# Help with EQ?



## AC986 (Jan 25, 2014)

If I stick a string section excerpt up can someone give me some ideas about the EQ?

https://soundcloud.com/adrian-cook-79/frantic

TIA>Adrian


----------



## ProtectedRights (Jan 25, 2014)

I don't understand the question


----------



## AC986 (Jan 25, 2014)

ProtectedRights @ Sat Jan 25 said:


> I don't understand the question



Can you give me some EQ ideas if I stick up a string section?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 25, 2014)

Can you give me some disguise ideas if I stick up a bank?

Seriously, I for one, don't know what _stick up a string section_ is supposed to mean. If you are asking how to EQ your strings when you do a mock-up, that is not something that can be answered without hearing an example. There is no such thing as "EQ your strings this way!". It depends on the strings, how they already sound, and the rest of the mix. A _one size fits all _approach does not work for EQ. It's all about the context; without context nobody can say do this and do that.

Cheers.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 25, 2014)

Riff

just listen to the string section excerpt and give me your vast knowledge on how they can be improved via EQ.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Jan 25, 2014)

Yeah "stick up" was the thing that I didn't understand.

And +1 to Riff, it makes a whole lotta more sense to discuss about necessary EQing when you hear the material in question. 

So, to a fresh start


----------



## woodsdenis (Jan 25, 2014)

ProtectedRights @ Sat Jan 25 said:


> I don't understand the question



What was the Winston Churchill quote about being separated by a common language. 
In Ireland we use the word craic (pronounced crack) for having fun. So the phrase "we had great crack last night" can lead to strange looks.

I understood you Adrian :D


----------



## AC986 (Jan 25, 2014)

Cheers Denis. The family name on grandmothers side is McNamara. 

I am wishing (a) had not even thought of this and (b) losing the will to live.


----------



## Conor (Jan 25, 2014)

See the confusion that results from being too polite? :lol:

Just post your excerpt!

EDIT: Oh, there it is. ^^^^ https://soundcloud.com/adrian-cook-79/s ... al-excerpt *facepalm* Very cool stuff around 0:34!


----------



## AC986 (Jan 25, 2014)

Any ideas about EQ?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 25, 2014)

adriancook @ Sat Jan 25 said:


> Riff
> 
> just listen to the string section excerpt and give me your vast knowledge on how they can be improved via EQ.
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/adrian-cook-79/s ... al-excerpt



Hmmm... SC. How close to the original does this sound? Sometimes SC screws up the audio; other times it dos not. That being said.....

I wouldn't do too much - as it is, it sounds pretty good. I would maybe add a bit of 10k, and maybe cut a bit of 500... or 550? Then again, it all depends on what else is happening - if anything.

Cheers.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 25, 2014)

A bit of cuts in the low mids, and a bit of bite up top would help, also some parallel compression can bring out some punch and help keep it clean, if you focus on it just giving it some bite.

It might make it a bit more dry and in your face though, which might now be what you were looking for.

you might want to auto mate some of the filters or build a couple of filter maps and warp/xfade into them. There's parts where if you just keep the low mids pulled it will sound thin, but build up too much when there's a lot going on.

If it gets a bit too bitey, a tape emu might help chop its head off without it feeling static or flat.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 25, 2014)

Awesome gents thanks.


----------



## blougui (Jan 25, 2014)

adriancook @ Sat Jan 25 said:


> If I stick a string section excerpt up can someone give me some ideas about the EQ?
> 
> TIA>Adrian



Ah ah, I understood at first read :o Probably because I'm french.
May I ask you where does these strings come from ?
(I'm cautious with SC, like I never know if it sounds like the real thing. But your excerpt sounds nice to me though I would dial a tad more of top end like 8k for extra bite and clarity ?)

Erik


----------



## AC986 (Jan 25, 2014)

Don't worry I'm dyslexic.

The strings are a Spitfire mixture of Albion 1, Sable, Cinematic Strings double basses.

I will try all these good suggestions tomorrow.


----------



## Patrick_Gill (Jan 26, 2014)

adriancook @ Sat Jan 25 said:


> If I stick a string section excerpt up can someone give me some ideas about the EQ?
> 
> TIA>Adrian




Hi Adrian,

I highly recommend this orchestral frequency chart. It'll give you an idea of how the instruments respond to EQ and roughly where the instruments belong in the frequency spectrum. 

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm (http://www.independentrecording.net/irn ... isplay.htm)

How the EQ will effect the sound you wish to tweak is very subjective to a number of different things. The recording/samples, instruments, mics, panning, dynamics, pitch, room etc etc. There are no hard and fast rules however there is a law of physics that personally I don't recommend breaking.

A useful tip is to attach a 'parametric EQ' to a sound you wish to tweak (in your case a string sound) boost any frequency about 10db's with a medium sized 'Q' and begin to sweep the entire range. Listen to how it effects the sound. By doing this you can learn where the sound begins and ends (It can vary slightly with different orchestral samples and rooms) you can also find the sweet spots this way and harsh/brittle frequencies you wish to cut. As an example violins generally begin around 180-200hz so I start by rolling off everything below 200hz with a HP Filter to separate these from the lower fundamental instruments like the violas, cellos etc. You can then do the same for top end of the instrument to separate this from things like cymbals, percussion etc. Once you have your top/bottom range you can then begin to cut and boost to your requirements. 

The golden rule is to trust your ears! Don't rely on numbers. It's good to have a listening reference of your favourite scores/string sounds. Focus intently on the desired sound and try to emulate the frequency with your EQ. This can take a long time to perfect but the more you play with this the more you'll have a better understanding of what to boost or cut. 

Have fun! 

PG


----------



## AC986 (Jan 26, 2014)

Great chart Patrick. Yes Q on the Fabfilter ProQ is a brilliant tool.

I rejigged it and took onboard everyones EQ advice.

This is the finished track. Philip Glass inspired obviously. 7/4 time and a quickish tempo. I think the EQ worked out well and it sounds OK. 

Any suggestions welcome.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 26, 2014)

I would also suggest to consider a variety of EQ's in particular I'd have a good ear on that one:

http://dmgaudio.com/products_equilibrium.php

In general though, and as others said above, depending on samples and mix, here is my 0,2 cents concerning strings: 

50-100Hz ~ Adds bottom end
100-250Hz ~ Adds body
250-800Hz ~ Muddiness area
1-6kHz ~ Sounds crunchy
6-8kHz ~ Adds clarity
8-12kHz ~ Adds brightness


----------



## Herenow (Jan 27, 2014)

to add to G.R. Baumann general tips, here's a great article written by Bobby Owsinski. Might be useful 

http://warbeats.com/Resources/Articles/ID/60/Equalization-Tricks


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 27, 2014)

Herenow @ Mon Jan 27 said:


> ... Bobby Owsinski....



Oh yes, amongst many others, this is a must have of course

http://tinyurl.com/l4r3urs

Adrian, forgot to say that the EQuilibrium offers a 30 days unlimited demo.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug13/articles/equilibrium.htm


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 27, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Great chart Patrick. Yes Q on the Fabfilter ProQ is a brilliant tool.
> 
> I rejigged it and took onboard everyones EQ advice.
> 
> ...



this time you're really messing with us, huh?


----------



## AC986 (Jan 27, 2014)

No King really. Your advice is great. I thought that was what this place offered. I know nothing about EQ apart from a basic grasp of cutting or adding. The trouble is, I don't know where to cut or add half the time. 

The music is just incidental in this case. Forget the music. It's the sound I have trouble with. And thanks again for your advice. 

Georg I like 30 day trials and good tip. I will download the trial today. 

EQ is a real minefield for a lot of musicians and something that is really necessary when dealing with samples IMO.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 27, 2014)

You're welcome Adrian.

The three pillars, EQ, Compression and Reverb, as I like to call them, are in deed a daunting terrtitory to enter for the first time. Once you get the basic grips, practise in a good listening environment will be fun, really, emphasis on good listening environment that is.



http://ethanwiner.com/equalizers.html

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/mar95/eq.html


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 27, 2014)




----------



## AC986 (Jan 27, 2014)

Thanks Georg. Will check through these videos asap.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 27, 2014)

adriancook @ Mon Jan 27 said:


> No King really. Your advice is great. I thought that was what this place offered. I know nothing about EQ apart from a basic grasp of cutting or adding. The trouble is, I don't know where to cut or add half the time.
> 
> The music is just incidental in this case. Forget the music. It's the sound I have trouble with. And thanks again for your advice.
> 
> ...



I meant, that you didn't post a new link, or say you replaced the music at the SC 


EQ is wild man. And the truth is, in something like this, it has to be approached dynamically to get the best use. There's a real penchant for "set it, and forget it" here on this forum, from what I gather, and in truth, I think there needs to be more movement in this department, because we're working with quantified performances (samples via limited dynamics and especially in shorts). You run into an issue where around m-mf the bottom of low strings resonates a bit differently than the static volume level increase you get with velocity sensitivity. Even if you ad crossfades. Resonance characteristics of the different instruments all act differently as well. This is why I'm a fan of both automation as well as parallel compression with linear filters (and sometimes non linear). You can even go so far as to bounce out stems with different settings and Xfade into each setting as a sort of "morph" or "switch", like you would do with changing noise footprints. Dynamic changes, can really help get the best of different worlds.


With what oyu posted, as I said, it jsut seemed to need a little top or harmonic excitement to bring some clarity in the bowing. It's already a bit sharp sounding IMO, but the highs are blurring a bit. Then about half way through when it gets a bit more busy, the low minds in the cellos start to box up and you lose clarity of whats being played, and the basses really sit underneath that bit of boxyness and get really lost.

The issue with cleaning this up though, might bring some of the attack to be in your face, and feel a bit more close and present, rather than in a room, to which you might want to play with some stereo enhancement to bring back some of the reverb reflections, or jsut a slight bit of air on teh two track to give a sence of space again.

As well, like I said, it's a bit bitey already, so maybe a tape emu to give some mid thunk back with warmth, and a bit of dynamic roll off in the ultra highs, or slight overall roll off in the general highs to bring it down.

again, it all depends on how the piece is going to be used, if there's more going on, I'd probably just see how it works in the mix, after a little fletcher/munsen scoopage.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 28, 2014)

Adrian,
Kingidiot

allow me to fill in a little background, I would not expect someone new to EQ to know about this.

Bell Labs engineers Fletcher&Munson published in the journal of the... http://acousticalsociety.org/ ....back in 1933 the results of a study that prooved hearing to be frequency selective.

This phenomenon, that your hearing is most sensitive in the 3-4kHz range, and less so above and below that, allowed for conclusions on loudness perception, and became known as equal loudness countours and was the foundation of the later emerging ISO 226 standard.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Acoustics226-2003.pdf



> To perceive that a 100Hz signal is of equal loudness to a 3kHz tone requires an actual SPL of the 100Hz tone that’s much higher than that of the 3kHz tone, particularly at low volumes.



Robinson&Dadson continued the research in 1956.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar12/articles/loudness.htm


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 28, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Mon Jan 27 said:


> EQ is wild man. And the truth is, in something like this, it has to be approached dynamically to get the best use.



As an instrumentalist and not a sound engineer, that was always the reason why I perceived a trained sound engineer as a musician, and his console as an instrument. He played that instrument as many hours as I played mine, every single day!


----------



## AC986 (Jan 28, 2014)

King that was a great post and most interesting. Georg kind of nailed it when he sort of alluded that it was way over my head. And he's right. Even the Dan Worral videos lose me a bit. 

For most musicians that are just right writing music, the time required to learn the infinite detail of mastering is a tricky issue.


----------

