Jeez. I have not been able to grasp the art of EQing for the past two years I've been trying to produce, but this video really helped me in so many ways. Thank you so much!
Perhaps this tells you how much I know, but I was really surprised at how much value that mid cut brought to the mix. I appreciate you going for the full sounding acoustic, that low-end roll off that so many acoustics are given makes me wonder why people bother to put acoustic guitar in their music to begin with
Now you're making my brain itchy. I frequently have to take exactly 173hz. I had initially thought it was a room resonance, but it is there in my HD 650s, and on the analyzer. I had begun to wonder if it was the Pro eq, or Studio one itself. I had pretty much talked myself out of what I thought was ridiculous, and here you are with exactly 173🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Honestly who's disliking these videos. Like idk how you could watch this and find something to dislike so much to thumbs it down. Like this is educational in regards to mixing. If you're not into audio why are you here disliking videos. It confuses me so lol
I liked the video, but something that definitely could've been better was the length of the video. I realize people stretch their content for the UA-cam algorithm. I think if someone is to dislike this video this would be the reason, not the content as it obviously is great.
This is a helpful video. I'm in a Beatles tribute band as well as classic rock bands so there is alot of acoustic guitar going on through the night. I think this kind of method could also be applied in a live situation. Being that different acoustic guitars use different pickup systems as well as mics blended in this can help balance the big differences in response and EQ between the 4 or 5 different acoustic we use live - and having 4 band parametric on each channel is perfect for this. thank you!
if I need to find any problem frequencies with the pro eq I always like to change the spectrum analyser to FFT curve and that really helps pin point the exact frequencies instead of looking at the frequencies as blocks
Great explanation Joe. In my opinion, maybe to get rid of the muddy low end, besides the eq moves you did, just put a multiband compression between 70hz to 200hz, just that region, to tame that low end when the sound reachs to that threshold. It's the same principle to tame low end on electric guitars. Thanks for your tutorials, keep going.
Thank you Joe. I just recorded a quick acoustic guitar piece this week for a friend. I was struggling with the exact "tom tom" thunk sound when striking certain strings. I reduced the lows on EQ but had I seen this first, it would have been much better. Thanks for the level of detail. I love the song too!
big thanks. This helped me alot. Struggling with different mic´s (all 48v), cheap washburn steel and a local manufactured nylon Levin of Sweden. All routed trough Presonus 16.0.4. Typical bedroom homestudio with all the soundtraps. The sound is either to sharp or to muddy and will not sit well in my music. Actually really hard to put a good level in the mix. Can´t hear it, or just boominess. I have deleted the guitar becouseofthis to many times. So, i followed this tutorial and actually copied your ProEQ. Put my cheap mic 30cm of the hole, pointed to the 12. What t f!! Sound great. Thanks for the mojo. lovefromsweden
Hi Joe, I have been enjoying your videos on proper EQ. Great Job! Your accent seemed familiar to me so I checked you out and lo and behold, like me, you 're a Mississippi boy. I'm from Jackson, an original rock 'n roller, who played with Andy Anderson from Clarksdale in the early days. Keep on making those videos and I will keep on watchin' !
7:18 This is actually the sound I'm looking for in my current song. I want to hear a strummy sound, and a lot less of the actual notes. It has to blend better with the music. I get what you're saying, though. I love the warmth. In many cases, you want to keep that. In my current case, I want the strummy sound to be prominent. :)
i eq within the entire mix enabled to see where it sits, i do not want my acoustic rhythm track sucking up all my low end power, especially is theres drums,bass, and electric guitars in the song also
What bugs me is that even after the eq I can still here muddy thudding in the bass and I’m not sure of the solution. It almost sounds as though it needs several frequency cuts. That said, it’s also one of those things where if you listen for it you will hear it.
Agree, the bass, thump and boom is dynamic so a multiband dynamic eq or compressor would just tame the thump and boom, or the Gullfoss EQ. But it is about EQing out mud, thump, boom as a featured instrument.
Broqui I really enjoyed this. That curve not only brought clarity to the strums but to the bass aswell. I got curious about your video :\ Did you do those zooms on post or do you have an app that let you zoom like that?
Thanks, but there's no "wrong". I would have cut much more of the lows, not because I wouldn't find the frequency, more because I like thot more brittle sounding acoustics. The woomp was annoying anyways :).
Have you looked into the Gullfoss EQ? I find acoustic guitars always problematic, the boxy sound or the body sound 300-500hz. If that was scooped at the recording stage then the bottom end becomes noticeable here it seems around the 90hz/180hz. As you cut and remove the attention away from that frequency whatever other frequencies that were masked become exposed sometimes pleasant, and sometimes ugly or harsh. As you put it makes the guitar sound cheap or plastic.
Still sounded muddy to me, but everyone has their own tastes. I actually preferred the "thin" and "anemic" guitar with the dramatic high cut. I would have gone for something in between those two.
How about adding a HPF for really low frequencies, say at about 30 Hz (to eliminate room noises like the AC)? Or would it compromise the low end and thin things out too much?
Going up to 30 is just fine. If there is no good frequencies then you cut them out that's the point of it. It gives more headroom for the nicer frequencies. You can put the high pass as high as you want as long as you don't completely cut out the fundamental of the sound. He cut out the fundamental In this video which is why it sounded so bad when he did it.
Joe is great in mixing and all but he will overwhelm u with the story behind how he came up with what he wants to teach u about that u will forget the main title of the video and get carried away by his stories..
Man you're a great teacher. I'm learning so quick just by watching your vids, thank you so much.
Jeez. I have not been able to grasp the art of EQing for the past two years I've been trying to produce, but this video really helped me in so many ways. Thank you so much!
The way you adjusted the EQ it does sound better than the original.
I'd still cut around the 80 by 3db, esp. if there's gonna be a bass or kick.
When you roll-off the bottom end, it makes it sound like an Ovation!
Ouch. He was trying not to say that.
@@b1j The truth hurts!
"Don't do this?" What? I've been trying everything to make my acoustic sit in the mix and the "don't do this" method actually is the one that worked!
Perhaps this tells you how much I know, but I was really surprised at how much value that mid cut brought to the mix. I appreciate you going for the full sounding acoustic, that low-end roll off that so many acoustics are given makes me wonder why people bother to put acoustic guitar in their music to begin with
Great tip, a little does go a long way! Thanks as ever, Joe! Cheers from India!
This was extremely helpful. Turned a boomy finger picked part into a usable track! Thanks, Joe!
Now you're making my brain itchy. I frequently have to take exactly 173hz. I had initially thought it was a room resonance, but it is there in my HD 650s, and on the analyzer. I had begun to wonder if it was the Pro eq, or Studio one itself. I had pretty much talked myself out of what I thought was ridiculous, and here you are with exactly 173🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
I heard it, I saw it, you showed me how to conquer a problem eq'ing a vocal track! TYVFM
Honestly who's disliking these videos. Like idk how you could watch this and find something to dislike so much to thumbs it down. Like this is educational in regards to mixing. If you're not into audio why are you here disliking videos. It confuses me so lol
I liked the video, but something that definitely could've been better was the length of the video. I realize people stretch their content for the UA-cam algorithm. I think if someone is to dislike this video this would be the reason, not the content as it obviously is great.
@@tzetzo_tzetzov he gotta make his money somehow
@@由紀-f1b agree
This is a helpful video. I'm in a Beatles tribute band as well as classic rock bands so there is alot of acoustic guitar going on through the night. I think this kind of method could also be applied in a live situation. Being that different acoustic guitars use different pickup systems as well as mics blended in this can help balance the big differences in response and EQ between the 4 or 5 different acoustic we use live - and having 4 band parametric on each channel is perfect for this. thank you!
if I need to find any problem frequencies with the pro eq I always like to change the spectrum analyser to FFT curve and that really helps pin point the exact frequencies instead of looking at the frequencies as blocks
Beautifully EQ, thank you so much
your videos are super helpful!
Thanks Jasper.
Great explanation Joe. In my opinion, maybe to get rid of the muddy low end, besides the eq moves you did, just put a multiband compression between 70hz to 200hz, just that region, to tame that low end when the sound reachs to that threshold. It's the same principle to tame low end on electric guitars. Thanks for your tutorials, keep going.
Thank u...very helpful. Muddy mix are problematic..Shout out from South Africa.
7:19 that was Hank Hill. And a damn good Hank Hill imo
At a stretch Cleveland Brown.
Merci beaucoup from montreal, i use studio one and i gona Try this
thank you so much
Thank you Joe. I just recorded a quick acoustic guitar piece this week for a friend. I was struggling with the exact "tom tom" thunk sound when striking certain strings. I reduced the lows on EQ but had I seen this first, it would have been much better. Thanks for the level of detail. I love the song too!
very inspiring just learning on studio one artiste
amazing simple effective thank you joe!
Thanks Joe, first time watcher, subscribed and look fwd to more of what you have.
Keep these coming.
big thanks. This helped me alot. Struggling with different mic´s (all 48v), cheap washburn steel and a local manufactured nylon Levin of Sweden. All routed trough Presonus 16.0.4. Typical bedroom homestudio with all the soundtraps. The sound is either to sharp or to muddy and will not sit well in my music. Actually really hard to put a good level in the mix. Can´t hear it, or just boominess. I have deleted the guitar becouseofthis to many times.
So, i followed this tutorial and actually copied your ProEQ. Put my cheap mic 30cm of the hole, pointed to the 12. What t f!! Sound great. Thanks for the mojo. lovefromsweden
Always great! Thanks Joe...
Great video Joe. It was so useful!😃😃
Hi Joe, I have been enjoying your videos on proper EQ. Great Job! Your accent seemed familiar to me so I checked you out and lo and behold, like me, you 're a Mississippi boy. I'm from Jackson, an original rock 'n roller, who played with Andy Anderson from Clarksdale in the early days. Keep on making those videos and I will keep on watchin' !
VERY NICE SIR
Love your content! Keep it up man helps all of us out
7:18 This is actually the sound I'm looking for in my current song. I want to hear a strummy sound, and a lot less of the actual notes. It has to blend better with the music. I get what you're saying, though. I love the warmth. In many cases, you want to keep that. In my current case, I want the strummy sound to be prominent. :)
Great video thanks!
Great and educational. 👍☺ I want more of this and I would love it if you did something similar with eq and a acoustic piano.
great
VERY HELP 👑FULL TUTORIAL
That is genius!
thank you
i eq within the entire mix enabled to see where it sits, i do not want my acoustic rhythm track sucking up all my low end power, especially is theres drums,bass, and electric guitars in the song also
Awesome video. Maybe I don't need a better mic after all!
What bugs me is that even after the eq I can still here muddy thudding in the bass and I’m not sure of the solution. It almost sounds as though it needs several frequency cuts. That said, it’s also one of those things where if you listen for it you will hear it.
Wouldnt this also be a good situation for multiband compression? Put a leash on those bad spots without notching it?
Agree, the bass, thump and boom is dynamic so a multiband dynamic eq or compressor would just tame the thump and boom, or the Gullfoss EQ. But it is about EQing out mud, thump, boom as a featured instrument.
7:50 using a high pass like that only really works if you have a big fat hip hop bass line backing it up.
I still prefer for it to be additive
You solved a problem.
I would have used a dynamic eq on that 173 :)
Mannnnnnnnn!!!!!....Joe is a talker.... But I love his videos
I actually like some of the low mid stuff however, I want to know how to reduce the pick sound if that's all you have to work with.
Broqui I really enjoyed this. That curve not only brought clarity to the strums but to the bass aswell. I got curious about your video :\ Did you do those zooms on post or do you have an app that let you zoom like that?
Thanks, but there's no "wrong". I would have cut much more of the lows, not because I wouldn't find the frequency, more because I like thot more brittle sounding acoustics.
The woomp was annoying anyways :).
The whoomp is still audible.. I don’t believe it’s possible to fully remove it.. as you said, better re record.
Nice work but how can you rescue distortion? ;)
I'd bet is a muted low e string.
Great video!
Have you looked into the Gullfoss EQ? I find acoustic guitars always problematic, the boxy sound or the body sound 300-500hz. If that was scooped at the recording stage then the bottom end becomes noticeable here it seems around the 90hz/180hz. As you cut and remove the attention away from that frequency whatever other frequencies that were masked become exposed sometimes pleasant, and sometimes ugly or harsh. As you put it makes the guitar sound cheap or plastic.
Gullfoss is supposed to quickly correct this issue,is that correct Joe ?
I think that in these cases of doubt, it is best to go back and record it better.
Still sounded muddy to me, but everyone has their own tastes. I actually preferred the "thin" and "anemic" guitar with the dramatic high cut. I would have gone for something in between those two.
Way down... Below the ocean.. Where I wanne be...
🤠
How about adding a HPF for really low frequencies, say at about 30 Hz (to eliminate room noises like the AC)? Or would it compromise the low end and thin things out too much?
Going up to 30 is just fine. If there is no good frequencies then you cut them out that's the point of it. It gives more headroom for the nicer frequencies. You can put the high pass as high as you want as long as you don't completely cut out the fundamental of the sound. He cut out the fundamental In this video which is why it sounded so bad when he did it.
That's just my taste and opinion though, so by no means is that the definitive answer
Gets to it at 1:36
Boom boom 😂😂😂😂
Cut about 80hz
2:08 problem
2:30 eq
3:35 play
4:48 fut fut fut sound
5:41 muddy
*5:54 finding muddy
6:27 boom boom
7:23 thin mix
8:09 solving
8:33 bell eq
9:23 fixing
9:54 before after
10:57 finding
11:41 high boost
12:21 cheap guitar
12:54 cut
13:08 low end
11:25 before
13:32 after
Just add Gullfoss eq and problem is solved in 3 seconds
Came to same conclusions on guitar sounds.
Joe is great in mixing and all but he will overwhelm u with the story behind how he came up with what he wants to teach u about that u will forget the main title of the video and get carried away by his stories..
Useless