EQ'ing :(

[Atom Bomb]

Spending more time with finding the right setup AT the source,

+1 Couldn't agree more.

I was in a band with some guys once that didn't beleive this. They said a 'fuck it can only afford so much recording time' we'll take care of the crap in the mixing phase. I didn't share those sentiments....


Our Mixing time was 4 times the cost of our actual studio/recording time...

thats when i figured homerecording was where it was at lol.

 

[nialldoran]

A point tho....try subtractive EQ first before ya boost.

this definatly,

even if the perfect recording is captured ( even though its ridiculasly hard to acheive,) i usually aim for as close as i can get with tracking then use EQ to make it what it should be, this may be only cutting down low mud and exteme highs etc but it gives more headroom, you just have to learn when too much is too much, id never boost a freq over 4db either unless its for effect like an automated sweep etc, but on a normal day over 3.5 - 4 dB just sounds too unnatural to these ears

 

[nate_dennis]

Lol. Saying you disagree then saying you are not going to argue ( regardless of magnitude ) then going on to make your argument is...well... that's not on.

Good point. Agree to disagree?

question: why do you try to not use EQ? I don't see how it can hurt. (not arguing, just asking)

Because . . . .

the best way is to get THE SOUND at tracking.
Spending more time with finding the right setup AT the source, the right mic for the source, mic placement etc...

exactly what I was going to say, but you beat me to it.

and +1000 to

try subtractive EQ first before ya boost.

Pretty much any time you boost a certain frequency you're going to gain artifacts. (From what I can understand.) But when you cut a frequency you don't add artifacts. If you are looking for a perceicved boost in high frequencies, cut your lows, etc.

 

[mshilarious]

Pretty much any time you boost a certain frequency you're going to gain artifacts. (From what I can understand.) But when you cut a frequency you don't add artifacts. If you are looking for a perceicved boost in high frequencies, cut your lows, etc.

Not true, although you have to worry slightly less about headroom when cutting. But the electrical or mathematical processes involving in either cutting or boosting are analogous.

 

[nate_dennis]

Good information to have. I was mistaken. I don't like spreading misinformation so thanks for the polite correction.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Not true, although you have to worry slightly less about headroom when cutting. But the electrical or mathematical processes involving in either cutting or boosting are analogous.

That's what I was going to say but in fewer words than I would have used.

Boosting causes phase shift of one sort, cutting causes the opposite. The net effect of using cuts or boosts is the same if the frequency response at the output is the same.

 

[dintymoore]

Not true, although you have to worry slightly less about headroom when cutting. But the electrical or mathematical processes involving in either cutting or boosting are analogous.

In a perfect world it would be the same. With all the gear I've ever used it hasn't be so.

 

[mshilarious]

Boosting causes phase shift of one sort, cutting causes the opposite. The net effect of using cuts or boosts is the same if the frequency response at the output is the same.

*in a minimum-phase system*, which nearly all analog EQs are (unless some wiseguy sticks an allpass filter in there). Some dig EQs are linear phase, so in that case it's trickier to reverse boosts/cuts to null, especially if one is min-phase and the other is linear . . .

Of course with analog EQs you'd need fully parametric to exactly null boosts and cuts (and you'd still have a less-than-perfect null due to distortion and noise). The same is true of digital, but that's a much more common characteristic of digital EQs as implementation costs nothing.

 

[mshilarious]

In a perfect world it would be the same. With all the gear I've ever used it hasn't be so.

That's because in an analog system headroom is a serious issue. In a digital system it is not.

 

[dintymoore]

question: why do you try to not use EQ? I don't see how it can hurt. (not arguing, just asking)

Because eq is never "free". It always fucks up the sound to a degree. It's a trade-off. It makes the sound less pure and my guess is that the cheap eq's most people use result in all sorts of phase problems. It sounds less like real life and the best way is to use the right mic in the right place.

I've done lots of tracks with no eq and they stand out as superior sounding to my ears. Eq is always a compromise, it sounds fake and makes the sound sound "smaller" if that makes sense.

I have a Summit passive eq with tube makeup gain unit that I paid $1800 for and I've used the eq on a Neve. Both those sound good to my ears. All the ones I've used on computers just don't sound musical to me.

What I sense is that the #1 reason people on this site use eq so much is because they are using cheap mics that don't actually sound right, and the eq is used in an attempt to fix it.

 

[mshilarious]

What I sense is that the #1 reason people on this site use eq so much is because they are using cheap mics that don't actually sound right, and the eq is used in an attempt to fix it.

This is a good point. Mics that are not omnidirectional or figure-8 will have a complex phase response as a function of angle of incidence (note that for multipattern mics, the polar response is always most consistent with frequency at those extremes). Once you have a summation of various phase responses at various angles of incidence, this cannot be corrected with EQ.

Better mics attempt a better phase response, which translates to a flatter frequency response.

 

[sk8a123]

Here is what I think you need to do.

Change the way you think. Instead of saying "I need to EQ this track." You need to be thinking "What is it that I hear that needs to be changed?" Then, when you identify a problem, think systematically about what to change it. "My rhythm guitar sounds muddy." Ok, then think about what frequencies might be muddying it up. Or could a simple pan fix it? Is it muddy from the tracking technique? Retrack it. Remember, a lot of EQ problems can be solved with effective mic techniqu. (I said a lot, not all, I'm not saying don't EQ.)

And I have to respectfully disagree with using presets. You won't really learn what is going on if you use them. Just my thoughts.

Ok, heres an example.This frequency ive circled tends to make this really annoying sound, and ive realized i only hear that annoying sound with this frequency thing.. BUT when i try to lower only that particular one. the ENTIRE tone changes...

 

[Terra]

Cuz the best way is to get THE SOUND at tracking.
Spending more time with finding the right setup AT the source, the right mic for the source, mic placement etc...

But...I use EQ on every one of my tunes. Not a lot on anything but small increments on several tracks of each song. Just whatever it needs it gets.

A point tho....try subtractive EQ first before ya boost.

point very well taken, thanks brother.

 

[mshilarious]

Ok, heres an example.This frequency ive circled tends to make this really annoying sound, and ive realized i only hear that annoying sound with this frequency thing.. BUT when i try to lower only that particular one. the ENTIRE tone changes...

What exactly is that source? 'Cause what you circled kinda looks like the fundamental . . .

 

[PhilGood]

question: why do you try to not use EQ? I don't see how it can hurt. (not arguing, just asking)

Because EQ is meant for correcting problems, not "enhancing" the signal. If you're trying to enhance it will seldom work. Usually what happens is that it will sound great on your system, then you take it somewhere else and play it, then all of a sudden it doesn't sound right. That's because you've "EQ'd" it to your system, which may not be accurate.

Try to get the source right. Good sounding instrument, right mic, right placement, then don't EQ and it should pretty much sound good anywhere.

 

[dintymoore]

Because EQ is meant for correcting problems, not "enhancing" the signal. If you're trying to enhance it will seldom work...

As much as I do think that eq is generally the work of Satan... I doubt any of us has ever heard a single recorded song that didn't use eq to enhance the sound.

The reason I use NS-10m's is because they are a standard monitor speaker and eq I do with them as monitors does translate very well to other systems. That's the purpose of well known standard monitors.

 

[sk8a123]

Because EQ is meant for correcting problems, not "enhancing" the signal. If you're trying to enhance it will seldom work. Usually what happens is that it will sound great on your system, then you take it somewhere else and play it, then all of a sudden it doesn't sound right. That's because you've "EQ'd" it to your system, which may not be accurate.

Try to get the source right. Good sounding instrument, right mic, right placement, then don't EQ and it should pretty much sound good anywhere.

So your basicaly telling me, If everything is set up correctly,theres no need for eq?

 

[dintymoore]

So your basicaly telling me, If everything is set up correctly,theres no need for eq?

Even if he does say that every respected engineer in the world would disagree.

That is way out in left field thinking. No one does that. Not one song you've ever heard even in the best studios with $5M worth of gear doesn't use eq.

I aim to use none, but still I need to use it. Everyone, well nearly everyone, uses eq... not to fix things, (though sometimes) but to make things sound better.

 

[sk8a123]

Even if he does say that every respected engineer in the world would disagree.

That is way out in left field thinking. No one does that. Not one song you've ever heard even in the best studios with $5M worth of gear doesn't use eq.

I aim to use none, but still I need to use it. Everyone, well nearly everyone, uses eq... not to fix things, (though sometimes) but to make things sound better.

well yeah, thats my intention.... fixing things, to make it sound better

 

[dintymoore]

well yeah, thats my intention.... fixing things, to make it sound better

Accepted good practice is to try and capture the sound the way you want it in the first place by mic placement, playing or singing a certain way, etc. And then if you need to, use eq. Eq is a trade off and I always have several tracks that use no eq. When you use no eq and get away with it the sound is very natural. I kinda hate eq and tend to use it regretfully!

But if it makes the sound better... that's why it's there.