Which Would You Choose?

Which Would You Choose if You Could only Have One?

  • Compresion

    Votes: 24 24.0%

  • Delay

    Votes: 3 3.0%

  • Reverb

    Votes: 13 13.0%

  • EQ

    Votes: 60 60.0%
  • Total voters
    100
I would keep compression. Like others have mentioned, a lot of what you do with EQ could be accomplished with mic selection and placement. Although, I don't agree with some people's aversion to using EQ. Not everything can be accomplished with mic selection and placement. It would be a trade-off. For instance, I have yet to find a mic that can get me the perfect kick drum sound. I need EQ for that.

I could give up delay and reverb as well. You can accomplish a lot of that playing with different acoustic spaces and mic'ing techniques. Compression can also be handy for pulling the ambiance out of a room.

Compression is the one thing that's hard to accomplish without a compressor. Although, a tape machine can sometimes accomplish what a compressor would do. It's not really the same though. I'll keep my compressors, you can take the rest.
 
Seafroggys said:
EQ. I could live without compression. I don't use it very often.
Click to expand...

I keep finding myself getting suck into using Compression, but I think it's mostly a gadget thing right now. Ya know, "Ooh this is a cool plugin"...play with it, get bored. In the end, if Compressors didn't exist, we could all just work on our dynamics right? ;)
 
BenignVanilla said:
if Compressors didn't exist, we could all just work on our dynamics right? ;)
Click to expand...
if you want to hear how things sounded without the commonplace use of compressors, listen to most of the recordings from the 1950s and even some from the early 60s. It can be quite impressive (if you get past other things like analog tape hiss, mastering for vinyl, monophony, etc. that have nothing to do with compression) what can be done without compression. But then again, they didn't have music genres back then who's "sound" upon studio compression and other studio technotricks.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol. smartass
 
In a home studio environment, EQ has to be essential. No matter the sound/acoustic measures taken, a bedroom or a space shared with your studio will need to be compensated for eventually. And EQ is also the most useful "effect" as well; it can be used creatively, not just to help a deficient signal.

Reverb can be accomplished in many ways and really necessary needs for delay isn't common. Compression is overused a lot and even though it's a close second, I could live without it.
 
Natural reverb I could always get from the recording environment. . .
EQ would be nice to have - regardless of the situation.
Compression is overused.
 
If you got just Ozone you wouldn't have to choose

Running for cover now
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes I know it sucks and don't use it
 
With Delay...you get reverb...you get the best bang out of that...but Id pick compression...its the one thing I couldnt control with a room or mic placement...I have an exellent parametric EQ...and I dont use it much because I never really have to fix things with it...If I wanted reverb I could allways put my monitor in the garage and run a mic across the room if I had to.
 
I picked EQ.

Compression, when it's used to control dynamic level, can (laboriously) be achieved by automating levels if you're good at it. Using it as an effect, or to alter the envelope of a signal, isn't really necessary, although it is nice to have.

Reverb can be achieved by mic placement/room sound, and isn't really necessary either.

Delay can be achieved by copying and pasting (provided you're using digital) the region to a separate track, aligning it to be in time, and changing the level, pan position, and EQ to taste.

EQ, however, is a must for me. It's not as achievable by other methods.
 
If your talking mixing I would choose EQ

In regards to recording I usually dont use anything and add it later on when mixing.
 
For recording all I need is a compressor.

I record everything into a DAW. My guitars, and bass are DI'ed with VST amps using IR's for Cab's. My drums are Superior Drummer 2.0 with Metal Foundry SDX. Vocals I use a Dynamic mic because growling screaming vocals just don't work using a condenser mic. I can't move far enough away for how loud I can get without effecting the performance (plus i have no room treatment in my garage HELLO REFLECTIONS!). Reapers EQ's are plenty good, and there are plenty of great free delay or reverb VST's out there. As well as the ones that come with Reaper.
 
If you had perfect mic/playing technique, your wouldn't necessarily need compression either. I say get the perfect room, perfect musicians with perfect instruments, perfect mic/picking/drum techniques, perfect mics set in the perfect positions, get perfect gear set at perfect gains, drink the perfect amount of beer, record on the perfect day, and record the perfect song, which should be called 'Perfection'. To hell with all the eq and fx...
 
I can't answer this question because I don't use any of them as recording tools and you didn't mention flanger or phaser. So does this mean I still get to use them all for mixing? :rolleyes:

Edit: Oh, alright then... Assuming you mean which is the most important FX I couldn't live without, then it would have to be the delay. Because it's the most weird & fun of the lot.

Dr. V
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top