EQ.. I don't buy it

Status
Not open for further replies.
Space and EQ are different things. Not sure what you're getting at there. Of course........a bad arrangement or performance or composition will never be more than it is....with or without EQ.

However........as soon as the human voice was amplified.......for any reason........and as soon as a performance of any kind was transferred to any media for playback..........over a compromised playback system (and they all are).......EQ became a factor for improvement / correction..........or even enjoyability (if that's a word).......both on the way into the mic and on the way out of the speaker. Your camper might seem to sound fine right now.......but the truth is that it likely has some obvious flaws for some performances. Will you have to move out of your camper to avoid using EQ in any of your projects?
 
318-the-dunning-kruger-effect-in-fitness.png
 
maxman65 said:
Yes its taken me hours and hours of attempted recording to wonder whether micro inbuilt condensers may be a dramatic limitation. I still don't actually know until I get the mic. I have played with eq briefly and for me it's done nothing . Yes the room is a big one I think . Despite my particularly humble surroundings this camper is suprisingly neutral . Instinct tells me that parts probably(relatively ) ok against other possible factors
Click to expand...



Going back to your OP...you used what many consider a pretty lousy, harsh/nasty mic, to capture something that was probably not in an ideal space, not to mention, who knows what the natural sound of the instrument was to begin with...and then you're blaming EQ for not being able to sort that out for you, and not understanding the uses for it.

While EQ certainly has it's uses "up front" for tailoring the tone of a source during tracking...it comes into much bigger play when you have 20-30 sources that you are trying to mix together, and create a cohesive sound that brings out the key ingredients in an acceptable way.

Hey...if you're recording a single voice and acoustic...and it sounds bad, and needs fixing...the problem is already there, at the source, since there's really not a lot of "mixing" that is going on of many tracks...so don't blame EQ for not making it sound good.
Also....it's somewhat of a mistake to ever think that EQ can always put in, what wasn't there to begin with...or that it can always remove everything you don't want, without trashing other things. Sometimes the smallest nudges are all you can do with EQ to tweak something, otherwise more=worse.

The thing I find most interesting (and somewhat amusing) by many of your posts here and in other, recent threads...is you tend to have what seems limited experience, but you use that to make boundless assumptions, often convincing yourself it must be so. :D
 
I think for most ordinary people trying make significant improvements eq is essentially a pointless distraction . For those involved in mixing a staggering 20-30 components in a track I'd suggest cutting down by around 80 percent of those and focusing on those components which have the most significant artistic impact . I guess on that basis it would also make any eq considerations less critical . Double bonus
 
We're quickly heading in the mis-information direction.

It's been established that you're judging a tool on its performance when used incorrectly.
There's no reason to recommend cutting down a 20-30 track session without any real knowledge of what's going on in that session,
but there's good reason to recommend reassessing your opinion eq, when used in the right context.
 
Yes i guess that's basically it.if you want to make progress from the ground up forget eq.it doesn't lead anywhere particularly useful. Probably something to tinker about with for some . Personally i find it to be a compete red herring
 
maxman65 said:
Yes i guess that's basically it.if you want to make progress from the ground up forget eq.it doesn't lead anywhere particularly useful. Probably something to tinker about with for some . Personally i find it to be a compete red herring
Click to expand...

It's not probably something to tinker about it with. It's an available, and useful, tool which has its place.
It's a red herring if you're determined to believe that its place is fixing bad recording.

If you know what it's for and don't misuse it, like any tool, your entire process will benefit.
 
I didnt read the whole thread so I may be missing some points made. However.....

Eq is a valuable tool, but more like spices and seasoning, when cooking.
All the seasoning in a dish with a bad piece of meat will never make that meat taste good.
Eq is the same way. The basics of what is being recorded at the source is paramount..
A brittle mic on a brittle acoustic is gonna sound like crap no matter what you do to it with eq.
You gotta get the source sounding good.
Expecting for eq to fix it, is kind of like relying on autotune to fix an out of tune guitar. Ain't gonna happen
 
Conversely a well balanced guitar with a good quality condenser positioned optimally shouldn't need eq anyway without artifically tampering with the natural balance of the instrument
 
maxman65 said:
Conversely a well balanced guitar with a good quality condenser positioned optimally shouldn't need eq anyway without artifically tampering with the natural balance of the instrument
Click to expand...

Without context we can't really say that's accurate.
Is this a solo instrument recording, or is that guitar sitting in a hard rock mix?
Is the balance of the mix exactly the same during verses as it is choruses?

Bottom line, if you're using eq to make your recording acceptable, you're either doing it wrong or you're having to put up with variables outside of your control.
 
Steenamaroo said:
Without context we can't really say that's accurate.
Is this a solo instrument recording, or is that guitar sitting in a hard rock mix?
Is the balance of the mix exactly the same during verses as it is choruses?

Bottom line, if you're using eq to make your recording acceptable, you're either doing it wrong or you're having to put up with variables outside of your control.
Click to expand...

Steen......I think you might be going down a rabbit hole.
 
If I had to eq an acoustic guitar to be heard which I felt was key to a composition then I'd likely take something else out instead and create a part on another instrument which compliments it better rather than distort it's natural characteristic just to obey physics
 
maxman65 said:
If I had to eq an acoustic guitar to be heard which I felt was key to a composition then I'd likely take something else out instead and create a part on another instrument which compliments it better rather than distort it's natural characteristic just to obey physics
Click to expand...

If you're using eq to make something heard, you're still using it wrong in your head.
You're stuck on the premise that you should/can only ever use eq when something does not fit or work at all.
That's not what it's for.
 
I guess that's the problem . In simply cannot fathom what it's for.its either distorting the natural characteristics of an instrument by boosting or cutting the inherent tone of an instrument or compensation for some fundamental flaw
 
maxman65 said:
If I had to eq an acoustic guitar to be heard which I felt was key to a composition then I'd likely take something else out instead and create a part on another instrument which compliments it better rather than distort it's natural characteristic just to obey physics
Click to expand...

Using a microphone to capture the sound distorts the sound in the process. But that's not important because this isn't an act of measurement, this is art. You do whatever you need to do to make how you want it to be.

I'll disagree conditionally with an earlier post that the C1000S is an inherently bad mic. It's more like a special use mic. It works on certain things and not others. That's true of all mics but especially the C1000S, as in there's more that it doesn't work on than some other mics.

From there is follows that the mic itself is eq. Use the mic that best compliments the source in the given context. Whatever you use it won't be scientifically accurate but it should sound "good" under the circumstances. If further filtering is needed to make it fit, so be it.

And that's not to disagree that instrumentation and arrangement should be disregarded, but there no reason to utterly discard filters, especially since it's essentially impossible given that the mic and the room themselves act as filters.
 
I think the real application would be clear if you were sitting listening to a damn good mix that could use a few minor adjustments here and there.
Coming at it from the scenario described in the OP isn't the best view.

Keep in mind that it's not as simple as an instrument having 'a' sound.

Often the vocal might sit perfectly through verse and bridge, then just slightly become less prominent in a chorus due to backing vocals, more guitars...whatever.
There's no case there against the equipment used, or the sound of the voice, or anything really.
If a 1-2db broad boost centred at 1k makes you a little happier with those vox in the chorus, then there's a perfect example of when/where/why for eq.

No doubt you'd remove those extra guitars or backing vocals, but I want them and a little eq is letting me have them. ;)
 
Yeah . I take the point that a mic itself is biased . So why not eq anyway . Either way I think with a lot of amateurs such as myself it can serve as a huge and wasteful distraction . I'm pretty sure it has its place somewhere
 
maxman65 said:
I guess that's the problem . In simply cannot fathom what it's for.
Click to expand...

Again...your inexperience shouldn't lead you to make broad assumptions...but you continue to do so in almost every post, and to the point of blind denial.

"I don't understand what this is for or how to use it....therefore it's a worthless tool." :facepalm:
 
You're right. A lot of people work through the misconception that it doesn't matter how your recording sounds; You can fix it later.

I certainly wasted a lot of time thinking like that, at the start. Learned a lot from it too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top