Hi,
I'm curious as to how some of you use dynamic eq plugins like Sonalksis DQ1 or there's a free SE one I believe.. just forgot the name! At first I was thinking if you could key the dyn eq off another channel it could be really useful for making tracks that share frequency ranges fit together. (i.e. automatically roll off specified frequencies on a kick whenever a bass comes in on top of it.) It seems, however, at least w/ DQ1 the sidechain is limited to an internal filter and cannot be keyed off an external source. That being the case, I guess I just don't get it! So back to the question.. for those that use such a plugin, what scenarios does it work well in?
Dynamic EQ Plugins - Real World Application?
-
- KVRist
- 115 posts since 19 Aug, 2004
-
- KVRian
- 1219 posts since 12 Aug, 2002
The general purpose of dynamic filters is to moderate gain applied to the filter...that's the short technical explanation.
Example: you are tracking a fairly reasonable vocal, but this voice has a tendancy towards sharpness in the 3k range when performing in it's upper register. You have a few options...EQ the problem area using static filters, sidechain a compressor tuned to ride, and moderate that particular range, or employ a dynamic filter whose "job" it is to moderate any spurious excess in the range of frequencies the user determines. When the filter encounters these peaks it attempts to bring them back into harmony with those around it without applying the same gain characteristics to all frequencies within the designated area. In other words, only those frequencies that require the specified gain are affected, or at least receive the majority of the processing, whilst those frequencies that do not are relatively unmolested.
Since the entire filtering procedure is dynamic, there will be little gain processing applied to those parts of the performance that do not manifest the need for control...the opposite is true for static filter models.
It is important to note that true dynamic filtering does not make use of any envelopes or shaping procedures, thus it is not to be confused with compression processes. All a good dynamic filter model should do is "ride gain" on the frequency range it is tuned around, so that when an adjustment is called for it is performed, and when it is not, it merely "idles" and "observes". The user generally has some strength parameter that determines just how aggressive or benign the dynamic filter is when performing its role.
A dynamic filter model is useful in any situation where certain problem frequencies are apparent in particular *sections* of a performance, but do not necessarily require complete control throughout the *entire* performance.
Hope that makes some sense...trying to eat my meal and type this at the same time here.
Example: you are tracking a fairly reasonable vocal, but this voice has a tendancy towards sharpness in the 3k range when performing in it's upper register. You have a few options...EQ the problem area using static filters, sidechain a compressor tuned to ride, and moderate that particular range, or employ a dynamic filter whose "job" it is to moderate any spurious excess in the range of frequencies the user determines. When the filter encounters these peaks it attempts to bring them back into harmony with those around it without applying the same gain characteristics to all frequencies within the designated area. In other words, only those frequencies that require the specified gain are affected, or at least receive the majority of the processing, whilst those frequencies that do not are relatively unmolested.
Since the entire filtering procedure is dynamic, there will be little gain processing applied to those parts of the performance that do not manifest the need for control...the opposite is true for static filter models.
It is important to note that true dynamic filtering does not make use of any envelopes or shaping procedures, thus it is not to be confused with compression processes. All a good dynamic filter model should do is "ride gain" on the frequency range it is tuned around, so that when an adjustment is called for it is performed, and when it is not, it merely "idles" and "observes". The user generally has some strength parameter that determines just how aggressive or benign the dynamic filter is when performing its role.
A dynamic filter model is useful in any situation where certain problem frequencies are apparent in particular *sections* of a performance, but do not necessarily require complete control throughout the *entire* performance.
Hope that makes some sense...trying to eat my meal and type this at the same time here.
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders - Lao Tzu
-
- KVRAF
- 4229 posts since 9 Apr, 2003 from Right here, in front of my computer...
Mostly to do things like automatically pull down the harsh frequencies when a vocal gets screechy loud, but I'm not a hardcore user of these too much - with too much complex/dynamic processing, it starts to get difficult to predict what's actually happening...
-
Blind Bo Diddley Johnson Blind Bo Diddley Johnson https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=59553
- KVRist
- 78 posts since 27 Feb, 2005
So I understand that they're 2 completely different processes, but is there anything you would use a dynamic eq for that you couldn't use a multiband compressor for instead?
-
- KVRAF
- 6740 posts since 25 Mar, 2002 from sheffield, england
Dynamic EQ is very different to multiband compression: you can be much more surgical with a dynamic EQ for a start. Personally I find it much more useful than multiband compression.
De-Essing: set the sidechain filters to isolate the sibilance, then use downward compression to cut those frequencies only when needed.
Exciter: a high shelving band with fast upward expansion can often add sparkle and life to a part without thinning it like a constant EQ boost can. I often like to set the sidechain HPF lower than the high shelf EQ, especially to add snap to snare drums.
Compressing the low frequencies with a shelving band can sometimes help to tighten up the bass end of a mix... on the other hand you could use upward expansion with a fast attack to add more thump to the kick drum if that is required.
Downward expansion can be really useful for 'thinning out' a frequency band, eg: when trying to fit an acoustic guitar part into a busy mix I have used downward expansion of the low mid frequencies to make those frequencies decay faster. This helped to maintain the illusion of a full guitar sound as the EQ was roughly flat on the downbeat strum, but then it pulled that region gently down to allow other elements through in between chords. (This one was quite miraculous actually: the guitar still sounded full-bodied, but suddenly fitted perfectly in the mix where it hadn't before.)
I have also used upward expansion of mid frequencies to add definition to overly-fuzzy distorted guitars.
Then there are creative uses, eg: when processing a drum loop you may decide you want a more aggressive mid range on the kick drums, but that boosting that region with a static EQ buggers up the snare and hats... the solution is to isolate the low thump of the kick with the sidechain filter of the dynamic EQ, then use that to trigger upward expansion of the mid / high mid frequencies.
The uses are limited only by your imagination
De-Essing: set the sidechain filters to isolate the sibilance, then use downward compression to cut those frequencies only when needed.
Exciter: a high shelving band with fast upward expansion can often add sparkle and life to a part without thinning it like a constant EQ boost can. I often like to set the sidechain HPF lower than the high shelf EQ, especially to add snap to snare drums.
Compressing the low frequencies with a shelving band can sometimes help to tighten up the bass end of a mix... on the other hand you could use upward expansion with a fast attack to add more thump to the kick drum if that is required.
Downward expansion can be really useful for 'thinning out' a frequency band, eg: when trying to fit an acoustic guitar part into a busy mix I have used downward expansion of the low mid frequencies to make those frequencies decay faster. This helped to maintain the illusion of a full guitar sound as the EQ was roughly flat on the downbeat strum, but then it pulled that region gently down to allow other elements through in between chords. (This one was quite miraculous actually: the guitar still sounded full-bodied, but suddenly fitted perfectly in the mix where it hadn't before.)
I have also used upward expansion of mid frequencies to add definition to overly-fuzzy distorted guitars.
Then there are creative uses, eg: when processing a drum loop you may decide you want a more aggressive mid range on the kick drums, but that boosting that region with a static EQ buggers up the snare and hats... the solution is to isolate the low thump of the kick with the sidechain filter of the dynamic EQ, then use that to trigger upward expansion of the mid / high mid frequencies.
The uses are limited only by your imagination
-
- KVRian
- 1219 posts since 12 Aug, 2002
Personally speaking, I would use *anything* before resorting to multiband dynamics processes. You probably should not really *need* MBPs if the mix elements were skillfully processed to begin with. I tend view MBPs as something you might fall back on after the track has been properly wrecked beyond all belief...but that is just meBlind Bo Diddley Johnson wrote:...is there anything you would use a dynamic eq for that you couldn't use a multiband compressor for instead?
A dynamic EQ is more of a finesse tool, for gentle tonal shaping, generally smoother, and considerably more graceful than a static EQ...certainly much more so than MBPs. Employing dynamic filtering can significantly reduce the amount of compression one might otherwise be inclined to use. That said, the Waves C1 is a tool I would not want to be without for those times when a track calls for some dynamic compression of a very specific frequency range.
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders - Lao Tzu
-
- KVRAF
- 2049 posts since 18 Sep, 2003 from Seattle USA
IIRs - it sounds like you were discribing the use of either Voxengo Transmodder or more probably Sonalksis Dynamic EQ and/or Sonalksis MB Compressor ? What do you say? Thanks...IIRs wrote:The uses are limited only by your imagination
-
- KVRAF
- 6740 posts since 25 Mar, 2002 from sheffield, england
-
- KVRAF
- 5851 posts since 9 Jul, 2002 from Helsinki
...and I thank you IIRs for that. Precious tool that as far as I know has no competition in the freeware world.
-
- KVRAF
- 5913 posts since 17 Aug, 2004 from Berlin, Germany
I'm using the Voxengo GlissEQ on almost all tracks and mostly with the dynamic feature turned on. It give more musical results.
Such an EQ is very versatile tool, specially if the dynamic equalization can be turned off or can be set with different dynamic types (like in GlissEQ).
Such an EQ is very versatile tool, specially if the dynamic equalization can be turned off or can be set with different dynamic types (like in GlissEQ).
| Links-
- KVRian
- 1219 posts since 12 Aug, 2002
Aleksey has done a superb job on this EQ...I only wish it was available for RTAS.4damind wrote:I'm using the Voxengo GlissEQ on almost all tracks and mostly with the dynamic feature turned on. It give more musical results.
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders - Lao Tzu
-
- KVRAF
- 2049 posts since 18 Sep, 2003 from Seattle USA
IIRs wrote:No I don't have either of those. I made my own: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72521
Argh - I thought your name and ideas looked familiar. My memory isn't what it used to be - thanks, I'm going to check it out today! So many plugins - so little time. I used an older version - now I remember... ED: Oh - now I get it - "EARS!" haha...Hi & thanks again!