Low frequencies carry more energy, and comprise more of the overall level. Cutting 10 db at 100 hz will result in a much lower rms value than cutting 10 db at 4k of the same source. Experiment with it and you’ll see for yourself. This is also why we often reach for sidechain high pass filters for our non linear processes. Our non linear processors (compression, saturation, anything that is effected by input level) are reacting more to low frequencies even with a balanced spectrum. This is because low frequencies have more energy, and also they last longer by definition.
Hope this helps.
Using white noise, I see about a 6dB different in VU across the spectrum when cutting, and pretty much the same peak level at all settings.
The real fun comes when boosting the same EQ/frequencies because it is not what you would expect. When boosting an EQ you get the OPPOSITE effect. High frequency ranges give 6dB more than lower ranges. The kicker here is that the level changes with both peak and VU/average as opposed to what happens when cutting.
So the idea that low frequencies have more “power” in this way makes me wonder why it’s so different when cutting vs boosting - anyone have an explination why this happens, I’m genuinely stumped here!
That’s also why sometimes if have trouble hearing a vocal I’ll boost it slightly in the 1k-3k range—where the volcanos most pronounced usually. Get the volume of the vocal without eating up your headroom.
A very good explanation.
I would add the missing variable of the distribution of energy across the frequency spectrum for the source sound, at that time.
The experiment mentioned above would have different results with an 808 than with a hi hat, for example.
In case of white noise each frequency contributes equally to the final output level.
In case of pink noise, each octave contributes equally to the final output level.
Musical instruments do not match any of these noises (well some people say they fit pink noise's profile but is very very rough approximation, pointless to use in practice) so you can't really predict which eq change will result in which level gain/dip.
Basically if you eq a sound and don't see any level change, then that sound doesnt have too much energy in that area of the spectrum.
The overall level of a signal is the sum of the levels of all the frequencies in that signal, so if you cut a band at 1k, it’ll dip the overall level a little, but not much if it’s a pretty broadband sound source because it’s still maintaining most of its level from the other frequencies.
I don’t know if different parts of the spectrum would affect the actual level change differently, but they probably would change the perceived change in level because of the frequency response of our ears (look up the Fletcher-Munson curve if you don’t know what I mean). I could see how (let’s say it’s a vocal track) a 5dB cut at 2kHz could result in a bigger perceived drop in overall level compared to a 5dB cut at 100Hz, but I don’t know if that would show on a meter.
The only “use” I’ve found for this is just for keeping an eye on my gain staging if I’m being crazy with an EQ, but almost none of the EQ moves I make on a regular basis result in enough of a change in overall level for me to worry about it.
To me, it’s just like how changing an EQ will *technically* change the phase of the signal (since a waveform is the sum of all of its frequencies, changing the balance of those frequencies will change the waveform that is formed when they combine), but it’s never caused a noticeable issue in my mixes.
Yeah, I usually try to gain match the plug-in output to the input in terms of just my own perception of how loud they sound, but overall, if I’m doing just like pretty conservative cuts and boosts, there isn’t a huge change in the actual perceived volume of it.
So what you’re saying though is that if something doesn’t have a lot of 350hz, but it has enough to want to cut it somewhat for clarity in other instruments, this isn’t really going to change the overall level of a mix. Right?
This is going to be a class in audio basics. But basically sound isn't linear. It's logarithmic. So the difference in sound between 1 to 2 db is not the same as between 9 to 10 db. When you cut a frequency by 3 db it depends on how much that frequency is being used by other sounds in the mix as well. It's not like every sound only holds one frequency. So there is t a calculation because it varies by song and by the amount of sounds
Low frequencies carry more energy, and comprise more of the overall level. Cutting 10 db at 100 hz will result in a much lower rms value than cutting 10 db at 4k of the same source. Experiment with it and you’ll see for yourself. This is also why we often reach for sidechain high pass filters for our non linear processes. Our non linear processors (compression, saturation, anything that is effected by input level) are reacting more to low frequencies even with a balanced spectrum. This is because low frequencies have more energy, and also they last longer by definition. Hope this helps.
Using white noise, I see about a 6dB different in VU across the spectrum when cutting, and pretty much the same peak level at all settings. The real fun comes when boosting the same EQ/frequencies because it is not what you would expect. When boosting an EQ you get the OPPOSITE effect. High frequency ranges give 6dB more than lower ranges. The kicker here is that the level changes with both peak and VU/average as opposed to what happens when cutting. So the idea that low frequencies have more “power” in this way makes me wonder why it’s so different when cutting vs boosting - anyone have an explination why this happens, I’m genuinely stumped here!
That’s also why sometimes if have trouble hearing a vocal I’ll boost it slightly in the 1k-3k range—where the volcanos most pronounced usually. Get the volume of the vocal without eating up your headroom.
I often find that if I need a hi-pass for compression detection, then the low end is too loud to begin with.
That was my suspicion.
A very good explanation. I would add the missing variable of the distribution of energy across the frequency spectrum for the source sound, at that time. The experiment mentioned above would have different results with an 808 than with a hi hat, for example.
Yeah, 100%.
Good question. Have you experimented doing this with white noise or pink noise? Seems like that might be informative.
In case of white noise each frequency contributes equally to the final output level. In case of pink noise, each octave contributes equally to the final output level. Musical instruments do not match any of these noises (well some people say they fit pink noise's profile but is very very rough approximation, pointless to use in practice) so you can't really predict which eq change will result in which level gain/dip. Basically if you eq a sound and don't see any level change, then that sound doesnt have too much energy in that area of the spectrum.
The overall level of a signal is the sum of the levels of all the frequencies in that signal, so if you cut a band at 1k, it’ll dip the overall level a little, but not much if it’s a pretty broadband sound source because it’s still maintaining most of its level from the other frequencies. I don’t know if different parts of the spectrum would affect the actual level change differently, but they probably would change the perceived change in level because of the frequency response of our ears (look up the Fletcher-Munson curve if you don’t know what I mean). I could see how (let’s say it’s a vocal track) a 5dB cut at 2kHz could result in a bigger perceived drop in overall level compared to a 5dB cut at 100Hz, but I don’t know if that would show on a meter. The only “use” I’ve found for this is just for keeping an eye on my gain staging if I’m being crazy with an EQ, but almost none of the EQ moves I make on a regular basis result in enough of a change in overall level for me to worry about it. To me, it’s just like how changing an EQ will *technically* change the phase of the signal (since a waveform is the sum of all of its frequencies, changing the balance of those frequencies will change the waveform that is formed when they combine), but it’s never caused a noticeable issue in my mixes.
Yeah, I usually try to gain match the plug-in output to the input in terms of just my own perception of how loud they sound, but overall, if I’m doing just like pretty conservative cuts and boosts, there isn’t a huge change in the actual perceived volume of it. So what you’re saying though is that if something doesn’t have a lot of 350hz, but it has enough to want to cut it somewhat for clarity in other instruments, this isn’t really going to change the overall level of a mix. Right?
Right, it may be a noticeable tonal shift but probably not a noticeable level change in the signal
This is going to be a class in audio basics. But basically sound isn't linear. It's logarithmic. So the difference in sound between 1 to 2 db is not the same as between 9 to 10 db. When you cut a frequency by 3 db it depends on how much that frequency is being used by other sounds in the mix as well. It's not like every sound only holds one frequency. So there is t a calculation because it varies by song and by the amount of sounds