# EQing to Simulate Distance



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 30, 2007)

Any tips on which part of the frequency spectrum to filter a bit via EQ in order to simulate distance? I'm thinking of solo parts that were recorded in a small space and that I want to place in a concert hall, heard from a distance of say 30-40 feet. I know it's crazy to hope for anything that would apply across the board, so let's go with woodwinds.


----------



## synthetic (Apr 30, 2007)

I use a shelving EQ to reduce highs and lows, reduce the stereo spread and add reverb. I might also cut around 4k to reduce presence.


----------



## midphase (Apr 30, 2007)

Yeah, usually the more distance there is, the more it dulls the sound, so one of the first things I would do is cut down some of the highs from 7500hz and up.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 30, 2007)

Hi Ned,
As far as frequencies and distance go, the higher frequencies would be the first ones to disapper with the distance increasing, since they are uni-directionnal while the low frequencies are omni-directional and will be heard, even if the sound source is not directly facing you. When objects (such as players) are in the way of the sound source before it gets to your ears or when the sound source is not directly facing you, the high frequencies will be attenuated...


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 30, 2007)

I just ask people to turn it down and back the fuck up... :evil: 

Hope that helps Ned.


----------



## Waywyn (May 1, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Apr 30 said:


> Any tips on which part of the frequency spectrum to filter a bit via EQ in order to simulate distance? I'm thinking of solo parts that were recorded in a small space and that I want to place in a concert hall, heard from a distance of say 30-40 feet. I know it's crazy to hope for anything that would apply across the board, so let's go with woodwinds.



Oh, one more thing. If you use Altiverb and apply real far mic distances on the samples, it automatically dulls the instrument a bit, but I honestly don't know which algorithm Audioease used for the mic positioning process. But something like dulling might be included


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 1, 2007)

We're talking about adjustable band (2nd order) filters here.

A high-Q (or narrow-Q) filter has a very sharp, narrow band. It looks like a telephone pole.

A low-Q (or wide-Q) filter has a wide, smooth band. It looks like a small, broad hill.

Filters can act to select certain frequencies (as above), or remove them (turn the pole into a well, or the hill into a valley).


----------



## Moonchilde (May 1, 2007)

Thanks Jon, that seems like the most logical explanation! I'll keep that in mind when I dabble in parametric EQ.


----------



## ComposerDude (May 1, 2007)

Here's a table to show the general relationship between octaves and 'Q'. IMO, 'octaves' are a much more musical way to think about the frequency range being affected, but sometimes you only have a 'Q' control available - that's where the table helps.

1/10 octave: Q = 14.42
1/5 octave: Q = 7.21
1/3 octave: Q = 4.32
1/2 octave: Q = 2.87
1 octave: Q = 1.41
1.5 octaves: Q = 0.92
2 octaves: Q = 0.67
3 octaves: Q = 0.40
4 octaves: Q = 0.27
5 octaves: Q = 0.18


----------



## Moonchilde (May 1, 2007)

Now I don't know what octaves are, when it comes to EQ. I'm going to have to find a good EQ article explaining all this stuff and their uses.


----------



## Scott Cairns (May 1, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Wed May 02 said:


> Now I don't know what octaves are, when it comes to EQ. I'm going to have to find a good EQ article explaining all this stuff and their uses.



Moonchilde, try a search on a "midi note eq frequency chart" There's a few around showing you the note, the corresponding frequency value, and the midi value.


----------



## ComposerDude (May 1, 2007)

Thanks, Bryla...your point is well-taken.

Precisely because there are at least two key naming standards, is why I had the 'if'... I'm fonder of the C4 nomenclature because it keeps keynames on an 88-key keyboard from going negative. But both standards are indeed in use, so one needs to specify which standard when discussing key names.

-Peter


----------



## bryla (May 1, 2007)

- that small two-lettered word: if...

I didn't see it  But very interesting reading your are providing!

- Thomas


----------



## KingIdiot (May 8, 2007)

impulses are "supposed" to take this into account, but it never feels right does it?

I usually find that doing a high freq roll off isnt the way to go, you suck the "air" out of the sample itself and starts to sound really filtered, so I usually go with dips and a roll off on lows for smaller instruments. (big ones take a different approach depending on the articulation if you ask me)

oh and

yo thomas, my dog pants hello!


----------



## Andrew Christie (Jul 4, 2014)

Thomas_J @ Tue May 01 said:


> I've been using a table that our very own programming mastermind, Peter Linlor kindly supplied me with. I will not post the table without his consent, but you can make your own table with this java calculator (which Peter used as well):
> 
> http://www.npl.co.uk/acoustics/techguides/absorption/



Just stumbled across this old thread, thought I'd bring attention to the free plug-in Proximity which takes these parameters into account 

http://www.tokyodawn.net/proximity/


----------

