crappy mixer EQ vs. digital EQ

  • Thread starter Thread starter BRIEFCASEMANX
  • Start date Start date
BRIEFCASEMANX

BRIEFCASEMANX

Winner chicken dinner!
My friends are trying to convince me I need a 2-300 dollar analog mixer so I can use the EQ on it instead of EQ'ing digitally. I currently have a presonus firepod with 8 simultaneous channels of recording with preamps, and I mix on my computer. I understand that a good analog EQ will destroy a digital one, but what about the EQ in cheap mixers? Are they still in general better than something digital but expensive like a Waves plug-in? What is a good digital EQ?
 
I think you should stay digital...... cheap EQ degradation aside, you'll lose quality by simply going thru another D/A conversion to get the audio to the cheap mixer, then get artifacts from the cheap mixer EQ, then another A/D conversion to get back to the DAW.

I don't see an advantage there.........
 
sounds like your friends are just caught up in the "analog is better than digital" thing. in a $2-300 mixer the eq isn't goingto be better than a good software eq, for instance, if you had a uad-1 card the pultec pro on it would kill most eq's out there...
 
Not only that, but if you use an analog EQ instead of your DAW FX you can't undo it.
 
$2-300 is definitely enough to get a mixer with good EQs, if you buy them second hand. A nice Tascam for example. Will it help your mix? Possibly, but you'll also have a lot of extra work. Remember, that analog mixer will have no, or very little automation (My Tascam has mute automation). Every time you are stopping to work on a song, you will have to write up your settings for every channel. And you have to ride the faderswhile mixing. Now, I *like* riding the faders. ;) But it is a lot of work.

And also, you will have to have a soundcard with many separate outs...


I use an analog mixer, and will continue to do so even though I'm now trying out different DAWs. This is for three and a half reasons:

1. I have a bunch of synths that I like to to sync with the DAW. I could record them, but I don't want to, for a bunch of other reasons, like diskspace, processing power, and the fact that I want to be able to easily rearrange and change things, including tempo, for as long as possible. This means I need a mixer.
2. I already have one.
3. Analog mixing helps "weld" the sound together, by imposing a sound of it's own. Digital filters are clean and transparent, analog are often not. This is of course even more noticeable with analog tape, which I think is the real reason many pros like to track to tape.

In your case, I think it's a waste of money. Why? Because you seem to think it is. ;) My main rule when it comes to buying equipment is: If you aren't sure you need it, you don't. Use what you have until you can't make it sound any better. Then figure out what is stopping you, and fix that. For example, when I bought my monitors, I realized that what was stopping my recordings from getting better was my crap mixer and my crab reverbs. So I got a better mixer and better reverbs, and now things are much better. Now I need to get better at mixing and recording again, until I get so good that something else stops me from getting better.
 
A good digital eq that I've used is the PSP MasterQ. A couple other nice eq plugins are the Elemental Audio Eqium, and the Sonalksis SV-317. I think any of these will be better than the eq on a cheap $200-300 mixer.

On a mixer like that you will get 2-3 bands of eq, probably not sweepable and almost certainly not fully parametric. It will be of use, but of limited use.

That said, I own many channels of analog eq, but they are outbouard units not eq's on cheap mixers.
 
I think a lot of people who say that a cheap mixer has better EQ than a good digital EQ actually mean that the analog is EASIER for them to make sound good. Less watching goofy graphs and more using your ears.
I don't mind using the UAD Cambridge and the TC EqSat for most individual tracks, and the PultecPro for when it really matters. But dang it takes a lot of UAD processing power!
 
I think it could be an improvement. the eqs on the mixer will be set to tried and true frequencies, whereas the options on your digital eq's are limitless. Also, mixing digitally, I personally tend to overdo everything. I have found that when I make a change, often it will sound better if I re-adjust to half of that change.

I have long suspected that mixing analog would sound better. My advice would be to borrow or rent one and try it out. Tell me if it sounds better; I am tempted to do this as well.
 
Bear's right! The conversion would offset any benefits in analogland, unless you do it on the way in but then you can't change it later. If you gotta get one, save up for a speck, they really sound nice.
 
Also, mixing digitally, I personally tend to overdo everything. I have found that when I make a change, often it will sound better if I re-adjust to half of that change.
Click to expand...

I hear you. I use minimal EQ, but when I do use it I often re-do the changes after experiencing the "morning after" effect, reducing by half almost as a rule. The only software EQ I've liked is the Waves Linear EQ, and with that, just the lowband section and sometimes a high shelf. The bell curves of its broadband section always seem to suck the life out of the music.

Tim
 
"I often re-do the changes after experiencing the "morning after" effect, reducing by half almost as a rule"

same here,

i try to record everything as clean as possible, with not too many EQ changes, and believe me, it took me years to be able to do this,
first of all its TOO MUCH fun to turn buttons,
second, i never had mics or equipment that sounded nice enough,
now i can get away with Flat EQ's during recording...

and then everything goes to my DAW, and from then on i only use software EQ's... and i always overdo it ... doesn't really matter i think, i can always undo it, and when i make the final mix i ALWAYS cut back a bit on my settings...

but ehm...i've been wondering,

did anyone ever notice a difference in sound(quality) between the EQ's
of lets say
cubase
nuendo
logic
protools
wavelab

i'm talking about the standard built in eq's on the mixer...

i never had the chance to compare it, so i don't know...

cheers,
earworm
 
i try to record everything as clean as possible, with not too many EQ changes, and believe me, it took me years to be able to do this,
first of all its TOO MUCH fun to turn buttons,
second, i never had mics or equipment that sounded nice enough,
now i can get away with Flat EQ's during recording...
Click to expand...

Earworm, I agree. And it's especially true about using good gear. A Schoeps mic pair tends to sound good anywhere in the room, just different in different spots. If I put up MXL 603s' they can sound OK but it'll take half an hour to find their only sweet spot in the room.

I don't use EQ when tracking - there's always a mic position I can find that doesn't need it and I'm always happier in repeated listenings of the take that way. But I only record nylon string guitar. If I was a doing rock maybe I'd think differently.

Just my 2c.
Tim
 
Going through an extra A/D-D/A stage isn't as much of a problem as the modern myth says. I made a blindtest where most (90%ish) people (studio owners and musicians) couldn't hear any difference even at 10 generations (by one generation I mean 1 A/D and 1 D/A which means each generation has actually been converted 2 times) of conversion compared to the original sound. Those who could nail it the best could hear a difference after about 5 generations of conversion, and at the very best, after 3.

For an example, if I record to a HD24 with a analog console and mix to digital medium with outboard digital FX is would look like this:

Each instrument/voice has passed A/D into HD24, D/A out of it, and A/D again to DAT/Masterlink/Computer. That's 1.5 generations if I count the same as in my test above. Any FX such as reverb etc will be 1 generation more since it has passed a FX unit, but since this is a send/return thing, it isn't as critical as the original sound source.

So, at maximum we get about 1.5-2.5 generations, which NOBODY in the test (no, not stupid people, producers and musicians) was able to hear any difference in compared to the original signal.

So, don't worry about it.
 
Stefan Elmblad said:
Going through an extra A/D-D/A stage isn't as much of a problem as the modern myth says.

snip

So, at maximum we get about 1.5-2.5 generations, which NOBODY in the test (no, not stupid people, producers and musicians) was able to hear any difference in compared to the original signal.

So, don't worry about it.
Click to expand...

It all depends on the quality of the converters and clocking though. I can hear a difference between good conversion and poor conversion after just one DA conversion. It's all about the converters. If you listen to a great converter compared directly to a poor converter, you can definitely hear the loss of detail and other artifacts associated with the lower quality conversion.

Assuming high quality conversion and clocking, then I agree with your post in general. For me, the advantages of using outboard hardware like compressors, eq, and fx boxes outweighs any conversion issues. Again, assuming good converters are used.
 
I agree in part with both Stefan and Albert. i would rather work with 10 generations of Apogee than 1 generation of Maudio:D
 
SonicAlbert said:
For me, the advantages of using outboard hardware like compressors, eq, and fx boxes outweighs any conversion issues. Again, assuming good converters are used.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.
 
I agree that analog units have a distinctive character that digital still fails to capture completely. But in cases where transparency is important, it's hard to beat a linear phase EQ.
 
There are transparent analog eq's, but you have to pay a fortune for them. I had my Urei 546 modded and it is extremely transparent now. But other than modding existing gear, the really great analog eq's are truly expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top