string voicings are 'thick' in the low/mid range I might also have a gentle Q cut at 200-400 or so). I have found that using a 'dynamic eq' works best.

Probably do the same on curves if I employ the 'sordino switch'.

What are others doing in this regard (hopefully this thread will be helpful to CSS/CSSS users out there.) Using compression? Of course project dependent - but I'll use light compression at times as well.

Looking forward to your 'go to' treatment suggestions.


----------



## muk (Nov 28, 2018)

CSS sounds great out of the box. Often I simply add a bit of reverb and that's it. If I want it to sound a bit less dark I gently process with Kush Clariphonic. The Clariphonic can really do wonders here. Dynamic eq is a good idea too. But as you write, CSS doesn't need a lot of processing.


----------



## Wibben (Nov 28, 2018)

Sounds about right. Removing some mud around 200-400, wide q. Find and tame annoying, pokey rings depending on the track.. Reduce narrow frequencies around 2k usually, to mellow the tone more etc.
I usually like to slap a pro-mb at the end on the bus to keep things nice and even if it get loud and out of control when all sections blast fffff+ :D


----------



## Rob Elliott (Nov 28, 2018)

Thanks for your responses.  Regarding verb. CSS doesn't take well to an over-abundance of it so I usually like to do the 'Abby-road' trick BEFORE the verb (especially the low/mids). I do need to consider FF's pro-mb (when I pick up proQ 3) - that would be a good use for it.


----------



## Counterpointer (Nov 28, 2018)

Rob Elliott said:


> Thanks for your responses.  Regarding verb. CSS doesn't take well to an over-abundance of it so I usually like to do the 'Abby-road' trick BEFORE the verb (especially the low/mids). I do need to consider FF's pro-mb (when I pick up proQ 3) - that would be a good use for it.




Tell me about this Abbey Road trick, please. Im curious =)


----------



## Rob Elliott (Nov 28, 2018)

Counterpointer said:


> Tell me about this Abbey Road trick, please. Im curious =)


Prolly best to google it - there are tons of vids on how to. But in essence you cut the lows and his BEFORE the verb (keeps those freqs from over stimulating the verb algos).


----------



## Counterpointer (Nov 28, 2018)

Rob Elliott said:


> Prolly best to google it - there are tons of vids on how to. But in essence you cut the lows and his BEFORE the verb (keeps those freqs from over stimulating the verb algos).



Ah, how funny. I usually do that (at least with low frequencies), although I didn't know it had a name.


----------



## Bluemount Score (May 15, 2019)

I don't like the sound of the double bass in CSS that much. I feel like I have to use dynamic EQ too often, especially with sustain notes, as the fundamental harmonic gets huge and boomy sounding very quickly. It forces me to lower the overall instruments volume quite a bit, which is why I like to double it with a tuba or subbass to get that full warmth down there.
Some cuts in the lower mids for the chello (200 - 300Hz, 450Hz is another hotspot for buildups). Around 500Hz for Violins and Violas depending on the track. So basically as always, watch out for those mids, especially between 200 - 1k.
Also, I tend to almost always boost the air by up too 6dB. CSS is very dark 
Watch out for white noise.


----------



## Rob Elliott (May 15, 2019)

Meetyhtan said:


> I don't like the sound of the double bass in CSS that much. I feel like I have to use dynamic EQ too often, especially with sustain notes, as the fundamental harmonic gets huge and boomy sounding very quickly. It forces me to lower the overall instruments volume quite a bit, which is why I like to double it with a tuba or subbass to get that full warmth down there.
> Some cuts in the lower mids for the chello (200 - 300Hz, 450Hz is another hotspot for buildups). Around 500Hz for Violins and Violas depending on the track. So basically as always, watch out for those mids, especially between 200 - 1k.
> Also, I tend to almost always boost the air by up too 6dB. CSS is very dark
> Watch out for white noise.



Almost exactly how I EQ CSS (maybe lessor amount to CSSS). Can I ask what 'air' freq you have settled in on? 12K? Narrow band Q?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (May 15, 2019)

Rob Elliott said:


> Almost exactly how I EQ CSS (maybe lessor amount to CSSS). Can I ask what 'air' freq you have settled in on? 12K? Narrow band Q?


I have css too, 12k is fine, not so narrow, you can also use a highshelf with a gentle q, so literally that it looks a bit like a ramp. Also what might help is using a good saturation (e.g.UADs Oxide and Studer A800). I push frequenices often with the Manley passive on strings, that thing just add a nice pleasent air to dull strings.


----------



## Rob Elliott (May 15, 2019)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> I have css too, 12k is fine, not so narrow, you can also use a highshelf with a gentle q, so literally that it looks a bit like a ramp. Also what might help is using a good saturation (e.g.UADs Oxide and Studer A800). I push frequenices often with the Manley passive on strings, that thing just add a nice pleasent air to dull strings.


Thanks - yea, I have been pleased with The Tape (at about 15 fps) - slight ramp up of the output (A setting) - but for sure I'll try some of these other suggestions.


----------



## Bluemount Score (May 15, 2019)

Rob Elliott said:


> Almost exactly how I EQ CSS (maybe lessor amount to CSSS). Can I ask what 'air' freq you have settled in on? 12K? Narrow band Q?


12k now, yes, not too narrow EQ. The frequencies from 6k - 10k aren't annoying for me, so I don't mind boosting them slightly.
Bevor, I made an even wider boost, by using a high shelf from 7k upwards. Works too, I can't say that's what made my mixes worse in any noticeable way.


----------



## Henu (May 15, 2019)

You wusses, I start the boost from 6k. Livin' it dangerously!


----------



## camelot (May 15, 2019)

Henu said:


> You wusses, I start the boost from 6k. Livin' it dangerously!


I find that at some point the already strong vibrato gets even more emphasized when boosting highs at too low freqs.


----------



## Henu (May 16, 2019)

Bah, you know- I actually remembered wrong. I start from _8_k. (had to double-check. :D ) But it's also depending on the plugin. A Pultec- styled EQ sounds way different than, say, Fabfilter.


----------



## Bluemount Score (May 17, 2019)

Henu said:


> Bah, you know- I actually remembered wrong. I start from _8_k. (had to double-check. :D ) But it's also depending on the plugin. A Pultec- styled EQ sounds way different than, say, Fabfilter.


Even more interesting for me, what's the shape of your curve? (Ladies, don't take this wrong)


----------



## constaneum (May 17, 2019)

Rob Elliott said:


> One good thing about this library is that it does NOT require radical eq curves to make sound good.
> 
> I personally just cut a moderate swath out at about 4K and maybe bump up 12K (narrorwer Q) to give a little 'air'. If string voicings are 'thick' in the low/mid range I might also have a gentle Q cut at 200-400 or so). I have found that using a 'dynamic eq' works best.
> 
> ...



I'm doing the same on the mid and high frequencies. I didn't really cut the low though. 

However, for CSS (I'm using Close and Main Mic), I layer it with CSSS Mix Mic. What about you ?


----------



## Rob Elliott (May 17, 2019)

constaneum said:


> I'm doing the same on the mid and high frequencies. I didn't really cut the low though.
> 
> However, for CSS (I'm using Close and Main Mic), I layer it with CSSS Mix Mic. What about you ?


For sure mix mics on CSSS. I have just used the mix mics on CSS - but - perhaps I'll try again only close and Mains - do you have them equal? Panned special?

EDIT: Just checked and for CSS my template is set up for using ALL mics (close is panned a bit to their section and slightly less 'room') - BUT I'll give the close and mains ONLY a try.)


----------



## constaneum (May 17, 2019)

Rob Elliott said:


> For sure mix mics on CSSS. I have just used the mix mics on CSS - but - perhaps I'll try again only close and Mains - do you have them equal? Panned special?
> 
> EDIT: Just checked and for CSS my template is set up for using ALL mics (close is panned a bit to their section and slightly less 'room') - BUT I'll give the close and mains ONLY a try.)



I didn't adjust on the panning. I've max the volume for close mic. Main mic stays the same.


----------



## Rob Elliott (May 17, 2019)

constaneum said:


> I didn't adjust on the panning. I've max the volume for close mic. Main mic stays the same.


I can see the 'mostly' close mix uses for sure but generally I would 'miss' the 'room'. Totally agreed it needs to be drawn back a bit. Which speaks to another item - the correct mix/blend of mics (per material) the LESS EQ is needed.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 18, 2019)

Rob Elliott said:


> Which speaks to another item - the correct mix/blend of mics (per material) the LESS EQ is needed.



Bingo.


----------



## Henu (May 19, 2019)

Meetyhtan said:


> Even more interesting for me, what's the shape of your curve? (Ladies, don't take this wrong)



I haven't actually bothered to check it, haha! I usually go with the Waves Puigtec for starters.


----------



## Cat (May 19, 2019)

I also like to cut a bit at 1.2 KHz (about 3-4 dB cut, with a somewhat narrow Q). Anybody else noticed that this improves the sound?


----------



## Bluemount Score (May 19, 2019)

Cat said:


> Anybody else noticed that this improves the sound?


Not yet, but let me try


----------

