The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
Forum rules
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.
Quick Link to Feedback Forum
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.
Quick Link to Feedback Forum
- Ricky_Spanish
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:37 pm
- Location: Gtr. Manchester
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
If your hi-passing bass or kicks u should use the best quality eq u have, ie not from a daw sequencer there is a marked difference with the result, probably 'cos they are designed with cpu efficiency in mind.
I personally would recomend the sonnox eq for surgical tasks which also has a 36dbf slope. And for mastering the PSP neon which is super high quality.
I personally would recomend the sonnox eq for surgical tasks which also has a 36dbf slope. And for mastering the PSP neon which is super high quality.
- Turnipish_Thoughts
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:34 pm
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
This will explain the difference between EQ's and filters to you (Source ~ Sound FX; Unlocking the creative potential of recording studio effects - By William Russo)Thrilla wrote:Not really an embarrassing question for me, but just something I'd like to know... Is there a difference between say using a parametric EQ to highpass/lowpass something or using a filter to highpass/lowpass something..? Same effect is it not?
So to answer your question, A filter offers possible complete amplitude attenuation whereas an EQ has a limit to the amount of attenuation/amplification it can achieve. An EQ is usually used to modify the spectral content of a sound through attenuation or amplification, for example to compensate for frequency masking of clashing content between different tracks/sounds. A Filter is usually, on the other hand , used to either completely remove spectral content or, for creative reasons, accentuate complimentary harmonics (comb filter with resonance turned up, for example). An EQ lacks a resonance parameter, but with an EQ you are allowed to set the amount of attenuation/amplification. A filter will keep cutting indefinitely based on the steepness curve of the filter pole (12, 24 e.t.c.).5.2.10 FILTERS
An important third option exists for reshaping the frequency content of a
signal: the fi lter. Engineers speak generally about fi ltering a signal whenever
they change its frequency response in any way. Under this loose defi nition,
all of the equalizers we have discussed so far are audio fi lters. But to be
more precise, a true fi lter must have one of the two shapes shown in Figure
5.5. A high-pass fi lter (Figure 5.5a) allows high frequencies through with no
change in amplitude, but attenuates lows. A low-pass fi lter does the
opposite. A low-pass fi lter (Figure 5.5b) allows low frequencies to pass
through the device without a change in amplitude, but high frequencies are
attenuated.
Because the sonic result can be rather similar to shelving fi lters cutting out
extreme high or low frequencies, there is the potential for some confusion
between them. Filters distinguish themselves from shelving equalizers in
two key ways. First, fi lters are cut-only devices. They never boost at any
frequency. Shelf EQ can cut or boost. Second, and this is important, fi lters
offer a never-ending amount of attenuation beyond the selected frequency.
They do not fl atten out like the shelf. They just keep cutting and cutting. If
there is some unwanted low-frequency air conditioner rumble on a track
that you never, ever want to hear, a fi lter can offer signifi cant attenuation.
A shelf equalizer will have a limit to the amount of attenuation it can
achieve, perhaps only 12 or 16 dB down. The weakness of using a shelving
equalizer in this case is easily revealed on every quiet passage whenever
that track is being played, as it might still be possible to hear the air
conditioner rumbling on faintly in the background.
The two components are quite similar in a lot of respects but the differences are important and both EQs and filters are therefor intended for different (although similar) sonic alterations. Learning when to use which would be a wise choice.

Soundcloud

Serious shit^Altron wrote:The big part is just getting your arrangement down.
Brothulhu wrote:...EQing with the subtlety of a drunk viking lumberjack

Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
a lot of eqs include lpf and hpf tho... am i right?
Sharmaji wrote:2011: the year of the calloused-from-overuse facepalm
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
no, those are not filters in a strict sense as they do not mathematically filter the sound out, they musically filter the sound out in an attempt to sound like expensive analogue equipment. (See the post I made already) They are poor for removing frequencies you can't hear as expensive analogue equipment is pretty much the same (low frequencies were removed after mastering on vinyl as they were printed, as they had a tendency to knock the stylus and make it jump at very high levels).
That and the fact that if you've ever seen a Filter built into a EQ on a spectrum analyser you will realist that most don't completely reduce sounds below the frequency to your noise floor.
That's why the expensive mastering suites come with multiple EQ/Filters. For example, iZotope Ozone has a Digital EQ mode specifically for this and Waves make the Q10 series of parametric EQ's (as opposed to the REQ range which is musical)
That and the fact that if you've ever seen a Filter built into a EQ on a spectrum analyser you will realist that most don't completely reduce sounds below the frequency to your noise floor.
That's why the expensive mastering suites come with multiple EQ/Filters. For example, iZotope Ozone has a Digital EQ mode specifically for this and Waves make the Q10 series of parametric EQ's (as opposed to the REQ range which is musical)
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
Ok. So a filter is to completely remove frequencies, and and eq is for creative use to make instruments sound better or to duck out a frequency that conflicts with another, like the sub and the kick drum? Or is a filter good to use for the kick-sub issue?
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
got a good read on this somewhere!?!?!?!.. i feel like im missing outgen_ wrote:no, those are not filters in a strict sense as they do not mathematically filter the sound out, they musically filter the sound out in an attempt to sound like expensive analogue equipment. (See the post I made already) They are poor for removing frequencies you can't hear as expensive analogue equipment is pretty much the same (low frequencies were removed after mastering on vinyl as they were printed, as they had a tendency to knock the stylus and make it jump at very high levels).
That and the fact that if you've ever seen a Filter built into a EQ on a spectrum analyser you will realist that most don't completely reduce sounds below the frequency to your noise floor.
That's why the expensive mastering suites come with multiple EQ/Filters. For example, iZotope Ozone has a Digital EQ mode specifically for this and Waves make the Q10 series of parametric EQ's (as opposed to the REQ range which is musical)
thx btw
Sharmaji wrote:2011: the year of the calloused-from-overuse facepalm
- Turnipish_Thoughts
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:34 pm
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
fuck the boat
Soundcloud

Serious shit^Altron wrote:The big part is just getting your arrangement down.
Brothulhu wrote:...EQing with the subtlety of a drunk viking lumberjack

- symmetricalsounds
- Posts: 2200
- Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:05 pm
- Location: uk
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
if you really are experiencing problems with eq8 then try right clicking and going hiquality.gen_ wrote:Don't use Abletons EQ8, its an EQ not a filter. As Ldizzy said, each EQ affects sound differently (EQ8 is pretty bad imo). Get your hands on a free EQ VST or use Abletons other basic EQ (the one with just the knobs). The problem with this is your trying to do something very scientific and most built in EQ's and FX are designed to be musical. they say their doing something, and it sounds like their doing that something but often their doing something else entirely.
For example, I noticed last week that hi-passing live hats at 10k using Logic's channel EQ has the effect of actually raising the volume of them despite having remove quite alot of signal below the 10k mark and having no resonance or Q.
also have a read of this http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=361
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
whats a music?
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
symmetricalsounds wrote:if you really are experiencing problems with eq8 then try right clicking and going hiquality.gen_ wrote:Don't use Abletons EQ8, its an EQ not a filter. As Ldizzy said, each EQ affects sound differently (EQ8 is pretty bad imo). Get your hands on a free EQ VST or use Abletons other basic EQ (the one with just the knobs). The problem with this is your trying to do something very scientific and most built in EQ's and FX are designed to be musical. they say their doing something, and it sounds like their doing that something but often their doing something else entirely.
For example, I noticed last week that hi-passing live hats at 10k using Logic's channel EQ has the effect of actually raising the volume of them despite having remove quite alot of signal below the 10k mark and having no resonance or Q.
also have a read of this http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=361
It's not really a problem as such, its just its analogue model is not one I am very fond of... it doesn't really fit with my sound.
As for info on digital filters or more specifically FFT filters which is what you want.
http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/speclab/filters.htm
Notice that there is no bell curve, just a steep drop, as the filter converts the sound into a 'picture' (like you would see on those FFT heatmaps of your track in Audacity) and deletes the frequencies you select. This is your ideal tool, otherwise you next best bet is a linear phase EQ. Every other EQ does not follow a specific method to equalise and as a result they all sound different and do different things to your sound. The final option is Brainworx's free Cleansweep, which EQ's each channel (L&R) seperately so plays less with your sound.
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
Sorry for the double-post but I felt this needed a bump for detail.
Taken from here, a great explanation of FFT vs standard filtering
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3919987
your EQ is (usualy) a DSP algorithm which works with samples in the "time" domain
this means that you give it 1 sample of audio, it returns one sample of processed audio
the filters inside this EQ usualy work with feedback (IIR), and are "casual"
the goal is to change the amplitude of different frequencies of the audio - this is doable..
FFT is something completely different..
FFT "analyzes" (if i can call it that way) the input audio and "builds" new information about it in another form, called "frequency" domain
you can think of this like you've split the frequency range with a whole pile of band-pass filters and you're now recording the individual amplitudes of these individual frequencies
but it does that with no filters, it uses a special technique..
so, in short, it "Transforms" the audio signal from time-domain (sampled waveform) into frequency-domain (amplitude levels of individual frequency bands)
then, this frequency-domain data can be transformed back into time-domain (so you can hear it) .. tho, it won't sound exactly the same (this depends on how dense the FFT was)
now, there is a difference between using an EQ (a bunch of IIR-filters) and FFT
FFT needs to look into the "future" this is no problem for offline processing (like your Audition app)
thus, the real-time FFT algorithm has to "accumulate" some of the audio _before_ it can start to output any data, which means that it delays the audio..
so how does your FFT-EQ work?
it just transforms the audio into frequency domain, then you just manipulate the amplitudes of individual bands, and then it transforms it back to time-domain
because it's offline processing, the algorithm can analyze the _whole_ audio if it wants to, and it can process with the highest quality possible, since there is no time-limit, you'll wait for it ;]
Taken from here, a great explanation of FFT vs standard filtering
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3919987
your EQ is (usualy) a DSP algorithm which works with samples in the "time" domain
this means that you give it 1 sample of audio, it returns one sample of processed audio
the filters inside this EQ usualy work with feedback (IIR), and are "casual"
the goal is to change the amplitude of different frequencies of the audio - this is doable..
FFT is something completely different..
FFT "analyzes" (if i can call it that way) the input audio and "builds" new information about it in another form, called "frequency" domain
you can think of this like you've split the frequency range with a whole pile of band-pass filters and you're now recording the individual amplitudes of these individual frequencies
but it does that with no filters, it uses a special technique..
so, in short, it "Transforms" the audio signal from time-domain (sampled waveform) into frequency-domain (amplitude levels of individual frequency bands)
then, this frequency-domain data can be transformed back into time-domain (so you can hear it) .. tho, it won't sound exactly the same (this depends on how dense the FFT was)
now, there is a difference between using an EQ (a bunch of IIR-filters) and FFT
FFT needs to look into the "future" this is no problem for offline processing (like your Audition app)
thus, the real-time FFT algorithm has to "accumulate" some of the audio _before_ it can start to output any data, which means that it delays the audio..
so how does your FFT-EQ work?
it just transforms the audio into frequency domain, then you just manipulate the amplitudes of individual bands, and then it transforms it back to time-domain
because it's offline processing, the algorithm can analyze the _whole_ audio if it wants to, and it can process with the highest quality possible, since there is no time-limit, you'll wait for it ;]
-
- Posts: 1312
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:47 am
- Location: seatroll
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
How big of a difference is plugging something into your 1/8 inch mic input on your comp compared to using a audio interface in?
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
it depends what you are plugging in.tavravlavish wrote:How big of a difference is plugging something into your 1/8 inch mic input on your comp compared to using a audio interface in?
Pedro Sànchez wrote:BigUp Skreem, Mela, Loofah, Kode8 & Spacial Ape and Bengo.
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
+1Mammoth wrote:it depends what you are plugging in.tavravlavish wrote:How big of a difference is plugging something into your 1/8 inch mic input on your comp compared to using a audio interface in?
Quick and dirty answer is that Audio interfaces have preamps which 'clean' the sound with magic and witchcraft. Sound cards do too but they're shite.
You can pay as much as 3 grand on just a preamp unit on its own and it is totally worth it. My dream unit atm is a Neve 1073 and thats £1800. I had the pleasure of recording someone through my cheap £100 mike and that and I swear down it made her sound incredible.
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
How does one get smooth LFO changes? Whenever i'm shifting the LFO rate in say a drop it's always really choppy and uncomfortable.
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
cyz1 wrote:How does one get smooth LFO changes? Whenever i'm shifting the LFO rate in say a drop it's always really choppy and uncomfortable.
Are you automating the change or adjusting it manually?
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
Adjusting it manually, I don't know what automating is. I'm on logic btwwub wrote:cyz1 wrote:How does one get smooth LFO changes? Whenever i'm shifting the LFO rate in say a drop it's always really choppy and uncomfortable.
Are you automating the change or adjusting it manually?
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
cyz1 wrote:Adjusting it manually, I don't know what automating is. I'm on logic btwwub wrote:cyz1 wrote:How does one get smooth LFO changes? Whenever i'm shifting the LFO rate in say a drop it's always really choppy and uncomfortable.
Are you automating the change or adjusting it manually?
Automation is where you prerecord the change in parameter you want carried out, so that when the project plays back, it does it automatically as opposed to you doing it yourself. I'm not a Logic user myself, but this video should be able to help;
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
I liked the video you found and it answered some questions but the biggie for me right now is automating the LFO which i don't think was covered in it
Re: The extremely embarrasing basic question thread
cyz1 wrote:I liked the video you found and it answered some questions but the biggie for me right now is automating the LFO which i don't think was covered in it
Ok, the principle behind automation is the same, no matter what parameter (in your case, the LFO) is being automated.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests