1 EQ Insert with Multiple Settings on Single Pro Tools Track?

Q

qwerty123

Well-known member
Is there a simple way in Pro Tools to have just one EQ insert on, say, an FX track with a particular setting AND change that EQ setting to something else for other clips on the same track?

My issue is that there are different individual clips that require different eq, and its impractical to have multiple eq inserts bypassing one and turning on another just for that clip. That could lead to a whole lot of inserts. Automating in real time is also to much of a hassle.

It would seem there should be a way to simply highlight a selection on the track and set eq for just that selection. I've searched around and it's kinda buggin me... :-/
 
Which version of PT are you using? There are some things you can do in PT HD that I know you cannot do in LE, not sure about PT10.

No matter which version, you can automate anything in a plug-in, but you have to open that plug-in and add whichever parameters you want into the automation list. There's an "automation" button in the plug-in window, and that opens another window where you select the parameters you want and then click "Add>>" to put them in the active list.

Then, you can bring them up in the editing window (make each parameter the active track view), and then use the pencil tool, or use the grabber to mark and drag adjustment points, or highlight a region and use the Trim tool to adjust.

Also make sure that "Plug-Ins" are enabled in your Automation window.

The other shortcut, if you already have a setting that you want to copy to another region, is to make the plug-in active and targeted, select a place in the region that has the setting you want to copy, and hit "CMD+SHIFT+C" (for windows, CTL instead of CMD). Then highlight the region (in and out point) where you want to paste the settings, and use "CMD+SHIFT+V" (for Windows, CTL instead of CMD). This one works for PTHD and doesn't work in LE, but I haven't tried it in PT10.
 
Last edited:
Hi Alex. Thanks for the response!

I guess the trim method works.... BUT what's strange is that I have to use the trim tool instead of being able to adjust the knobs on, say, the 7 band eq. It does the same thing it's just easier to use the knobs or the on screen points on the graphical mapping. Plus, if I want to change 10 different settings on the EQ, it seems too time consuming and confusing to create 10 separate dropdown tracks or to cycle through each one as the active track.

The shift-command- thing works in PT10 but at least for EQ (the only plugin I've tried with this method) it simply universally overwrites a prior plugin. It doesn't respect the selection boundaries (in/out points).

Hmmmmm....
 
Last edited:
You can do "snapshot" automation to change parameters, or you can do what a lot of folks do which is copy the track, disable the original (and hide it) and then use Audio Suite to destructively process the clips you need to deal with.

There are sort of two schools on this. Some folks like to automate like crazy and do everything live on playback. The upside is you can easily change parameters if you need to, but you may have to run tracks through an AUX to get enough plugin slots. The downside is that session may well not open on another system, or even the same system down the line (you need all of the same plugins installed AND working, and plugins are regularly orphaned so...).

Then there are the process a clone of the clip folks. The upside is much lower overhead for PT and that at any point in the future you can open the session. Down side is changes can take longer.

I'm kind of a split. I do all clip based stuff on a copy and do all track based stuff with a realtime plugin.
 
Depending on your Pro Tools version, PREVIEW mode and "manually write to selection" can be your very best friend. I usually just loop playback and automate line by line in worst cases.
 
Sounds to me like you're putting a lot of effort into doing a lot of work.

Divide your one track up into multiple tracks. Each track gets it's own staic EQ setting. No messing with automation and very easy to change later.

You have many, many tracks available to you. Don't be afraid to use them.
 
I agree checkerboard the audio across different tracks, funny that this is a technique that is as old as film dubbing as that was the best way to EQ for different people or sound FX.

Int old days we used to get dubbing charts too that showed the tracks for each machine and referenced to the feet and frames counter that was zeroed at the head of the reels for the dub, now we have it on the timeline with timecode or even feet and frames for the old skool boys.
 
Thanks all for the responses!

Making separate tracks for different EQ is fine solution, the issue there is that you can easily end up with so many tracks that things get confusing. Right now, I've condensed all my FX tracks (hard effects and ambiences) to about 5 stereo tracks and a few mono for some effects and I have three different foley tracks. Even then, things are pretty tight.... the film is only 10 minutes long, but I often want a different eq setting for each (or many) of the ambience clips on a single track. ...now multipy that by 6 or so! So having different tracks for each element would make it seem like things would get out of hand. Same deal with checkerboarding...

I'll look into preview and write mode.... I'll also think about strategically rendering using audio suite a la Noiz2's suggestion.

My thinking was that I should've paid a bit more attention to how I'd like to EQ things when I was adding the clips to my various FX tracks instead of just dropping them into FX 1 - FX 6, etc....

But you'd think pro tools would just let you highlight a selection on a track and, with automation enabled on all EQ parameters, be able to automate to just that selection using the plugin pop box window. That seems like it would save a lot of time! '

RyanJF's solution seems the closest to this... perhaps I'll try looping playback on write mode on a selection and use the plugin window to see if this will work: hopefully, the settings will go back to what they were outside of the selection.
 
Last edited:
qwerty123 said:
But you'd think pro tools would just let you highlight a selection on a track and, with automation enabled on all EQ parameters, be able to automate to just that selection using the plugin pop box window. That seems like it would save a lot of time! '

RyanJF's solution seems the closest to this... perhaps I'll try looping playback on write mode on a selection and use the plugin window to see if this will work: hopefully, the settings will go back to what they were outside of the selection.
Click to expand...

You've got the concept, but it depends on what version of PT you have. PTHD or PT Native with CPTK2 will give you preview mode and the other advanced "write to..." automations options.

This has been the way I've been working for years in the box. Highlight a section that needs some treatment, set automation to latch/touch, hit PREVIEW, loop playback, mess with the plugin parameters (the automation indicator on the track will turn green), then when content, hit "write to selection" in the automation window.
 
The solution to having a lot of tracks is to add more tracks. Sieriously.

Lets say you have about three tracks per character. Buss all of Bob's dialog tracks to an Aux track. Then, buss all your dialog auxes to your dialog stem. Do the same with effects. Buss all of Bob's footsteps to an aux called "Bob's Footsteps". Buss each of the footstep auxs to an aux called "footsteps". Then maybe even buss that to your effects stem. Do all your mixing of levels on the stems, not on the tracks themselves. Doing that, you'll actually have very few tracks (relativly) for the actual final mix.

For my final project in school, I re-recorded all the audio for the opening credits to Serenity. I had over 50 tracks and 10 different reverbs. The insturctor told me I could have used even more tracks for a 5 minute clip. Looking back, I could have spread out the SFX much more. I tried to "maximize" my track use but that just cost me more time in the long run trying to find effects and automating too many things.

Just my experiance, but it works well for me.
 
Have to agree with the "don't fear the tracks". If your plan is to work in film then get used to it now. We use to have upward of 90 tracks as a matter of course for a 30 sec spot (FX only). I tend to be a bit leaner on low budget films, but I'm still in the high eighties usually. In the "old days" ;~) you had to spread it out since mixers were working in real time and you needed to leave them some time to get in and out of a clip. But it still makes a lot of sense.

It will actually be less confusing if you spread out your FX so they are in track groups that make sense. You can also color code the tracks so they stay visually linked. And you do want to create virtual stems with Auxes so a lot of your mixing will end up on a hand full of faders. Usually hard FX are in a group or two, Amb and backgrounds are in a group or two, Foley is a group, Dialog is a group, ADR is a group, Music is a group, etc. You don't need a ton of reverbs unless your doing some whacky FX. Everything is going to be in the same place in any given shot, and really you want to be very light with the reverb because it will get much more prominent in a bigger room.
 
My current template for film projects is built pretty wide. I have all my necessary plugins bypassed on most of the tracks (CPU meter in PT is at about 45% upon loading up this template to work on a new show). I'll use PREVIEW and will typically draw the bypass automation as needed. I have around 6 audio tracks (3 mono 3 stereo) per FX "food group" and possibly more tracks. My template consists of "AFX" -> BFX -> CFX.... IFX (9 or so food groups for FX). There's also the BG food groups ABG - BBG - CBG (or however you want to denote it). For dialogue, I usually fit everything within 16 DX mono tracks and 3 extra junk tracks. ADR and loop group is their own set of auxes. PFX and Foley are also in there as a set of mono tracks. I find that this gives me enough flexibility while still being organized. However, I still do a lot of plug-in automation within the tracks.
 
Thanks all for the sage advice!

Yes, I only have PT10 native at home; but we've got PT 10 HD at school, and so I'll be looking to use the PREVIEW and write to selection method (which is just what I'm looking for!). Thanks Ryanjf for this, and for providing some info about your template! Useful stuff!!

Yes, I agree I need to not be shy about having lots of tracks, and checkerboarding is probably a good idea not just for DX. But, again, it seems silly to have a distinct track for every clip you need to EQ differently from some other clip: if I want to make subtle EQ changes to 40 different ambiences, it'd be ridiculous to have 40 different tracks for that purpose -- not that anyone is proposing this! :)
 
There's a checkbox in the Preferences in PT that automatically enables all automation on plug in parameters - so everytime you instantiate a plugin, it will default to all parameters enabled. I usually have this on. You'll see why when you start playing with it.

While there isn't anything wrong with making 40 difference tracks to suit 40 different ambiences, it boils down to voice count in PTHD. When you have unnecessary tracks, it takes away from the voice count from other stuff that might need it. Consolidating tracks means your mix desk isn't built that wide, which to me, is great! I hate flipping through tracks just to find what I need.
 
As a general rule, this may be more a NorCal thing but I think it's more universal, FX are generally treated destructively not with track plugins. It depends to a certain extent on what exactly the plugin is but generally anything that is only for a given clip is done destructively. You can always clone and mute or drag the dupe to a disabled safety track just incase you need to undo. Also I have a hard time seeing a case where you are eq'ing a bunch of ambiences slightly differently, except to get rid of stuff that would be just as well done destructively.

An exception would be a back and forth to the inside and out side of say a window. That I would probably set up as a checkerboard with different EQ/ balance, etc.

Even dialog I tend to do destructively for things like noise reduction, and matching EQ. Partially because you are correct that having a godzillion tracks that have a single clip is silly and will grind your system to a halt.

It's also a good habit to get into to make decisions. The mistakes will be more educational ;~) And it's a nightmare to trouble shoot a session that has got a problem if you have a ton of things going on that are all on scattered tracks.

Remember that while some films had a really large track count up till the 90's or so Pro Tools was essentially limited to 16 "voices" ie only 16 sounds (stereo counts as two sounds) could play at any given time on a single machine. So track management was the key to doing large sessions. That and the "food groups" were all done in separate sessions, with FX often split in to multiple 16 track sessions. You couldn't play back everything at the same time till you premixed the groups on to MAG.
 
+1 for moving RAW clips (that have been noise reduced or EQ'd) to a set of X Y Z tracks in case one does need to go back to the source. I tend to do stuff destructively in Soundminer with the VST Rack prior to spotting into Pro Tools, more so with EQ here. It's a toss up for me since my blank template consists of bypassed EQs, COMPS, LoAIRS (or equivalent) and/or expanders (depending on the type of food group obviously), on almost every single audio track - just to emulate a real desk. If I need the processing, it's right there, sitting for me in a bypassed state. With a few clicks, I can highlight/draw Bypass automation so that plugin is active when I tell it. Then PREVIEW mode will kick in naturally. My CPU, even with all these bypassed plugs (RTAS non-TDM btw), sits at about 48%, and it's still very comfortable for me to work. When the assembly happens, the timeline is cached into my RAM. Any unused food groups (with bypassed plugins) are either made inactive in PT or just deleted so that frees some CPU a bit. I might add this is for the pre-dub session, so after I print the pre-dubs, it's all destructive anyway. Though with HDX cards and beefier computers, I can see people bypassing printing the predub (just predubbing with automation and not committing destructively). I've heard that it takes an HD5 to equal 1 HDX card. Blows my mind. With 2 HDX cards and a pair of HD MADI's... amazing.

From Sound on Sound:

With a single HDX card, using Avid’s numbers, you basically get the equivalent horse power of an HD5 system (one HD Core card, plus four HD Accel cards), along with 64 more voices than would have been available on that older system.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/articles/avid-hdx.htm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top