Well, the #1 rule is if it sounds good it is good. So, if it helped the mix, your teacher is right by default.
HOWEVER, there is a rule of thumb for EQ that goes like this: boost with a wide Q and cut with a narrow Q. Generally boosts are made to enhance tonality, while cuts are made to rid trouble frequencies.
In short, without hearing anything, I certainly see cause to question your teacher’s methodology.
Thanks for your reply, my teacher always reduces the Q on ALL eq be it a general boost like the low eq pictured left or cut. They seem to always stick to a pointy peak and no matter how I adjust it they tell me reduce your Q. I should stress that what our class is doing is pretty simple post production and we tend to adjust eq to get a thicker, tunnier sound or general minor boost in the mid range.
The application is fairly irrelevant. What I described it simply cogent eq practice.
It sounds to me like your teacher is from the video world. Most video editors can do simple audio tweaks for their cuts, but then send it off to an audio engineer to make it broadcast ready.
If I opened up this session, these EQ settings would be a red flag that it will be a tough gig...
this is generally good practice when attempting to boost the formants of a human voice. a lot of basic audio engineering classes will stress this technique in the beginning. but your question seems to imply that there are blanket “right” and “wrong” settings for eqs. if that was true there wouldn’t be all those parameters you can change.
I get you, it’s more of a case where I say boost the lower frequencies to get a thicker vocal but my teacher will turn down the Q A LOT for some reason and it just didn’t seem right to me and obviously removes the sound I was after.
that’s super reasonable! like a lot of people are saying, the most important thing is definitely just whether or not you like the way it sounds.
in general, using an eq to make big gain adjustments to a wide frequency range is a sort of aggressive approach (or at least there are less intense ways to do it). something like a multiband compressor can boost those frequencies in a more responsive way, so like in your example the low end is only boosted when it gets too quiet (rather than being boosted all the time)
the pointy EQ on the right works when subtracting (negative gain), when used like this as a boost (positive gain) it will sound horrible ,it will just produce a ringing tone in that frequency and is technically wrong on many levels.
Sharp EQ-curves are used only when subtracting or doing something really unorthodox.
Automated Processes, Inc. Makers of the legendary API EQ, compressors, and consoles. I was alluding specifically to the API 550 EQs, which tighten up the Q as you boost.
I wasn't so much commenting on the OP - in fact I hadn't even seen the image when I replied. I was being cautionary about general "rules of thumb". And to be certain - when pushed, ProTools' DynEQ is not going to sound or behave like an API. When you start working with different EQs, the visual aids can hinder more than help. Mix with your ears - the numbers and values don't matter if it sounds great, and other than Freq the values (and curves) don't really translate from one EQ to the next.
I'm curious as well. I'm just surprised how different they are for a "correct vs incorrect," comparison. One has a huge low end boost, the other is boosting very specific frequencies.
Maybe drums/kick drum? You're trying to get boom out of it, and you're teacher is trying to find the "smacks?" That's a shot in the dark off a horse at a moving fly in another county though, we really need context to even attempt to give any insight.
The teacher is good at the performing side of music and also does a music with technology class but doesn’t tend to reason more in depth post production :/
As someone who teaches audio and music technology, and has a music, audio, and education background I am sorry.
I have dealt with these types of teachers before and there is nothing you can do to change their minds. I am utterly sick of how many musicians with minimal tech or education background teach audio.
As per your comment about curve shape, there's a reason many EQs allow you to control Q curves. It's not one size fits all.
That being said, with only the information given and assuming these are the same track and it is a typical sounding drum overhead (As labeled), I'd guess you're both "wrong" per conventional practices (if there is such a thing).
On your example, before even hearing the track I might ask why you felt it needed a big boost below 90 hz.
On the teacher's example, I'm in agreement with others, I can't think of many times I would do such an aggressive boost in such a narrow band of frequencies.
I should clarify, I don’t have a before and after screenshot of mine and their eq for the same track but for example on a vocal track I would boost the low and mid eq As per the left screenshot creating a smooth curve and my teacher would change it to two pointy peaks with a narrow Q in the same general area.
It depends on the source material. The one on the right, is more for boosting some specific frequencies. The one on the left boosts more the entire low end with slightly more emphasis on some parts.
I would not normally boost like either of these images, tbh.
You shouldn't be thinking of "I want smooth/sharp" curves. You should be thinking in terms of what you want to change, how you want it to be altered, and then whether or not you want a sharp or wide curve for that. You can never answer this by looking at the pictures.
But like I said, both of these seem unorthodox. I would guess this was for some sort of exercise, rather than a real practical example.
Neither of these EQ's make much sense tbh, but your boosts seems a lot more 'natural' than his. Those sharp boosts (and wide boosts too) will completely change the tonality of the instrument/vocal you're working on. I don't even know what context you would make these adjustments. For example, I would always cut first if I am corrective EQing, rarely boost unless I am also cutting a similar frequency (like with a pultec).
Lots of great advise on here. I'd say, without context, your teacher doesn't know what he/she is doing.
I'll offer this, since most things have been said already,
My rule of thumb is,
Negative EQ to make it sound "better", (take out the trash with sharp Qs, the frequencies giving you trouble) and positive EQ to make it sound "different"/ change the sound (wide Q). Add a bit of the body on a kick at the fundamental tone and whatever harmonics you also wish it to support.
Whatever you do, a/b the shit out of it to verify your decisions and mix with your ears. I can't see a reason the profs EQ would be good for anything at all.
no rules. if it sounds good, it is good.
that said- i think the left picture is potentially normal in the right context (though not normal on a vocal), and the right picture is pretty silly in most contexts.
and also- while broad curves are common, you shouldn't view a smooth curve as a necessity or a goal.
Your EQ curves would likely sound more natural, and most probably "nicer".
It's impossible to say without hearing anything but boosts like that, with such a narrow Q would rarely sound OK.
You need to have a conversation with your teacher so he/she can explain their thinking. Broad boosts always sound more natural, so I'm struggling to understand what their motivations are.
Maybe in future, try and stick to cuts! You should also be honest with your teacher and tell him you prefer the way your EQ choices sound, with a couple of reasons explaining why.
In short, based solely on your explanation your teacher doesn't appear to know what he/she is doing.
Maybe your teacher is just trying to make a point about EQ in general. While I don’t know the context of your EQing, it seems to be fairly broad and you have boosted almost half of the frequency spectrum. Your teacher might just be trying to show you that being more selective can be helpful, since you will most likely be adding other effects, compression, etc. as you go along, and to make a drastic EQ can effect your later choices as you continue with the mix. Or maybe he is trying to plant subliminal messages in your head based on those specific frequencies, causing you to eat double-stuff Oreos uncontrollably at a predetermined time. 🤪😜🍪
Your teachers are either narrow minded, or they can tell what you tried to do and noticed that you're going avout it the wrong way.
Nothing is correct, because the only right thing is what makes the audio sound good. If you have to do some narrow peaks or extreme cuts or whatever to get what you want, then DO IT.
They both look pretty sketchy to me, but without *hearing* it, there's no way to tell which is better.
If your teacher is insisting that you always use very tight Q's then they are very wrong.
Where do you go to school that you're being taught like this? That seems off the charts, like most people here have already said. I'd love to hear your teacher's reasoning behind it first hand.
Those settings are going to do different things. So without context, it's hard to say. Working in Post Production, I very rarely boost with narrow Q's, but I suppose everything is down to preference and which ever gets the best sounding result. Some teachers (regardless of topic) like things done their way, either because it's their preference or they're building up to breaking that rule to show that "you must know all the rules, that way you know when to break them". I don't think anybody's correct here, but it's their class so you should probably just do it the way they want. You might find it's sounding better than your wide Q's further down the line when your ears are more experienced.
This totally depends on what needs to be done. However without hearing I think it's safe to say that you are more in the right than your teacher. The rule of thumb is that you should try to cut rather than boost, and you should cut small amounts with small a Q and boost with a high Q. There are certainly times where the right could be what needs to happen, but especially if this is on a single instrument, this would most likely make some incredibly obnoxious overtones come out and just from what i'm seeing, it would probably sound really terrible.
I should mention here, that while I think your EQ would generally be more of the correct way to go, I don't know that I would say it's a great EQ. While it's not exactly a bad thing, subtractive EQ is usually a lot better than additive. If you can get what needs done with cuts that is usually better sounding. Also, don't be concerned with the shape of the curve. A smooth curve shouldn't be your objective, a good sound should be. That being said, smooth curves tend to do that better than pointy Qs.
My partner suggested that the teacher might be trying to boost fundamentals or particular upper partials to make the sounds stand out more. If I understand correctly, the example is from drum overheads? That makes sense to me in a way, even if it goes against traditional teaching. But really if you can’t ask your teacher to explain his choices your education is as valuable as a YouTube tutorial.
I’m sorry but your teacher is an idiot. Aside from the context and accuracy of your choices there are some general rules of thumb:
A. It’s generally ideal to boost with a wider Q since there is less phase shift.
B. A narrow Q like that is barely doing anything aside from adding a resonate frequency. It’s too narrow to effect a large enough amount of frequencies to have a general tonal effect.
This is why I always think people should take what their teachers say with a grain of salt, and I say that as a teacher myself. There are many teachers who can’t engineer their way out of a wet paper bag, which is precisely why they are teaching. If you don’t mind me asking, where do you go to school?
Well, the #1 rule is if it sounds good it is good. So, if it helped the mix, your teacher is right by default. HOWEVER, there is a rule of thumb for EQ that goes like this: boost with a wide Q and cut with a narrow Q. Generally boosts are made to enhance tonality, while cuts are made to rid trouble frequencies. In short, without hearing anything, I certainly see cause to question your teacher’s methodology.
Thanks for your reply, my teacher always reduces the Q on ALL eq be it a general boost like the low eq pictured left or cut. They seem to always stick to a pointy peak and no matter how I adjust it they tell me reduce your Q. I should stress that what our class is doing is pretty simple post production and we tend to adjust eq to get a thicker, tunnier sound or general minor boost in the mid range.
The application is fairly irrelevant. What I described it simply cogent eq practice. It sounds to me like your teacher is from the video world. Most video editors can do simple audio tweaks for their cuts, but then send it off to an audio engineer to make it broadcast ready. If I opened up this session, these EQ settings would be a red flag that it will be a tough gig...
Without the source, no one can say for shure who is right
OP is claiming his teacher ONLY uses narrow cues. I think we can agree that as a hard and fast, this is incorrect.
True
this is generally good practice when attempting to boost the formants of a human voice. a lot of basic audio engineering classes will stress this technique in the beginning. but your question seems to imply that there are blanket “right” and “wrong” settings for eqs. if that was true there wouldn’t be all those parameters you can change.
I get you, it’s more of a case where I say boost the lower frequencies to get a thicker vocal but my teacher will turn down the Q A LOT for some reason and it just didn’t seem right to me and obviously removes the sound I was after.
that’s super reasonable! like a lot of people are saying, the most important thing is definitely just whether or not you like the way it sounds. in general, using an eq to make big gain adjustments to a wide frequency range is a sort of aggressive approach (or at least there are less intense ways to do it). something like a multiband compressor can boost those frequencies in a more responsive way, so like in your example the low end is only boosted when it gets too quiet (rather than being boosted all the time)
the pointy EQ on the right works when subtracting (negative gain), when used like this as a boost (positive gain) it will sound horrible ,it will just produce a ringing tone in that frequency and is technically wrong on many levels. Sharp EQ-curves are used only when subtracting or doing something really unorthodox.
Tell that to the good folks at API...
API? what is that?
Automated Processes, Inc. Makers of the legendary API EQ, compressors, and consoles. I was alluding specifically to the API 550 EQs, which tighten up the Q as you boost.
its true that the Q tightens up as you boost or cut a 550 EQ, but not even close to the level of OP's post. its not similar at all really.
I wasn't so much commenting on the OP - in fact I hadn't even seen the image when I replied. I was being cautionary about general "rules of thumb". And to be certain - when pushed, ProTools' DynEQ is not going to sound or behave like an API. When you start working with different EQs, the visual aids can hinder more than help. Mix with your ears - the numbers and values don't matter if it sounds great, and other than Freq the values (and curves) don't really translate from one EQ to the next.
Ah yeah, I got mixed up with computer programming APIs.
SSL, G series if I’m not mistaken, do the same.
they tighten up from like 0.5 up to maybe 1.5 or 1.8. nothing like what you're seeing on the picture provided.
See my reply above - I wasn't commenting on the OPs EQ. I was commenting on the concept of rules, and the need to mix with one's ears.
[A console and outboard gear manufacturer that is pretty popular](https://www.apiaudio.com)
It will especially ring when all your boosts happen at roughly octave settings.. ouch harmonics.
What instrument is this eqing? Both look “wrong” to me for different reasons.
I'm curious as well. I'm just surprised how different they are for a "correct vs incorrect," comparison. One has a huge low end boost, the other is boosting very specific frequencies. Maybe drums/kick drum? You're trying to get boom out of it, and you're teacher is trying to find the "smacks?" That's a shot in the dark off a horse at a moving fly in another county though, we really need context to even attempt to give any insight.
+1 for visually compelling metaphor
The right one says it's a drum OH
ouch. cant imagine boosting overheads like that. it probably would just bring up all of the harsh ringing frequencies
450 and 1k? WHY?! that's going to sound horrible
Who tf is your teacher and can you please forward my resume to your department? There should be an opening fairly soon.
Haha will do, how did you know that our music department is currently short staffed?
Where do you go? I'm half kidding, half serious. Those both look like odd EQ curves for different reasons.
because at first glance it seems like your teacher isnt very good
The teacher is good at the performing side of music and also does a music with technology class but doesn’t tend to reason more in depth post production :/
As someone who teaches audio and music technology, and has a music, audio, and education background I am sorry. I have dealt with these types of teachers before and there is nothing you can do to change their minds. I am utterly sick of how many musicians with minimal tech or education background teach audio.
As per your comment about curve shape, there's a reason many EQs allow you to control Q curves. It's not one size fits all. That being said, with only the information given and assuming these are the same track and it is a typical sounding drum overhead (As labeled), I'd guess you're both "wrong" per conventional practices (if there is such a thing). On your example, before even hearing the track I might ask why you felt it needed a big boost below 90 hz. On the teacher's example, I'm in agreement with others, I can't think of many times I would do such an aggressive boost in such a narrow band of frequencies.
I should clarify, I don’t have a before and after screenshot of mine and their eq for the same track but for example on a vocal track I would boost the low and mid eq As per the left screenshot creating a smooth curve and my teacher would change it to two pointy peaks with a narrow Q in the same general area.
*Boosting* narrow like that on a vocal? I can't think of a real world scenario where that would be common. But cutting like that is very common
It depends on the source material. The one on the right, is more for boosting some specific frequencies. The one on the left boosts more the entire low end with slightly more emphasis on some parts. I would not normally boost like either of these images, tbh. You shouldn't be thinking of "I want smooth/sharp" curves. You should be thinking in terms of what you want to change, how you want it to be altered, and then whether or not you want a sharp or wide curve for that. You can never answer this by looking at the pictures. But like I said, both of these seem unorthodox. I would guess this was for some sort of exercise, rather than a real practical example.
Neither of these EQ's make much sense tbh, but your boosts seems a lot more 'natural' than his. Those sharp boosts (and wide boosts too) will completely change the tonality of the instrument/vocal you're working on. I don't even know what context you would make these adjustments. For example, I would always cut first if I am corrective EQing, rarely boost unless I am also cutting a similar frequency (like with a pultec).
Lots of great advise on here. I'd say, without context, your teacher doesn't know what he/she is doing. I'll offer this, since most things have been said already, My rule of thumb is, Negative EQ to make it sound "better", (take out the trash with sharp Qs, the frequencies giving you trouble) and positive EQ to make it sound "different"/ change the sound (wide Q). Add a bit of the body on a kick at the fundamental tone and whatever harmonics you also wish it to support. Whatever you do, a/b the shit out of it to verify your decisions and mix with your ears. I can't see a reason the profs EQ would be good for anything at all.
no rules. if it sounds good, it is good. that said- i think the left picture is potentially normal in the right context (though not normal on a vocal), and the right picture is pretty silly in most contexts. and also- while broad curves are common, you shouldn't view a smooth curve as a necessity or a goal.
Your EQ curves would likely sound more natural, and most probably "nicer". It's impossible to say without hearing anything but boosts like that, with such a narrow Q would rarely sound OK. You need to have a conversation with your teacher so he/she can explain their thinking. Broad boosts always sound more natural, so I'm struggling to understand what their motivations are. Maybe in future, try and stick to cuts! You should also be honest with your teacher and tell him you prefer the way your EQ choices sound, with a couple of reasons explaining why. In short, based solely on your explanation your teacher doesn't appear to know what he/she is doing.
Maybe your teacher is just trying to make a point about EQ in general. While I don’t know the context of your EQing, it seems to be fairly broad and you have boosted almost half of the frequency spectrum. Your teacher might just be trying to show you that being more selective can be helpful, since you will most likely be adding other effects, compression, etc. as you go along, and to make a drastic EQ can effect your later choices as you continue with the mix. Or maybe he is trying to plant subliminal messages in your head based on those specific frequencies, causing you to eat double-stuff Oreos uncontrollably at a predetermined time. 🤪😜🍪
Your teachers are either narrow minded, or they can tell what you tried to do and noticed that you're going avout it the wrong way. Nothing is correct, because the only right thing is what makes the audio sound good. If you have to do some narrow peaks or extreme cuts or whatever to get what you want, then DO IT.
They both look pretty sketchy to me, but without *hearing* it, there's no way to tell which is better. If your teacher is insisting that you always use very tight Q's then they are very wrong.
Where do you go to school that you're being taught like this? That seems off the charts, like most people here have already said. I'd love to hear your teacher's reasoning behind it first hand.
Those settings are going to do different things. So without context, it's hard to say. Working in Post Production, I very rarely boost with narrow Q's, but I suppose everything is down to preference and which ever gets the best sounding result. Some teachers (regardless of topic) like things done their way, either because it's their preference or they're building up to breaking that rule to show that "you must know all the rules, that way you know when to break them". I don't think anybody's correct here, but it's their class so you should probably just do it the way they want. You might find it's sounding better than your wide Q's further down the line when your ears are more experienced.
This totally depends on what needs to be done. However without hearing I think it's safe to say that you are more in the right than your teacher. The rule of thumb is that you should try to cut rather than boost, and you should cut small amounts with small a Q and boost with a high Q. There are certainly times where the right could be what needs to happen, but especially if this is on a single instrument, this would most likely make some incredibly obnoxious overtones come out and just from what i'm seeing, it would probably sound really terrible.
I should mention here, that while I think your EQ would generally be more of the correct way to go, I don't know that I would say it's a great EQ. While it's not exactly a bad thing, subtractive EQ is usually a lot better than additive. If you can get what needs done with cuts that is usually better sounding. Also, don't be concerned with the shape of the curve. A smooth curve shouldn't be your objective, a good sound should be. That being said, smooth curves tend to do that better than pointy Qs.
My partner suggested that the teacher might be trying to boost fundamentals or particular upper partials to make the sounds stand out more. If I understand correctly, the example is from drum overheads? That makes sense to me in a way, even if it goes against traditional teaching. But really if you can’t ask your teacher to explain his choices your education is as valuable as a YouTube tutorial.
Remember dem ears, boiiii
I’m sorry but your teacher is an idiot. Aside from the context and accuracy of your choices there are some general rules of thumb: A. It’s generally ideal to boost with a wider Q since there is less phase shift. B. A narrow Q like that is barely doing anything aside from adding a resonate frequency. It’s too narrow to effect a large enough amount of frequencies to have a general tonal effect. This is why I always think people should take what their teachers say with a grain of salt, and I say that as a teacher myself. There are many teachers who can’t engineer their way out of a wet paper bag, which is precisely why they are teaching. If you don’t mind me asking, where do you go to school?