Valley Arts Kid
New member
If you could only have one of these recording tools, which would you choose?
Which Would You Choose?
- Thread starter Valley Arts Kid
- Start date
Seafroggys
Well-known member
EQ. I could live without compression. I don't use it very often.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I wasn't sure whether to answer this question with "Angelina Jolie", or with "Why, when do you plan on taking three of them away?"
Then I thought since I've spent this much time on this goofball question already, my answer is, the only one I use on every project I work on and probably use at least four times as much as I use the other three combined, would be EQ.
Then I re-read the question and saw that you were talking about their use as a recording tool, as posted in the "Recording Techniques" forum, and thought that if I take this literally, my answer would be, "It doesn't matter to me because I don't use any of them for recording."
G.
Then I thought since I've spent this much time on this goofball question already, my answer is, the only one I use on every project I work on and probably use at least four times as much as I use the other three combined, would be EQ.
Then I re-read the question and saw that you were talking about their use as a recording tool, as posted in the "Recording Techniques" forum, and thought that if I take this literally, my answer would be, "It doesn't matter to me because I don't use any of them for recording."
G.
bennychico11
...
i probably use EQ more than anything.
although lately I've been using reverb a lot more.
ideally i would love to say "none of the above."
One of my favorite examples of no EQ/Compression on a mix: http://bruceamiller.us/b_main/03_mixes.html
although lately I've been using reverb a lot more.
ideally i would love to say "none of the above."
One of my favorite examples of no EQ/Compression on a mix: http://bruceamiller.us/b_main/03_mixes.html
Seafroggys
Well-known member
EQ -> use it to layer tracks. I use it on almost every track. To high-pass or to make notches, or occasional hills.
Compression -> I only compress snare, bass drum, bass guitar, vocals, and....that's it. The only thing that may absolutly require it are vocals, since you have to have a damn good studio singer in order to get the levels even. And everything aside from vocals and bass are 2:1, and vocals and bass are always less than 5:1.
Delay -> I only use this for vocals as a doubling effect
Reverb -> Rarely and always very light. I use this on synthetic instruments and a teeeny bit on vocals and snare.
So there's my reason for EQ being the most important.
Compression -> I only compress snare, bass drum, bass guitar, vocals, and....that's it. The only thing that may absolutly require it are vocals, since you have to have a damn good studio singer in order to get the levels even. And everything aside from vocals and bass are 2:1, and vocals and bass are always less than 5:1.
Delay -> I only use this for vocals as a doubling effect
Reverb -> Rarely and always very light. I use this on synthetic instruments and a teeeny bit on vocals and snare.
So there's my reason for EQ being the most important.
Erockrazor
I mix in (2x) real-time
I choose autotune
I don't think it would be too pleasant...of course it's not really pleasant with autotune (my opinion). Autotune is everywhere...it get's on my nerves.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Maybe, just maybe, the labels would stop signing dancers and start signing musicians again.
G. (The eternal optimist
)omtayslick
New member
Maybe, just maybe, the labels would stop signing dancers and start signing musicians again.
G. (The eternal optimist
SO true, and so funny!!!
Simman
Well-known member
I with you on this. In fact I'd go out on a limb and say I'd never even pick EQ. If you need to EQ something, you haven't tracked the source correctly. Any thing you can do with EQ can be addressed with source itself and/or mic selection/placement. Now I will say I'm still working on not having to reach for the EQ but in theory, in should not be necessary
Last edited:
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Hmm. Ignoring the fact that, thank god, this is a total false dichotomy and that we'll never have to choose just one...
After thinking about it for a bit, I went with compression. Initially I was going to click Delay - I write instrumental rock and am a total delay junkie - but I paused and thought for a bit, but not only would it be good for me to break my delay addiction, and not only could I just use a delay in my FX loop and go to disc wet if push came to shove, I could also experiment with re-recording dry signals in ambient environments for ambience if I needed to, or doing more with distance mics. I mean, it worked for Jimmy Page... This takes care of delay and reverb.
EQ seemed like a no brainer too, but then it occured to me that most of the time, when I'm happy with a mix, it's because it hasn't NEEDED much EQ. A little bit here or there for polish, but typically when I listen to a playback and something sounds not right, I'll fart around with EQ for a while, but eventually just re-record the part with a different tone and a different mic position, and be much happier. And, I believe the philosophy on the last Tool album was this - the engineer alledgedly didn't EQ a single thing while mixing, but rather just dialed in sounds with mic selection and mic placement. That's the rumor I heard, anyway, so it may or may not be true, but theoretically at least I could see how you could get most of your sounds right just with careful mic positioning and selection.
That leaves compression, which ironically was the first thing I decided I could do without on a first glance. I can't think of any other way to control the dynamics of a part while mixing, though. Sometimes I'll use it to help with a performance - for example, I'm a shitty bassist, and some compression generally helps smooth out my takes a little bit, but to be perfectly honest some super-creative work with volume envelops could probably do that too. So, the only thing this leaves would be adding "punch" to a performance, a la the old LA studio drum trick, or thickening up an acoustic guitar a bit or something... It's not like you couldn't mix without it, but it's the one thing that I wouldn't know how to do without a compressor.
Hmm.
You know, it might be interesting to try to do an entire mix without an ounce of signal processing - tweak all your sounds only with mic positioning, re-record stuff in echoey environments and mix in behind the original to add ambience, etc. I sadly don't really have the time (nor really the best environment) for this kind of stuff, but I bet it'd be a blast, as well as a heck of a learning experience.
After thinking about it for a bit, I went with compression. Initially I was going to click Delay - I write instrumental rock and am a total delay junkie - but I paused and thought for a bit, but not only would it be good for me to break my delay addiction, and not only could I just use a delay in my FX loop and go to disc wet if push came to shove, I could also experiment with re-recording dry signals in ambient environments for ambience if I needed to, or doing more with distance mics. I mean, it worked for Jimmy Page... This takes care of delay and reverb.
EQ seemed like a no brainer too, but then it occured to me that most of the time, when I'm happy with a mix, it's because it hasn't NEEDED much EQ. A little bit here or there for polish, but typically when I listen to a playback and something sounds not right, I'll fart around with EQ for a while, but eventually just re-record the part with a different tone and a different mic position, and be much happier. And, I believe the philosophy on the last Tool album was this - the engineer alledgedly didn't EQ a single thing while mixing, but rather just dialed in sounds with mic selection and mic placement. That's the rumor I heard, anyway, so it may or may not be true, but theoretically at least I could see how you could get most of your sounds right just with careful mic positioning and selection.
That leaves compression, which ironically was the first thing I decided I could do without on a first glance. I can't think of any other way to control the dynamics of a part while mixing, though. Sometimes I'll use it to help with a performance - for example, I'm a shitty bassist, and some compression generally helps smooth out my takes a little bit, but to be perfectly honest some super-creative work with volume envelops could probably do that too. So, the only thing this leaves would be adding "punch" to a performance, a la the old LA studio drum trick, or thickening up an acoustic guitar a bit or something... It's not like you couldn't mix without it, but it's the one thing that I wouldn't know how to do without a compressor.
Hmm.
You know, it might be interesting to try to do an entire mix without an ounce of signal processing - tweak all your sounds only with mic positioning, re-record stuff in echoey environments and mix in behind the original to add ambience, etc. I sadly don't really have the time (nor really the best environment) for this kind of stuff, but I bet it'd be a blast, as well as a heck of a learning experience.
I selected compression. I figure I can work without EQ by careful placement of mics (I think use of EQ is more of a fix when nothing else can be done). While I use reverb a lot - if I had to I could be more selective in positioning of instruments, etc - to best utilize romm refelctions, etc. - But, compression - that is the subtle process that improves tracking and can really help in a mix.
Rokket
Trailing Behind Again
I wonder how they did all those one-take, whole band at once recordings in the early 50's? No effects racks, no auto-tune, mono... and they sounded GREAT (I have some of Elvis Presley's old recordings on 45. Man...)!!!Hmm. Ignoring the fact that, thank god, this is a total false dichotomy and that we'll never have to choose just one...
After thinking about it for a bit, I went with compression. Initially I was going to click Delay - I write instrumental rock and am a total delay junkie - but I paused and thought for a bit, but not only would it be good for me to break my delay addiction, and not only could I just use a delay in my FX loop and go to disc wet if push came to shove, I could also experiment with re-recording dry signals in ambient environments for ambience if I needed to, or doing more with distance mics. I mean, it worked for Jimmy Page... This takes care of delay and reverb.
EQ seemed like a no brainer too, but then it occured to me that most of the time, when I'm happy with a mix, it's because it hasn't NEEDED much EQ. A little bit here or there for polish, but typically when I listen to a playback and something sounds not right, I'll fart around with EQ for a while, but eventually just re-record the part with a different tone and a different mic position, and be much happier. And, I believe the philosophy on the last Tool album was this - the engineer alledgedly didn't EQ a single thing while mixing, but rather just dialed in sounds with mic selection and mic placement. That's the rumor I heard, anyway, so it may or may not be true, but theoretically at least I could see how you could get most of your sounds right just with careful mic positioning and selection.
That leaves compression, which ironically was the first thing I decided I could do without on a first glance. I can't think of any other way to control the dynamics of a part while mixing, though. Sometimes I'll use it to help with a performance - for example, I'm a shitty bassist, and some compression generally helps smooth out my takes a little bit, but to be perfectly honest some super-creative work with volume envelops could probably do that too. So, the only thing this leaves would be adding "punch" to a performance, a la the old LA studio drum trick, or thickening up an acoustic guitar a bit or something... It's not like you couldn't mix without it, but it's the one thing that I wouldn't know how to do without a compressor.
Hmm.
You know, it might be interesting to try to do an entire mix without an ounce of signal processing - tweak all your sounds only with mic positioning, re-record stuff in echoey environments and mix in behind the original to add ambience, etc. I sadly don't really have the time (nor really the best environment) for this kind of stuff, but I bet it'd be a blast, as well as a heck of a learning experience.
Muyukiguki
Kung Fu Master
For me, and I may get tarred and feathered for this, but I'm gonna say compression. I really don't use eq or compression that much, I'm more of a purist as far as tracking and mixing goes. I try not to ever track anything I know I'm going to need to EQ a whole bunch later on. But there would be no way I could get a bass guitar, kick drum, or vocal sound that I would be happy with without a bit of compression. Not to mention mastering....
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Those were different times, my friend. Back then only musicians that were actually musicians made it to the studio, audio engineers were actually audio engineers and not just recordists, and hitting the record button was a respected event taken seriously and not considered an autonomic birthright exercised as naturally and as often as breathing.
Hell, many control rooms even had dress codes that included shirts and ties and (if you go back early enough) lab coats.
G.
NL5
Unpossible!
Great example - I guess that pretty well proves you can't do a modern mix without EQ and compression. I like the "slight of hand" approach. Pretty hilarious, and I bet most people won't even notice.........
edit - just wanted to ad, that it does show one thing I've been saying for years. Especially during the mix contests. About 1/3 of the contestants made the mix worse with overuse of EQ and compression, and their mixes were actually not as good as a simple "push" mix. Overuse is even worse than no use at all.