The Science of EQ-ing

[Kevin Hsieh]

A lot of us have experience fiddling around with the knobs of our amps and sometimes getting a good sound. However, I feel some of the TBers are with me on the fact that I have no clue what to say when people ask me how to EQ to a certain situation.

Can anyone care to explain the science of EQing to specific situations, such as tightening up the sound in a boomy room or getting rid of middly tone from the pickup? Also, how do we use a graphic equalizer (a la Fishman ProEQ)

Also:
I'm currently running an Underwood direct into a GK MB150 flat but feel that there is a certain presence that I could do without. Any help with that?


thanks ahead

[ToneRanger]

I suggest spending some time with your bass plugged through a good 31 band graphic and playing with it until you become familiar with what each frequency band does.
A friend who recently completed an audio engineering degree had to do lots of listening tests e.g. they would listen to a piece of music, the lecturer would move one fader on the graphic and play it again; they had to identify which frequency had been changed and by how much.
As you become familiar with frequency responses, you start to be able to identify what is happening in a room, e.g. being able to pick a 250 Hz resonance without lots of trial & error.
Plus it really helps to be able to communicate intelligently with a sound guy. When I'm running the PA (which I do more often than being a bass player these days) I'm much more able to help a bass player who says "Can I have a little less 600Hz" than the guy who says "There's something wrong in the mids."

[Marc Piane]

While ToneRanger's suggestions are good the GK (MBs) only has 4 knobs and that little tone shaping knob. I think spending time with a big graphic eq is just going to spoil you.

First ask yourself where you are doing the eqing. If you are doing it from the Fishman then you should leave the GK flat (all high noon) or vice versa. Bottom line, don't eq in two places. I just plug my Realist straight into the GK and have been happy enough to leave all the other stuff at home. Ask yourself what the Fishman is doing for your sound. I used a Sansamp for years until one day I figured out how to get an equally pleasing sound without it.

I would then do exactly as TR suggests. Play with each band of the eq and see what it does to your sound. I generally cut the lowest frequencies if it is boomy and boost the lower mids if I need a little more presence. When I am dealing with the upper mids and highs I play a ghost note and see if there is an unnatural click when my finger strikes the string. For me that generally means I have to cut the upper mids. Truth be told though I usually run flat and only tweak slightly ,with cutting stuff being my first thought, if there is something offensive.

On the GK I find that little tone shaping knob to be very handy. A little tweak can help a bunch. I generally leave it at 12 oclock (which is not flat in my understanding) and leave the high boost totally off. The tone shaping knob seems to effect what mids are emphasized the also boost the lows. I NEVER use the low cut switch.

Good luck.

edit: upon reading your post again I see that you are not using the Fishman. I read it wrong. I left it in my post for the benefit of others though.

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Kevin,
First, the Underwood has a reputation for being a little bright and clacky on some basses. I know mine was. It will benefit from a higher input impedance on the amp than the GK provides.
I used an Underwood with the Fishmann going into an SWR WM10 for a bit and never really liked it as I tended to try to go overboard with the EQ. Trying to radically boost or cut frequencies to get a good sound is fraught with problems and will have mixed results.
I would recommend Fdeck's little box before you do anything else. I'll bet you could do that and just cut the treble on the amp and go with it.

[BigSwami]

The best thing to know about EQ is this: the narrower the frequency range you're messing with (i.e. a sharper "Q"), the more unnatural it will end up sounding. If you have to do any EQing, try as best you can to shape your EQ over a broad spectrum of frequencies.

Another thing - this is subjective, so take all this with a grain of salt - I find that every instrument has a high-frequency "presence" zone that, when boosted, makes it seem more "up front". On double basses that zone seems to be around 3-5 KHz, although this can vary widely depending on the instrument and the pickup/mic you're using. However, be careful about extremely low frequencies also, which can have a similar effect of making the bass seem "right up in your ear." You'd be surprised by how little sub-bass you really need to get the job done.

Lastly, find frequencies to cut before you find frequencies to boost. Try not to do too much of one without doing some of the other. This will keep your gear quieter and will keep you out of preamp-overdrive territory.

[Ric Vice]

Originally Posted by Kevin Hsieh

A lot of us have experience fiddling around with the knobs of our amps and sometimes getting a good sound. However, I feel some of the TBers are with me on the fact that I have no clue what to say when people ask me how to EQ to a certain situation.

Can anyone care to explain the science of EQing to specific situations, such as tightening up the sound in a boomy room or getting rid of middly tone from the pickup? Also, how do we use a graphic equalizer (a la Fishman ProEQ)

Also:
I'm currently running an Underwood direct into a GK MB150 flat but feel that there is a certain presence that I could do without. Any help with that?



thanks ahead

Kevin,
I 've owned all the various GK Microbass Amps the 200MB series I and II and the MBE 150. IMHO the MBS sounds better than the MBE because it actually has less control over the midrange. But as I recall that's what you have. So I'd really reccommend FDeck's little Buffer Preamp. The Underwood want's to "see" a 10 meg ohm load and the GK's inputs are 1 meg ohm. If this "certian presence" is in the upper frequencies than the device should help with you're problem.

Ric

[drurb]

Okay, I don't mean to pick on you, but I'd like to comment on what I believe are misconceptions:

Originally Posted by BigSwami

The best thing to know about EQ is this: the narrower the frequency range you're messing with (i.e. a sharper "Q"), the more unnatural it will end up sounding. If you have to do any EQing, try as best you can to shape your EQ over a broad spectrum of frequencies.

This is not true in general. The bandwidth over which to apply shaping depends on the frequency anomaly one wants to correct. Sometimes, this requires a change over a narrow band and sometimes a broad range.

Originally Posted by BigSwami

Another thing - this is subjective, so take all this with a grain of salt - I find that every instrument has a high-frequency "presence" zone that, when boosted, makes it seem more "up front". On double basses that zone seems to be around 3-5 KHz, although this can vary widely depending on the instrument and the pickup/mic you're using. However, be careful about extremely low frequencies also, which can have a similar effect of making the bass seem "right up in your ear." You'd be surprised by how little sub-bass you really need to get the job done.

We may be talking about different effects here but any instrument will be made to sound more "forward" by increasing the energy in a band surrounding 1 kHz or so. As far as tonal shaping goes, it is this region of the spectrum where humans are most sensitive to changes in the "spectral profile." About 2 dB is all you need for a very noticeable change.

Originally Posted by BigSwami

Lastly, find frequencies to cut before you find frequencies to boost. Try not to do too much of one without doing some of the other. This will keep your gear quieter and will keep you out of preamp-overdrive territory.

While boosting frequencies does increase overall energy and can lead to overdriving amplifier stages, the best plan is to make minimal adjustments to achieve the ends. If you have a "valley" or "notch" in a particular frequency region, you are far better off boosting that region than cutting the surrounding ones. Doing the latter will lead to a "rippled" spectrum resulting from the overlap of multiple adjusted filters.

The greatest flexibility is afforded by parametric tonal shaping circuits such as are found on the EA iamps. It is true, however, that many shy away from these as they feel there are just too many knobs and sliders to adjust. I believe it is worth the effort to learn how to use a parametric equalizer because it pays great dividends in the long run.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Kevin Hsieh

A lot of us have experience fiddling around with the knobs of our amps and sometimes getting a good sound. However, I feel some of the TBers are with me on the fact that I have no clue what to say when people ask me how to EQ to a certain situation.

Can anyone care to explain the science of EQing to specific situations, such as tightening up the sound in a boomy room or getting rid of middly tone from the pickup? Also, how do we use a graphic equalizer (a la Fishman ProEQ)

Also:
I'm currently running an Underwood direct into a GK MB150 flat but feel that there is a certain presence that I could do without. Any help with that?


thanks ahead

I could write a book on this but I'll be brief. Get yourself a CD with a recording of continuous white noise. If you don't have access to software/hardware that will let you create this, you can use an FM tuner tuned between stations with the "muting" turned off. That's a pretty good approximation to white noise. Play the noise through the equalizer you want to use and listen to the effect produced by adjustments made to each band. If you work a bit at this, you will come to recognize the "sound" of different frequency regions and what happens when you boost or cut them.

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Drurb,
I believe you give good advice to those who want to really get into the perfect tone for every situation. Speaking for myself, I would rather find a combination of tools, whether they be strings, pickup and amplification that sounds good when set flat (or close to it) and go with that. I certainly have enough to do just concentrating on the music than wondering whether or not I should add a db at 280hz.
That was one of the reasons the Fishman pre didn't agree with me. It seemed that I was always tweeking my tone, possibly just because there were too many possibilities.

I find that running into a Clarus head sounds good enough that it doesn't require much knob twiddling.

btw, I saw in your post that you realize other players may not want to go to the effort you do.

[Bob Gollihur]

Let me echo those who recommend "learning by twisting and listening." While you could potentially approach it from a scientific basis by knowing what frequency bands affect the sound, ears and intuitive knowledge are better IMHO.

Get your amp up in the air so the speaker is aimed at your ear, as it is difficult to really monitor the amp's sound when the bass' acoustic sound is biasing you. Spend plenty of time playing different strings and positions, altering bands just slightly at first, and keep the volumes reasonable, and take breaks to avoid ear fatigue. You'd be surprised how often just a tiny twitch can be enough to narrow in on the sound you are seeking.

If you have accurate, closed headphones, they can also be a good tool for learning EQ. I find them especially useful for determing mic angles.

Don't try to remember everything, make notes-- and if you find a magic setting, write it down! I know my EA iAMP800 real well, but you'll find a printed image of the control panel tacked to the inside of my rack case so I can return to my "reference sound*" for a given situation without having to think about it. And then experiment so more, try it again, etc. The time you spend will be well worthwhile.

*the sound I've determined as my favorite. I'll start there and then adjust EQ to compensate for the room, a different axe or stage setup, etc.

[Adrian Cho]

Go to the AMT website and listen to the interview with Marty Paglione. If I remember correctly he says some good stuff about EQing.

[Jaromir]

To simply start with the given situation - Underwood directly into GK MB150, to get a pleasant sound ACCORDING TO MY TASTE you need to cut the highs NEARLY all the way down and cut the high middles a little bit.
Considering a buffering preamp is definitelly a good idea, however not necessary - 1MOhm input has not only the GK, but also the new AI and all WW amps and those were particulary made to work well with an Underwood pickup!

[drurb]

Originally Posted by clink

Drurb,
I believe you give good advice to those who want to really get into the perfect tone for every situation. Speaking for myself, I would rather find a combination of tools, whether they be strings, pickup and amplification that sounds good when set flat (or close to it) and go with that. I certainly have enough to do just concentrating on the music than wondering whether or not I should add a db at 280hz.
That was one of the reasons the Fishman pre didn't agree with me. It seemed that I was always tweeking my tone, possibly just because there were too many possibilities.

I find that running into a Clarus head sounds good enough that it doesn't require much knob twiddling.

btw, I saw in your post that you realize other players may not want to go to the effort you do.

I, too, would love to have a combination that sounds good when set flat. The biggest source of variance, however, is the one we can't control. That is, the room. I, like Bob Gollihur, have a nominal setting that is a good starting point. Different rooms demand different "touch-ups." As a result of all the years I've spent doing what I do, I am able to identify the frequency bands that need a fix and even the number of dB by which they probably need to change. The OP asked about EQ techniques. I think it's very helpful to learn to identify the bands even if you can't assign numbers to them. What I mean is, this may entail being able to say to yourself, "I think a little boost in my mid and hi tone controls will fix this." I have found that using a white noise source played through your equipment is an easy way to accomplish this. Indeed, one can simply play the bass and fiddle with the controls and learn a great deal as well.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Bob Gollihur

Let me echo those who recommend "learning by twisting and listening." While you could potentially approach it from a scientific basis by knowing what frequency bands affect the sound, ears and intuitive knowledge are better IMHO.

Bob-- sounds like we agree. For the record, I was recommending an approach that I know helps folks to learn to make adjustments by ear even if one does not learn to label the frequency bands with numbers (see my post immediately above). That is, an approach that helps you to quickly gain that intuitive knowledge. After all, if you "know what frequency bands affect the sound," then you are, indeed, doing it by ear.

[Keyser Soze]

This thread -- and the responses -- seems to overlook the fact that the EQing is being done by a person who is onstage, not in "the house." The reference point is that of the bass players, who spend their time tethered to the bass, onstage. Whether or not the sound is "happening" for the audience will not be known to the bass player until after the set/show. *If* anyone in the house can be trusted to characterize "how the bass sounded.

You cannot be onstage and know how it sounds in the house, But you can sure buy a lot of stuff and blather about it on the internet as to how it sounds to you, onstage.

Those who know how the bass lays in the mix, whther it's shrill or poofy, muscyular or honky, are in the seats out front (or at the mixing desk.) And, frankly, to most of them, how the bass sounds is just about the last thing on their minds.

Bass players spend a lot of time, trouble and money to "get their sound right." In the big picture, noboby (in the audience) really knows, or cares wjether the bass sounds good.

[drurb]

In a small venue, room resonances and response anomalies can be addressed quite effectively by tonal adjustments made "on stage." In a larger venue, it is true that how the bass sounds "out there" can be very different than it does in close proximity to the players. In such cases, many of us who have been involved with these matters for decades do, in fact, evaluate the mix from the listening position of an audience member. There are several ways that can be done. It certainly has not been my experience that no one cares. That is probably a function of playing small-combo jazz. Even if it were the case that few in the audience cared about the tonal balance of the bass, I still would try to achieve my desired sound.

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Bass players spend a lot of time, trouble and money to "get their sound right." In the big picture, noboby (in the audience) really knows, or cares wjether the bass sounds good.

I wouldn't quite go that far, but would agree to a point. We can spend so much time trying to get the perfect sound that we forget that it is all about the music we play. However, when I like the way I sound, I play better.
Chicken, egg, chicken, egg...........

Does anybody wonder if Ray Brown had sleepless nights if his sound was slightly off on a gig. I doubt it.

[Kevin Hsieh]

Hey guys, thanks for all your input. I tried some of the ideas at rehearsal today. I usually try to stay away from the shape knob, but today after fooling around with it i found a warmer tone with less of that obnoxious "thump" i get. This was in rehearsal with my school's Hartke Kickback 15.

Keyser Soze-I agree with you that we shouldn't be cluttering up our signal chain with all these gadgets for the best tone or we shouldn't be shelling out thousands of dollars to get the newest cleanest amp. However, it does make a difference on stage when you're playing and you just despise your sound. I was at the Bakery back in June playing a gig and playing through this Polytone that I didn't really understand how to work. I ended up getting a really "thumpy" tone that didn't really articulate to me. I spent half the time during the gig worrying about my sound and couldn't really focus on my own playing. Of course, I was younger then and a lot less experienced, but it does show in the playing.

[Mark Perna]

Originally Posted by Kevin Hsieh

However, it does make a difference on stage when you're playing and you just despise your sound. I was at the Bakery back in June playing a gig and playing through this Polytone that I didn't really understand how to work. I ended up getting a really "thumpy" tone that didn't really articulate to me. I spent half the time during the gig worrying about my sound and couldn't really focus on my own playing. Of course, I was younger then and a lot less experienced, but it does show in the playing.

Kevin, I've been playing for 30 years and I still have this problem. If the sound is right, I can play anything and it is effortless. If the sound isn't right, it is a big distraction. And I hate knob twiddling between tunes. It just takes the focus away from the playing.

Some rooms are better than others for bass. As you gain experience, you'll find what works uniquely with your bass for different kinds of rooms. Some rooms promote boominess, other can be overly bright, some are dead. Every now and then though you'll be in the perfect room for your bass and all of the struggles in the not so perfect ones will have been worth it.

mark

[Chris Fitzgerald]

One thing I like to do in rooms I'll be playing a lot is to take an extra long cable for soundcheck and step down off the stage into the front row and see how the sound of the bass translates down there. Usually what I discover is that the high mid/high stuff that I found grating right up close to the amp has mellowed 15 or 20' away, and that it's actually a useful sound at that point. The way this translates to the bandstand is that I feel comfortable setting the amp for a slightly edgier sound than I would normally want if it was only for the musicians on stage, because I know that it gets mellower and less distinct the farther it travels.

Once you have your amp set for how you want it to sound out front, you can balance your onstage sound by adjusting the distance and or angle between your ears and the amp and/or bass. IOW, if the amp sound is good out front but a little annoying onstage, blend in more acoustic sound to the mix where you're sitting (usually, a slight turn of your cabinet will do this).

In general, I have to agree with those who say that you won't feel right until your sound is "right" to you. While it's true that many of us go or have gone overboard with this at times in search of that elusive perfection, I don't believe that time is wasted if you end up with a rig that allows you to get in the ballpark consistently. I'm there now with the Full Circle/dynamic mic ---> Focus 2R ---> Wizzy 10, and these days I spend about 2 or three minutes dialing in a sound and then leave it alone for the rest of the night. But if I had to list all of the stuff i went through to get to this point, it would take up the whole page. I think it's important to experience a lot of mediocre and bad sound in order to truly appreciated good sound - or at least "good enough" sound that will allow you to just focus on the music.