Most common frequencies to cut

[Indianrock2020]

Peter Hanmer has a good series here http://www.peterhanmer.co.za/line6.htm -- video #2 shows how to use one or two parametric EQs to find and cut offensive frequencies.  He does it by boosting gain in the parametric, raising Q to a narrow band, then sweeping the frequency to find the one to cut.  Sometimes he does this with two parametrics to cut two frequency ranges.

 

I've been using this with the looper but may try setting the gain really low in the parametric and sweeping for the sweet spot.  So far I often find two frequency ranges I don't like in a mildly overdriven rhythm loop.

 

What have you found as far as offensive frequencies to cut with 1) single coils and 2) humbuckers?

 

Of course since the POD shows frequency as a percentage we have to link that to any actual frequencies suggested here.

[Giorgos02]

I dont think that the ugly frequencies has to do only with single coils and humbuckers pickups. Some amps, mics and cabs add fizziness as well. 

[duncann]

I dont think that the ugly frequencies has to do only with single coils and humbuckers pickups. Some amps, mics and cabs add fizziness as well. 

 

This is an important statement. I just bought the model packs and have been messing with the 5150. This amp in particular adds a lot of fizz when the gain is turned up to high. Somewhere around 20-30 is a sweet spot. And this is with only a tube compressor in front of the amp with a level of zero and a threshold of 45.

[Giorgos02]

This is an important statement. I just bought the model packs and have been messing with the 5150. This amp in particular adds a lot of fizz when the gain is turned up to high. Somewhere around 20-30 is a sweet spot. And this is with only a tube compressor in front of the amp with a level of zero and a threshold of 45.

 

I have noticed as well that the 5150 adds a lot of fizz. Also when I used a dual amp setup with two 5150 and tried to cut off the ugly frequencies with the parametric the tone went full distorted. I don't know if that's a bug or something, but I gave up on this setup.

 

Generally, I found that lowering the presence at 20% helped with the fizziness in that particular model. Also I avoid using the 57 on axis mic.

 

Do you mean that you usually use gain at 20-30% ? Isn't that too low? What kind of music do you play with this patch?

[bjnette]

I go for attenuating brittleness and honk in pretty well most amps.

 

I find  around 5k has the brittle, dead on 2k the harsh and 400hz the honk in most amps. I say about as is varies slightly but enough of the amps smooth out nicely with a little dip,  not too narrow Q at about those frequencies.

 

When recording I might switch off the EQs and do it in the mix

[duncann]

I have noticed as well that the 5150 adds a lot of fizz. Also when I used a dual amp setup with two 5150 and tried to cut off the ugly frequencies with the parametric the tone went full distorted. I don't know if that's a bug or something, but I gave up on this setup.

 

Generally, I found that lowering the presence at 20% helped with the fizziness in that particular model. Also I avoid using the 57 on axis mic.

 

Do you mean that you usually use gain at 20-30% ? Isn't that too low? What kind of music do you play with this patch?

 

I'm not a big fan of the EQs, so I tend not to use them. But I have noticed that this amp is LOUD, so it could be that the EQ (after the amps?) is being overdriven?

 

I have the drive at 30% for a dual cab setup. Both amps are 5150s, and the same settings for both: 50 bass, 90 mid, 38 treble, 12 presence, 0 er. Delay and reverb after the amps. The cabs are the blackbacks, one with an 87 cond, the other 57 on axis. The one with the 57 on axis has 2% less ch vol, 24 vs 26. Still tweaking all this.

 

I have also noticed that increasing the resonance for the cabs takes away some of the fizz.

 

For some amps, increasing the bias can help with eliminating fizz, but with this amp, the bias seems to have little effect, or if it does I can't really hear it.

 

So far, I am really liking this amp. It's going to replace the Soldano as my default. It just drips with harmonic content.

 

The type of music I play is along the lines of Vai/Satriani. Another thing about too much drive is the more of it there is, the less clear everything is, at least with this amp.

[Indianrock2020]

Bjnette -- that is helpful.

I go for attenuating brittleness and honk in pretty well most amps.

I find  around 5k has the brittle, dead on 2k the harsh and 400hz the honk in most amps. I say about as is varies slightly but enough of the amps smooth out nicely with a little dip,  not too narrow Q at about those frequencies.

 

I don't have the 5150 model but you guys can talk about it if you want :-)     So far I'm using AC30 more than anything else for the music I play.

[alienux]

I'm not a big fan of the EQs, so I tend not to use them. But I have noticed that this amp is LOUD, so it could be that the EQ (after the amps?) is being overdriven?

 

I have the drive at 30% for a dual cab setup. Both amps are 5150s, and the same settings for both: 50 bass, 90 mid, 38 treble, 12 presence, 0 er. Delay and reverb after the amps. The cabs are the blackbacks, one with an 87 cond, the other 57 on axis. The one with the 57 on axis has 2% less ch vol, 24 vs 26. Still tweaking all this.

 

I have also noticed that increasing the resonance for the cabs takes away some of the fizz.

 

For some amps, increasing the bias can help with eliminating fizz, but with this amp, the bias seems to have little effect, or if it does I can't really hear it.

 

So far, I am really liking this amp. It's going to replace the Soldano as my default. It just drips with harmonic content.

 

The type of music I play is along the lines of Vai/Satriani. Another thing about too much drive is the more of it there is, the less clear everything is, at least with this amp.

This is somewhat similar to where I've found a tone using the 5150 that I would consider usable. I really like the amp, but as I mentioned in an earlier post about it, it definitely needs some tweaking before being used live.

 

I have bass around 52, mid around 87, and treble around 50, with the presence pretty low like you do. I'm still experimenting with cabs, but I like the greenbacks, and I do think the mic needs to be changed from 57 on axis to get rid of some of the high end harshness. I think I have the drive between 25% and 35%, but I can't remember off the top of my head.

 

My only real issue with the amp is that using the settings above for rhythm parts is great, but a little thin for the higher strings when playing leads. Adding delay and reverb helps, but I'm still trying to find a little better setting for leads.

[Indianrock2020]

Seems the opinions about where to cut or boost vary widely.  One "mxing" web site had this info, which I converted to POD percentages for use in EQs.

 

Goal                   Cut or Boost Frequency           Percent on pod

More bottom            150 boost                             17

muddy                      200  cut                               23

fullness                     250 – 500 boost                  27-40

boxy                         500-800 cut                        39-48

honk                          1k cut                                52-53

presence                  2k boost                             69-70

hiss/fizz                   4k cut or at least don't boost 94-95

 

Parametric EQ Frequency.pdf

POD_EQ_Frequency_Percentages.xlsx

[Giorgos02]

I have also noticed that increasing the resonance for the cabs takes away some of the fizz.

 

Are you sure you mean increasing and not decreasing the resonance?

 

 

 

This is somewhat similar to where I've found a tone using the 5150 that I would consider usable. I really like the amp, but as I mentioned in an earlier post about it, it definitely needs some tweaking before being used live.

 

I have bass around 52, mid around 87, and treble around 50, with the presence pretty low like you do. I'm still experimenting with cabs, but I like the greenbacks, and I do think the mic needs to be changed from 57 on axis to get rid of some of the high end harshness. I think I have the drive between 25% and 35%, but I can't remember off the top of my head.

 

My only real issue with the amp is that using the settings above for rhythm parts is great, but a little thin for the higher strings when playing leads. Adding delay and reverb helps, but I'm still trying to find a little better setting for leads.

 

Maybe if you tried adding some more E.R.? Sometimes E.R. helps thickening the tone.

 

 

Seems the opinions about where to cut or boost vary widely.  One "mxing" web site had this info, which I converted to POD percentages for use in EQs.

 

Goal                   Cut or Boost Frequency           Percent on pod

More bottom            150 boost                             17

muddy                      200  cut                               23

fullness                     250 – 500 boost                  27-40

boxy                         500-800 cut                        39-48

honk                          1k cut                                52-53

presence                  2k boost                             69-70

hiss/fizz                   4k cut or at least don't boost 94-95

 

 

Could you link your source(s)? Seems like really interesting info. I would really like to read the whole article.

[Indianrock2020]

The pdf I attached on how frequencies relate to POD eq effect percentages came from someone on this forum.  The web site where specific changes were suggested for guitar was probably this one, but they are easy to find if you google  "guitar frequencies to cut"

http://www.audio-production-tips.com/guitar-frequency.html

[duncann]

Are you sure you mean increasing and not decreasing the resonance?

 

 

Yes. Increasing. I don't know why I might perceive this, but I do. It is subtle though.

 

Just a guess: increasing resonance generally boosts some frequencies. And because of this, the balance between the offending fizzy frequency(s) and whatever might be boosted changes, changing perception.

[Giorgos02]

Yes. Increasing. I don't know why I might perceive this, but I do. It is subtle though.

 

Just a guess: increasing resonance generally boosts some frequencies. And because of this, the balance between the offending fizzy frequency(s) and whatever might be boosted changes, changing perception.

 

Increasing the Resonance boosts some of the low end and some of the high end. This means that a bit of fizziness is being added indeed. Resonance is an external effect added on the cabs. But I guess you already know all this stuff. I don't know why you perceive it like this...

 

 

The pdf I attached on how frequencies relate to POD eq effect percentages came from someone on this forum.  The web site where specific changes were suggested for guitar was probably this one, but they are easy to find if you google  "guitar frequencies to cut"

http://www.audio-production-tips.com/guitar-frequency.html

 

Thanks :)

[duncann]

Increasing the Resonance boosts some of the low end and some of the high end. This means that a bit of fizziness is being added indeed. Resonance is an external effect added on the cabs. But I guess you already know all this stuff. I don't know why you perceive it like this...

 

 

 

Thanks :)

 

It could be that increasing some of the frequencies around the fizzy ones, but not necessarily the fizzy ones, would change the balance. So the increased freqs start to 'drown out' the fizzy ones.

 

This could also be dependent on the cab/mic. I hear it with the blackback and 87 cond, but maybe not quite as much with a blackback and 57 on axis. Other cabs/mics I haven't checked out yet.

[Giorgos02]

It could be that increasing some of the frequencies around the fizzy ones, but not necessarily the fizzy ones, would change the balance. So the increased freqs start to 'drown out' the fizzy ones.

 

This could also be dependent on the cab/mic. I hear it with the blackback and 87 cond, but maybe not quite as much with a blackback and 57 on axis. Other cabs/mics I haven't checked out yet.

 

I see your point. I just had this principal to place Resonance always to 0, since Digital Igloo said these things for the Resonance Cab DEP.

[duncann]

I see your point. I just had this principal to place Resonance always to 0, since Digital Igloo said these things for the Resonance Cab DEP.

 

Most people seem to like res at zero. I'm one that's the opposite. I don't know why that is.

 

Or it could even be that res boosts low frequencies more than high frequencies, so the lower ones start to overpower the higher ones.

[Dshow]

Most people seem to like res at zero. I'm one that's the opposite. I don't know why that is.

 

Or it could even be that res boosts low frequencies more than high frequencies, so the lower ones start to overpower the higher ones.

I also like to add some of the res. I play mostly with my headphones and the it seems to feel a lot better.

[Rewolf48]

Cut the resonance when playing loud into a real cabinet or PA speaker that has its own resonance (plus the room), set it to default or raise it when using headphones, recording direct or other "dead" monitoring environment

[duncann]

Cut the resonance when playing loud into a real cabinet or PA speaker that has its own resonance (plus the room), set it to default or raise it when using headphones, recording direct or other "dead" monitoring environment

 

Such a seemingly simple and obvious notion that makes perfect sense.

[medievil1]

should cover all of it:

 

 

[wilson69978]

Seems the opinions about where to cut or boost vary widely.  One "mxing" web site had this info, which I converted to POD percentages for use in EQs.

 

Goal                   Cut or Boost Frequency           Percent on pod

More bottom            150 boost                             17

muddy                      200  cut                               23

fullness                     250 – 500 boost                  27-40

boxy                         500-800 cut                        39-48

honk                          1k cut                                52-53

presence                  2k boost                             69-70

hiss/fizz                   4k cut or at least don't boost 94-95

Very interesting indianrock, I think it is better to rely on our ears as opposed to numbers whether they be percentages or actual freq. numbers. In almost every case if you use the exact same settings somebody gives you, your rig will sound different for any number of reasons anyway.

 

As an an analogy if you try to mix a few tracks based on where your eyes or your pre conceived notions of where the faders should be,

You will find this to be far different from closing your eyes, listening and setting the fader levels by ear.

A wise producer once stated.... "Changing anything changes everything."

[cruisinon2]

Cut the resonance when playing loud into a real cabinet or PA speaker that has its own resonance (plus the room), set it to default or raise it when using headphones, recording direct or other "dead" monitoring environment

 

Yep...a "dead" environment can play a HUGE roll. My little home "music cave" is presently a carpeted room, with a small (but fluffy) couch...it's the room where treble goes to die. Even at moderate volumes, the room just sucks up all the high end...take those same patches to a bar with a high ceiling and hardwood floors and it's like driving an ice-pick through your head. Global EQ has been a God-send.

[duncann]

Very interesting indianrock, I think it is better to rely on our ears as opposed to numbers whether they be percentages or actual freq. numbers. In almost every case if you use the exact same settings somebody gives you, your rig will sound different for any number of reasons anyway.

 

As an an analogy if you try to mix a few tracks based on where your eyes or your pre conceived notions of where the faders should be,

You will find this to be far different from closing your eyes, listening and setting the fader levels by ear.

A wise producer once stated.... "Changing anything changes everything."

 

Solid advice. Your ears/brain, moderately refined, are capable of inherently reproducing the frequency guidelines posted above.

 

One thing to keep in mind, always, if you rely on your ears more than numbers, is ear fatigue.

[cruisinon2]

 

 

 

 

My only real issue with the amp is that using the settings above for rhythm parts is great, but a little thin for the higher strings when playing leads. Adding delay and reverb helps, but I'm still trying to find a little better setting for leads.

 

Try the Shiva...I'm loving it for lead patches

[wilson69978]

Solid advice. Your ears/brain, moderately refined, are capable of inherently reproducing the frequency guidelines posted above.

 

One thing to keep in mind, always, if you rely on your ears more than numbers, is ear fatigue.

Very true.  Also solid advicee Duncann.

cheers.

[bluesoverdrive]

After watching the second video, I started to use this Parametric EQ method on all my dirt hard rock patches. 

 

As I understood, the Q curve is wider on the low percentage and narrow when set higher around 75%. 

 

So I've been doing exactly like the video, and I usually dislike the frequencies from 82% and above. :/ 

If I want to cut frequencies from 82% to 90% I set the freq. on something like 86% and the Q from 60% to 70% and after that I turn the freq gain down to 40%.

 

Unfortunatly there's no graphic representation to see how much wide or narror the Q curve is.

 

 

[Giorgos02]

After watching the second video, I started to use this Parametric EQ method on all my dirt hard rock patches. 

 

As I understood, the Q curve is wider on the low percentage and narrow when set higher around 75%. 

 

So I've been doing exactly like the video, and I usually dislike the frequencies from 82% and above. :/ 

If I want to cut frequencies from 82% to 90% I set the freq. on something like 86% and the Q from 60% to 70% and after that I turn the freq gain down to 40%.

 

Unfortunatly there's no graphic representation to see how much wide or narror the Q curve is.

 

http://imgur.com/Zu292uI

 

If you search the user pfsmith0, you can see many helpful things like this that he has done for the community.

[Indianrock2020]

I"m going to have to study that graphic for a while.  "shiva"  is that one of the high gain models?

[pfsmith0]

You'll find what Resonance does here. I did not measure any increase in fizz with resonance increase. It only affected the low frequencies. I agree with duncann above. Increasing resonance will increase the low frequencies, forcing you to reduce the volume some, making the fizziness less.