I do know it's a bad habit to just boost EQ but it seems so natural as it's easier to hear boosted changes.
Of course there is then the added gain and change in timbre.
I was thinking that a good EQ design needs to have a master dial that, after setting the boosted freqs, raises the "0" or axis line to the middle or so of your boosts,(or dropping the whole set at once) effectively dividing and reducing the boosts and simultaneously creating drops in between the boosts.
This would keep the gain neutral and be much more effective and musical IMHO.
Is there such a beast? Am I just describing a graphic EQ or is that different?
Am I making sense or just not understanding the concepts?
 

Try cutting instead of boosting & use eq sweeping to find problematic frequencies.

Yeah, you are making sense. On the Roland VG-99 they have at least 4 EQs in a signal chain and each one has a Total Gain control that does what you describe.
 

M_Glenn_M
I do know it's a bad habit to just boost EQ but it seems so natural as it's easier to hear boosted changes.
Of course there is then the added gain and change in timbre.
I was thinking that a good EQ design needs to have a master dial that, after setting the boosted freqs, raises the "0" or axis line to the middle or so of your boosts,(or dropping the whole set at once) effectively dividing and reducing the boosts and simultaneously creating drops in between the boosts.
This would keep the gain neutral and be much more effective and musical IMHO.
Is there such a beast? Am I just describing a graphic EQ or is that different?
Am I making sense or just not understanding the concepts?
 

Hi,
 
In my opinion, it's only a bad habit to boost if you are looking at things the way you explained them. LOL! :) Some guys don't use loads of eq thus, leaving their sounds a little thin. These individuals will just about always have to boost.
 
To me, the eq you talked about is a graphic to the numbers. Your Q is your fine tuner of the cut/boost. The main thing to understand here is....in a real situation, you shouldn't be using eq to the point of driving yourself nuts. If you are, you really need to take a look at your monitor environment. When I record things here...I record the best sounds I can record or they don't get recorded. When I mix, very little eq is used because I spent the time creating the sound to be recorded. This is how the pro's do it.
 
If you are in the position of "fix it in the mix" you are (IMHO) missing the boat. The only times you should be messing with sounds to the point of exhausting eq's would be...
 
1. A special effect you are creating within the mix using a particular sound
 
2. A sound that was recorded that can't be re-recorded so you MUST use that sound
 
Anything else and you should re-record if possible. Getting a sound to work in a mix that was properly recorded should take no more than 30 minutes or less. When you use an eq, you should be able to hear as much cut as you are hearing boost. Try using your Q more. In most cases, the lower the Q is, the more you hear cuts and boosts. The higher the Q, the more you just hone in on THAT frequency you are working on so the effects of EQ will be less heard. This is your fine tuner.
 
Hope some of this helps...good luck.
 
-Danny

Yes it's hard to think like "What is the freq I need to cut to get rid of this muddiness" rather than
"this is muddy, maybe more 2500? ahh that's better"
And yes it would be nice to have all the best musicians with high quality instruments, top recording gear, knowledgeable recording setup and the tuned studio as it would be obviously easier on EQ work.
Rsinger,
I do understand a series of subtle EQs is better than one extreme one for the best tone.
Here I assume on the first EQ you would boost, say, 1, 3 and 5, and reduce the gain and then on the next EQ, reduce 2, 4 and 6 and add gain?
This would surely still have all the tonal side effects from the boosts?
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it's not a gain control that solves the tonal problems of just boosting, but a balance of boosts and cuts in any one EQ that would be gain neutral?
 
I envisioned a control that moved the whole collection of EQ "wave forms" together down past the "0" so that, instead of all boosts, some, that were still at 0 would end up as cuts, balancing the gain and reducing the change in sound in one?

M_Glenn_M
I do know it's a bad habit to just boost EQ but it seems so natural as it's easier to hear boosted changes.
Of course there is then the added gain and change in timbre.
I was thinking that a good EQ design needs to have a master dial that, after setting the boosted freqs, raises the "0" or axis line to the middle or so of your boosts,(or dropping the whole set at once) effectively dividing and reducing the boosts and simultaneously creating drops in between the boosts.
This would keep the gain neutral and be much more effective and musical IMHO.
Is there such a beast? Am I just describing a graphic EQ or is that different?
Am I making sense or just not understanding the concepts?
 

Hi M_Glenn_M,
You're talking (more-or-less) about a passive EQ. Passive EQ's are devices that cannot amplify signal, only cut. Because of that some versions provide boost by cutting surrounding frequencies. Check the sidebar here: http://www.waves.com/content.aspx?id=12265 for a good description, but lots of companies make both hardware and software versions.
 
Regarding the general idea of cut rather than boost, I've always been a bit wary. I mean, yeah, it keeps your gain staging under control, but in a 24 bit system if you keep an eye on your levels and don't run too hot, clipping shouldn't be a problem. You do have to watch your compressors to make sure your not slamming your gain reduction, particularly when your doing a bass frequency boost, but you have to watch your gain reduction when doing cuts too, so it's kinda 50/50.
 
Bottom line, sure, when practical try to cut, but pretty much everyone I see these days is doing a fair amount of boosting ("air band" boosts anyone?) as well.
 
Just my .02
 
Good luck
Dean
 
 
 

Me, I will do whatever it takes to make it sound good. We have these tools I see no reason not to use them.
 
But I also agree with Danny. 

Razor, that's exactly what I meant. I knew I wouldn't be the first to think of it. Nice to know, thanks.
Good point about subsequent compressors slamming the gain reduction.
John, it's too easy for me to be convinced that, if I did it, it sounds good. Lol.

M_Glenn_M
I envisioned a control that moved the whole collection of EQ "wave forms" together down past the "0" so that, instead of all boosts, some, that were still at 0 would end up as cuts, balancing the gain and reducing the change in sound in one?

If you look at the image in my post above you'll notice that the two EQs have a control for Total Gain at the end. That raises or lowers Low, Low/Mid, Mid/High, and High simultaneously and that seems to be what you're describing. I can't say that I use that feature much unless I'm using the EQ as a gain stage. If some freqs need boosting I boost, if some need lowering, I lower. That's just me. 
 

M_Glenn_M
I do understand a series of subtle EQs is better than one extreme one for the best tone.
Here I assume on the first EQ you would boost, say, 1, 3 and 5, and reduce the gain and then on the next EQ, reduce 2, 4 and 6 and add gain?
This would surely still have all the tonal side effects from the boosts?
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it's not a gain control that solves the tonal problems of just boosting, but a balance of boosts and cuts in any one EQ that would be gain neutral?

 
The multiple EQs are beside the point other than it seems like all the VG-99's EQs have the feature you're describing.

M_Glenn_M
Yes it's hard to think like "What is the freq I need to cut to get rid of this muddiness" rather than
"this is muddy, maybe more 2500? ahh that's better"
And yes it would be nice to have all the best musicians with high quality instruments, top recording gear, knowledgeable recording setup and the tuned studio as it would be obviously easier on EQ work.

My apologies...I didn't mean to imply you needed great musicians or top gear. My point was, the more you do to get a sound printed the right way, the less you will need to worry about eq to an extent that can drive you crazy. :) Plenty of home recordists achieve great sound that aren't pro's. :)
 
In my opinion, I personally think you're making this a bit more difficult than it needs to be. You mention: "Here I assume on the first EQ you would boost, say, 1, 3 and 5, and reduce the gain and then on the next EQ, reduce 2, 4 and 6 and add gain?"
 
I can't seem to even get my head around that. It's probably because I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but to even look at an eq in that manner just makes me shake my head with confusion. If that's how you best understand it though, I'm by no means having a go at you. I just look at eq much differently.
 
I listen to a sound source in the context of the mix. If I hear a rumble of wooooooooooshhh in the back...something needs to be high passed so I sweep through the lower frequencies until I find where the whooosh of low end is coming from. It very well could be a bass frequency by itself. The right monitors tell you what you need to know.
 
If I hear sizzle in the top end that annoys me, either we need a low pass, a shelving, or we find the offending freq (if it's just one) and cut it. If I hear mid range to the point of the sound being way too dark with no energy, I know mids need to be cut. The opposite applies when a sound is missing these factors of tone.
 
It's quite alright to boost when necessary but I've always felt it's better to cut just to try it first. If you have too much high end, it's better NOT to just boost lows. You have to see what the effects of cutting do for you. A sound may end up too thin from too much cutting. But it all depends on the sound source as well as the mix you are working with AND....whether or not your monitors are giving you proper representation or not. See that's the thing, if I have a sound that's thin and high endy, I'm probably NOT going to cut the highs until I hear the sound with a bit more "meat" going on. You have to know when something is thin, when something is just right for tone shaping and when something may be over-accentuated or eq-abused.
 
-Danny