|
|
EQ Talk
Apr 12, 2015 10:17:34 GMT -6
Post by swurveman on Apr 12, 2015 10:17:34 GMT -6
I get baffled reading people's comments about EQ. For example, people talk about "transparent Eq", but how does lifting or cutting a frequency band, or using a filter, sound 'transparent"? Isn't the whole idea for the band to poke out or get tucked under in a pleasing way that is obvious after the boost or cut was made?
If anybody has thoughts on what I may not be understanding about EQ transparency I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
EQ Talk
Apr 12, 2015 11:03:02 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 12, 2015 11:03:02 GMT -6
Well one thing would be if the equipment device/device introduced artifacts and or its on sound.
If you can demo the massen berg eq it is considered very clean?
|
|
|
|
EQ Talk
Apr 12, 2015 11:30:17 GMT -6
Post by peteje on Apr 12, 2015 11:30:17 GMT -6
It is a term for the sound of an instrument - the timbre. Yes, some are "transparent", some are more "coloring"; it comes down to amount of harmonic distortion and phase interactions and wether they are pleasing or not. Some eqs are grainy and it is a great sound on some things, but far from transparent. Some are so clean that all you hear is the boost cut and the original timber of the sound (beyond the eq curve) remains very much intact (transparent). It really is a valid way to describe as eq devices vary widely in their individual sound or timber regardless of the boosting and cutting done.
|
|
|
|
EQ Talk
Apr 12, 2015 12:24:53 GMT -6
Post by swurveman on Apr 12, 2015 12:24:53 GMT -6
Well one thing would be if the equipment device/device introduced artifacts and or its on sound. If you can demo the massen berg eq it is considered very clean? Thanks guys. Question: So, there's transparent, colored and grainy EQ's. Nobody is going to drop off a GML (transparent?), Massive Passive (colored?) or grainy EQ (1073?) in my neck of the woods to demo. But I've got all three EQ's as plugins. Is there a best case test you would recommend for me to easily hear what you're talking about. I'd really like to focus the sound so that I can have that "ah ha" moment. So, is there a frequency range or sine wave frequency where it would be most evident? Thanks to any advice/suggestion you have. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Apr 12, 2015 12:52:31 GMT -6
For comparison purposes and understanding the differences in styles of EQ's : the difference in "transparency, grain, harmonic distortion and phase anomalies" that you speak of are much LESS apparent in plugins than they are on hardware. Use what sounds good to you. Eventually, after you've made these choices dozens of times, and keep dumping plugin X and using Z in a particular situation, and etc. etc. etc - you will instinctively know which way to go.
|
|
|
|
EQ Talk
Apr 12, 2015 12:56:37 GMT -6
Post by mrholmes on Apr 12, 2015 12:56:37 GMT -6
Every EQ move changes phase too.
The term transparent is missleading to me.
I like the Waves SSL EQ very much, but he is not always the right tool....
|
|
|
|
EQ Talk
Apr 12, 2015 13:04:48 GMT -6
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 12, 2015 13:04:48 GMT -6
transparent eq to me is when boosting or cutting only changes the level of the selected frequencies without phase affects and compression on the rest of the freqs, I personally haven't heard very many transparent eq's, you can analyze them and see all kinds of crossover phase smear above and below the selected ranges, you can just engage an eq on a console without turning a knob and it can change the sound significantly, thats why they have the eq bypass switches i'd guess? Linear phase eq's are probably the most transparent available? because they don't effect adjacent freq's as much, but they have short comings as well that add artifacts like pre ringing effects. To me the best way to achieve transparency is by using a clean eq in small doses, the more you twist, the more you smear. Some times it's a good thing, in the past i've inserted eq's and comps in bypass(not true) just to get the color from the circuits.
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 12, 2015 13:16:21 GMT -6
For comparison purposes and understanding the differences in styles of EQ's : the difference in "transparency, grain, harmonic distortion and phase anomalies" that you speak of are much LESS apparent in plugins than they are on hardware. Use what sounds good to you. Eventually, after you've made these choices dozens of times, and keep dumping plugin X and using Z in a particular situation, and etc. etc. etc - you will instinctively know which way to go. Thanks for your reply drbill. I do choose what sounds good to me and over the years instinctively do my thing. I've used almost every plugin EQ imaginable over the years. I don't think in terms of grain, transparent, colered though. I just listen and whatever sounds right I use. Nevertheless, I see these terms and I want to understand them so that they register in my brain, mostly for a possible time where somebody says they want a grainy sound etc. Franky, if somebody said they wanted a more grainy guitar sound to me today, I'd probably distort the sound with a compressor, not reach for an EQ. The same is true for colored, because I can really hear the sound change when I choose my API 2500 instead of my Smart C2. So, I'm curious about the terms for EQ. If it really can't be done with plugins. I guess I'll just have to buy a GML 8200 and a Massive Passive.  |
|
|
|
EQ Talk
Apr 12, 2015 15:06:18 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 12, 2015 15:06:18 GMT -6
I know with a lot of hardware eq's you tend to "hear" them less. Like someone said above, they seem to be adding less effect to other frequencies. For example, with my Helios, lifting 10khz just seems "sweeter" - like it just works better for some reason. Yet, That hasn't convinced me to have a bunch of hardware eq's for some reason. I remember several people mentioning they would rather have a hardware eq instead of a hardware compressor on the 2-bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Apr 12, 2015 20:43:53 GMT -6
Hardware inductor EQs can really effect the freq response curve, even with no boost or cut applied...
and even setting the FREQ points to different points, without Boost and Cut can change that again...
I had a Neve 551 EQ that sounded best, no boost cut, and low end set to 200Hz...
That thing was spec'd at +- 1dB and it used every bit of that spec you would see up to nearly 2dB swing
(this is one of the reasons I reckon the old plug in vs hardware shoot outs turn out the way they do,... you could have 2dB difference between two identical hardware units.. that aint gonna null 8) )
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Apr 13, 2015 9:15:14 GMT -6
A transparent EQ is one that has no sound, no color, no effect when the EQ knobs are at zero. Those are very rare. Many times one will insert an EQ and spend the next ten minutes tweaking out the colors or changes. Then, if you are lucky, you will have one band left over to fix what you originally inserted it for in the first place.
Another problem is barking in the mids during boosting or "phase swishing" during cut and sweeping the frequency knob. A great EQ will not bark at 2k with +15 db of boost. Nor will it sound like a phase shifter sweeping during cutting. Try this with your favorite EQ and hear how it responds.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 13, 2015 9:56:54 GMT -6
I get baffled reading people's comments about EQ. For example, people talk about "transparent Eq", but how does lifting or cutting a frequency band, or using a filter, sound 'transparent"? Isn't the whole idea for the band to poke out or get tucked under in a pleasing way that is obvious after the boost or cut was made? If anybody has thoughts on what I may not be understanding about EQ transparency I'd appreciate it. I've always thought this too. I stopped worrying about it and started thinking about everything as an "effect" of some sort. If I add EQ, I use it for a reason and if I achieve my goal, I don't worry about whether it's pure or perfect, I just move on when I like it. If it sounds strange or doesn't work, I try something else until it does. Most of the time I find that if EQ or another effect doesn't sound right, it's because I'm not using it right, not necessarily because of any real problems with the device/plugin. One thing that's helped with EQ is realizing that what I think I should do, and what I need to do are usually pretty different. I've been guilty on many occasions of trying to "force" my desires onto the track at hand. I'll try to make a scooped guitar more midrange by boosting mids or some such, and trying to make it sound like something it's not usually ends poorly. Even if I succeed, it doesn't mean that it sounds the same in the mix. I find that frequency masking is a big deal. in other words, I think the majority of the talk about EQ is academic, the majority of the problems with EQ is the usage. |
|
