The Supportive EQ Trick

[@G_handle]

A related topic: Classic Analog EQs (and their emulations) have 1) a limited number of fixed frequency choices, 2) repeated across all the channels on a console, 3) those choices were made specifically (by say Rupert Neve himself) for a reason, they’re not arbitrary. As opposed to a fully sweepable Parametric EQ, where no frequencies are “pre-selected” , those fixed positions should A) be musically related to one another when EQing a single source, but also B) “support” and/or “contrast” each other musically when EQing multiple channels into one group, and groups into a mix. I’ve not seen enough online about Why these choices were made and How they ‘work’ musically.

[@RecordingStudio9]

Totally agree. For that reason, they used certain EQ and Comp for particular audio sources back in the day. These days people have no clue other than Palteq is good, or API is better, not even knowing the differences between SSL E and G types. Not many bother to learn them. Ryan is a great example to learn from as he talks about how things work rather than which brand.

[@damianoakes2592]

That's a big part of why my go-to channel EQ when I'm mixing is the Trident A-Range, and if you look at the development of that EQ, it wasn't done mathematically where the frequencies were precisely planned out, it was developed by ear by Malcolm Toft, who was a great engineer in his own right, and who then got feedback on it from the engineers/producers whom were working at Trident at the time, such as Gus Dudgeon, Tony Visconti, Ken Scott, and Roy Thomas Baker, and when you put it on a source, you very quickly find that you can put it on anything and make it sound good.

[@phillipdumond600]

I read about this idea in a book called behind the glass. Each chapter is an interview with and Engineer or Engineer/producer. Works great from a low end info perspective. Sometimes when you think you want more kick for instance, 60 or 100 might not give you what you want. You might get more snap from the octave above or even 2 octave which like you said, supports the low end info. This will in turn, bring out more low end information without the build up. Great topic and hardly discussed enough. I'm a New follower. Loving your drum videos. I am in a small room trying all those concepts. Very helpful!!! Gonna try the trash can reverb at some point. LOL

[@gozaband]

Could tell right away that was your drumming from that steady heavy foot haha!

[@ElmoSyr]

For clearing mud I very often combine a hpf with a low cutting bell just after the low cut frequency. So sure, supportive eq!

[@CamiloVelandia]

Awesome man. I have been doing this unconsciously or by ear but it makes sense the way you put it. Ultimately, it sounds more organic with the supportive EQ

[@montysweetmusic3458]

Great video! I totally understand the concept and have been unknowingly doing this for years. Thank you for breaking it down! Love your channel

[@corrosiveabuser]

Quality video sir, nicely explained. I'm no purist, or professional for that matter, and I still often use two old Roland graphics for various duties, and although the SEQ-315 is getting a little noisy with age, the EQ-215 is still amazingly quiet, and a very useful graphic eq within my sonic arsenal. - It is very true that one will always get a more pleasing sound if the graphic display resembles more a natural wave, using just the occasional boost or cut on a specific frequency band will often sound unnatural, especially on a graphic eq. - love to ALL, feel no hate

[@baldmandoom]

Great insight. I think Gregory Scott from Kush Audio has a video about something similar, but I can't find it right now

[@jimhart1959]

Hmm....I'm going to give this a try!

[@RecordingStudio9]

Isn't it like a shelf with a lower (high shelf) or higher (low shelf) starting frequency?

[@luca4352]

The supportive Frequency is mostly boosted by being a bell curve around the frequency, so I would argue not quite, as you would have a small dip between your supportive frequency and your EQed frequency, depending on the Q of course. Hope that makes sense

[@RecordingStudio9]

@@luca4352 Yes, the Q value will make the difference and I know what you are trying to explain in the original video. :)

[@Mikey__R]

Is this just because modern shelving filters are too steep?

[@MrIantodd]

So you’re saying, start with a frequency you like in the mids, then work outwards in octaves? That sounds like something I’d like to try. Thank you very much

[@MCB-ls6nw]

You just made me realize I do this quite a bit.

[@easternsouvenirs]

The high shelf on a 1073 is super weird. It’s not even a high shelf. It basically just boosts the whole upper midrange from 2khz-10khz and then rolls off. The bell boost is a bit more targeted though so using them together is definitely helpful

[@miguelmikemigs]

Jeeezus thank you!

[@BeesWaxMinder]

It’s a Thing NOW😂!!👍

[@RemcoJvGrevenbroek]

just widem the bell with a octave

[@trackz2cold]

almost at 69.420 subs

[@caspermaster-com]

Everything supports the pyraMIDS ;)