The Ray Charles EQ

[pucho812]

food for thought.  Last night was talking with an engineer who worked at RPM ray's studio. This was in the last few years of rays life. He was explaining the quad eight console and how ray had it modified so the selectable frequency points on each eq band was purposely tuned to be notes as opposed to just arbitrary frequency points.  I thought that was neat...

 

[SSLtech]

I'm calling bullcrap. Component tolerance, and the fact that the center spreads over more than one note means that this may well be a story that was told, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Winetree]

Were you talking to Terry Howard?

 

[pucho812]

Keith I would agree. However seeing a module from rays console vs a regular quad eight module, there were different frequency points selectable.  As since it was done to rays liking it would have been what ray heard which the only one who can tell you what he heard is ray who RIP. 

I was not talking with terry howard but I was talking with an assistant who worked with him and ray.

 

[Winetree]

Terry was my Otari Tech for years. Great guy.
I heard a lot of stories about Ray and the equipment, but not that one.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

food for thought.  Last night was talking with an engineer who worked at RPM ray's studio. This was in the last few years of rays life. He was explaining the quad eight console and how ray had it modified so the selectable frequency points on each eq band was purposely tuned to be notes as opposed to just arbitrary frequency points.  I thought that was neat...

I've heard similar stories a number of times, everytime with a different name - Michel Magne was one.
As Keith mentioned, it just doesn't stand.
Which notes does one chose?
Just to cover the fundamentals of the electric guitar (not the most extended instrument) would take about 45 frequencies, with a BW of 1/24th octave.
Or does one chose only the A minor pentatonic?

 

[Ethan]

Well, one could just pick a few notes (perhaps minor / major pentatonic across a few octaves would suffice) and make those the center frequencies. Cranesong's IBIS has "note" selections rather than frequency positions.

I don't see why the story couldn't be true and feasible, as long as each frequency selection wasn't a half step (heck even whole step intervals could get impractical). But choosing one or two notes per octave would be very doable.

Then again, I'm not sure it would be musically useful.  I've never listened to a mix and thought, "this could use a little more A-flat". ;D

 

[PRR]

> I've never listened to a mix and thought, "this could use a little more A-flat".

Musicians I've worked with would not know 1.2KHz from a drumstick.

Considering that practical EQ bumps a range of notes, I could see marking third-octaves as A C F with an octave-number rather than as 1 1.25 1.6.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Considering that practical EQ bumps a range of notes, I could see marking third-octaves as A C F with an octave-number rather than as 1 1.25 1.6.

That would be more like A-C#-F if you want to have equal spacing between center frequencies.
BUT. Equal spacing doesn't work well because it defines an augmented chord, which is a tension chord, not something you want permanent.
And one would need to change the center frequencies according to the key of the tune.

 

[Ethan]

I don't think having an EQ fixed to notes requires that every song need new EQ notes to match--after all we don't use a different traditional "frequency based" EQ for different songs based on key. Having notes for center frequencies is essentially just another way of labeling the knobs. You wouldn't automate a boost for C, E, and G for every time the root chord is C major. So, referring to the original post, just changing the center frequencies to notes wouldn't change my approach to using an EQ as a tool...it's just a change of reference / labeling, much like "low-mid-high".

Just my two cents.
Once again, I'm not convinced it would be musically valuable...just different.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I don't think having an EQ fixed to notes requires that every song need new EQ notes to match--after all we don't use a different traditional "frequency based" EQ for different songs based on key. Having notes for center frequencies is essentially just another way of labeling the knobs. You wouldn't automate a boost for C, E, and G for every time the root chord is C major. So, referring to the original post, just changing the center frequencies to notes wouldn't change my approach to using an EQ as a tool...it's just a change of reference / labeling, much like "low-mid-high".

Just my two cents.
Once again, I'm not convinced it would be musically valuable...just different.

I think we're saying the same thing, just different.
For me it doesn't make sense to use musical notes for labelling the frequency control, because EQ is not capable of pinpointing notes*, in particular considering musical notes are loaded with harmonics that spread over several octaves.
*At least, the types of EQ that are used by audio professionals for frequency response control.
Labelling an EQ with music notes is just a gimmick intended to convince other people that it's a more "musical" approach.
Personally, being both a musician, SE and EE, I have NEVER related EQ with notes.
It makes me think of these HiFi sets where the tone controls were labelled with F and G clefs. Childish.

 

[Winetree]

After all aren't notes just frequencies?    A4 = 440Hz
Some people see frequencies as colors.
So E.Q. points could be thought of as different notes.
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/notefreqs.html
Just a different way of thinking.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

After all aren't notes just frequencies?    A4 = 440Hz
Some people see frequencies as colors.
So E.Q. points could be thought of as different notes.
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/notefreqs.html
Just a different way of thinking.

  Now that's a new idea "gimme some more of that magenta on the bass and a make the snare a tad less raven"

 

[SSLtech]

Fine... I'll bite.

Sure, notes are frequencies. -But they're EXACT frequencies. -There's *ZERO* 'spread' in a sustained note. You have to have THAT frequency. -Even teeny errors in frequency are catastrophic.

EQ's -on the other hand- may have 4 bands or so. -What are your favourite four notes then? What happens if you have a key change? -Modulate up a whole-step... do you have to get the board rebuilt for the second half of the tune?

And what if your notes are in the fourth octave? -What happens if the overdub you're EQ'ing strays into the next octave up or down? -"Can we bring up the 'D' a little?" -'No'. -"I thought we had a 'D' control?" -'Yes we do, but that's D4... you played a D5'...."

-Unless of course you want an 97-band EQ to match all the keys on a concert piano, in which case it all makes PERFECT sense...

I'm sorry, but making the equation that "EQ's have frequencies and notes are frequencies, so this makes sense" is so over-simplified that it's just absurd.

If you want to label EQ's with "notes" instead of frequencies, that's very cute. -But ultimately useless.

-And I've never CARED what the frequency is... -I just know it's too-high, too-low or just about right. -I've basically never looked at the number. -When I'm adjusting things by ear, I just don't care what the exact frequency is, and I doubt I ever will. -The idea of knowing what step on a 12-step repeating logarithmic frame is, is simply futile, and serves no purpose.

Even if I were to make the ludicrous over-simplification that 'center-frequencies equal notes' is significant in ANY way, then when I boost an EQ band, can I then hear one note getting louder? -No. -And I never will. I'll NEVER use bandwidths that narrow. -Even if I notch frequencies out, do I care what note note is? -No. Do I even care what FREQUENCY it is? -No. -And I never will. -I just know that it's a drum ring/feedback 'zing'/acoustic resonance/whatever that I want to tame.

Cute, but pointless. And -according to what Abbey Road says- likely apocryphal.

I even note that the original post is effectively "hearing this from someone who heard it from someone else who worked with Ray".

 

[Gold]

If it's a QE 310 0r QE 312 the bandwidth of the EQ points are extremely broad. I mean REALLY broad. I've used QE312's every day for over 20 years.

 

[emrr]

The only interest in note value I've ever heard come from someone in the act of equalizing came from a mastering engineer, who was into subtractive EQ to clear some fog with reduction of frequencies NOT in key.  I can buy that, thinking specifically in the sub-500Hz realm, and with a really good surgical mastering EQ.  Otherwise, no. 

 

[ruairioflaherty]

The only interest in note value I've ever heard come from someone in the act of equalizing came from a mastering engineer, who was into subtractive EQ to clear some fog with reduction of frequencies NOT in key.

That's gotta be Bob Katz?

 

[emrr]

Brent Lambert at Kitchen Mastering.  I haven't heard him ask that in years; I got better or he moved on?

 

[Gold]

Using an EQ is more like adjusting timbre than adjusting pitch.

 

[fazer]

Paul you have me interested in QE 312's.  Have you seen this article.  I'm sure you have. 

http://www.proharmonic.com/quad.htm

Interesting about the Star Wars QE 312 eq PC trace problem making them Class B and not Class A.

Back on Topic:  having plug in Eq's that are set by note as a relative scale.    Both Waves and DMG make an interface with a piano key type of selection.  I'm not sure but some midi keyboard jockey/composer might prefer an interface like that. 

http://www.waves.com/plugins/h-eq-hybrid-equalizer

http://dmgaudio.com/products_equilibrium.php

Much easier for a plug in than hardware.