EQ/Spectral matching

squibs

I remember being very impressed by steinberg's freefilter and how it could profile an audio track and apply it's eq curve to another audio track. I've recently been looking at plugs that do the same thing, but dont want to spend much. FreqEQ boy by elevayta looks like it might fit the bill, but they have pulled some features from the demo. Also, I can quite distinctly hear harmonic artefacts when I draw curves in (admittedly on fairly agressive changes).

Anybody got any comments on this software, or Har Bal, or Curve EQ, or eq matching in general?

ogy

would be a bit cautious about using them, EQ is so specific. most importantly the key of a song and the elements used are gonna influence how its EQ'd, so dropping the EQ onto another tune sounds a bit mad. and stuff like kick drums are gonna have peaks in random different places so one kicks EQ would be different to anothers.

Neurojazz

I must admit your right there - each track needs different treatment - but one saving grace is that if your doing dance music mixes with no vocals you only need a handful of knowledge to be able to Eq reasonably well as your not having to deal with sound reflections in mikes and comb filtering and all that rubbish

squibs

Yep I accept that - it seems to work best when the tweaks are minor. I'm also thinking about using it on individual tracks as part of the process of understanding a certain bass or guitar sound say.

sei046

I have used roger Nichols Frequalizer and I didnt find it the best. The actualy EQ is brilliant but the matching jobby wa useless

PaulBrewer

I believe this is one of those 'Shortcuts' that the industry tries to sell lads, like 'Producer Presets' in FX units.

The Focusrite Liquid channel is a good example , it's at best an average box, but sold itself as a unit that could recreate 'all' the classic mic pres and compressors.

There are no shortcuts in my experience.

At best - Waffle

squibs

It's an unpopular view, but I'm a big fan of shortcuts

I can mike up my Fender or Marshall amp and play with positions and setting for ages, by which time I've lost the urge to play, or I can sp/dif my boss gt6 straight into the soundcard, tweak a preset, and be recording in 5 minutes. I'll usually split the signal with a DI box anyway, so I can re-amp the clean signal if it proves necessary later.

For pro-audio applications, the long way is generally better (although there are PODs and software amps appearing in big albums with increasing regularity). For us amateurs, shortcuts are perfectly acceptable. If the focusrite preamp works, I'm not losing sleep over the pusuit of absolute fidelity for the 1 guy in 1,000 with the golden ears and the €10k hi-fi who can hear the difference. I'm aiming at the other 999 who'll rip it to mp3 and listen on their ipods.

I guess I'm more about the spontaneity of creativity than clinical perfection, though I can still appreciate the nuances in a Steely Dan recording

Savman

Using digital Guitar software or stuff like the Boss GT gear is not the same thing as 'copying' an EQ curve from one track to another, the 2 are very different beasts.

I never got the gig with this warped notion of playing an Eagles song then copying and pasting that exact EQ curve to your own Soft Rock song in an attempt to recreate a similar sound. It's just nonsense.

For that to work, you would have to use exactly the same mics in exactly the same position on the exact same amps using the exact same guitars. Same goes for the Snare, Toms, Hats, Cymbals, Kick, Bass Amp, Bass Guitar etc etc. You cannot 'copy' the sound of a Fender Strat onto a track that uses a Gibson LP and expect it to sound in anyway similar just because you've used a similar EQ curve. We all know how Snare drum sounds can differ hugely, so how some folks can expect to capture that just by using some gimmicky software....frankly words fail me.:eek:

jtsuited

i use spectral analysis sometimes for mastering as the simple fact of the matter is that the human ear is feckin useless when it comes to eq.

Our ears get used to an eq change after a few minutes (there is an actual definite time depending on frequency), so reference is always needed.

And sure if I'm listening to another track as reference I may as well look at it too, just to check if for any major differences that my ears aren't telling me.

squibs

Using digital Guitar software or stuff like the Boss GT gear is not the same thing as 'copying' an EQ curve from one track to another, the 2 are very different beasts.

Hey jt - I was addressing Paul's point about shortcuts - my last post wasn't referring to eq matching at all...

jtsuited

squibs wrote: »

Hey jt - I was addressing Paul's point about shortcuts - my last post wasn't referring to eq matching at all...

who me? you've got the wrong man good sir!

Savman

squibs wrote: »

Hey jt - I was addressing Paul's point about shortcuts - my last post wasn't referring to eq matching at all...

That was me, but yeah point noted. There has been some big leaps in the digital guitar world in recent years and I do think there is plenty of room for shortcuts in that domain specifically.
Bands are finally copping onto the notion that 8x12" amp stacks are overkill unless you're touring the world.

jtsuited

Savman wrote: »

copping onto the notion that 8x12" amp stacks are overkill unless you're touring the world.

in which case the airlines will take you to the cleaners!!

squibs

whoops - sorry about the identity mismatch...

Savman

jtsuited wrote: »

in which case the airlines will take you to the cleaners!!

At that stage I'd assume you're into a convoy of forty foot trucks!

jtsuited

Savman wrote: »

At that stage I'd assume you're into a convoy of forty foot trucks!

it's amazing the amount of smallish bands though that manage to do international tours.
not everyone to play gigs outside of Ireland have to be U2.

PaulBrewer

squibs wrote: »

It's an unpopular view, but I'm a big fan of shortcuts

So am I ! But most suggested ones are just marketing in action ...

PaulBrewer

squibs wrote: »

It's an unpopular view, but I'm a big fan of shortcuts

I can mike up my Fender or Marshall amp and play with positions and setting for ages, by which time I've lost the urge to play, or I can sp/dif my boss gt6 straight into the soundcard, tweak a preset, and be recording in 5 minutes. I'll usually split the signal with a DI box anyway, so I can re-amp the clean signal if it proves necessary later.

For pro-audio applications, the long way is generally better (although there are PODs and software amps appearing in big albums with increasing regularity). For us amateurs, shortcuts are perfectly acceptable. If the focusrite preamp works, I'm not losing sleep over the pusuit of absolute fidelity for the 1 guy in 1,000 with the golden ears and the €10k hi-fi who can hear the difference. I'm aiming at the other 999 who'll rip it to mp3 and listen on their ipods.

I guess I'm more about the spontaneity of creativity than clinical perfection, though I can still appreciate the nuances in a Steely Dan recording

If you go onto Bob Clearmountain's website the ONLY thing he says is NO PODs!!

PaulBrewer

Savman wrote: »

. It's just nonsense.

, so how some folks can expect to capture that just by using some gimmicky software....frankly words fail me.:eek:

SAVMAN , I think I'll just stop posting ..... you do a great job!

sei046

All the same Im sure if you were doing Vox takes on diff days and the drop in sounded slightly different the next day there is surely something these Eqs can help with there?

PaulBrewer

sei046 wrote: »

All the same Im sure if you were doing Vox takes on diff days and the drop in sounded slightly different the next day there is surely something these Eqs can help with there?

Ja! ....... if they worked!

sei046

Ah no im sure that would be grand. I can see an application in individual tracks with slight discrepencies(sp?) due to temperature in mics or room or whatever. Nothing worse than a really obvious drop in!

jtsuited

sei046 wrote: »

Ah no im sure that would be grand. I can see an application in individual tracks with slight discrepencies(sp?) due to temperature in mics or room or whatever. Nothing worse than a really obvious drop in!

don't listen to prerecorded news reports on radio then. As soon as you hear the edit points it'll drive you nuts!!!

sei046

In the musical domain i mean

jtsuited

sei046 wrote: »

In the musical domain i mean

yeah ok.

slightly on/off topic i've noticed in a bit of hip-hop recently(good hip hop - not bitches, bling and bentley's), guys are being really creative with their drop ins/outs and are making each line deliberately sweeping over. Of course a lot of rap aficianados will be all like 'man that takes no skill' etc. but it sounds cool (to me).

The focusrite liquid channel and liquidmix have been quite controversial products for the reasons outlined in this thread, but their only crime is catering to a market of people who are so obsessed with getting the same high end gear sound as their heroes to neglect a certain amount of rationale.

Personally I like the liquidmix, and think for it's price it's incredible.
Yeah it's not exactly spot on accurate in it's emulations but it's so close for the price.
Convolution is still a technology in it's infancy so I would keep an open mind about it.