Which spectral analyzer would be usefull for adequate EQ

[Chuchi]

Ciao a tutti from Parma where sun still shines...
By reading here and there, I understood that different instruments have some frequencies in common. If I well understood, these frequencies would be redundant and introduce bad sound. This is why EQ would be necessary to "sculpture" the frequencies in common...

However, to do this step requires some gear that show you the waves of every tracks (of Logic 9 in my personal case).

Since I am less stupid that yesterday but there are still work to be done, I was wondering if some of the friendly members could give me an advice regarding a software or plugin that could be of great help for an appropriate recognition of the redundancies and making a nice EQ.:cool:

I am looking to something really contributive and user friendly ...:confused:...if it exists ?
Grazie anticipamente from Parma

ciao a tutti

Chuchi :)

[Tomasz]

My opinion is that while overlapping frequencies are a common thing, your ears should be your best friend in this department. If you are hearing a problem then try to find and make adjustments to the offenders. But just relying on some plugin to tell you that you have alot of high mids or whatever will do you no good.
Surely some members who have or use a spectral analyzer will chime in soon enough to possibly suggest a plugin (god forbid) or a real hardware version.

Are you having a specific problem on some tracks you have recorded?
peace.....

[Sandyrb]

Ciao Chuchi.

First of all let me add my vehement support to Tomasz' words of wisdom. The ear needs to make the decision. The science must serve the art and not the other way round. So, if your ear tells you that you have conflicting frequency ranges and it's going to be a problem, guess what? Move the mics dude! :)
If I well understood, these frequencies would be redundant and introduce bad sound. This is why EQ would be necessary to "sculpture" the frequencies in common.
But why would they be redundant or introduce bad sound? Isn't it a very "real world" situation to have lots of fundamentals / harmonics crammed into the same bit of spectrum? Look at rock music; some of the drums, the more obvious portions of the bass, male vocals and big fat guitars all sit in roughly the same place... yet it works. So perhaps it is possible that you're approaching your recordings from the wrong angle mio amico. :)
I am less stupid than yesterday but there is still work to be done
Great saying; I'm going to steal it. :)
regarding a software or plugin that could be of great help for an appropriate recognition of the redundancies and making a nice EQ.
Okay... if you REALLY want to do this, the best analyzer in the world is probably the Meyer Sound SIM3. However! It costs rude money. This being said there is a common Waves plugin and I can't remember what it's called. P.A.Z. Analyzer or something. Obviously it's not up there with things like the Meyer but it'll give you a good start. Also, the analyzer in Adobe Audition is something I've found very handy from time to time (mostly because it tells you which note is dominant) but as you're running Logic I'm guessing you're on a mac and that would be no good.

Anyway, just to underline things... Those ears coupled with the thing that sits between them are the best tools you have!! Hope this helps. Habbia un buon giorno! :)

Cheers,

[Mixwell]

Ciao a tutti from Parma where sun still shines...
By reading here and there, I understood that different instruments have some frequencies in common. If I well understood, these frequencies would be redundant and introduce bad sound. This is why EQ would be necessary to "sculpture" the frequencies in common...

However, to do this step requires some gear that show you the waves of every tracks (of Logic 9 in my personal case).

Since I am less stupid that yesterday but there are still work to be done, I was wondering if some of the friendly members could give me an advice regarding a software or plugin that could be of great help for an appropriate recognition of the redundancies and making a nice EQ.:cool:

I am looking to something really contributive and user friendly ...:confused:...if it exists ?
Grazie anticipamente from Parma

ciao a tutti

Chuchi :)

Hi Chuchi,

The Spectral Analyzer in another sense, might be a pair of ear drums connected to a bthead

It is always best to relay on your head for these matters.

I think there may be some things in what you have read, which may be a skew from the crux of your question. "How does one Equalizzzzzze". Vast Question indeed. In my experience; overlapping Frequencies do not really create "bad sounds" unless you are doing it wrong. Sandy speaks well to this point in case. The intermingling of sound is good! Its what binds the music together in many respects. Everything is contextually related in both frequency content, and amplitude density and dynamic range. The overall energy in your tracks/mix/record is what you need to control, define and balance. I don't think I would EVER EQ something the same, in SOLO, that I would in CONTEXT with the music, though EQ is just another tool at our disposal. It falls under the "spectral" or Frequency Based processing family.

Logic's EQ has ZERO sex appeal or adverse distortion, or anything to describe really. They seem very out of the way, so I always use them for very slight cuts and then more extreme negative filtering if needed. I really do not like the sound of digital eq when boosting, but plainly, the effect is more of the sound. Point is; the Logic stock plug in is pretty surgical and has little to no artifacts. When it comes to using an equalizer plug in or plug out; to "shape" a sound, I have trained and honed my critical listening acuity, so that I can use the "solo" button in my head, to analyze the sound, entirely - while its being played back with other sounds. Or, in other words, I simply focus concentration on the work, but keep the context, in my "peripheral vision".

[Zachg]

As the uses your ears statement has already been made,i don't have to say it again, but if you do still want a spectrum analyzer Voxengo SPAN isn't too bad, + it's also a freebie! It also shows RMS, peak volumes, etc,(i think) but I havn't used it since I switched to PT.

[albert]

1. Does it really need EQ?

2. Our ears are more sensitive to certain frequencies than others, and analysis tools show absolute values, not real world "musical" values.

3. So using all this metering and analysis stuff is cool for checking for certain problems (like maybe if you look at a hi-hat channel and see that there is all sorts of crazy bumpin' rumble, that you can't tell is there without a meter but want to cut it out so it doesn't ruin the translation on a different system), but all this metering and analysis stuff is not always "musical".

4. If you're not sure what to do at all, I must say shelving EQs work really well, they are gentle and a lot more like "moving the microphone". Shelving off highs can be great, and boosting them too.

5. Everyone has a lot of different things going on with how they use EQ (and what they decide to not EQ), and I don't have any rules. We all are continually changing the way we do things as we get new equipment, new technology, and new problems. Use your ears. It's easier at the end of the day, I swear. :D

6. Also try using two microphones on a source sometimes, and then introducing one for more HIGHs or one for more BASS, simple things like that can let you get away from having to use EQ.

7. Oh, one last thought, you cannot EQ in something that is not there.

Hope these few quick points say something and help you in some way, everything everyone else is saying is great too. The things that have been mentioned about the Logic Channel EQ, I agree with all of them.

[Sandyrb]

We all are continually changing the way we do things as we get new equipment, new technology and new problems. Use your ears.

Seldom were truer words spoken. :)

Cheers,

[Chuchi]

Ciao a tutti guys,

OK, OK..I'll be deeply involved myself by cleaning my ears and take advantage of all what you've said....I told you and it's true, today..I am less stupid than yesterday....fortunately:(

ciao ciao

Chuchi

[Pato]

i use the match Eq in "learn" mode from logic 8, i think its the same in 9

[bitflipper]

Whenever this question is asked, the first round of replies is always a chorus of "all visual aids are evil!".

Of course, if they're so evil, why does the question keep being asked? Because they are both a) truly evil and b) extremely helpful.

How they're helpful is obvious. Until you get to the point where you can accurately identify frequencies by ear alone - something that takes years of practice to achieve - a spectral display serves as a guide. Until you get to the point where your room is as close to acoustically perfect as possible and you have speakers that cost more than your first car, a spectral display serves to cut through the aural illusions and show you what's really going on.

How they're evil is less obvious. The danger lies in the fact that we naturally trust our eyes over our ears. If we see something that contradicts what we hear, we will go with the visual information. (Example: dialog at the movies coming out of one center speaker; we are fooled into thinking it's localized and coming from the actors' mouths.)

What happens when you use spectral displays is you start trying to make sound "look" right. Your ears shut off, and you can end up making it sound worse without realising it, because your ears have been shut off.

Best compromise is to use the spectral display to identify the frequency you want to modify, and then tweak your EQ with eyes closed. Ignore the display until your ears are happy with the change, and only then peek at the picture.

There is a great - and inexpensive - product out there for examining and adjusting spectra of tracks, for carving out a spectral identity for each track. It's called GlissEQ, by Voxengo. Version 3 just came out a few weeks ago. It will let you display the spectra of multiple tracks in one window so you can see where the overlaps are. And it's an equalizer. It's actually a dynamic equalizer - kind of a hybrid between a parametric EQ and a multiband compressor.

I highly recommend GlissEQ. Just be aware that it, like all visual mixing aids, has a dark side.

[Weiss-Sound]

I will say this, Spectrum Analyzers can be helpful tools. The problem is, they don't always show you what your ears can tell you. You might get the quantity of a certain frequency, but rarely do your eyes give you the quality. But, they can be useful. I was having trouble getting a kick drum to snap right. I kept boosting at 1k, 2k, 3k, 4k. It wasn't until I checked it out on an analyzer that I SAW 6k was awkwardly dipped out. So I boosted 5db at 6k and my kick popped just right. I don't think I would have tried the 6k range out without an analyzer, because prior experience never revealed a case where a kick drum was 6k deficient for attack sound.

But for masking issues, the ear is the only way to go. You usually can get by most masking issues with volume and pan. It's generally pretty obvious when one element masks another and in what frequency once you get used to it.

[Tomasz]

Best compromise is to use the spectral display to identify the frequency you want to modify, and then tweak your EQ with eyes closed. Ignore the display until your ears are happy with the change, and only then peek at the picture.

Yes. I pretend I'm Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder when listening.