Is EQ that necessary?

A

Absolutepower

New member
If you're getting the right tone from the start when you record, for example using the tone control on the guitar and its amplifier, why is EQ needed in mixing? I've read a bunch of articles singing the praises of EQ, but in the mixes I made I didn't touch it and they worked fine. I think I only used it once, to round off some top end on a guitar that was annoyingly bright.
Why is it considered so important?
 
It's usually when you have a cluttered, full recording with multiple instruments and vocals then you need a little help with distinction and separation once everything is sitting in the mix where you want it is when you would want a little EQ.

But what your doing is fine and what you should hope for when your capturing the source that you wouldn't need any drastic EQing but to trim off a wee bit or add a little seasoning.
 
EQ is essentially a remedial tool, i.e. it is used to fix things that aren't working.

If you are getting the sound you like, well, then there is nothing to fix.

EQ, though, can also be used as a creative tool, i.e. to change sounds from mundane to interesting.
 
Gecko zzed is good. Gecko zzed is wise.

He sums it up nicely. One of the biggest uses for EQ is to "fix" things so if you're happy, there's nothing to fix! I must say that, when I record, I try my best to get the sound exactly as I want it as I lay the track down purely so I can use the least possible processing later.

However, as has been said, where EQ can come into it's own is when you're trying to make multiple different tracks "play nicely" together. At that point, even if each individual track sounds great on its own, a bit of EQ can stop them from fighting for space in the mix with each other. As Gecko has said, it can also become a creative tool to take a sound and change it substantially to suit a mood or style you're trying to achieve.

On the remedial side, another use is to compensate for inaccuracies in microphones. For example, I quite dislike the presence peak on an SM58 so, if forced to use one for whatever reason, know exactly where to go on the EQ to tame this. Similarly, proximity effect can cause too much/too boomy bass and a bit of EQ can sort this out quickly.

In my case, an additional use of EQ (since much of what I do is for playback in a theatre setting) is to make my recordings sound better when I consider the acoustics of a particular venue. I can bring up frequencies that are fighting with the rumble of *&@! moving lights or whatever.

And, in truly live mixing, EQ is both a tool to control feedback and a way to make amplified voices come closer to matching the original on a sound system.

So, although a useful tool, no, EQ is NOT always necessary.

Bob
 
For that matter recording isn't necessary. Nor is music, nor are humans. But I happen to prefer a world with music, and one with eq so I can do creative tonal things after tracking, in the context of the mix as a whole.
 
Ok cool. The kind of sound I'm going for is more like 70s rock, zeppelin style, where there's is far fewer tracks, and the mix isn't cluttered up with a zillion things.
 
Eq is also used to make things sound different then when you recorded them. Not just to fix the sound but to change it to something else because when it was recorded you did not know how the song would end up. For example you may have a nice full guitar sound, but when you are mixing the song you think, "Wouldn't it be nice if that guitar was thin and bright, or the vocal sounded like it was coming down the telephone," eq can be used as a creative tool.

Alan.
 
Mixing changes the sound. Which might need fixing. And your favorite mic might slump on the high end with age. And other things like windscreens can alter the EQ traits. Every little thing adds up.

And your mic might not have a flat EQ to start with, so when the voice goes low, it's a different level than when it goes high. And it's NOT the singer in some cases. And even if it is, it's easier to fix the recording than the singer / sound source.
 
Shadow_7 said:
Mixing changes the sound. Which might need fixing. And your favorite mic might slump on the high end with age. And other things like windscreens can alter the EQ traits. Every little thing adds up.

And your mic might not have a flat EQ to start with, so when the voice goes low, it's a different level than when it goes high. And it's NOT the singer in some cases. And even if it is, it's easier to fix the recording than the singer / sound source.
Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative, but I think some people would disagree with you about it being easier to just fix it later in the mix, rather than getting it right right from the start. I know what you mean about mics not being flat, but again, why not just choose a good microphone? I use an Oktava, which I really like, its not that expensive, and I believe its fairly flat.
I have a question about windscreens though. What effect do they have on the EQ? I haven't been using one but I noticed I have some excessive "t"s in my recording, so I should probably start.
 
I have a question about windscreens though. What effect do they have on the EQ? I haven't been using one but I noticed I have some excessive "t"s in my recording, so I should probably start.
Click to expand...
Pop screens (assuming we're talking about pop-screens, as opposed to a foam-cover-type windscreen, although both tend to work in a fairly similar manner) are for plosives much more than sibilance. P's and B's as opposed to S's, T's, F's, etc. Those are better fixed at the source (with the vocalist) or with mics that aren't so sensitive to such sounds (condensers seem to 'exaggerate' the issue much more than moving coils or ribbons).
 
plosives are usually fixed with pop screens/filters or technique. When I have a plosive that just won't go away I'll move to sing that one sound to the side of the mic or below. It doesn't change the tone significantly. I have never EQed away plosives...technique and screens.

Sibilants are another story, those can be reduced with deessers, or (pretty much the same thing) sidechained compression with EQ. To do this, set an EQ to narrow Q (so it only effects a narrow range of frequencies), boost it like 10db, and slide it around until you hear the "s", then reduce that around 5db. usually this is around 4500-6500hz.
 
In terms of outdoor rigging. Blimp (frame) with slight foam (no creases in fur material) and a fake fur skin on top of that (and it still only reduces the winds impact). All that tends to dip the high end EQ down. Dramatically in some cases (-6dB). That kind of muddy, I'm in a closet sound, versus front row where the mics actually are. It's a balancing act of how much protection is too much, and being prepared for the worst possible conditions which WILL happen. Maybe not today, but you know it's gonna happen. Foam is really only good if you're indoors and boom the mic and even then, only if you move it slowly. And maybe winds < 5mph, which is mostly nowhere or only the very best of days. For the recording (and flight) possibilities. Not so much for the performers doing the 110F outdoors with NO WIND gig.

It's a big enough issue that I made a nyquist plugin for it for audacity. Still a bit of a WIP. But 1.775 and 0.75 seem to do most of what I need on my current configuration.

http://home.earthlink.net/~shadow_7/FauxFurEQ.ny
 
Absolutepower said:
Ok cool. The kind of sound I'm going for is more like 70s rock, zeppelin style, where there's is far fewer tracks, and the mix isn't cluttered up with a zillion things.
Click to expand...

It sounds easy to say "just get the tones right at the start and you don't need EQ"...but it's not just about that.

As you add tracks and mix them...there can be cumulative positive/negative frequency issues, so you use EQ to fine-tune things. With a light track count that you appear to be using, it's easier to mix tracks as-they-fall during tracking (though not always), but for sure, with large track counts and many different instruments, no matter how perfect you get each of them during tracking, they just might not sit perfectly in the mix. EQ can help redefine and uncluttered that, and also "glue" things together better.

It's really about fine-tuning, IMO...and not so much about *fixing* EQ problems. If you have to really fight with EQ to get things even somewhat in order, then backtrack and see where the problems are starting from.

Also...since I've not heard your mix, I'm not commenting one way or the other, but can you be sure that it's as good as it can be and translating well on a lot of playback systems. or does it sound really good just to you, on your one system and in your playback environment?
I'm sure it does sound good...but I'm just suggesting that we all sometimes become enamored with our initial mixes, only to find out they are not quite as good as we thought after we hear them on various systems. :)
 
Supercreep said:
You can edit a waveform and use volume envelopes to address plosives.
Click to expand...

I use hate the hearing the "SSSSSSSSSS*, and I tried de-essers and mic techniques to avoid them as much as posible...but with the DAW, editing the waveform is such a great/simple way to remove the "SSSSSSSSSS" in surgical amounts so you never have a trade-off between "SSSSSSSSS" and ending up with lisping.
It's so easy now...I never concern myself with "S & P" issues any more.
 
Absolutepower said:
If you're getting the right tone from the start when you record, for example using the tone control on the guitar and its amplifier, why is EQ needed in mixing? I've read a bunch of articles singing the praises of EQ, but in the mixes I made I didn't touch it and they worked fine. I think I only used it once, to round off some top end on a guitar that was annoyingly bright.
Why is it considered so important?
Click to expand...

You're right about EQ's necessity if you get the tones right at the source. Many folks over-use it to "fix" bad recording techniques. HOWEVER, in music recording, when you have multiple instruments playing together, using EQ to MIX becomes very important. The best mixes make room for every element to be heard, and without some EQ, certain instruments tend to mask each other by competing for the same frequencies. One common example is bass guitar and kick drum. They share many of the same frequencies and the best way to let them both be heard more clearly, you have to de-conflict key frequencies, reducing bass in one frequency area (letting the kick through), and reducing the kick in a different area (letting the bass through).

Hopefully that made sense. Basically, the more elements you have in a mix, the more likely you are to need EQ on individual tracks. But if you're just doing, say, a voice over track, you shouldn't need any EQ at all if you have a good recording space and decent signal chain.

Cheers!

Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top