"Correct" EQing techniques

I totally disagree with the notion that one should never boost good frequencies.
Sometimes, that's all it takes to just bring up a touch of the bite or body.
 
Nothing wrong with boosting on EQs. Whatever gets you where you need to go with the least damage. If you only needed to boost 2-4dB at 4k for some bite you wouldn't use shelving filters to cut 2dB from both sides of your center frequency. The general rule is that boosts tend to sound smoother with broader Q's. Cuts on the other hand can be much more narrow without your ear noticing.

And cutting the fizz above 10k is a good idea in my opinion, it makes listening to you recorded tone much more pleasant at high volumes. I just use a very gentle 12dB per octave filter at 10k to slope off the top that will bit your ears off. The best example I can think of is Rush's Moving Pictures. You can crank that record LOUD for then entire album and not get fatigued from the guitars. With high gain amps, extended periods of time listening to those real upper frequencies at loud volumes will make your ears fatigue real quick. It can be tricky because in the metal genre, those high frequencies make guitars sound cutting and crystal clear when they are played back at low volumes. But as you start to crank it, it starts to make your ears bleed. And of course watch for nastiness around 4kHz.
 
I'll give you the best EQ advice you could ever get: Avoid it at all cost!

Post EQ is an effective tool and that's the reason it's also a bad tool. You will most likely concentrate on the inessential and suck out the soul of your sound. You need to know what to listen for and usually that's not the case. People always want "more" of something. Then they boost the treble and next they want "more" bass. Then they raise the bass. Guess what's next? They need "more" cut because they can't hear themselves so they boost mids and the end solution is a weird EQ curve that makes your guitar sound digital. (because of the EQ and not modeling)

IMO the only reason you use post EQ on guitar is to compensate for something that should've be fixed earlier on. With the Axe-Fx it's just as easy to go change the amp settings or IR (cab and mic placement) so I don't suggest using post EQ as a solution. There's an IR out there that fixes your problem. High cut and low cut are okay ofcourse but most likely a good IR doesn't need as much of them. Try my IR's f.ex. they are pretty good for FRFR and f.ex. the ZERO IR's don't need much hicut or lowcut.
 
Excellent advice here and I was doing something similar, by chance. For the few patches that I like to use, I save 3 versions of them......1) DI + Amp/Cab, 2) Headphone Noodling, 3) Desktop Monitors. Each will have a PEQ at the end of the chain to alter EQ for the different output device.

Steve

Fabio KTG said:
I find that a lot of people use cuts and shelving because they're trying to "tighten things up", when really they're trying to get rid of mushy frequencies and "woofy/boominess" or shrill, ear splitting frequencies. The best way to deal with this problem is to do it like any studio engineer does. Put a PEQ at the end of your signal path and boost the suspect frequency with a tight Q value. Scroll up and down until that suspect frequency is really apparent and then cut it by a few Db and open the Q a little. Don't ever boost good frequencies, subtract and cut the bad ones. Google "Subtractive EQ".

The Cakewalk Blog » Blog Archive » Subtractive EQ Part 2: Heavy Rhythm and Lead Guitars
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
steve_k said:
Excellent advice here and I was doing something similar, by chance. For the few patches that I like to use, I save 3 versions of them......1) DI + Amp/Cab, 2) Headphone Noodling, 3) Desktop Monitors. Each will have a PEQ at the end of the chain to alter EQ for the different output device.

Steve
Click to expand...

You mind sharing what your EQ curves are?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
RockerAlex said:
You mind sharing what your EQ curves are?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It won't make any difference to you. Everyone will have differing resonant frequencies. It will be dependant upon your guitar (mahogany is "darker" than ash for e.g.) Darker guitars will accentuate the bass notes more than an ash or maple guitar. String tuning too. Lastly, there's the cab. All cabs have their own resonant frequency. It's that "woofyness" you hear when you're palm muting certain notes, but is not heard across them all. All cab impulses will have a similar resonance but they won't be identical, therefore using the boost and sweep method is the best way to deal with them.

M@ is entirely right in disagreeing with my previous comments. The point that I was trying to make was that boosting everywhere adds noise and the bad frequencies can't be hidden by boosting the good ones. Maybe I should have been clearer. Sure, once you've isolated and dealt with the mush, boost the mids or whatever to make things sit better in a mix. No one in their right mind would only use subtractive EQ, but it's the best place to start, instead of boosting everything but the kitchen sink, as a starting point.

Clark is used to blending IR's and not having to do a great deal of post EQ-ingto get a great tone in a mix. I wish we all had that luxury. He is kinda right, that is if the starting point IR is miles away from where you're heading, it would make more sense to choose a better IR than to spend hours tweaking and potentially adding noise and gain.

Of course, this is solely my opinion and I welcome anyone to edify me. I always find these conversations to be insightful.
 
Fabio KTG said:
It won't make any difference to you. Everyone will have differing resonant frequencies. It will be dependant upon your guitar (mahogany is "darker" than ash for e.g.) Darker guitars will accentuate the bass notes more than an ash or maple guitar. String tuning too. Lastly, there's the cab. All cabs have their own resonant frequency. It's that "woofyness" you hear when you're palm muting certain notes, but is not heard across them all. All cab impulses will have a similar resonance but they won't be identical, therefore using the boost and sweep method is the best way to deal with them.

M@ is entirely right in disagreeing with my previous comments. The point that I was trying to make was that boosting everywhere adds noise and the bad frequencies can't be hidden by boosting the good ones. Maybe I should have been clearer. Sure, once you've isolated and dealt with the mush, boost the mids or whatever to make things sit better in a mix. No one in their right mind would only use subtractive EQ, but it's the best place to start, instead of boosting everything but the kitchen sink, as a starting point.

Clark is used to blending IR's and not having to do a great deal of post EQ-ingto get a great tone in a mix. I wish we all had that luxury. He is kinda right, that is if the starting point IR is miles away from where you're heading, it would make more sense to choose a better IR than to spend hours tweaking and potentially adding noise and gain.

Of course, this is solely my opinion and I welcome anyone to edify me. I always find these conversations to be insightful.
Click to expand...

Same here dude, you've definitely helped me along the way so far, I'm just interested in keeping people talking to gather some more opinions.
 
Hey Rockeralex, you mentioned on the first page about how you think your tones are not mix-ready yet - are you at the stage of trying to use them in a mix at the moment? What I'm getting at is if it's getting the guitar to sit in the mix properly that you're struggling with then maybe it's not the guitars that need fixing...
 
Glennski said:
Hey Rockeralex, you mentioned on the first page about how you think your tones are not mix-ready yet - are you at the stage of trying to use them in a mix at the moment? What I'm getting at is if it's getting the guitar to sit in the mix properly that you're struggling with then maybe it's not the guitars that need fixing...
Click to expand...

The other thing to consider is that getting a great tone for a mix is almost certainly different from a great tone that you think is great when listening to it on it's own.
 
The best advice is to learn what the different EQ ranges that affect guitar tones are and how they work.

Once you know what you are hearing and how to change it, then you can make decisions about boost / cut / IR to meet whatever goal you have.

It's common for people to think there is a magic set of EQ tweaks or compressor settings to get great sounds. What it is, is someone making changes to get to a goal. E.g. removing mud, adding chime, etc.

You need to learn about sound because your goals / changes will be unique to you.

It's not as hard as it sounds. Bring up a track in your DAW, loop play a section, and get a decent EQ plug and start boosting / cutting different ranges.
 
I'm always amazed what sounds like trash soloed sounds stellar in a mix. Watching of few of these videos here proves it once again for me lol. I don't think I'll ever truly grasp the guitars place in a mix. I always want it to sound huge and bright covering the entire frequency range and it's never what a really well EQed guitar actually sounds like. So much to learn, thanks for all the tips here guys :)
 
My FRFR Amp Block tones are the same ones I use with my SS power amp/guitar cab rig.
All tone shaping is done in the Amp Block using none of the Advanced Parameters (but occasionally I'll use the Amp Block's GEQ a little bit).

So if my tones sound good through my relatively neutral power amp (Matrix GT1000) and my relatively flat-for-a-guitar-speaker speaker (EVM-12L) rig I know it's a good place to start for an FRFR tone as well.

If it sounds like shit through power amp/cab rig it will be real hard to make it not sound like shit through an FRFR system as well.
The reverse of this is not true BTW.
It's too easy to get lost in weird sonic territory if you're only running FRFR all the time.
The Amp Block is very good at reproducing the sounds of the real amps it models.
The Cab Block is more hit and miss still at this point and how well an IR really seems to reproduce the sound of the sampled cab or even the sound of a well-mic'd signal of a cab involves psycho-acoustic issues too and is often not so 1-to-1 as the Amp Block is.

The next step is to find an IR to use in the Cab Block that also works with the same Amp Block settings when I monitor the Axe through a good FRFR system (Yamaha HS80Ms or CLRs in my case).
If the IR is good but has a bit too much top or bottom then all all I have to do is to use the Cab Block's Low Cut or Hi-Cut.
If I have to cut any higher than 125hz then I know the IR is just too boomy and I look for another IR with less bottom end.
If I have to cut any lower than 5k then I know that the IR is just too bright and I look for another one.
[If I use any of the Cab Block's Mic Sims I almost always have to lower the Proximity parameter down from its default setting of 5.0 to avoid getting a boomy bottom end again.]

If I plan on using this tone only with my FRFR systems then I might go back into the Amp Block and re-tweak the basic parameters a bit more and may also re-tweak the Cab Block EQ a bit more.
If I'm after some really novel or unusual sort of a tone I might also try a PEQ or GEQ Block after the Cab Block but that's rarely necessary anymore with the current firmware.
 
Last edited:
Severed said:
I completely disagree with this statement.
Click to expand...

Please explain why. You have a broad Q EQ section in the amp block and a narrow Q EQ curve as an IR.

Post EQ does not sound as natural as getting the right mic position. That's where you'll notice the differences when you start comparing between real amps. Simply put "less is more" is the best advice I could ever give on this forum.

Looking at these pics of people boosting over 3dB in post is a clear sign of something being so wrong with the guitar sound to begin with. :)

1) If you need to boost more lows than what your amp's bass knob is able to give you then you should've put the mic closer to the cab for the IR. Therefore you are compensating for a bad IR.

2) If you need to boost more treble or presence than what your amp's knobs allow you to do then you should've put the mic closer to the cap of the speaker. Therefore you are compensating for a bad IR.

3) Middle frequencies is where you are able to change the character with post EQ but it's extremely hard to objectively do it by yourself. You can easily take all the middle space (nor room for snare drum or vocals) or scoop yourself out of the mix.

But sure this all is based on a philosophy on how to get authentic and realistic guitar tones and I know there's a division between people here if that's the goal or not. I like to keep things "clean".
 
Glennski said:
Hey Rockeralex, you mentioned on the first page about how you think your tones are not mix-ready yet - are you at the stage of trying to use them in a mix at the moment? What I'm getting at is if it's getting the guitar to sit in the mix properly that you're struggling with then maybe it's not the guitars that need fixing...
Click to expand...

I suppose getting a good tone through FRFR is my first worry as I'd like to switch from cab.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
Clark Kent said:
Please explain why. You have a broad Q EQ section in the amp block and a narrow Q EQ curve as an IR.

Post EQ does not sound as natural as getting the right mic position. That's where you'll notice the differences when you start comparing between real amps. Simply put "less is more" is the best advice I could ever give on this forum.

Looking at these pics of people boosting over 3dB in post is a clear sign of something being so wrong with the guitar sound to begin with. :)

1) If you need to boost more lows than what your amp's bass knob is able to give you then you should've put the mic closer to the cab for the IR. Therefore you are compensating for a bad IR.

2) If you need to boost more treble or presence than what your amp's knobs allow you to do then you should've put the mic closer to the cap of the speaker. Therefore you are compensating for a bad IR.

3) Middle frequencies is where you are able to change the character with post EQ but it's extremely hard to objectively do it by yourself. You can easily take all the middle space (nor room for snare drum or vocals) or scoop yourself out of the mix.

But sure this all is based on a philosophy on how to get authentic and realistic guitar tones and I know there's a division between people here if that's the goal or not. I like to keep things "clean".
Click to expand...

This is definitely what I was taught and how I see pros work.

But, they do use EQ in post all the time. The difference is, the EQ is more for making all the pieces of the mix fix together properly or to achieve an effect.

Post EQ is not normally used to correct problems with tracking. I believe that is Clark's point. It all starts with correct tracking. That will make all your post decisions way easier.
 
RockerAlex said:
I suppose getting a good tone through FRFR is my first worry as I'd like to switch from cab.
Click to expand...
Referring back to your original questions in the OP, here's my 2 centimes worth...

I'm running FRFR via 2xCLRs. Playing live is the main use of my AxeFx, not recording. I generally use headphones or loud talking volume for initial preset creation and then test the presets at gig volume in rehearsal, or against the band's recordings blasting through the PA. Overall, my preset creation approach is very similar to joegold, and goes something like this:

  1. I'm generally using amp models which would normally be matched with V30s, so I round up 3 or 4 of my go-to 4x12 V30 IRs and load one of them into my Cab block. X/Y is useful here so that I can easily switch between 2 IRs at a time whilst playing.
  2. Cab block settings at default and, assuming I'm using a "mix" IR, I set Mic to None
  3. I then load the amp model and initialise the block so that all settings are at default.
  4. Adjust Input Gain to get the saturation I want. Note: once I run through the sound at gig volume at the end of the process, I invariably end up reducing gain by between 1.0 and 2.0 (especially for rhythm sounds).
  5. I leave Bass and Treble at 5.0, then I tweak the Mids, usually somewhere between 4.00 and 6.00, depending on whether I'm building a rhythm or lead preset.
  6. Next up, Presence. I find this is such a crucial parameter and can easily make or break the sound I'm chasing. I don't go mad, but for some models I find a generous increase in Presence is required, depending on how dark/bright the IR is.
  7. If I'm roughly in the ballpark, I now switch the Cab block Mic to Null to give me more amp-in-the-room feel. I may fiddle with Proximity, but generally not.
  8. Next, I may add a touch of Depth and perhaps Thunk, but I'm talking about very small adjustments (less than +1.0, maybe only +0.3 or something), again to give me more amp-in-the-room. As often as not, I don't touch either of these parameters.
  9. I now audition at higher volume to deal with good old Messrs Fletcher and Munson, and at this point too much bass or top end will be very apparent. 99 times out of 100, there's too much bass!
  10. If Bass Cut doesn't cure the bottom end, I may roll off the Bass tone parameter a little. However, if I need to do this more by more than -2.0 or so, I prefer to remove Bass Cut and then drop a few dbs on the Amp block GEQ's lowest band. Occasionally, I'll do both but, frankly, as Clark mentioned earlier, if I need to do both it probably means I need to find a less bassy IR.
  11. Now at gig volume, I go back to the Cab block and reduce the Hi Cut Frequency downwards if I feel I need more weight in the sound, ie make it darker. If I need to go much below 12k or so, I've probably got a brighter IR than I need.
  12. Staying at gig volume I fine-tune the sound, which probably means further tweaks to the Bass to begin with, followed by Presence and then Mids. The sound I'm generally shooting for should cut but not be toppy and fatiguing. Usually, at this stage, I'm treating the Axe like a trad amp - just tweaking slightly Bass, Mids, Treble and Presence to fine tune.

I'm no Axe-Meister by any means, but I'm getting sounds that work for me in the context I'm using them in. Being a gigging guitarist playing in an originals band, who's generally working with a relatively small palette of tonal flavours, I've given up trying to chase that "ultimate tone" rabbit down his hole. There are a few amp models which I use all the time, plus a handful of IRs that I like. For me, the benefit of this rather simplistic approach is that it is predictable: I'm only tweaking a handful of parameters in sequence, I understand what each should do to the tone I'm creating, and it's easy to undo a particular tweak and get me back to a known point.

In conclusion, I think it's perfectly possible to get really good tones on almost default settings, no need to delve into advanced Amp block parameters. Re-reading this before posting, I can't help thinking that Clark has hit the nail on the head - the key is choosing the right IR in the first place. The rest is relatively easy.

Finally, those first steps into FRFR can be tough (I found them to be so). Adjust your expectations a little (you will never get it to feel like a raw guitar cab in the room) and think only of what your audience is going to hear, rather than what you're used to hearing on stage. FRFR then makes more sense, or at least it did for me.

Usual disclaimers apply: YMMV, etc.
 
Clark Kent said:
Please explain why. You have a broad Q EQ section in the amp block and a narrow Q EQ curve as an IR.

Post EQ does not sound as natural as getting the right mic position. That's where you'll notice the differences when you start comparing between real amps. Simply put "less is more" is the best advice I could ever give on this forum.

Looking at these pics of people boosting over 3dB in post is a clear sign of something being so wrong with the guitar sound to begin with. :)

1) If you need to boost more lows than what your amp's bass knob is able to give you then you should've put the mic closer to the cab for the IR. Therefore you are compensating for a bad IR.

2) If you need to boost more treble or presence than what your amp's knobs allow you to do then you should've put the mic closer to the cap of the speaker. Therefore you are compensating for a bad IR.

3) Middle frequencies is where you are able to change the character with post EQ but it's extremely hard to objectively do it by yourself. You can easily take all the middle space (nor room for snare drum or vocals) or scoop yourself out of the mix.

But sure this all is based on a philosophy on how to get authentic and realistic guitar tones and I know there's a division between people here if that's the goal or not. I like to keep things "clean".
Click to expand...

Regardless how great your track or IR is, it will never fit a mix perfectly to not require some EQ adjustments. Otherwise we wouldn't need to mix or master anything..... just toss em together and it should be perfect right?... lol

While it's true, you want the best possible original sound for many of us that is only the starting point. For one example, I run parallel effects and EQ each effect to sit within the dry signal and then post EQ the final mix until it sounds how I want it, and that's just a single example of a single application. Then when we play out, thus will also get some adjustments on the Mixing board to fit the room and the band.

My point is, especially now that the digital age gives us even more options to EQ where and when it makes sense for that specific application, the old ways of doing things are not the only way of doing things any longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom