Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Strings EQ

José Herring

José Herring

Lost in Cyberspace
Hello, I just purchased FabFilter Pro Q3 EQ and testing it out. Firstly, ummm...I think it sounds better than any EQ I've ever used. But, was wondering if you could lend me your ears at let me know what you think of this string patch sonically. I'm not one to usually apply EQ to any orchestral instruments but I'm learning.

Just a quick little pad so don't expect Lark Ascending or something.

edit: Updates
Click to read more...
 

Attachments

  • String EQ test.mp3
    1.3 MB
  • String EQ test_revised.mp3
    1.3 MB
  • String EQ test_revised(different mics).mp3
    1.3 MB
Last edited:
Pretty shrill. Did you remove a bunch of the body? What exactly were you trying to accomplish by EQing these strings? FWIW, I typically only EQ orchestral samples if there are distracting resonances to tame. Otherwise, I default to mic choice/blend to hit the right tone and spacial properties.
 
Alex Niedt said:
Pretty shrill. Did you remove a bunch of the body? What exactly were you trying to accomplish by EQing these strings? FWIW, I typically only EQ orchestral samples if there are distracting resonances to tame. Otherwise, I default to mic choice/blend to hit the right tone and spacial properties.
Click to expand...
Tried to smooth it out but then also at the same time take out the mud around 500hz. So I cut around 500hz and around 3k. Boosted the air about 7k and did a high pass around 40 hz.

From your comment I can tell that I utterly failed :)

What would you do to smooth out the shrill sound?
 
Revised. Original post updated with two other different settings.

Which one sounds the smoothest? Or all they all still too shrill?
 
Last edited:
That's an improvement! Yeah, I think you were just overdoing it as a default, which is something a LOT of people do. Think of EQ as a give-and-take. When you remove 500hz, you're hearing more of everything else, right? So if you want something to sound smoother in the upper mids, that will do the opposite, as you're only drawing more attention to the upper mids. A lot of harsh mixes, in general, come from people getting totally carried away with the idea of removing "mud", and then they're only left with harsh stuff and a scooped sound (which is not a pleasant sound for orchestral music). Also, think musically rather than honing in on frequency too much. This type of string style feels like it requires warmth. So getting rid of lower frequencies and accentuating upper frequencies is perhaps a counterintuitive place to start. And lastly, any time you add a plug-in, have a reason for doing so, or you'll end up with an overprocessed sound (and for no actual purpose). Hope this helps!
 
Alex Niedt said:
That's an improvement! Yeah, I think you were just overdoing it as a default, which is something a LOT of people do. Think of EQ as a give-and-take. When you remove 500hz, you're hearing more of everything else, right? So if you want something to sound smoother in the upper mids, that will do the opposite, as you're only drawing more attention to the upper mids. A lot of harsh mixes, in general, come from people getting totally carried away with the idea of removing "mud", and then they're only left with harsh stuff and a scooped sound (which is not a pleasant sound for orchestral music). Also, think musically rather than honing in on frequency too much. This type of string style feels like it requires warmth. So getting rid of lower frequencies and accentuating upper frequencies is perhaps a counterintuitive place to start. And lastly, any time you add a plug-in, have a reason for doing so, or you'll end up with an overprocessed sound (and for no actual purpose). Hope this helps!
Click to expand...
Thanks that helps a lot.

Funny I rather enjoy the murky dark warm mud but people keep on telling me it's bad. But, thinking musically makes sense. Long slow adagio strings are kind of warm and mushy so trying to get rid of the "mud" to make it more clear is actually getting rid of the thing that makes them slow dark thick warm strings. hmmm.....food for thought.
 
José Herring said:
Funny I rather enjoy the murky dark warm mud but people keep on telling me it's bad.
Click to expand...
Haha, the key takeaway from this thread should be to ignore those people. If you enjoy the way something sounds, their opinion does not matter (unless they're paying you for your services). No one ever arrived at more interesting or original art by listening to others instead of their internal voice. Cheers!
 
your revised uploads sound much better. def listen to what alex says and i will second about damn near everything he has said. i will only add that you should watch this video to get an idea of how this person does a mix. you really should not be worrying about mud from a single or a couple of samples. they are usually well recorded. you mostly will run into mud when you start combining many samples OR mixing and matching libraries(although these things are not always true).


 
In general, I have much better results using IRs to accomplish "EQ." I know I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but Ernest Cholakis's stuff is absolutely the best. Still using the FORTI/SERTI impulse responses in Vienna Suite to do all of my string "sculpting."
 
sinkd said:
In general, I have much better results using IRs to accomplish "EQ." I know I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but Ernest Cholakis's stuff is absolutely the best. Still using the FORTI/SERTI impulse responses in Vienna Suite to do all of my string "sculpting."
Click to expand...
i had no clue these existed. i just read up on them and that is a very cool concept. gonna have to give it a deeper dive this weekend.
 
José Herring said:
Thanks that helps a lot.

Funny I rather enjoy the murky dark warm mud but people keep on telling me it's bad. But, thinking musically makes sense. Long slow adagio strings are kind of warm and mushy so trying to get rid of the "mud" to make it more clear is actually getting rid of the thing that makes them slow dark thick warm strings. hmmm.....food for thought.
Click to expand...
A lot of people tend to think with rules engraved in their workflow.
"When doing X, you have to do Y" etc etc.... Cutting the mid lows and lows from everything that is not bass or bass drum is a very common obsession.
While it is a valid starting point technique especially for more Pop/Rock/Dance tracks, it isn't a given and it often ends up killing the natural elements of a whole mix.
With EQ especially it's all program dependent and rules don't apply.
The only valid rule is the rule of the ear. If it sounds right to you, it is probably right.

Just a little note on FabfilterEQ3:
beware, there are the mode settings (Linear, natural, low latency) on that thing that affect the sound a lot. The thing is also that the highest quality settings doesn't always coincide with the right sound. It's tricky and an element i dislike about this plugin (which I use every day....).
In my experience, "Natural" works the best for most sources. I use the maximum Linear setting when on the master (but set it only just before exporting/bouncing as it slows everything down by a lot)
 
Thanks for all the replies.

I have thought of using IR's but I often hear a slight cloudiness with IR' I tend to not like.

I also thought of using tape emulations with specfic EQ curves. Having grown up listening to records I honestly think that is the sound I am trying to get with EQ. Problem being that most tape emulations don't tell you what curves they use. I guess i could run a sine wave sweep through one and see the spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom