Why have multiple EQs on one channel?

Feb 17, 2012

  1. amisane

    2,501 posts
    Since May 31, 2006
    I was watching a tutorial with Camo & Crooked on youtube and I noticed that at one point they show the mixer in FL and they have 5 EQs on one channel.

    I understand that you might want different EQ pre and post various effects, but they have 3 stacked up together. Why would you do this? I can't think of anything you would do with 3 EQs that you couldn't do with 1...

    Attached Files:

    • 5eqs.png
      File size:
      127.9 KB
  2. dontworry

    416 posts
    Since Nov 19, 2010
    it's just easier that way sometimes

    could also be that some are in mid side mode well others aren't. who knows.
  3. Ibunshi Mpc Pilot

    8,399 posts
    Since Jun 8, 2007
    dont know about them, but if i stack its usually when cutting and one eq isnt powerful enough.. But you may want to do the same when boosting, as you can make things distort if you keep boosting beyond what some if not most eq's let you do.. So it should give you more control when you shape the tone and choose what frequencies you want to give that extra boost.
  4. joemaki

    1,234 posts
    Since May 15, 2010
    ye i just use the one instance of an eq (para eq 2 aswell ) seen people and have worked with people who yuse multiple ones but always have deleted them and just re equed it using the one.and what the fuck are they saying in that tutorial lol. sblienahisten et break un puntastabben oot chop lol
  5. thundervip

    129 posts
    Since Feb 7, 2010
    This is common when trying to reduce colourisation being introduced from the eq (so 3 eqs doing smaller cuts or boosts in theory colour the sound less than one eq doing the same cut or boost as the three.)

    This is something I have been taught by phil harding whilst having mixing lectures at uni - and I suspect stem from the analog days, not so sure in the digital realm.

    The other reasons given are valid also
  6. Wu Lala

    Wu Lala
    11,553 posts
    Since Feb 7, 2007
    theres no limit to how many eqs Ill stack in a row. Dunno what eqs theyre using but my go to is the gliss and it only has 6 points for hp/lp/peak. Sometimes Ill run all 6 on hp filters, follow it with another to use peaks for cleaning out mid and high frequencies, then have to follow it with another when Ive used up all 6 peaks again.

    Sometimes you feel like you might wanna eq something, but its quite good as it is and you dont want to ruin existing eqs so you just slap another on that can be deleted if it doesnt go well.
  7. Wu Lala

    Wu Lala
    11,553 posts
    Since Feb 7, 2007
  8. Flonx

    803 posts
    Since Nov 13, 2009
    sometimes you need to eq more than once, actually most of time to be sure all frequencies are dead in that specific frequencyrange. I always have like 4 to 6 eq in a row.:tea:
  9. djlouisb

    69 posts
    Since May 21, 2009
    I'm not sure if this is common across other VSTs but when using EQ8 in Live say I do a cut below 200hz. Then replicate that exact EQ and add it to the chain there is a noticeable difference in the sound. So if you really want to remove a frequency it's best to stack up a few just to make sure.
  10. Pyro

    8,975 posts
    Since Feb 25, 2001
    just use an eq with steeper filters? rolling off stuff is one of things eq8 is worst at. bootsy prefix is free, lots of other nice hi and low passes that will do the job much better.
  11. SourBattery

    495 posts
    Since Aug 15, 2009
    I think I might know what they are on about, check out the high end in Tajitsu. It might be bitcrusing, it might be something else.
    Its probably not bitcrush as in sample reduction, more likely bitcrush as in lowering the bit depth.
    I've tried to reproduce it and the closest I got was with JS:compciter in reaper. Still not close enough tho.
  12. TheRoary

    115 posts
    Since Jan 4, 2012
    What Wu Lala said, I reckon.. use one EQ for making it sound right-ish then do some more on another instance so as not to lose the settings on the first and think 'hey that sounds good, i'll keep that.' Rinse and repeat. I also use multiple EQs for eeking out harmonics that supposedly don't exist. If you put enough 24db boosts at 2k on a subby thing, something might come out.. ya never know!

    Also for the bitcrushing the top end, moderation is the key. Listen to the top end of 'Crank' ...mmm. Sizzle.
  13. T_Jah Zound

    107 posts
    Since Sep 7, 2010
    im using a 5 band EQ, and sometimes those 5 bands are not enough

    or you have really bullshit software xD

    if you put -20dB on something it should be really...... cut off..... or use better software
  14. dfault

    762 posts
    Since Dec 16, 2008
    The answer is dependent on the situation. Sometimes I will run out of bands on the first EQ so I will use a second instance of the same EQ so I can further shape the sound. That situation usually arises when I'm applying "surgical" EQ where my goal is to reduce some very specific frequencies while leaving the overall tone of the sound relatively untouched or I'm trying to remove everything that isn't needed in a sound for the sake of the mix. Then there is the situation where I want to adjust the overall character of a sound usually with adjustments over a broader range of frequencies. I would generally use a different type of EQ for that sort of "sweetening" EQ. The EQ I would use for changing the tone would be something that is a little less transparent and adds something pleasing to the sound that isn't just the change in frequency and amplitude. Neve and Pultec EQ's are really good for that where as for more surgical/technical EQ jobs I would use something like PSP Neon doesn't color the sound at all and allows for really precise settings.

    One thing I preach all the time on this board is for people to learn the underlying principles of audio production in order to understand the "why" behind using any type of processing. Mimic others at your own risk. People who just copy others without knowing the reasons behind what they're doing tend to hit a wall in their progression as producers. Those who get past that wall are the ones who realize they've really just been pretending to be a producer and then take the initiative to actually learn on there own. It takes time to develop said knowledge and skills but anybody who is really good will tell you you have to "pay your dues" in order to be in full control of the sounds coming out of your monitors. There really is no shortcut. The way I hear things has vastly changed over time and I often look back in amazement of how perception can change.
  15. ripsaw_22

    3,053 posts
    Since Oct 20, 2007

    we use logic's bitcrusher all the time on cymbals and high hats. can make them sound crunchy and fat or lovely and fizzy.

    never managed to get as nice a top end as noisia though...definitely one of the things i really admire about their tunes - such lovely fizz on the drums. fuck knows how they do it...
  16. godwin24 NixusUk

    630 posts
    Since Oct 14, 2008
    I think they use a bitcrusher

  17. SafeandSound Mastering Engineer

    514 posts
    Since Apr 25, 2009
    3 reasons that immediately spring to mind.

    M/S eq vs stereo.

    Character eq vs clean for different part of the spectrum.

    HPF better on one EQ compared with the parametric capabilities of another.


    SafeandSound Mastering
    mastering dance music
  18. FlatFaced

    832 posts
    Since Jan 17, 2011
    thats how i roll also and maybe its the main reason,,,

    most of the time you dont want to do that,,,except if you want more mixing problems without identification so to speak :teeth:

    Steve Duda talked about his 8bit shaper plugin - i havent tried it yet tho.. : http://xferrecords.com/freeware/

    but the thing is it could be white noise, distortion, waveshaping - not necessarily bitcrusher
  19. Cardiff Bonger Idiot.

    Cardiff Bonger
    830 posts
    Since Jun 6, 2005
    what incredible software are you using? Is Logic 9 bullshit in your opinion?

    I was under the impression that for instance if you hp a mid range bass with eq then distorted it for example - the you might eq again to remove artifacts from the distortion that you don't want.

    I would use as many EQs as necessary for what im doing. I thought everybody did.:rolleyes2
  20. Robje

    165 posts
    Since Jul 16, 2006
    a reason to use a few eqs aswell is if you are close to the sound you want, and dont want to mess up the curves/cuts etc of the already setup eq, so you can test some new notches out on a fresh eq and bin it or whatever without affecting the initial chain
  21. NevJR

    715 posts
    Since Oct 30, 2009
    Lol, I thought this was common practice. So people here are saying they can eq everything with a one 5 band eq? Get out of here! :laughing:
  22. Cardiff Bonger Idiot.

    Cardiff Bonger
    830 posts
    Since Jun 6, 2005
    thats what I thought:laughing:
  23. Kizza

    612 posts
    Since Oct 21, 2010
    At the end of the day, if you're EQ'ing something sound design related, or in using certain mix down techniques, then you might not want to touch the already EQ'd sound.

    If you just want to raise a bit of the high end on top of the sound you have, which has been EQ'd with an EQ currently in the FX chain, then you might want to add another EQ tool to be able to start with an even 0 reference. In a mixdown, it is pertinent not to change the sound of your mix too dramatically with tweaks to your already occupied tools, so this is a helpful way of subverting that danger by creating another EQ with zero'd settings. This way you can apply minor tweaks unrestricted ( backing up presets ) and as carefully as possible.

    It has no negative effects on the mixdown or sounds and is something which will boost the speed of your workflow imo. But everyone has their own way :spliff: