Pre & Post Eq for Clean Tones?

[claxor]

For making clean tones even MORE pristine, what do you tend to do with eq? Do you use any in front of the amp as well?

Thanks!

 

[Jason Scott]

Personally, I add pre and post EQ to most of my presets because the pickups in my Les Paul tend to add more low-end than I prefer. EQ is very guitar (and IR) dependent, though. What works for one guitar / IR may not work for another. As a general rule, if you want more clarity and sparkle, I recommend boosting (post EQ) 9000 Hz with a Q of .248 one or more dB. Additionally, 5000 Hz is another good (post EQ) frequency to boost for added definition.

Can you upload a sample?

 

[Rex]

For making clean tones even MORE pristine, what do you tend to do with eq? Do you use any in front of the amp as well?

Thanks!

Depends on what you mean by “pristine.” Most folks use that word to mean a total lack of distortion. The only way to do that is to lower the gain until the distortion goes away.

If “pristine” means something else to you, you’ll have to let us know what that is.

 

[claxor]

If “pristine” means something else to you, you’ll have to let us know what that is.

I just meant pre-eq or post-eq to make a clean tone with much more clarity. With an already clean amp tone. Especially when using humbuckers.

 

[Rex]

I just meant pre-eq or post-eq to make a clean tone with much more clarity. With an already clean amp tone. Especially when using humbuckers.

I'm still not quite sure what you mean. "Clarity" as in brighter, "clarity" as in rounder, or as in more-forward-in-the-mix, or...? Truth is, a very slightly distorted tone will sound more clear in the mix than a pristine clean tone. So if I can't be sure of what you mean, I'll stick to generalities.

- With a truly clean tone, there's not much difference between pre-EQ and post-EQ. As gain goes up, so does the difference between the two.

- If you want a clean tone to have more impact, use compression.

- If you're determined to make EQ your tool of choice, try this: Drop a 10-band GEQ into your signal chain. Slide each band from one extreme to the other, making note of how it changes your tone. Leave each slider in the position that gets you closest to the tone you want. This works well to answer "What EQ should I use?"

 

[Jason Scott]

I'm still not quite sure what you mean.

My hunch is he means the opposite of muddy. The pickups in my guitar (humbuckers) tend to sound a bit dark and muddy to my ears, and if his sound anything like mine, the suggestions I mentioned (above) should help.

 

[Rex]

if you want to kill muddiness, cut lows. If you try to drown the mud with more highs, the mud will still be there.

 

[Jason Scott]

if you want to kill muddiness, cut lows. If you try to drown the mud with more highs, the mud will still be there.

A lot of people seem to believe this, however in practice, that doesn't appear to be the case. Here's an example:

Original Sample:

Low Cut Exclusively:

High Boost Exclusively:

Sometimes a combination (high boost / low cut) works well. There are no hard and fast rules. However, in order to get even partially close to the clarity of the top end in sample 3 by cutting the lows in the original sample, you'd have to cut them so much that the bottom end would ultimately sound fairly thin, and even then, because you're only cutting the low end, the high end still won't match the clarity of the top end in sample 3.

 

[AlexanderJ]

If the EQ curve is the same it doesn't matter where the curve is in regards to unity. It will be the same result assuming nothing clips. In recording, there is a huge school of subtractive (cut) only EQ. My best guess is that they do it to avoid the potential of clipping sources. We used to record things really hot. Adding 10db of high end to something peaking at -2db is a recipe for clipped transients. The Axe FX III has tons of headroom, go crazy. If it sounds good, it is good.

 

[AlexanderJ]

In regards to having EQ before or after the amp: If the amp is completely clean, there will be absolutely no difference. When you Pre-EQ a dirty amp, you are changing which frequencies distort more readily. Post-EQ then can change the tone to taste.

In a completely clean amp, that isn't happening so EQ before or after won't change anything sonically.

 

[Jason Scott]

Adding 10db of high end to something peaking at -2db is a recipe for clipped transients.

This seems logical, though in practice it's not necessarily the case. For example, adding 10dB of boost at 5KHz to a clean sample peaking at -2dB won't necessarily result in clipping.

 

[B:ASSMASTER]

For "pristine" cleans I'd recommend you trying this:

• Low cut between 80 to 130Hz in cab block.
• Filter block (towards end of signal chain) set to high shelf between 8 to 10kHz and boost the top-end.

 

[unix-guy]

In recording, there is a huge school of subtractive (cut) only EQ. My best guess is that they do it to avoid the potential of clipping sources.

I think the reason is because adding anything increases noise...

 

[AlexanderJ]

This seems logical, though in practice it's not necessarily the case. For example, adding 10dB of boost at 5KHz to a clean sample peaking at -2dB won't necessarily result in clipping.

It will if there is energy there, it won't if there's not. Adding 10db of boost at 5khz won't do much of anything to a guitar that doesn't have any real response there (like a dark humbucker). The actual level could be many dB lower at the corner frequency because it's past the resonant peak of the pickup. Try doing the same with most single coils and you'll get a much different story. It's a straw man argument anyway. I never mentioned 5khz. Just high end; that can be in different places for different guitars. Boosting 10db at a location where the guitar has even 20% of its energy would result in the guitar being 1db past 0. Any value over 0 dBFS results in digital clipping.

 

[Jason Scott]

It will if there is energy there, it won't if there's not. Adding 10db of boost at 5khz won't do much of anything to a guitar that doesn't have any real response there (like a dark humbucker).

Precisely. Since the context of the discussion in this thread has revolved around EQ'ing mixes, I interpreted the "something" you alluded to in your previous post as a mix rather than a specific portion of the frequency spectrum. Your original blanket statement didn't clarify.

I never mentioned 5khz. Just high end;

I know, and I mentioned 5KHz because it is high-end, however it was merely one of a number of examples I could've mentioned with respect to high-end.

 

[blearyeyes]

I think the reason is because adding anything increases noise...

Additive EQ reduces usable dynamic range at the top,
Subtractive EQ increases usable dynamic range at the top.

Noise and distortion are at the bottom and top of the dynamic range and both come into play.
Whether of not any given EQ is phase coherent is also pertinent.

 

[Rex]

A lot of people seem to believe this, however in practice, that doesn't appear to be the case. Here's an example:

Original Sample:

Low Cut Exclusively:

High Boost Exclusively:

Sometimes a combination (high boost / low cut) works well. There are no hard and fast rules. However, in order to get even partially close to the clarity of the top end in sample 3 by cutting the lows in the original sample, you'd have to cut them so much that the bottom end would ultimately sound fairly thin, and even then, because you're only cutting the low end, the high end still won't match the clarity of the top end in sample 3.

The issue with the first clip is lack of high end, not muddiness. That’s why the fix for mud didn’t work, but boosting the highs did work (it preserved the low mids, which were fine to begin with). In fact, a mild, low-Q boost centered around 2 KHz might work even better

 

[Jason Scott]

The issue with the first clip is lack of high end, not muddiness. That’s why the fix for mud didn’t work, but boosting the highs did work (it preserved the low mids, which were fine to begin with). In fact, a mild, low-Q boost centered around 2 KHz might work even better

The very definition of muddy implies a lack of clarity, which is often perceived as a lack of high-end. The term is often accompanied by descriptors such as dark and muffled. That said, there's no hard and fast definition of muddy, however feel free to post what you consider an example and I'll be glad to show you how I'd resolve it with a high-end boost, that is unless there really is too much low-end / low-mid energy, in which case cutting may also be apropos.

 

[Rex]

The very definition of muddy implies a lack of clarity, which is often perceived as a lack of high-end. The term is often accompanied by descriptors such as dark and muffled. That said, there's no hard and fast definition of muddy, however feel free to post what you consider an example and I'll be glad to show you how I'd resolve it with a high-end boost, that is unless there really is too much low-end / low-mid energy, in which case cutting may also be apropos.

"Mud" refers to congestion in the lower midrange (sometimes called the "mudrange," it extends from roughly 250 Hz to 500 Hz, depending on who you ask).

High-gain tones suffer from mud when the lows entering the amp are too strong. Distortion generates harmonics of those low tones, and those harmonics fall in the mudrange. The cure is to cut the lows with pre-EQ, before they enter the amp and generate harmonics. No amount of high-end boost will get rid of that mud.

Fractal manuals contain a graphic called The Seven Bad System Dwarves. Refer to that graphic to see where "Muddy" lives.

 

[Rex]

In recording, there is a huge school of subtractive (cut) only EQ.

That school is well-represented in the live-sound business, too.

In general: cut to fix a tone, boost to change a tone. If you’re trying to fix a tone, that means there’s something in the tone that you don’t like. Find that something, and cut it out. But if you’re trying to change a tone (make it brighter, more throaty, whatever), then boosting might help you.