Do you need a Dynamic EQ?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лис 2017
- Is a Dynamic EQ really necessary or is it simply Snake Oil?
Support me by becoming a Patron:
/ whiteseastudio
Check the studio here:
whiteseastudio.com
Follow me on Twitter @whiteseastudio - Навчання та стиль
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
My cat finds that vocal really annoying.
Multiband compressors are based on crossover filters that cut the spectrum into several bands (they can not overlap). Dynamic EQs are based on EQs that can overlap each others, for example, you can put a very wide Q EQ on half the spectrum and other ones with smaller Q "into" the range of the first one...
Dynamic eq is an incredibly important and useful tool in modern mixing when it's actual application and limits are fully understood. peace.
...and now, introducing the FabFilter Pro-Q3!!!
One of the cases I use it is live. If you have for example violins in a loud band then they need to be miked very close. So they sound like shit. Dynamic EQ is very handy tool to make them sound reasonable instead of horrible.
I use dynamic EQs all the time. It is a real bless especially for home producers which must tackle less than ideal recordings situations.
I use dynEQs on vocals all the time to control proximity effect or irregular lowend build up from an imperfect room acoustics and specific harsh frequencies (like nasal tones or sibilances). Simple EQ cuts remove too much in this case.
Nullll1111 that’s a great idea. Thank you!
Use automation, you lazy b-tard!
@@user-gg1vf8ko9s he doesn't know how to use a dyn eq and...he makes a video to proof that it is useless!OMG..he didn't noticed-read about the threshold slider which defines after which level the dyn eq starts to work..such a superficial.
exactly what I use Multiband Compressors for 😅 exactly the same thing
Obviously you could find great uses for Dyn EQ, but the point is that you could do the same with a multiband-comp. Personally, I do exactly the same as you, but using the FabFilter MB
With that approach you could automate the bypass of the dynamic eq too... you could get the same result... It would by less time consuming? I don´t think so... but It's another could approach...
i'm diggin' all your vids!!....(with your great dutch sense of humor)GOOD WORK..TY
Unless your singer has a polyphonic voice, you can solve those harshness problems with a simple De-Esser. Dynamic EQ's shine on already mixed tracks that need to be fixed (like a too harsh hihat). However, if you have access to every instrument, you're better off fixing it in the project.
About best sounding records: Yes, many old records sound great. They maybe had less technology back then, however, they could pay the best musicians, engineers and take their time recording the music, because they knew they could earn a shitload of money with the product. Who can say that today? Very few.
Yardehardedar , I partially agree with your opinion. My experience: I have a great sounding voice going on in verses and pre chorus but then the chorus of the song has a lot of energy and the singer sings higher notes different to the verses. Instead of changing the eq I go for the dynamic eq only for that parts automating the on off of the plugin and voila!!!! Problem solved !!!!!!!!!!!
My choice : MELDA MdynamicEq
A de-Esser is basically just a multiband compressor or dynamic eq with a band somewhere around the lower-highs, where the snake „s“ Sound sits.. depending on the person (especially gender) this region may vary.. so here we have another way to sell the same algorithm again :D
What about resonances? Dynamic eq is great for it
Old records sound good cause recording equipment was not as accurate as it is today xD
I really appreciate your videos. And, I love how your about quality. Quality is what counts.
When I first started using a dynamic EQ, I thought it was such a wonderful tool and was throwing it on all over the place; but I since I always end up writing a gain envelope for each vocal, I find it easy to deal with a troublesome frequency by writing some EQ automation while I'm at that point in the timeline. In my opinion, you've got to put the time into automation, just like those masterful engineers put the time into learning how to ride the faders for each track.
4:25 - Respect for your absolutely pitch-perfect “maaaaaan”. Also, spot on with regard to automation as opposed to dynamic processing here (and in most other cases). It takes a little while sometimes, but riding the levels by hand is what will make a track sound bespoke.
I wouldn't really call it useless. A dynamic eq is very good at 2 things, which are crwating movement in frequencies, and making room for other instruments especially in dense mixes in side chain. For example I work on a song with a lot of instruments along with heavy drums, guitars and bass. There are these big percussion hits as well. They have a lot of problem in sounding big and standing out because of the drums and bass guitar, so I set a dynamic eq on the bass and drums, in side chain that reduce the low end, when the percussion hits. I've tried using a single amd multiband compressor for this as well, but a dynamic eq works better for me. A better example is that there's a plucked synth, that really moves a lot in frequencies, but it has problems to stand out under the distorted guitars unless I boost so much in the eq that it fucks up the sound. So what I did was usinga. Dynamic eq on the guitars in side chain that work of that synth, making holes in the guitar at very specific frequencies.
Thank you! I needed this video.
I have the same tought about it, i think sometimes we dont apreciate tecnology and were stuck on the idea that the ONLY way of consive a good sounding mix its by having analog gear. ive been achieving great mixes by using pluggins and nowdays we can see that most of the best mixing engineers use them
Brilliant thanks for the clarification!
I use MB-Cimpression or Dynamic EQ for palm muted guitars, to tame the low end. Works pretty darn good :)
I would use it more to attenuate problematic frequencies when they pass a certain threshold (not so low as in your demo).
Well done, that's exactley how I do it also, It is time consuming but the end results are worth it.....Great videos by the way, keep up the good work...
after watching 3 videos you earned my subscription, good job! Cheers!
Dynamic eqs are a godsend for frequency build up and room resonances for choir and orchestral halls, specifically notching but only for build ups around specific notes (choral clusters really excite nodes). It can be very handy for overheads to where one cymbal has a problem that others don't, so that you are only notching during the problem, not the whole performance.
Agreed, can be cool on vocal groups and reverbs.
A cool thing with dynamic EQs is to boost specific frequencies though. Or can you do that with a multi-comp too?
LMAO!!!!!!! The way you throw shade is epic. I’m with the BETTER/time-consuming way. Companies probably hating heavy but it is what it is. Good stuff
Alright you sound and look passionate about your work and it seems as though you want to cut through the unreasonable mainstream "go-to"'s, which I really appreciate. I will take in your teachings and test them. Thank you!
It depends on what you want to achieve, you can emulate cool things with dynamic EQ such as the Dolby A trick (most multibands can't have overlapping bands except I think Fabfilter and Waves C6). It is also cool for sound design and for saving some fairly ordinary sounding drums. For example you can bring out the crack of the snare and minimise the ring dynamically (upward expansion on the crack frequencies with short at and release and downward compression on the ring frequency with a longer attack and release), basically it can cover the function of multiple other plugins in a sense. Best rock records maybe but in a certain context, you cant make Hardstyle or Drum n Bass or even modern metal with just an Ampex Tape Machine and an SSL Console. I like to use a dynamic EQ to bring out the high end of backing vocals to achieve that Def Leppard style hyped background vocals. You can do this by compressing the 'air' frequencies heavily and then boosting them up so you almost get the same high end response across all words, doing this on a send and blending it in, is really cool.
I'm in line with your thought process. A lot of these tools are being marketed to people who are working towards a better understanding, as such things like automation and blanket solutions are attractive.
I totally agree with you and with all you said. huge applause!
Your channel always has the topics Im looking for you. I always thought dynamic eq has smaller bands / Q then a multi and compressor.
I like dynamic EQs simply because you can have normal eq bands combined with dynamic bands within the same plugin. I guess you could call that lazy, but I would rather get more done with less plugins.
all name dropping aside, i believe vocals are the most important part of a song, unless the song is an instrumental... lol! i agree with Wytse.
i myself, like to treat the vocals as the final part of a project. i will usually work on the drums and bass first, then rhythm parts, guitar, piano and other percussive/string instruments, then all the lead instruments all according to the clients direction and what the song calls for... i believe in respecting the music. i don't want mine or my clients music to end up sounding over produced. i will work on silencing bad sounds, eq'ing, limiting and compression on kik, snare, bass etc. and dynamic eq on high hat, bass, guitar etc.
After the foundation of the song is laid, i work on lead vocals first and then then take my queues to backup vocal relevance and relation to song. i go through the vocals with a microscopic attitude. i will go through all parts of the song, even individual words, silencing in between singing, getting rid of bad sounds, adjusting eq'ing, adjusting levels, limiting and then compressing. if any parts are not good enough, i get the artist/client/singer to lay another track down. i will go the extra mile for a great song, sound and vocals, always worth it!..................................... sputnik9009
There are a lot of reasons to use dynamic eq. It would be crazy hard to impossible to say automate eq bands against a vocal track to dynamically make room for the vocals. With dynamic eq, you simply make a negative cut to a harmonic instrument bus and sidechain the vocals to it. Presto.
Can you not automate the dynamic eq?
You don't understand the controls of Ozone's dynamic EQ enough to use it properly. To have the EQ only react to the word you want, you need to set the threshold higher (this was the only parameter you used) and to set the actual range of attenuation you use the gain control below the filter shapes selector. You can also add a static offset to the gain (this works like regular EQ on top of your dynamic EQ). It's just like a compressor - to have it react on a certain word, you don't lower the threshold all the way down, you set it to where it needs to be and then play with the ratio
You also get proportional Q in Ozone's Dynamic EQ which you don't get in Pro-MB
@@QrchackOfficial Does this effectively mean he used a dynamic eq as a normal eq implying it doesn't do the job like it says ?
@@OfficialAbsolutionUK he didn't use the dyn eq properly.
I do agree that in many cases it's better to just do it manually some way, but there can be sources (both instruments and vocals) where a dynamic EQ hits just right. And then there's live sound reinforcement, which is the bulk of my work - in that domain I wouldn't be caught dead without dynamic EQs, because of course you can't (or only in rare cases) foresee and program your way out of trouble.
WOW thats what i did before i realized what dynamic EQ was, and i never even thought to try it again
I find your example not very relevant. If those words pop-up too much, it is first and foremost because the singer was poorly coached while recording. To solve it is indeed an automation task, either eq or simply volume.
I love Tokyo Dawn Labs Nova Eq, and there's a free version :-) I use it in two main cases : Either to remove a persistent resonance, generally caused by the room or inherent to the instrument, or mike position, or a bit of all that. Or, the Nova having an expansion possibility, dynamic eq can also be very useful to accentuate a certain frequency range, for example some hi-mids on a bass guitar, in order to get a more consistant spectrum all way through a part.
Finally, old records were generally better recorded in better rooms by more trained people, as all that was too expensive for semi-pro or amateur artists. To say that they objectively sound better, from a purely technical point of view, is a bit far fetched imho. Let's agree on the fact that they have a certain "color" that time passing made us love. The neighbour's grass always greener :-)
Keep up the good work,
p@T
The example was meant to show the technique, not to be relevant ;-)
@@Whiteseastudio did you noticed this threshold slider?do you knmow that you can set your dynamic eq so it works above a level?please be more serious with your videos.you cannot say that dynamic eq is useless.you can make it work the way you like it.you just didn't
for such little problems i would use the offline processing dynamic eq is more for thinks that peak up frequently but u still want to remain the full sound so the unwanted just gets pushed away when its getting over the threshold i use it often to fix issues as for shaping
Yes.
Yes, you do.
It's how de-essers work, and (depending on your mic, of course), I rarely go without at least a _little_ bit of de-essing on my vocals.
What do you think about soothe in this case? :P
You're doing dynamic EQ with automation.
Your videos are the best, saving a lot of money for us! 😇 The “box” instruments like, double bass, ac guitar, always has body’s resonant frequency...The dynamic EQ working not just when needed, but not least than normal EQ, it is not better for that job?
I was confused about dynamic eq uses but your point on best sounding records were top talent and top engineers using the best gear available made great records.
Nice video!
great video.
Rumors is a an amazing sounding record.
I use a dynamic eq against other instruments so that my voices can cut thru the music without competing for that EQ area. Using a side chain feature of the dynamic eq plug-in.
Thanks for addressing this
Thanks for the video. However, do you still stand for your view point nowadays? At the end you mentioned we should better off using plugins like Fabfilter EQ in dynamic mode, ins't it just gonna be the same? Or you wanted to say if we have such a plugin we don't need to get an extra one just for the job?
I like using the Dynamic EQ in Izotope Nectar with the Follow function, so that only the offensive part gets cut.
i think this was very good info and i always sorta felt the same way...sorta reminded me of the c4 waves when i first saw a dynamic eq.
micheal white talked about this as well i think he felt similar?
I gotta take a shit but thanks, I'm just starting out and this helps me a bit by not going too over my head
I only really ever use dynamic EQ for ducking/sidechaining (e.g. kick/bass).
Where is the video about phase shifting?
I think bangarang by skrillex is the pinnacle of how music should sound. am i better off with a multiband compressor or a dynamic eq?
great tip
Well done honest opinion. I agree
It is useful in Mastering more than mixing.... and it is useful when used with sidechained..... when the crash hits, you want to take out some high hat tops..... so sidechain crash to high hats and do dynamic eq...... (Multiband Sidechained Compressor will give a different sound, though can be used for this purpose.)
It is inspiring to hear that the best sounding records were done with minimal equipment and without all the options we have today....
do you need a different level of de-essing if your dutch?
With dynamic EQ you got usually better control over the key frequency rather messing and separating diffrent bands. DynamicEQ works way cleaner than a MB beacause it deals almost on uneven peaks, phase shift is minimal, the style it compresses or expands the audio isn't really dependent on the compressor threshold but the peaks which works in some cases what it puts them really above the regular eq automation is you can switch diffrent filter settings on the fly, speaking about the bx dynEQ
Is there an advantage of using the Brainworx bx_digital V3 instead of the Pro • Q3 for mastering?
not really.... i use the bx_digital whenever i just want to quickly adjust the mid/side frequencies because of obvious reasons
just a convenience thing
I use Waves F6 Dynamic EQ fairly regularly. The way I use it is for the EQ to be triggered by an external source such as a kick or snare which ducks the specific frequency out of the way.
Is that technically dynamic EQ? or is it sidechaining? If it is sidechaining then it would be frequency specific sidechaining, to be exact. What would you call it?
Are you always doing that or just on a specific song?
Most songs. For instance ducking the bass behind the kick.
Personally (I'm beginner) I use TDR Nova (Free dynamic EQ Plugin) for try to concrete de basslines and the kick (Low end), the results are good for me. Actually something that I like a lot is the paralel compression for add more punch o add a litle more of the origninal signal.
Multiband compressor i like to use more for vocals only, beacause its where sounds better; Or I cannot use them 😂
Has been said... Everyone is right anyway but the way I it should be used is to tame recurring resonance throughout a track using the threshold before applying compression. Like any tool used for it purpose at the right time for the right thing makes it a very useful tool. You could achieved this manually with analog gear resampling before compressing but hey.. They made a tool to avoid this process... Quiet cool I think. But there is so many ways to achieve a good result that you are also right in some way... I like your videos BTW, very informative.. Peace ✌️
Just wanted to say that i really enjoy your videos and keep up the good work. Your rather neutral opinion has most certainly helped me clear mind out of clutter and marketing bullcrap.
you rock dude
To my mind it's not only about marketing. I find the dyn-EQ very useful on peaky frequencys, sometimes the multiband compressors' bands aren't narrow enough.
You should make a review of the Sonnox's Dynamic EQ, for me it's one of the best out there. I'm waiting for Fabfilter's anyway.
Love your channel, +1
HOFA IQ has been around for longer and, in my opinion, has lots more going for it: especially the SC options, which Sonnox seemed to have duplicated, but with less bands.
I agree 100% the best sounding records where done by console, tape recorder and only few outboard gear!
Dynamic EQ has its uses, and can be a creative tool as well. The bx dynEQ is a good one, which works well for de-essing among other things.
Have you checked out the Sound Radix Surfer EQ?
A rather unusual dynamic EQ, which can be unusually handy, as it follows pitch, and can be set to work on orders of harmonics too.
Quite nifty!
Sometimes the surfer EQ act like a wah pedal, very interesting tool, so I simply removed it from my computer.
This was super useful, thank you. I dont get why all the flac in the comments. I thought i needed a better dynEQ but come to think of it i can do the same thing i need with a multiband compressor.
I like Dynamic EQ but it is not the first thing I reach for. I never felt comfortable with Multiband Compression but like Dynamic EQ. I see the dilemma. Maybe that is simply that my annoyance with multi-compressination was from the early days when they weren't very elegant either in use or with what they did to the sound of the material. Dynamic EQ just makes sense to me in those times when a certain part of a sound wants EQ being "ridden". Not notched permanently as that is too aggressive but as the level goes up that bit gets intrusive. I also like the way that it "moves" in the mix rather than simply being a static alteration: more level, more/less of that part. That feels very natural to me, at least with synths.
I use dynamic eq when there is a singular annoying frequency that needs notching or controlling, not for a broadband issue like in this example.
You over did it
How I use a dynamic EQ (TDR nova) is I put the ratio at it's highest and the threshold that it just just catches the extremes if you understand what I mean... I put the attack time at the fastest and release time at I think 10ms
Isn't that just the same as a De-esser? Personally I like what a dynamic EQ, set as a de-esser, does to vocals in taming the nasal shrill sound. I use Nova from TDA and which free.
One other thing Dynamic EQs are good for that has not been mentioned: they have a threshold and can sound more transparent than using a static EQ due to this threshold coming into play. Voxengo GlissEQ uses this as a feature to create a less static sound per band. In this context, they don't sound lifeless like a a static EQ.
I thought the difference between a multi-band compressor and a dynamic eq was that a multi-band compressor takes, for each band, a duplicate of the signal and runs it through a LPF and HPF to get the band and it’s a standard compressor after that. In a dynamic EQ it uses the q of the band. In practice, I wouldn’t use a dynamic EQ on a bus, I’d rather use a multi-band compressor and don’t change more than 1 or 2 at the most (I mean all rules are broken from time to time). On single tracks i’d rather use a dynamic eq. I also would rather re-record a track than put a dynamic eq.
someone just suggested me to us dynamic EQ, I wonder who that was ;-)
MAN WHON'T YOU MAN WHON'T YOU MAN WHON'T YOU!
Why don´t use the threshold??
I'm from 2019 and your beloved FabFilter released Pro-Q 3 with useless dynamic eq function. Surprise, maafatha!
yup, and it can be set up to only work in the center channel or stereo.
Dude i dontusually subscrive...but, you nailed it!
saying that you should just automate the eq for everything and using dynamic eq is "lazy" is similar to saying you should just automate the volume properly and that using a compressor makes you "lazy"
Using reverb is lazy, you should just record and mic things properly in a good sounding room....all the best sounding records from back in the day were made with out all this new fangled "convolution" reverb nonsense
it sounds better with the dynamic eq on... that's obviously a problem are for this nasally white boy vocalist so it makes sense to dynamically eq that area to smooth it out and give a better more pleasing overall tone
I think you saved me some money..
Fabfilter is great!
Two things I wanna say about this:
1) Different dynamic EQs also have different filters so the sound and quality aren't the same (just like with mutiband compressors).
2) Maybe for that track you should try a more wide Q and less gain on the band (like using -3 instead of -8 or something like that), it tends to work for me that way, it's like a multiband compressor without the risky phase shift (dynamic EQs also introduce phase shifts but not as big).
I'm not trying to complain here because you're pointing out a real problem: sometimes we the engineers are lazzy. Still, I think dynamic EQs are still in a "green state", most of us don't really know how to use them properly.
heavymetalmixer91 To be honest, I wouldn’t even do anything to this specific track. It was just for demonstration. The way I see a multiband compressor is that it devides the whole spectrum, while a dynamic eq is there just for 1 certain band, the filter issue is still present, but much less then in a multiband compressor, where things have to overlap eacht other
A bit confused by your response. Most dynamic EQs offer multiple bands (I use Tokyo Dawn's Nova GE, which has 6 bands) not just one. So you can use them very much like a multi band compressor. I am still experimenting, but so far I like how Nova works and sounds. My understanding is one of the main advantages is, as you noted, less issues with phase distortion at the edges of the bands. Nova also automatically 'mixes' in a percentage of the processed signal with the dry signal, but of course you can do that with any plug in that has a mix control.
Why not use the dynamic EQ then automate the wet/dry knob instead of placing so many automation points?
If the word ‘man’ or ‘van’ really was louder. Then just set the threshold so the compressor only kicks in for that word. It’s very simple.
"Mültiband" - you must be dutch, right? :D
Yeh, those old records that didnt have editing or automation. Some manual control but not on such a micro level.
But had de-essers (in latter analogue decades at least) which are pretty much a restricted dynamic eq.
And i think this is wrong use for it anyway. Deresonating is a much better use, anything where its frequent enough and obscure enough to be a pain manually. It is just MORE transparent than fixed notches that you leave on. High Q so it pretty much only hits when that one frequency kicks up.
2. You CAN raise the threshold and turn up the ratio you know.
3. That said probably is best to automate essing, rather than use dessers too. Some even go on full with it, why not 'compress' the vocal with volume automation before the actual compressor. So i agree on that use but not how was recommended to me, literally they said "this is NOT to pull out occasional erroneous sounds, use it in the following way u use eq but more transparent..."
4. I now picture a guy trying multiple times to manually turn down a knob on the word 'man'. Or splicing it out of tape! Lol
i use dynamic eq on bass to not mask the kick.
Hey Wytse, I don't know if you found my message, but I left you a comment the other day under your "Changing my setup!" video to check out Merging Technologies and their Option Cards. It might be just what you're looking for. Be great.
Found it! Still on my list of things to check out....
stares straight at me :,)
Artist choose the style of mix or sound is not just one right start to get your style I love how some people mix but I will heir and album and heir it and heir it and find flaws that I woulnt do or mix like. Ive notice people love mid I hate mids is not a secret that mids dirty a mix i like clean clear warm songs thats my style I mix to make my songs that way some people mix to get their sound in their head. Music is wonderful their no wrongs or bads if you have a nice clean decent mix stick to one style improve it and dont be all over the place. I like this guy I dont agree in everything he saids or does maybe I mix in a different style of music but I would recomend to mix a song with out reference till the end dont mix a bass see a youtube video go mix vocals as aengineer you have a style you like a song that you heird because ypu tought damm this song is so nicely mix make your sound like that you have a sound in your head already improve it till you get tired of it
Still don't know what a dynamic EQ does. I can imagine what it does, but I have never used one for mixing. Toght that where more for watching movies and stuff like that
I have a dynamic EQ I got during one of waves audio package sales. I still haven't figured out a use for it. I have about nine million waves plugins. Pretty sure everyone producing music does. They're the Super Walmart mixing plugins.
try Dynamic EQ on drums! It sounds much less sterile, especially on programmed tracks
instead of manually automate the eq on the word you can just program the on/off button on the words, then the wording is still dimmed dynamically (and not manual) and for the rest doesn't work.