View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
vkuehn DC

Joined: 24 Apr 2013 Posts: 688 Location: Vernon now calls Wisconsin home
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:13 pm Post subject: EQ Shootout |
|
|
This is like our mic shoot-outs... only instead of switching mics, I have recorded one track, duplicated it so it shows up 5 times, and the EQ on each segment is different.
I don't trust my hearing. When I do my own personal mic shootout, I don't hear that much difference. Can I not hear? But when I compare EQ efforts, they sound wildly different. What's up with that?
If you have the time, listen and rank the tracks.... as judged by YOUR ears.
(When you click on DOWNLOAD, it will give you the choice of actually downloading, or opening with the audio device/program of your choice.
I will post later what I did. One track is the raw, original with NO EQ.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m48mfb2v4366sug/vkuehnEQ-ShootOut.mp3?dl=0 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
SkinnyJohnny Backstage Pass

Joined: 12 Aug 2007 Posts: 462 Location: Asheville, NC
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll go with…
2,1,3,4,5
3, 4 and 5 sound really harsh on the high end.
1 sounds muffled. _________________ John Weeks Voice Overs
www.johnweeksvoiceovers.com |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
vkuehn DC

Joined: 24 Apr 2013 Posts: 688 Location: Vernon now calls Wisconsin home
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the observations. I'm not going to respond or explain what makes the cuts different from each other until others have had a chance to weigh in. As I wrote, though I find it hard to distinctly hear the difference between mics at times, it doesn't take much EQ before my ears are asking: "Are you serious about this????" (See final paragraph.)
Just to stir the pot a little, there is one track where your ranking surprised me. But after I go fetch food for the evening, I will listen to them again (and measure them all on a Frequency Response graphic) and see if maybe you have just taught me something.
I recently changed mics and it seems a bit more brilliant in the upper range. (But not that much!) Maybe that coupled with some ill-chosen EQ curves is bringing about some high frequency harshness. That is why I came here and asked for observations.
My current guess is that stuff beyond 8 or 9 Khz is useless in the world of audiobooks because of the hardware used by the consumers to listen to books. But the stuff above 9 Khz plays havoc with studio grade monitor speakers and headphones.
After we pay for and assemble nice equipment, it is really hard to say: "O. K. Now that my super-duper set up has curated all these high frequencies, let's just flush them away!" <chuckle> |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
chuckweis Contributor IV
Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 136
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2 and 4 for me, with 2 being the best.
3 and 5....ouch.
1 kinda dull/muffled like John said. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
paulstefano Backstage Pass

Joined: 22 Sep 2015 Posts: 411 Location: Baltimore, MD
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
#2 all the way. It sounds the most balanced and full.
#1 in a pinch if #2 was not available for some reason.
#3 had way too much reverb, also, the high end was way too crisp. I actually kind of cringed right from the slate.
#4 and #5 also were too punchy in the high end. _________________ http://www.paulstefano.com |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
vkuehn DC

Joined: 24 Apr 2013 Posts: 688 Location: Vernon now calls Wisconsin home
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you very much for the observations.
What did I learn? My ears are not so bad after all. Yeah, I am working on something of a "mathematical theory" about EQ that I developed after reading some articles written by people who EQ music. To my ears the cuts 3, 4 and 5 were "sand in the gears" sound. I may have an answer to that. I will be back in a day or two with an improvement..... I hope!
Truck 2 is untouched as far as EQ goes. (I did de-noise). Track 1 has some low frequency boost. Track 3 was the one that I had hopes might work out as it has EQ boost in the range from 2k to 12k. Track 4 should have ranked a bit better because it had just a little bit LESS of the HF boost but you guys are right.... it just didn't sound good! And Track 5 was an on-purpose over-the-top version with more HF boost than Track 3. I assumed all along that Track 5 would get a poor, poor rating.
I think I now understand why tracks 3, 4 & 5 sound so harsh. I may have a solution for that. As Rachel Maddow says: WATCH THIS SPACE.
Again, thanks for taking the time to listen and comment. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|