EQ.. I don't buy it

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right...it's not about recording crap and then trying to *fix* it later.
Everyone agrees that a good sound at the source is the most important thing.

That said...EQ is a tool that has many uses. Not to mention, there are different types of EQ.
So to get back to the OP...is you already admit that there was a brittleness to the sound of the guitar...and that the mic only compounded that...but then you blame EQ for not fixing it, and you go on to say it's important to try and get the sound without needing to fix it. :D
You kinda went full circle, admitting that your initial source and space had issues...so then you're just preaching to yourself, and for some reason, blaming the EQ as a useless tool.
 
Ultimately the biggest thing i learned and very quickly from eq was that whatever i was doing wasn't working anyway .In that respect I'd say it's a very informative tool by default but not one to waste endless hour's fiddling with . It's more likely in the composition arrangement or basic fundamental backdrop to recording set up . It's probably the very last place to look in the chain of events
 
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

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

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
I'm in the camp of if you're using a C1000S on an acoustic guitar, you're already distorting the natural characteristics of the tone. Now if you have a rather worn-in, nylon-string acoustic that you want a little more "jangly" sounding, there you go. If it's a reasonably bright sounding thing with steel strings and a plastic pick, maybe not.

As far as EQ goes - The more to choose from, the merrier. Some are better at boosting, some at cutting, some are "surgical" while some are more "relaxed" sounding, some are better used in a mid-side matrix, some are better on certain instruments while others are great for program material.

That said - I'll give you - With a mix of elements that sound fine on their own, EQ is a perfect tool for getting them to sound right together -- But if something doesn't fit in well or sound decent "as-is" for whatever reason - whether at the source, the mic selection, the preamp, etc., EQ'ing can often be little more than finding the best way to make it sound the least crappy.
 
I can see you have a passion and fondness for eqing. Unfortunately I have to be somewhat more pragmatic with my music . I'm firmly of the view that no amount of eqing could make my music less crappy. I remain hopeful however
 
Edit: actually, for home recorders, if you're not high-passing everything, you risk detracting from the end result.

:thumbs up: Certainly that has been my experience. But apart from high passing pretty much everthing and a bit of sculpting of the vocals, I make little use of EQ.
 
Good arranging, preproduction, recording techniques, good songwriting, etc, signifigantly reduce the amount of eq one needs to use. In other, words plan ahead.

There are some old recordings that sound great that were done with the whole band playing live in a room with only a few mics. How they do it?
By applying the principles in my first sentence.

Nowadays we're like spoiled little children, we want and got it all.

But some never learn how to use it, then go and blame the 'stuff' for not being able to get a good result.

Disclaimer: i don't claim to, nor do I always get good results. But I never blame my tools. Its always a case of me not knowing how to properly use them. :D
 
There is a huge difference in "fiddling around" with a tool rather knowing what the tool is capable of doing and why and then applying it to purpose at hand.

I agree with the premise that the initial recording should be as direct a path as possible from source to capture. But that doesn't mean that something cannot become something better than it is with the application of tools at the source.

I have recorded a plethora of instruments over the years. Low end ones. Very very high end ones. Intermediate student line models of this and that and the other. Acoustic guitars bordering on the incredible. Violins approaching 6 figures in value. Each and every time my job as the engineer was to capture as close as possible, the actual sound of the instrument in the environment it was being played in. I'm pretty good at it.

I never have had a single instance where adding EQ after the fact in the mix did NOT enhance the position and the purpose of said instruments in the mix WHERE IT WAS CALLED FOR. And mostly it was to fit things into a mix of other instruments where the clarity of one could not outweigh the clarity of another. As individual tracks, there would be NO DOUBT of the quality of the capture, but in a mix it is usually necessary to trim something in order to make room for something else. And I'm not referring to the arrangements but the actually frequency inherent in each instrument and how they affect everything else in the mix.

Do I use EQ on everything? No. Only where, as the correct tool, it is needed and knowing how to apply it keeps the "fiddling around" out of the equation.

You want things to sound better? Learn about the tools available and how they can be just that. Tools.
 
So once again we come to the conclusion that EQ is a tool in the arsenal of tools. And as with any other tool, it needs to be properly used. And that involves learning 'how' to properly use the tool.
 
So once again we come to the conclusion that EQ is a tool in the arsenal of tools. And as with any other tool, it needs to be properly used. And that involves learning 'how' to properly use the tool.

And always wear proper eye protection while using tools... In other words use your ears.
 
Tonight I ran sound for a live spoken word performance with several experienced presenters. I was, um, assertive with the eq. I got compliments from one of the presenters who was evidently told by people from the audience that it sounded very good. Eq is a good thing when you know what to do with it.
 
I don't have a 10000 dollar Neumann or a 15000 dollar froggy bottom guitar, therefore I eq if and when needed. This is one of the age old arguments about getting an accurate recording of a "performance" and keeping it "pure"(a crock of stuff IMHO)which if even possible can be an expensive enough proposition that it's not a "home recording" topic as opposed to crafting a performance to be ideal which is what most of us home recordists attempt I believe..i could be wrong. Mastering engineers use excellent monitoring systems and equally expensive eq's to do tiny adjustments that can change a mix profoundly. I agree that it is easy to waste time using eq , compression or playing an instrument if you have no plan or if you don't understand the use of the tool. "I don't understand screws so everything must be glued" is a nonsensical type argument however. The first thing when reaching for eq or any tool is to know exactly what you are going to do with it, since you didn't, of course your time was wasted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top