Question about EQing individual instruments

[sjs94704]

Excuse me if I have asked this already but I'm going to anyway ...... (I did look in my history and did not see where I did already!)

I know that the answers to a lot of questions on this site are subjective in what people are trying to do, but, what I am getting at is that for example, I have Melda Productions MEqualizer. It has a possible 6 bands to decide to use or not.

As far as what I am trying to do, I would say that if I was singing a Sinatra song, I want to use whatever plugins I need to make it sound as if there was actually a live band or orchistra behind me vs. singing to a recording of a song.

The pre-recorded tracks I get for the lack of a better term are what I call 'flat'. When I start to add some EQ to each instrument it brings out what I am going to call the 'true sound' and detail of each instrument.

However, at least at the moment, I suppose because of lack of experience, I'm just not sure which of the available 6 bands as well as what they should be (High-Shelf, High-Pass, Low-Shelf, Low-Pass, etc) each one should be. With this EQ I also have control over the slope too! So, learning what the slope should be is yet another thing to learn.

I can watch tons of hours of YT videos on how to EQ each instrument, but, then I would be EQing in a 'cookie cutter' fashion. I would much prefer to begin to learn to 'know' how many bands I need and what type each should be on my own.

Right now I am just 'button mashing' and playing with each band until it sounds good without getting the true benefit of the EQ. I often end up with all 6 bands active when I'll bet I could achieve a much better result with much less using the right kind of bands.....

What would you suggest I start doing to develop this part of my skill set?

[beingmf]

The crucial question is which elements (instruments/tracks) should be more* in focus than the others. Once you've decided what the song needs, you can build the mix.
Common EQ decisions are:
- low cut (in order to prevent bass buildup AND foreground/background)
- 200Hz attenuation/300Hz attenuation
- subtle corrections in the 800-2000Hz range
- high shelf
But those are more or less a shot in the dark now as we don't how how the recorded tracks actually sound.

* I'd start by making them sound "good" while the others don't necessarily need to sound "good" when solo'd.

[Jason Lyon]

Typically you'd introduce a fairly steep cut at around 200 to kill mud and put in a more gently shelving high cut starting somewhere around 1500 to tame hiss.

That's basic housekeeping that most engineers would do before anything else, probably without even listening to the tracks (in fact, it's common to see mix templates set up with this kind of basic curve). You often can't detect mud or hiss on any individual track, but those frequencies get together and make lots of kids who get together and make kids of their own.

The next thing to do is to make yourself a notch cut and sweep it up and down while listening to each track - you're trying to find any ugly areas that would benefit from a localised cut. We've washed our pigs and now we want to make sure we didn't miss bits before putting makeup on them.

The rest really does take time and experience to acquire. But in general try to think of each instrument having its own parking (porking?) space in the spectrum. Of course, they're all spamming out frequencies everywhere, but they generally have a predominant range and you'll get a cleaner mix if you don't have arguments in your parking lot.

There are special tools to visually analyse EQ, but there's nothing wrong with just watching ReaEQ and looking for the region with the most traffic. That's where the track basically wants to live. Of course, it's not that simple but it's a good start.

You want your male voice to sit up and be centre of attention - it has competition, more so than most female vocals. So look for the area the vocal "lives" and gently dip other instruments in that broad frequency range.

It is all in the ears ultimately, but there are quite a few well-known common frequency issues associated with drums and cymbals, sibilance in voices, etc. That stuff is well worth googling.

And then there's how it all sits together... Some might not agree with me, but I treat EQ the same way I treat volume - a cut is always better than a boost. This used to be desirable to keep down distortion in the signal paths, but it's still good discipline all the same and means you're less likely to run into headroom problems.

Oh, and rest your ears often - when you're starting out, your ears will lose perspective very fast. An experienced engineer can get a good mix very fast because they can just tell where the problems are, but even if they have to spend a long time on a mix they have developed tough ears. Even so, they don't work for hours at a time either.

[sjs94704]

Thanks so much to all who contributed to this conversation.... I'm getting there!

The song by the way is 'Send in the Clowns' in the style of A Little Nights Music.

The instruments we are talking about are:

1. Double Bass
2. Piano
3. Strings
4. French Horn
5. Woodwinds

As expected, all my instruments are feeding into a music BUSS. As I was EQing each instrument I'm happy how they each turned out, but, as I am listening to the song through the BUSS it sounds what I will call 'narrow'. For example, if the orchestra was on stage, it sounds like everything is coming at me from just the center of the stage and not from full left to right as if I was actually siting in front of one.

What can I do to create more 'fullness' to the overall sound of the music through the BUSS?

BTW, I am not even close to knowing instinctively about typical mixing terminology. That is yet one other learning curve of mine, so at least at the moment, the less technical talk the better for me to understand what you mean!

Thanks....

[vdubreeze]

Originally Posted by sjs94704

Right now I am just 'button mashing' and playing with each band until it sounds good without getting the true benefit of the EQ. I often end up with all 6 bands active when I'll bet I could achieve a much better result with much less using the right kind of bands.....

What would you suggest I start doing to develop this part of my skill set?

Keep mashing them buttons.

Seriously : ) Digest the info and tips but don't stop mashing buttons.

[Jason Lyon]

A few more thoughts occur to me.

There's nothing wrong with experimenting to learn, but I seem to recall you're using off-the-shelf backing tracks. If they're of decent quality they are probably mixed already - they'll be EQed to fit together, and quite possibly panned and reverbed as well.

Some are quite sophisticated and flexible, but given their generally intended plug'n'play use they tend to come pre-varnished. And of course, since they're sold as products, they don't usually get sent out dry and flat - most people in the market for backing tracks aren't sound engineers.

Obviously, there might be deficiencies or things you just don't like, but unless you hear something awful, you might be actually undoing work already done for you. And that you've paid for...

So I'd say your sole concern with the band is probably just balancing levels. Set a general level where everything sits pretty well, then perhaps do a bit of volume curve work here and there if you want to accentuate string swells and the like.

(For instance, at "Just when I thought..." you want the band to match the level of passion in the vocal, then decresc as the conviction starts to drain off at around "... I wanted was yours..." Depends on your vocal interpretation, of course.)

Your main task though would be to put your vocal "in the room" with them and make sure it's front of stage. The first thing you should work on is trying to match the vocal and band reverbs. There will certainly be some EQ work to do on the vocal too, but you'll get half the way there just by sucking and seeing with reverb matching.

One trick for bringing a track forwards in a mix to use a slapback delay on it. This may sound dauntingly technical, but it really isn't. It just means using any delay plugin and dialling in a tiny amount - really tiny, you're aiming for the point where you feel its effect rather than actually-lly hearing-ing it-t. Maybe start with about 80ms and dial it down until you reach that "just feeling it" point.

For this technique I'd recommend about a 70-30 balance of dry to wet. Which means the main sound is louder and the delay is quieter.

(This is a psychoacoustic trick. It simulates the effect of a sound source directly aimed at the listener bouncing off the back of the room and hitting their ears a fraction of a second after the direct sound. Sound sources that are further away are more physically spread and have more time to spread out and combine, so their reflected room sound is more diffuse. The result is that your slapped track will seem closer.)

Doesn't always work and it's only really suitable for a more intimate "clubby" sound rather than a concert hall vibe, but it's a good thing to try. I often use it on jazz recordings to bring forward the vocalist or horn soloist.

Once you've "stitched yourself in", it's time for a gentle overall EQ of the whole thing. But that's almost in the realm of mastering.

Sorry if this seems like oversimplification. I know you're eager to learn, but an often forgotten principle of sound engineering is identifying what's necessary and doing only that.

Be at last on the ground, not in mid air. (Good choice of song, btw.)

[Jason Lyon]

Forgot one thing.

Re "narrowness". How are your tracks panned? Are you using a stereo reverb?
If you've panned them nicely and it still sounds narrow, you could try adding a mid-side emulator such as Voxengo MSED (trusted and free) to your bus. This is an emulation of a piece of circuitry that's pretty much standard these days in consumer TVs, PCs, etc. It can actually seem to spread the sound out further apart than your speakers. Easy to overdo...

[sjs94704]

At this point, I thought it might be prudent for you to know exactly where I'm getting these songs from.

Here is a link to the song I'm working on:

https://www.karaoke-version.com/cust...he-clowns.html

What I do is solo each track one at a time and download it. They download as MP3's. I then import them into my projects as separate tracks. If you were to download this song (Only $3.00) and begin boosting the EQ, I hope you too will hear the 'true sound' of the instruments.

However, if you think cutting is still a better way to EQ tracks like this let me know.

As far as VSTs, I'm using Blue Cat's GAIN and Melda Productions MEqualizer (ver. 12.03) - Both Free. I love the GUI of MEqualizer.

Right or wrong, what I have been doing is, after boosting the EQ to bring out this sound, I have been adjusting the GAIN back down to keep the MAX volume at around -12.

Also, what I do is at the beginning of the song it starts at one volume and the just right before the singing starts I bring the volume envelope of the Music BUSS track down a bit. Also, as the song goes along, where there are certain instruments, for example, if at one point there is a guitar solo, then I boost the volume envelope of that one instrument for the section of the song that the solo lasts.

[Jason Lyon]

Interesting. From the preview clip available it does actually seem to be using Sondheim's original setting for the stage show (I was one of those sawing violins when I was at school). Top marks for that. Sequenced pretty well, but the string legatos are very machiney. A bit of subtle volume envelope work at the chord change points would help naturalise things a bit. Possibly even some time stretching and dovetailing - but that's probably something you don't want to get into.

At the end of the day, and sorry to be finicky here, there's only so much you can do with MP3s. I've a feeling you're trying to polish something beyond its capacity to shine. With MP3 files, you might be trying to work with sonic detail that just isn't there. Lossy compression you see? You can't add back lost information.

Perhaps you should consider looking for WAV backing tracks if you want to go into really detailed work?

It's usual to work in WAV, then boil the result down to MP3 if necessary for distribution at the end. The complexity needs to be there when you're mixing.

Do enjoy it of course, learn from the experience and try to get the best you can. But accept that your material has limitations.

[sjs94704]

Is there a website you can help me find that I can get what you're suggesting in WAV form from where each instrument is on its own track?

I'm interested in POP genre music:

Christopher Cross
Mariah Carey
Barbra Streisand
Coldplay
Earth, Wind and Fire
Phil Collins
Better Middler
Karen Souza
Paul Simon
Donna Summer
etc, etc, etc......

[serr]

Start with the basics with EQ. You probably have used bass and treble controls before right? Expand from there.

Don't think that just because you now see 5 bands (or 7 or 37) that you have to use all of them!

You'll first hear what's missing. Some element that you want to hear louder. Stop! Flip it around in your head to: What element is too loud and thus getting in the way of what I want louder? Now find that frequency band and cut it. And only cut what you need to.

Understand that the karaoke and rockband mults you find online are usually extremely mutilated! (What you called "flat sounding".) This isn't just some EQ balance issue! These tracks have been run through the meat grinder with compression. Everything from volume war hyping to make such tracks loud on their playstation or "karaoke machine" to mp3 compression and the like. These tracks are reduced to very lo-fi and will never be able to be mixed to sound professional no matter who you are or what skills you have. Just like you won't turn a thumbnail picture into a large wall sized professional looking portrait. Too grainy. Too much thrown away.

So, practice on that stuff like you have been and all but you'll want to make the leap to recording your own parts.

[Jason Lyon]

sjs:

Really not my field, I'm afraid. Not that I don't like that kind of music, I just don't work with backing tracks. Or rather, if I do, I make my own.

serr raises a good point about backing tracks being mashed and therefore unmashable. I do appreciate and encourage your enthusiasm, but there isn't much point hurting yourself trying to get more than "it'll sort of do" out of $3 karaoke downloads.

Sorry, but if you want more, you'll have to get deeper in. If you're at your limit financially and resource-wise then sure, enjoy and get the best you can out of it - we all do that all the time. But don't take a scalpel to a tree stump.

One option I could suggest would be Band in a Box. A lot of people produce files for it, but they aren't full arrangements - just chord charts that produce auto-generated rhythm section performances. That said, the auto-generation is cleverly stitched together from an internal library of phrases and fills recorded by actual musicians. There are a wide range of styles covered - pop, rock, country, jazz, Latin. You might find it a bit "bare bones" though - it won't be Phil Collins minus the vocal.

I use it for practice purposes and occasionally use a bass and drums render from it as the underpinning of something grander.

[sjs94704]

I did find a website called Song Galaxy.

https://songgalaxy.com/

They have songs in WAV for that sound great, but are $12 average per song. These tracks also have processing applied to them. BUT, I'm sure there is a place for them.

Too rich for my blood. I suppose when it gets down to it, for what I'm doing with it, the tracks I have are going to work just fine. Now, if I was doing something truly professional, that would be one thing!

[Jason Lyon]

Well, it's your show, baby. And if you're content with what you're getting then fine. Get it as good as you can.

I and others will be quite happy to offer advice, but in future I'd suggest you state up front that you're using karaoke tracks and that you know they have limitations but you just want to get the best you can out of them.

That should limit the responses to the kind of practical advice you need, instead of having people take you down rabbit holes. It might also be a good idea to always post a link to the tracks you're using.

How long do you spend recording and mixing each song? I'm guessing days (not a criticism - you're just starting out). Looked at in that perspective, perhaps $12 doesn't seem quite so horrible if the quality is that much better.

I used to know a girl who worked the cruise ships and she had really good backing tracks. She used musician friends to produce them for her and paid around £50 per song. And of course, whenever she had the budget to hire a band, they were first call.

She chose and built up her working repertoire over years and reckoned it had cost her thousands. That may seem outrageous, but she did a LOT of gigs and the cruise directors wanted more than a Casio bleeping in the background...

I recall your circs (hope you're doing okay btw), so I know you're not looking to perform, but that's just for perspective.

PS I've had a little listen to some stuff on SongGalaxy - sounds like good stuff.

[serr]

Just to expand on what I said above...

You may be a beginner at this but the bigger thing holding you back from a "professional sounding" mix is that it would be impossible to restore those backing tracks to professional fidelity no matter who you are.

Just like that thumbnail sized picture example. Don't fight physics trying to make it look good wall sized. Accept that it's thumbnail size, display it appropriately and move on.

Keep practicing and learning with the covers if it is enjoyable. But jump in and start writing and recording your own music. You'll make mistakes there too but at least everything will be in your hands and you won't be fighting super compressed hash. And you'll get your music out into the world.

[sjs94704]

I guess you might say I fell into using it just by chance.

I have some other equipment that I've had forever and my music has all been on CDs back when that was the latest way to get music (Remember the music stores full of CDs?) I still have the machine and CDs under my bed! Probably 15+ years old!

Anyways, awhile back I was in the music store down the street from my house for something and got involved in a conversation with one of the guys who works there and he turned me onto Reaper. So, after doing some searching online I found a website that I started purchasing music from. What first happened was I bought songs as MP3 that were the entire song mixed together. BUT, I then found I could buy the songs as backing tracks and have each instrument separate. So, I've done it that way ever since....

There have been lots of comments about how MP3s are so much less MIXABLE, and that may be true, BUT, at the time I started buying my songs, if I had known that, trust me, I would have made purchases of the right kind of backing tracks (WAV files) from the very beginning.

So, I have accumulated lots of songs I like that happen to be MP3 format.

As far as writing my own stuff, I am not a song writer. I'm sure it would be a lot of fun doing this if I was cuz I could do lots more with the music, BUT, at the moment, writing my own stuff would be yet one other learning curve to deal with.

My end game is not to write my own stuff, but to take what I have and make it sound as someone just said 'as good as I can for what I have'.

I am, however, making lots of progress in the area of learning EQ & compression much better including EQing my vocal track. BTW, as I get more into this where harmonies are needed, instead of just copying sections of my original track, I will be recording myself actually singing the harmony parts so at least that part won't sound robotic like what can happen when you copy stuff!

As far as where many of my questions come from, please keep this in mind. Until that guy at the music store mentioned reaper I had never even looked at mixing software before let alone use it! Think of it from the point of view of how overwhelming it can be to open up the software and see all the settings that can be changed and to learn from total scratch with zero mixing training at all how to get the software to accomplish my goals!

That ain't easy! It takes a minute to just get used to the GUI of the software and figure out where stuff is let alone use it!


So, there you go! That is how I got here!

[Bazzbass]

why would you even need to EQ backing tracks that have been already EQd?

[Jason Lyon]

Originally Posted by Bazzbass

why would you even need to EQ backing tracks that have been already EQd?

I know what you mean, but in his defence he has a very limited budget and I think he's trying to get the best he can out of cheap BTs.

I think he's also trying to learn and backing tracks are the only resource he has available. Some of us are musicians and work with bands, so we can always write and record. Or we could put something together with samples. Not everyone has those skills and tools.

[Jason Lyon]

sjs:

I remember the music stores full of 12 inch albums and 7 inch singles...
(Not that I'm some kind of vinyl purist bore - they were always a bit of a nuisance, what with warping, scratches, dust, knackered needles, faulty motors, etc.)

[sjs94704]

Me being a newbie to attachments on this site, maybe you can tell me what I need to do to share a couple of these files with you so you can see exactly what we are discussing here.

I would like to provide you with two instruments, BASS GUITAR and ELECTRIC GUITAR from the song 'Hero' by Mariah Carey.

They are both .MP3 files and are 9.81MB each. If I am reading the key correctly, the MAX ZIP file size is 1.72MB. BUT, I also see something about uploading from a URL.

I'm not sure if you all can appreciate this, but from a total newbie point of view this website leaves out a lot of explanation of what to do to properly upload files in a case like this so I would know what to do without asking! Or, maybe I'm just not looking in the right place! The point is, it is not very clear!

Anyway, what would be the best way for me to get you access to the backing tracks I'm working with so you know what I mean when I say that EQing them does indeed make them sound much better than if I left them alone.

Remember, these backing tracks are from a karaoke website vs. a site that offers professional backing tracks, thus EQing does make things sound much better!

Here is a link to the song: https://www.karaoke-version.com/cust...arey/hero.html

I do have a plugin from Melda Productions called MEqualizer. It does have a preset for BASS. All I can say is that when I apply that to the BASS guitar track that it is a dramatic improvement in the sound of the BASS than without it. The same holds true with several of the other instruments too!

[Philbo King]

A good beginner EQ technique:
Set up a relatively narrowband boost, and sweep the frequency up and down slowly while listening. When you hear something annoying or 'not quite right', pull the gain down at that frequency till it seems about right. Then reduce the dB's of that cut by half.