In or Out of the Box?

Compression and EQ:

  • Compress and EQ in the box...

    Votes: 13 54.2%

  • Compress and EQ out of the box...

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • EQ out of the box, Compress in the box...

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • Compress out of the box, EQ in the box...

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Total voters
    24
disgruntled-inc

disgruntled-inc

Detachable Member
When I recorded on my Roland VS units, I did everything in the box. I didn't feel that there were enough I/O options to get crazy so I just didn't worry about it. Since moving on from the VS I have been going back and forth as to what is the better way to do things. I've read articles that indicate that I should apply EQ and Compression to shape the sound to more of what I want before I go through my A/D and I've read other articles that say to just pass everything through raw and do all of the EQ and Compression in the DAW.

Specifically, if I convince myself to go with rack gear I am thinking of picking up a couple channel strips for use with acoustic/electric guitar and drum overheads (considering either the PreSonus Studio Channel, Art Pro Channel, or the Focusrite TrakMaster Pro...around the $300 price point). Since I am just over a year into my DAW experience I want to make an informed decision so I can continue to develop myself without 2nd guessing whether or not I am headed in the right direction.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Wes
 
One option you missed was 'both'. It's not always 'either or'.

However, as a general rule, I do everything in the box. Doing it this way means that everything is undo-able, which I kind of like.

There are times, though, when I know that there is going to be a problem from the start: for example, a bass player with highly variable notes while playing, or vocalist with a nasally tone, that I might deal with beforehand.
 
Both it is!!!

Nothing like through a little bit of C4 Multiband on just about everything.
Nothing like a good Comp/EQ on tracking to add some character.
 
An advantage to working with limited I/O is that it forces you to make disciplined choices and use your resources efficiently. So what if you can do 30 takes? Maybe time would be better spent practicing so you can get what you want in the first three. Stuff like that. Otherwise you can get chained to the box in an endless search for that "perfect" mix. There ain't no such thing and life is short.

I mix in the box, but because most of my recording is done onsite I sometimes have to make choices on the fly as I record. I end up with submixes that I then mess with in my project studio and yes, it would be great to have perfect isolation in each track, but live music isn't like that. So I think my work is better for not getting caught in the swamp of continuous edits. YMMV.
 
I have a nice rack of effects and such...the DAW doesnt have a nice compresor inside like the dbx160...so I use the 160...I have an old spring reverb Ill use from time to time....evrything else Ill use between the Akai DPS24 and my cd burner...so both is the best way to go.
 
think out of the box.

mix IN the box. with modern soundcards and plugins, nothing else makes sense, unless you are just so used to the old ways and get better results.
 
Both. I record into the DAW like everybody else, but I have thing set up so that I can mix in or out of the box using all my plugins or the nice compression and FX hardware I have. I do all of my automation ITB...best of both worlds.

Frank
 
disgruntled-inc said:
Specifically, if I convince myself to go with rack gear I am thinking of picking up a couple channel strips for use with acoustic/electric guitar and drum overheads (considering either the PreSonus Studio Channel, Art Pro Channel, or the Focusrite TrakMaster Pro...around the $300 price point).
Click to expand...
Wes,
As others have stated, both should be considered. Personally, I have one of the units you're considering (the Focusrite TrakMaster Pro) and find both its low-cut filter and compressor very useful for the voiceover work I do, though the eq hardly ever gets switched on. I've also used it as a direct box for bass and for an old Rhodes with great results on both.
 
The principal advantaged of computer recording is non destructive editing/manipulation.
Sometimes a bass needs a little help to generate a signal that's even enough to record without clipping in spots & being inaudible in others - other than having the player learn to play with more even dynamics.
I certainly don't generate distortion for guitar in the box - ofttimes you have to have as close to the sound you want as possible at the source.
 
I like to Compress on the way in and then later add more compression and then EQ. I just like to think using COMP on the way in gives you a more usable signal, a solid foundation, then I'll add some C3 mulitband to give it character and a flow with the rest of the song. I don't have an EQ in my rack other than the one on my EUREKA but when i go thru there i use the comp and EQ, and then If another EQ is necessary I'll do it. I mean you must hear it too many times on these forums but that's only because it's so true, "If it sounds good, do it"

Thanks
-Barrett
 
There isn't a better way; do what you like.
Click to expand...
Well said:
I like to compress on the way in which is completely reversible then transfer to the DAW for all editing.
However: Someone has just invented a VGA Monitor Hook Up for the Korg D3200 (for real this time) so I may find myself doing much more in the box when I can see more detail.
As far as the rack goes.... most of my rack gear sits idle.
 
moresound said:
There is nothing that can touch great vintage rack gear. IMHO
Click to expand...

How often have you seen imitations that are better than the original? It's like expecting to see an Elvis impersonator that's better than the King himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top