EQ: Pre vs. Post?

[sean.brown]

I have spoken to quite a few friends who have recently attended very reputable schools for audio engineering and producing, and they all seem to follow the same school of thought as far as EQing goes: Never EQ the input, record flat and EQ the output.

Now, this seems logical to me. For the most part, you would want to get the most "natural" sound from any source whether it be vocals, guitar amps, bass amps, drums, what have you. That way you don't shoot yourself in the foot before you've even started mixing... Having EQed something badly on input, you have no options left when you try to EQ something back in that should be there, when it isn't there anymore. If any of that makes sense.

Then I have also talked to professionals who have been recording/mixing/producing for years who seem to believe that you cannot record a good track without first EQing the source on input. They seem to believe that you should always EQ in and EQ out as well, that way you can get the best sound out of your source.

I am curious to see what anyone else here might have to say on the issue! Let's hear it!

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Sean,

The two points of view are reconciled when you understand that the school is teaching newbs, and the pros are not.

What it simply boils down to is, once you have done something for the 10,000th time and you know exactly what you are doing and you know you have the proper control over all the variables, then there's nothing wrong with saving time and getting half your mixing done in the tracking. (It's certainly better than waiting until mastering to get it done .)

But when you're new to the game, someone who still has to ask others if their mix could use any improvement because they don't have the ears themselves, and who hasn't yet learned to go into the production with a real mental idea and production plan of just how they want the song to sound when they come out the other end, then recording anything other than a dry clean signal is probably a mistake because they'll need the most flexibility in mixing they can get.

G.

[mixsit]

There you go. No poll needed.

[Massive Master]

"It depends" is a fair answer --

That said - I'll go to pretty great lengths to keep the input path as simple as possible. It's rare that I'd be using a preamp with EQ built-in - and if something needs to change tonally, I'll spend as much time as it takes fixing the core sound and adjusting the mic placement.

[The REAL Jigsaw]

If I may chime in here. I've always recorded without EQing the input and have been advised by pro engineers to do the same. But I'm at the point I'd like to start trying it. The biggest advantage is I can find the perfect sound I'm looking for before giving a good performance and I'll have a better idea of where I want the song to go. But if I EQed after, I'd be using it more as a corrective approach.


SHAVEZ

EDIT: I'm not gonna vote on this one, just wanted to give my "input".

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by sean.brown

I have spoken to quite a few friends who have recently attended very reputable schools for audio engineering and producing, and they all seem to follow the same school of thought as far as EQing goes: Never EQ the input, record flat and EQ the output.

Now, this seems logical to me. For the most part, you would want to get the most "natural" sound from any source whether it be vocals, guitar amps, bass amps, drums, what have you. That way you don't shoot yourself in the foot before you've even started mixing... Having EQed something badly on input, you have no options left when you try to EQ something back in that should be there, when it isn't there anymore. If any of that makes sense.

Then I have also talked to professionals who have been recording/mixing/producing for years who seem to believe that you cannot record a good track without first EQing the source on input. They seem to believe that you should always EQ in and EQ out as well, that way you can get the best sound out of your source.

I am curious to see what anyone else here might have to say on the issue! Let's hear it!

The EQ at the input is called mic selection, placement and good sounding, tuned instruments. EQ in the mix is done to make the instruments fit into the mix and not trounce on each other. The pros you talk to probably have actually decent EQs and if that is the case, they can EQ at the source. The real problem with the mortals is that a really good EQ costs like $3000 and up. The stuff that most people have are labelled "EQ" but are really called "noise sources". Stay away from input EQ if you have anything below the quality of Allen&Heath and you will have tracks free of noise and phase problems.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by sean.brown

Having EQed something badly on input, you have no options left when you try to EQ something back in that should be there, when it isn't there anymore.

Well, EQ cut is not absolute - if you reduce a frequency range when recording you can bring it back later if you know the exact curve you need to counter.

In the old days of analog tape it was common to EQ when recording if you knew a track would need treble boost. By doing it when recording you avoid boosting the tape hiss later when mixing. Same for compression, which also brings up tape hiss. But these days with DAW recorders, even 16 bits has noise well below the acoustic noise floor of any room you record in. So there's no problem boosting things later when mixing.

--Ethan

[K-dub]

My rule of thumb is:

EQ the input to handle "problems" with source ... like low end rumble coming through the mic from the floor or an overly sibilant mic/vocalist combination -- that sort of thing ... do it sparingly and only when it can't be avoided.

EQ the output as liberally as needed to sculpt the mix.

Kev-

[sean.brown]

Thanks for all your feedback. I think I understand that it really depends. In my situation, where my DAW has no built in EQ and I don't have a super expensive EQ to run through (especially one with 8-10 channels for drums in multitracking) then it would be best to get good mic placement, room acoustics, and drum tuning to get the best, most natural sound out of the source, then shape the sound with post-EQing via a software VST or such. No need to buy a bunch of nice EQ units for pre-EQing. Or a mixing board to run all my mics through pre DAW.

Thanks all!

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by sean.brown

my DAW has no built in EQ and I don't have a super expensive EQ to run through then it would be best to get good mic placement, room acoustics, and drum tuning to get the best, most natural sound out of the source

Not to get all nit-picky on you, but....You should be concentrating on good mic placement, room acoustics, and drum tuning even if you had 10 EQ's.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by sean.brown

I have spoken to quite a few friends who have recently attended very reputable schools for audio engineering and producing, and they all seem to follow the same school of thought as far as EQing goes: Never EQ the input, record flat and EQ the output.

Now, this seems logical to me. For the most part, you would want to get the most "natural" sound from any source whether it be vocals, guitar amps, bass amps, drums, what have you. That way you don't shoot yourself in the foot before you've even started mixing... Having EQed something badly on input, you have no options left when you try to EQ something back in that should be there, when it isn't there anymore. If any of that makes sense.

Then I have also talked to professionals who have been recording/mixing/producing for years who seem to believe that you cannot record a good track without first EQing the source on input. They seem to believe that you should always EQ in and EQ out as well, that way you can get the best sound out of your source.

I am curious to see what anyone else here might have to say on the issue! Let's hear it!

Do both. A bit on the way in and a bit more on the way out, if/as needed, to sit properly in the mix.

Think about it: If you don't like the flat signal on the way in, why not use some judicious eq to improve it. I'm not talking perfection, just enough to make the sound usable.

[minds device]

I just went through this in another thread. I had the same question about using external compressors and equalizers even though my DAW has all of this stuff in the way of plug-ins that could be applied after the source is recorded. My conclusion is use external hardware before going to tape (disk) sparingly and with a lot of fore site. Also ask yourself what sounds better to you? I like the results I get when I use a hardware compressor on my vocal track before it is recorded. To me it SOUNDS BETTER than compressing with software after it is recorded. Try it with EQ and see what sounds best and works best for you.

[sean.brown]

Originally Posted by minds device

I just went through this in another thread. I had the same question about using external compressors and equalizers even though my DAW has all of this stuff in the way of plug-ins that could be applied after the source is recorded. My conclusion is use external hardware before going to tape (disk) sparingly and with a lot of fore site. Also ask yourself what sounds better to you? I like the results I get when I use a hardware compressor on my vocal track before it is recorded. To me it SOUNDS BETTER than compressing with software after it is recorded. Try it with EQ and see what sounds best and works best for you.

I agree with you completely. I have always found that compressing and gating the vocals with my rack unit before they go into the DAW is the way to go. It gives it a tightness and warmth that no plug-in I've found can duplicate.

[mixsit]

You guys gate vocals?

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by mixsit

You guys gate vocals?

I don't. Why would you need to?

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

I don't. Why would you need to?

I agree.

I think Mixit was having a hard time believing it as opposed to seriously asking if he should.

[mixsit]

Originally Posted by RAMI

I agree.

I think Mixit was having a hard time believing it as opposed to seriously asking if he should.

Thank you for covering me -my bad for being so brief.
IMHO- 'tracking time' is the 'whole lot of things to get right', not to mention -keep it moving w/o screwing up time.

[iqi616]

I sometimes EQ on the way in. If it's something I know I'll be doing anyway I prefer to get into the ballpark in the analogue domain. I'll do a clean test recording and then listen back through the EQ and then use those settings. Usually high-passing or cooling down microphone presence peaks.

Obviously this is after working with microphone choice and positioning and preamp choice.

[Todzilla]

EQing on input saves a lot of time and improves the overall signal purity.

If you really know what you're doing.

The rest of us should track flat and EQ on mix.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Todzilla

EQing on input saves a lot of time and improves the overall signal purity.

If you really know what you're doing.

The rest of us should track flat and EQ on mix.

How will you learn how unless you actually do it?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

How will you learn how unless you actually do it?

As your ear improves over practice and you start to find yourself following certain patterns or recognizing certain solutions to certain problems in how you apply EQ in mixing you can start having the confidence in knowing what to do/expect in tracking.

G.