Becoming a Huge Fan of Dynamic EQ

[Anderton]

It's getting to the point where I'm more likely to use it instead of standard compression. I just used it on a voiceover to duck the background, and set the EQ for only the frequencies where there was the most vocal energy. So when the voice was happening, it pushed down only those frequencies as opposed to traditional, compression-based ducking that pushes down all frequencies. 

 

That's just one example...I'm finding more all the time. Any other fans out there?

[David Emm]

I do this kind of thing in Logic all the time. I lean towards a light dusting of overall compression, while being mindful of hurting the dynamics. Otherwise, I love setting a section to loop and addressing the specifics by hand, like any other control on a synth. The way I work, it ends up making me happier with the results. There is always the risk of overdoing it if you seek "perfection," but holding back a bit is often wise. Being able to draw what I need on the fly is invaluable. 

 

The only recent synth I have seen that comes with an EQ section is Cherry Audio's SINES, but I readily agreed with Eno when he said every synth should have one. It feels like a missing fundamental function that even very clever filters don't touch.

[bill5]

4 hours ago, Anderton said:

Any other fans out there?

In theory, yes. But I haven't yet found a need (well OK I'm not recording or mixing atm might have something to do with it) and it just makes things busier. Basically if I don't feel I really have to, I won't. I'm a lazy mixer. 

[Anderton]

4 hours ago, David Emm said:

I do this kind of thing in Logic all the time.

 What EQ are you using? IIRC, Logic Pro X doesn't include dynamic EQ - only the Channel EQ, Linear Phase EQ, Match EQ, and the three vintage emulations.

[The Real MC]

My UREI LA-22 compressor/expander does frequency selective processing.  Can be a real problem solver.  Not a feature often seen in a hardware unit.

[David Emm]

21 hours ago, Anderton said:

 What EQ are you using? IIRC, Logic Pro X doesn't include dynamic EQ - only the Channel EQ, Linear Phase EQ, Match EQ, and the three vintage emulations.

 

The Channel EQ. It has eight frequency bands you can tweak in real-time. In Touch mode, it retains your moves. Its a welcome overall go-to when I don't need Match EQ, for instance.

 

The specific EQ curves you included in "Max Your Mix" are good templates for envisioning where you need to go in a specific situation. I enjoy being able to "feel" my way along. Chapter 14's "Automation and Parameter Control" is a solid reference for achieving that.     

[Anderton]

Actually "dynamic EQ" is something different from what the Channel EQ offers, check out page 135 in "Max Your Mix." Basically, dynamic EQ means that the EQ can respond dynamically to audio at its input. De-essing takes advantage of the dynamic EQ concept. You can program a high-frequency stage to cut only if the high-frequency audio coming into the EQ is over a certain level. So normally, that stage isn't doing anything. But if a blast of "ess" sound hits the input, the EQ cuts the high frequencies for as long as the ess sound happens.

 

Even better, dynamic EQs often have a sidechain input, so you can control the EQ from a different signal. For example, suppose you have a piano part going through dynamic EQ. For a rhythmic effect, you could have drums trigger one (or more) EQ stages so that when the drums hit, the piano gets a boost at 1 kHz or whatever. It's fun stuff

 

FWIW, I just went into the Word file for the next version of "Max Your Mix," and added more information about dynamic EQ. I really LOVE being able to update books!!

 

[George Toledo]

I used to occasionally use a multiband for similar end result, but I find the dynamic EQ to be a little better sounding approach, usually.

 

I haven’t done much with sidechaining it though. I’ll usually use it for de-essing and tightening up low mids.

[Anderton]

42 minutes ago, George Toledo said:

I used to occasionally use a multiband for similar end result, but I find the dynamic EQ to be a little better sounding approach, usually.

 

With ducking for narration, I also find it sounds much more natural than using compression. I can create an EQ curve that matches my vocal energy exactly, so the most prominent vocal frequencies are reduced the most. Compression uses a much broader brush.

 

42 minutes ago, George Toledo said:

I haven’t done much with sidechaining it though.

 

Sidechaining opens up all kinds of fun special effects! Try feeding a sidechain from drums into EQ on a pad, and having the pad bounce and move in different frequencies based on what the drums are doing. It's something that used to take me a LOT of effort with multple expanders, gates, bussing, and the like.

[David Emm]

8 hours ago, Anderton said:

Actually "dynamic EQ" is something different from what the Channel EQ offers, check out page 135 in "Max Your Mix." Basically, dynamic EQ means that the EQ can respond dynamically to audio at its input. De-essing takes advantage of the dynamic EQ concept. You can program a high-frequency stage to cut only if the high-frequency audio coming into the EQ is over a certain level. So normally, that stage isn't doing anything. But if a blast of "ess" sound hits the input, the EQ cuts the high frequencies for as long as the ess sound happens.

 

Even better, dynamic EQs often have a sidechain input, so you can control the EQ from a different signal. For example, suppose you have a piano part going through dynamic EQ. For a rhythmic effect, you could have drums trigger one (or more) EQ stages so that when the drums hit, the piano gets a boost at 1 kHz or whatever. It's fun stuff

 

FWIW, I just went into the Word file for the next version of "Max Your Mix," and added more information about dynamic EQ. I really LOVE being able to update books!!

 

 

Pardon me for getting wound up about EQ proper rather than DYNAMIC EQ. I compose in furious chunks, resembling John Cleese's legendary moment playing a beleaguered Beethoven, being driven bonkers by interruptions. I sometimes take a brute-force, by-hand approach rather than stopping to apply the right mini-chain. I can think of a few places where a dynamic EQ would be of benefit to me. I'll take another pass at page 135. 🧐 

[Anderton]

Dynamic EQ is one of those things that kind of flies under the radar. But the more you use it, the more your find places where it's the ideal solution for what you want - more advanced than EQ, not as heavy-handed as compression.

[Nowarezman]

This thread has me looking at Waves offering for dynamic EQ - their F6 plugin.

 

Anyone have experience with this particular plugin?

 

The line between compression and EQ seems to me to be getting rather thin by the time you are compressing per frequency band vs EQing per frequency band.  Both methods react to amplitude levels in their particular frequency band, and both methods effectively turn down the amplitude in their particular frequency band.  

 

Compression has a nifty envelope - but do these dynamic EQs follow an envelope, too?  

 

I'm not sure about the specific problems that dynamic EQ can solve better than multiband compression.  This is not to say I doubt the efficacy of dynamic EQ - I just want some clues as to use which plugin in which situations.

 

Is there a concise, neat way to describe the differences between the sets of problems these two methods can solve?

 

nat

 

[Sundown]

Me too … I’ve owned Fabfilter Q2 and Q3 for several years, but I only learned of the Dynamic function this past year and it’s really helpful for dealing with pesky resonances on synths (and other instruments). It’s a real game changer when dealing with a tricky part.

 

Todd

[Anderton]

14 hours ago, Nowarezman said:

Is there a concise, neat way to describe the differences between the sets of problems these two methods can solve?

Hope this helps...

 

Precision

• Multiband dynamics' filtering is based on a crossover that divides audio into relatively broad bands. It's used a lot with program material, although it works with individual tracks as well. Think of it as like using a roller for painting.
• Dynamic EQ can be as detailed as you want. For example, if there's a resonance at x kHz, you can dial in x kHz with a parametric EQ and compress only that frequency. Or you can use a shelf EQ, or a low-Q parametric stage, and affect a broad range of frequencies. Think of it like using a brush for painting.
• As an example, suppose the kick is too heavy in a mix. With multiband dynamics, you can reduce the kick but you'll probably affect the floor tom as well. With dynamic EQ, you can zero in on the kick's fundamental frequency, and compress only that while leaving the beater sounds and transients intact.

 

Expansion and Compression

• Not all multiband dynamics processors allow for expansion as well as compression.
• Dynamic EQ can expand some frequencies while compressing others.

 

Phase

• Some multiband dynamics processors use linear-phase operation, so there aren't phase issues. Most use minimal-phase designs, like you find in analog filters, so there can be phase issues.
• Dynamic EQ tends to have fewer phase issues because you restrict the processing to a smaller range of frequencies. However, note that extensive processing of low frequencies, whether with multiband dynamics processors or dynamic EQ, is most subject to phase issues (Studio One trivia: this is why the linear-phase stage in Studio One's EQ covers only the low frequencies. It avoids the latency of using linear-phase design across the entire EQ, while solving the most pressing phase-related problem.)

 

Sidechaining

• Multiband dynamics processors have been around for a while. Newer designs may or may not include sidechaining.
• It's easy to add sidechaining to dynamic EQ, so a lot of them have it.

[Anderton]

14 hours ago, Nowarezman said:

This thread has me looking at Waves offering for dynamic EQ - their F6 plugin.

 

It's excellent, I use it all the time. The FabFilter Pro-EQ 3 is also pretty amazing, especially with its linear-phase options and esoteric responses, like linear tilt.

 

With dynamic EQ, the main difference is that the F6 has variable controls for attack and release. The FabFilter has program-dependent attack and release, like the "auto" setting you often find on compressors.

 

I'd also give the F6 a bit of an edge on the dynamic EQ interface's ease of use, but the tradeoff is that it takes up more screen space.

[Nowarezman]

Thx, Craig, your explanations are very helpful.  

 

F6 is $29 right now.  Fab Filter Pro EQ-3, $169.  Hmmm....

 

So spoiled are we for choices.  Both are cheap if effective.  

 

nat

 

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, Nowarezman said:

Thx, Craig, your explanations are very helpful.  

 

F6 is $29 right now.  Fab Filter Pro EQ-3, $169.  Hmmm....

 

So spoiled are we for choices.  Both are cheap if effective.  

 

nat

 

Not much difference but F6 is $29.99. I'm thinking about getting it, seems like a great problem solver and potential sound improvement tool. 

 

Update:

I went ahead and got Waves F6. It drops right into Waveform. 4 different plugins > F6 m, F6 s, F6 m RTA and F6 s RTA. Reading about it gave me the impression that m stands for mid and s for side but the gentleman who guided me (Waves website is absurdly over complicated!) told me that it was Mono and Stereo, which is sort of the same thing in a way. I spent a good part of today tearing my studio down, cleaning everything and putting it back together in a better configuration with all the AC cords in one area and all the audio runs in another. A bit tricky and there's one stray AC but I've got some space between it and the audio cables. I'm just about ready to jump back in and record, finally!!!

[Anderton]

12 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

the gentleman who guided me (Waves website is absurdly over complicated!) told me that it was Mono and Stereo, which is sort of the same thing in a way.

 

I believe the mono version exists more or less for Pro Tools users. The stereo one does mid/side, and don't overlook what you can do with sidechaining!

[KuruPrionz]

13 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

I believe the mono version exists more or less for Pro Tools users. The stereo one does mid/side, and don't overlook what you can do with sidechaining!

Thanks for the clarity regarding the stereo option! I'm using Waveform and all tracks have the option of being either mono or stereo. 

I may not end up using it this way but I often try plugins for parallel processing. 2 mono tracks, one with the plugin and one without - blend to taste or pan slightly so the difference in tones adds a sense of space/dimension. I never owned a Roland Jazz Chorus amp but I've played through a few and always thought that having one unaffected channel and one with effects in close proximity was an interesting sound. Very easy to do with a DAW so I like to try it on some things. 

 

On other things, I like 2 mono tracks to get the tone I want. Bass with one clean track and one high-passed distorted track blended in way underneath sounds great. It pops in the mix but has that clean, full tone. 

 

This plugin might easily replace several compression and EQ plugins, reducing the total number of plugins. That's a direction I am hoping to go, fewer, more versatile plugins and less clutter means a more efficient workflow. The ability to address transients and tones separately is profoundly useful.  It's been a while but I was doing the "gimme this, gimme that" deal with plugins and they pile up quickly! Less is more!!! 

[Anderton]

FWIW when Studio One added dynamic EQ, a lot of my blog tips became obsolete because you could replace complex effects chains with one plug-in. So you're heading in the right direction