NORMAL EQ OR ADVANCED EQ ?

[♔Chello]

NORMAL EQ OR ADVANCED EQ ?

There are an incredible number of ways to use EQ.

The most common one for arrangers is strictly speaking completely wrong (Master EQ), because it gives the same EQ to all tracks.

Individual EQ is more correct, but using HIGH, MID and LOW EQ means that the frequency and Q values are fixed, which is often insufficient.

I am convinced that I have found a better way - I clearly like one version better than the other, but I will not say why until someone says which they like best, and preferably why.

These 2 versions of my own mix are VERY different, and everything is done with EQ plus something else:

  Capital Soul 1.mp3 (Size: 3.42 MB / Downloads: 21)

  Capital Soul 2.mp3 (Size: 3.41 MB / Downloads: 20)

[⚖whitecolin1]

NORMAL EQ OR ADVANCED EQ ?


i i prefer the first  the second is punchier but very dry

[♔Chello]

NORMAL EQ OR ADVANCED EQ ?


i i prefer the first  the second is punchier but very dry

⚖Colin



Your assessment is as expected - you noticed the 2 most important consequences; that the second is more punchy, but very dry.

TOO dry would probably be what almost everyone would say, but not necessarily.

I've made another version - how does this one sound ?

  Capital Soul 3.mp3 (Size: 3.42 MB / Downloads: 17)

[⚖musicalmemoriesuk]

Version 1 of the style sounds more open than version 2 which sound more closed and upfront

---

Version 3 while the sound is close the instruments in the tracks are more pronounced

[♔Chello]

Version 1 of the style sounds more open than version 2 which sound more closed and upfront

---

Version 3 while the sound is close the instruments in the tracks are more pronounced

⚖musicalmemories


Thanks for your review.

Here is my review:
Version 1 has too much reverb which also messes up the bass beats.
Version 2 is my preferred one, because I feel like I'm sitting in the studio with the players.
Version 3 is Version 2 with added reverb for all tracks, but the reverb doesn't affect the bass range.

My purpose with these demos:
Which version would YOU have chosen if you were going to perform on an unknown stage ?

[⚖musicalmemoriesuk]

It’s better to play with a dryer reverb or sound at an unknown venue as unless you have time to do a sound check, you don’t know what the acoustics are like. So i would say 2 as the sounds also have more presence

---

If your at home then you might be trying to create a soundscape sounds as a movie score when you will need more reverb. But chances are if you used the same amount of reverb at an unknown venue then everything could turn to mud.

It’s a fine balance using reverb to creating the soundscape you want the sound to be in and the actual acoustics of the room.

---

I think the mixer eq is more suited to resolving masking issues than actually shaping sounds

[♔Chello]

It’s better to play with a dryer reverb or sound at an unknown venue as unless you have time to do a sound check, you don’t know what the acoustics are like. So i would say 2 as the sounds also have more presence

---

If your at home then you might be trying to create a soundscape sounds as a movie score when you will need more reverb. But chances are if you used the same amount of reverb at an unknown venue then everything could turn to mud.

It’s a fine balance using reverb to creating the soundscape you want the sound to be in and the actual acoustics of the room.

---

I think the mixer eq is more suited to resolving masking issues than actually shaping sounds

⚖musicalmemories


Thank you very much for your detailed response.
I was pretty sure you would choose Version 2 at an unknown venue, which I would have done for the same reasons you mention.

That said, I find it strange that all styles on all arrangers are set up to recreate a stage with a certain amount of reverb, because this doesn't work when you play on stage; the keyboard already has the necessary reverb, which results in a double reverb effect, which sounds terrible, something that most demonstrations by the most famous are also victims of.

Why don't the manufacturers have a version of DRY styles intended for performing musicians ?

I use the mixer EQ (4-band Parametric EQ) primarily subtractively - to remove frequency overlaps, and then give a slight boost in desired tonal ranges.
A minimum of dB is needed to achieve the desired result.

My goal with these demos was to demonstrate how easy it is to remove mud from all tracks to create a punchy sound, as well as to highlight the negative effects reverb can have.

My perception of punchy sound seems to work, because no one has suggested that it is TOO punchy, even though I have adjusted more dB than necessary to demonstrate the effect.

As a long-time HiFi enthusiast, I am allergic to a muddy sound, and most styles (all..?) sound much better WITHOUT reverb played through my horns or STAX headset.

This is because both the horns and STAX reproduce a significant amount of ambience (NOT reverb..!), which regular speakers and headsets do not.

Therefore, most users will probably find my preferred edit too dry, while I hear everything differently due to other equipment.

[⚖whitecolin1]

like the new version very clear sharp and prounced

[♔Chello]

like the new version very clear sharp and prounced

⚖Colin


Thank you very much for your final assessment; you chose "the right one".

I say "the right one" because I have worked from a completely dry version, and finally added a minimum of reverb.

I feel that this version suits most playing situations better than the original mix, which gives too little punch and too much reverb, which creates a muddy soundscape.

Guess what I have used as a "template" - the soundscape from the Yamaha 9000 Pro, which I find to be more punchy and authentic than that of the Pa5X original.

What is special about the 9000 Pro is that all sounds have a significant proportion of Genuine ambience in the sampling itself (all XG sounds have this) as well as the careful use of reverb, because the amount of Genuine ambience allows for this.
More real and less artificial, you could say.

I think I've found a way to recreate the 9000 Pro's soundscape by using Stereo Parametric 4EQ in FX 1 and 2 and Reverb Bright Room in FX 3 as Master FX.
These values are then adjusted in the MFX Send for each track.

   


Everything indicates that this will be my new way of mixing.

   

[⚖Hugh Wallington]

I think I have been missing out on this discussion .. watching too much tennis at Queens Club! And doing a jigsaw.

Having listened to all three versions .. I like Version 1 way ahead of the other two. It somehow is crystal clear .. and makes you feel you are there playing with the band.
Version 2 is very 'hollow' to me, sounding 'over the top of your head'. This is the effect I get when listening to something in MONO. Can't pick out where the instruments are playing from.
Version 3 .. the drummer sounds as if he is playing in a room with a thick carpet and curtains, which absorbs all the 'echo' one would normally get off the walls when playing in a hall.

Maybe all this is because I always listen using headphones .. so anything playing eg. into my right ear is not heard at all in my left. And vice versa. With speakers, both ears would hear sound playing from both speakers.