|
Post by swurveman on May 19, 2016 9:41:55 GMT -6
I read these frequency terms like "tight low end" and "crisp highs" and frankly I do not understand what is meant by them. We're talking about frequency bands. So, what makes a frequency band of 0-200 Hz "tight"? What makes a 7-10K + frequency band "crisp"?
Is a "tight low end" simply using an EQ shelf to limit the amount of frequency signal up to 200 Hz? Are "crisp highs" simply using a high end shelf and boosting it, or using a parametric band with a mid to high Q at the most crispiest frequency-whatever that means- and boosting it?
And do these terms include using compression as well as EQ in your opinion? Or even solely compression?
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but if anybody can explain this as you understand it I'd appreciate it. I'm hoping there's a consensus understanding of these terms. LOL.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on May 19, 2016 10:01:53 GMT -6
I read these frequency terms like "tight low end" and "crisp highs" and frankly I do not understand what is meant by them. We're talking about frequency bands. So, what makes a frequency band of 0-200 Hz "tight"? What makes a 7-10K + frequency band "crisp"? Is a "tight low end" simply using an EQ shelf to limit the amount of frequency signal up to 200 Hz? Are "crisp highs" simply using a high end shelf and boosting it, or using a parametric band with a mid to high Q at the most crispiest frequency-whatever that means- and boosting it? And do these terms include using compression as well as EQ in your opinion? Or even solely compression? Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but if anybody can explain this as you understand it I'd appreciate it. I'm hoping there's a consensus understanding of these terms. LOL. Very easy to fall into the trap of everything being about Frequencey level. Now for the fun part, the rabbit whole of audio and descriptive language. Not everybody means the exact samething when you use words like tight and warm, so you have to listen and adjust, spend 3 days doing a mic demos with a recent recording school grad!
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 19, 2016 10:17:48 GMT -6
I read these frequency terms like "tight low end" and "crisp highs" and frankly I do not understand what is meant by them. We're talking about frequency bands. So, what makes a frequency band of 0-200 Hz "tight"? What makes a 7-10K + frequency band "crisp"? Is a "tight low end" simply using an EQ shelf to limit the amount of frequency signal up to 200 Hz? Are "crisp highs" simply using a high end shelf and boosting it, or using a parametric band with a mid to high Q at the most crispiest frequency-whatever that means- and boosting it? And do these terms include using compression as well as EQ in your opinion? Or even solely compression? Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but if anybody can explain this as you understand it I'd appreciate it. I'm hoping there's a consensus understanding of these terms. LOL. Very easy to fall into the trap of everything being about Frequencey level. Now for the fun part, the rabbit whole of audio and descriptive language. Not everybody means the exact samething when you use words like tight and warm, so you have to listen and adjust, spend 3 days doing a mic demos with a recent recording school grad! Thanks for your reply Eric. But, all ass jokes aside, doesn't "tight low end" refer specifically to the low end frequencies? Still, curious to know what your impression of the terms are?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 19, 2016 10:35:55 GMT -6
This is a great idea, honestly. Lets define the terms so we're all speaking the same language. I'm off to record something right now, but I'll get back on this thread...
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 19, 2016 10:37:00 GMT -6
I've noticed my "upper mids" doesn't mean the same thing to some people..."Bright" - where does brightness start? What does "loose low-end" mean? Great idea!
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 19, 2016 10:42:58 GMT -6
I read these frequency terms like "tight low end" and "crisp highs" and frankly I do not understand what is meant by them. We're talking about frequency bands. So, what makes a frequency band of 0-200 Hz "tight"? What makes a 7-10K + frequency band "crisp"? Is a "tight low end" simply using an EQ shelf to limit the amount of frequency signal up to 200 Hz? Are "crisp highs" simply using a high end shelf and boosting it, or using a parametric band with a mid to high Q at the most crispiest frequency-whatever that means- and boosting it? And do these terms include using compression as well as EQ in your opinion? Or even solely compression? Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but if anybody can explain this as you understand it I'd appreciate it. I'm hoping there's a consensus understanding of these terms. LOL. People are describing dynamics as well as frequency when using terms like "tight low end". "Tight" generally refers to quick transients with somewhat rounded peaks. "Low end" generally means everything below 250hz as far as I've learned. "Flabby" or "round" might describe slow dynamic changes in the low end. Something like "Crisp highs" would be fast/accurate transients in the high end, which is generally considered anything above 5K-ish. However, something like "scratchy highs" might describe a high end that is full of distortion, which is not locked to frequency or dynamics at all. But then you get into terms like "mud" which can mean dynamics that are too slow for the program material, low frequency distortion, OR can mean an imbalance in the frequency spectrum that creates overwhelming mids/lows..
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on May 19, 2016 10:49:22 GMT -6
Very easy to fall into the trap of everything being about Frequencey level. Now for the fun part, the rabbit whole of audio and descriptive language. Not everybody means the exact samething when you use words like tight and warm, so you have to listen and adjust, spend 3 days doing a mic demos with a recent recording school grad! Thanks for your reply Eric. But, all ass jokes aside, doesn't "tight low end" refer specifically to the low end frequencies? Still, curious to know what your impression of the terms are? Listen to a bunch of well recorded stuff through say ATC's or Questeds or something with TADS, to start most speakers have way to much low end distortion to even have my idea of lowend. To me and those who taught me tight is about speed, lack of over hang. Give me a nice Alembic through a Nice pre. That tight ! What's the opposite, every ding movie trailer!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on May 19, 2016 10:52:18 GMT -6
The most fun was in the old days when somebody would say they had a hum, I would have try to vocalize a 60hz. A buzz and often a feedback hum to find the problem.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on May 19, 2016 11:16:05 GMT -6
I've noticed my "upper mids" doesn't mean the same thing to some people..."Bright" - where does brightness start? What does "loose low-end" mean? Great idea! I would like to know the general consensus on 'low-mid', 'mid', 'high-mid', etc.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 19, 2016 11:35:58 GMT -6
People are describing dynamics as well as frequency when using terms like "tight low end". "Tight" generally refers to quick transients with somewhat rounded peaks. "Low end" generally means everything below 250hz as far as I've learned. Thank Svart. Let's take "tight low end". So, for example you have a kick drum where the player may be playing evenly and then have natural spikes due to a more intense striking of the beater during a section of the song. This more intense striking produces a louder sound. And the kick drum has frequencies that I would say are naturally rounder 80hz or less and naturally more punchy @100-220 Hz. So, assuming the term "quick transients" and "rounded peaks" applies to a compression setting, are you talking about a compressor set with a low threshold, a long attack, and a light ratio where the hardest hits get the most action? Thus "quick transients" are most kick hits that get no or light compression, and "rounded peaks" are the harder hits that get more compression as they go farther beyond the threshold. FWIW: I've heard the term "tight low end" applied to the usefulness of GML 8200 EQ. Would you care to comment on that? Thanks for your thoughtfulness.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 19, 2016 11:41:19 GMT -6
I would like to know the general consensus on 'low-mid', 'mid', 'high-mid', etc. I just read Butch Vig defining "mids" as 500 Hz-2000KHz. He used it in the context of electric guitars, saying that when he pans an electric guitar in the center he will sweep that range and boost with an EQ at the frequency he likes most. It kinda boggles my mind that EQ tracking/mixing engineering has gone on for over 80 years and there appears to be no standard.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on May 19, 2016 11:44:25 GMT -6
Roughly speaking, this is what I think of when I hear these terms.
Tight low end = GML or SSL bell or sometimes Pultec trick. Tighter also = fewer harmonics or distortion, like solid state vs tube Pultec or different port designs or driver capabilty on speakers. Loose = low shelf and sometimes with harmonics
Crisp highs = higher Q around 8-12khz. You can really hear this on a Pultec with the bandwith control too.
Smooth/sheen equals low Q bell or gentle shelf around 12-16khz. Then you have "air" range
Low mid = 250-450 Mid = 600-3500 Depending on the timbre of the sound, people often break these down into boxy/cardboard frequencies (like 360-500), mud (400-600) then honk (800-1200) then the attack/really annoying mids (1500-3000). But 600-1600 harmonics are useful on lead guitar and bass for example, for getting them to be heard. Like Queens of the Stone Age guitar sound or a bass through an overdrive.
High mid = 4k-7k (I just think of where snares, guitars, and vocals can be lifted to push through but sit well)
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 19, 2016 11:46:33 GMT -6
Here's how I define it in my mind
Bottom - 25Hz - 150Hz Low mids - 150-450 Mids - 450-1kHz Upper mids - 1-5kHz Top - 5Khz-20kHz
Not saying that's "right" - just how I've always thought of it.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 19, 2016 11:47:34 GMT -6
I'm going to quickly call dibs on the "RGO EQ calling thingy standard"
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on May 19, 2016 11:52:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 19, 2016 11:56:33 GMT -6
Um...that's not the RGO Standard Calling Thingy, but thanks anyway...
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on May 19, 2016 11:59:17 GMT -6
Man I remember a pair guys almost getting into a fist fight over a pair of charts with different high points for the piano, it was like a 1k sufferance , it was really when we pointed out that 10-20k was a octave and they were fighting over a bit more than a note.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 19, 2016 12:37:24 GMT -6
People are describing dynamics as well as frequency when using terms like "tight low end". "Tight" generally refers to quick transients with somewhat rounded peaks. "Low end" generally means everything below 250hz as far as I've learned. Thank Svart. Let's take "tight low end". So, for example you have a kick drum where the player may be playing evenly and then have natural spikes due to a more intense striking of the beater during a section of the song. This more intense striking produces a louder sound. And the kick drum has frequencies that I would say are naturally rounder 80hz or less and naturally more punchy @100-220 Hz. So, assuming the term "quick transients" and "rounded peaks" applies to a compression setting, are you talking about a compressor set with a low threshold, a long attack, and a light ratio where the hardest hits get the most action? Thus "quick transients" are most kick hits that get no or light compression, and "rounded peaks" are the harder hits that get more compression as they go farther beyond the threshold. FWIW: I've heard the term "tight low end" applied to the usefulness of GML 8200 EQ. Would you care to comment on that? Thanks for your thoughtfulness. I don't consider *effects* part of the sound unless I make them part of it, so it's not really a compression thing.. But it could be. Think of the kick drum, tuned to 50hz, but without any kind of dampening.. BOOM BOOM BOOM, etc. Now add some light dampening and the frequency is still 50hz, but the dampening reduces the ringing which changes the dynamics of the drum. Now it's more like WHACK, WHACK, WHACK.. You can change the beater to a hard beater and get more of a TACK TACK TACK sound. But what will really bend your noodle is realizing that by changing the transients, you are also creating a crude mechanical EQ too. Since you are limiting the amount of time a vibrating surface vibrates, you are limiting the amount of harmonics being generated, and by doing that you are selectively filtering out certain ones. In the dampened kick with a hard beater, the transient of the beater is so fast that it produces high frequency vibrations. As those drop in frequency, the dampening and the weight of the head reduce their powers. Since the impact of the beater moves the head a considerable distance, it gives power to the vibration that is tuned by the tension of the head.. So now you have a TICK from the beater and a BOOM from the head moving.. Your kick drum sound. The rest is just tailoring your dampening to create less or more resonances for a "tighter" or "looser" sound!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 19, 2016 12:40:56 GMT -6
Yeah, when listening to two different DAs and one being considered looser than the other, I always thought of the tighter one as having a more defined attack...and release.
|
|