Do you EQ signal on input on your DAW?

[cygnus49]

Hi Folks - interested in learning more on EQ in general. I typically record flat - usually just 2 acoustic guitars then record voices followed by backing vocals then maybe an electric lead line. After mixdown I clean up with Audacity and impose EQ on the final mix - peak at known freq to bring out vocals, reduce guitar rumble and other things by rolling off from 100 Hz down, etc.

We often go through a TC Helicon Harmony G for both guitar and vocals that we use live since there is little noise introduced and the subtle effects are useful.

Any suggestions to improve things? I don't have great mics - typically Shure 58 or EV cardioids we use live and an AT 3035 condenser for single vocals when there is no leakage issues.

Sounds OK but if I can get more space and air in the mix that would be great.

 

[Ethan Winer]

It makes no sense to use EQ (or compression) when recording with DAW software. In the old days of analog tape, if you knew treble boost would be needed it made sense to do that when recording to avoid adding tape hiss later. Same for compression, which also raises the noise floor. But today that's not an issue. It makes much more sense to record flat, then you can experiment when mixing, and change your mind any number of times.

--Ethan

 

[mixsit]

Hi Folks - interested in learning more on EQ in general. I typically record flat - usually just 2 acoustic guitars then record voices followed by backing vocals then maybe an electric lead line. After mixdown I clean up with Audacity and impose EQ on the final mix - peak at known freq to bring out vocals, reduce guitar rumble and other things by rolling off from 100 Hz down, etc..

To the global question (tacking with -insert whichever add-on device or effect here-) I believe that it comes down to;
-If your best guess, by way of balancing your experience vs the safety of the situation, says yes then, Yes.
In other words, for learning (and for jumping in with both feet toward the 'not having to make it all happen in the mix' end of the pool) and if and when it won't hurt if you mess up –this is a 'go condition.

Case example. Let's say I'm tracking a band, the drums and some rhythm tracks through a Precision8, no eq/comp whatever built in, and a few tracks going to 7602's which have eq. That's fine with me. My hands are full geting the basic (more important!) things right
My 'safe zone' says ok to do some known low filtering, maybe even some tone' eq on a few of those tracks and if the band will allow the time for it (this on a song-by-song decision), and perhaps some conservative compression.
Otherwise,
Come overdubs, (given things have simplified' a bit!) your best compressor, eq, yes things come back easier, quicker in mix.

..Sounds OK but if I can get more space and air in the mix that would be great.

This part strikes me as 'mix territory but you never know.

 

[mixsit]

.. Same for compression, which also raises the noise floor. But today that's not an issue. It makes much more sense to record flat, then you can experiment when mixing, and change your mind any number of times.

--Ethan

Thinking about this.. Tape' then the comp was to help with the (tape) noise floor right? Now 'not tape, the noise is what it is, whether you're compressing pre-tracking' or post..

 

[haymedic]

in my humble opinion... best sound going will be the best sound coming out.

s

 

[Ethan Winer]

Tape' then the comp was to help with the (tape) noise floor right? Now 'not tape, the noise is what it is, whether you're compressing pre-tracking' or post..

Well, digital audio has noise too, but it's so far down that ambient room noise almost always dominates.

--Ethan

 

[mixsit]

Well, digital audio has noise too, but it's so far down that ambient room noise almost always dominates.

--Ethan

Yeah, wasn't even thinking digi noise' rather the analog front end, room', 'bleed etc.

 

[mixsit]

in my humble opinion... best sound going will be the best sound coming out.

s

Haw, yes. Quick, to the cut. The sans 'Your miles may vary'/'Many come but few are chosen'/'Side effects may include' version.

 

[cygnus49]

How about EQ based on spectral space?

I was thinking more of cutting surrounding frequencies for a given track being recorded knowing that you would be preserving or creating space where instruments/voices might 'collide' sonically in the mix as opposed to recording everything flat then trying to create that difference in the mixdown or post-mix.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I was thinking more of cutting surrounding frequencies for a given track being recorded knowing that you would be preserving or creating space where instruments/voices might 'collide' sonically in the mix as opposed to recording everything flat then trying to create that difference in the mixdown or post-mix.

As far as the general question of tracking EQ vs. post EQ, if you absolutely know both what you want and what you're doing because you've done the exact same thing a few dozen times before, then I see no reason to waste studio time by giving yourself extra work to do in post, just get it done in real time in tracking and move on.

If you're like almost all of us on this BBS, though, and your name is not Alan Parsons, T-Bone Burnett or Bruce Sweiden, and you are not rock-sure of your desire and your result - or even if that is you're name and you want to save some creative decision for post - then track it clean and wait until mixing to figure out just what processing you want/need where.

As far as carving out frequency domains for each track, I'd save most if not all of that for mixing so you can wait and see exactly what sticks to tape *and* which parts of which tracks you actually decide to finally use.

For example, it's not unusual to record (just for example) a couple of gits and a keyboard, and by the time you get to mixing, it's decided that you only want to use git two after the second verse, or that you want change the keyboard sound from a Farfisa to a Clavinet, or maybe leave one of the three tracks out altogether. In such cases, whatever plan you may have had in tracking for getting the instruments to "fit" will have been quite invalidated.

And finally, in many good mixes, such "carving" can sometimes be dynamic. For example, if the keyboard only comes in during the choruses and is big there, and during the verses or bridge the guitar plays a dominant lead roll, one might only carve the guitar during the choruses and not throughout the entire track.

G.

 

[mixsit]

I was thinking more of cutting surrounding frequencies for a given track being recorded knowing that you would be preserving or creating space where instruments/voices might 'collide' sonically in the mix as opposed to recording everything flat then trying to create that difference in the mixdown or post-mix.

The main thing I see is not whether adjustments like that come before or after. Rather the question might be how much do you do in 'best guess mode' then with the chance working out of context of the mix, you'll miss slightly and have to do it again anyway in the mix (or worse finding you are now undoing part of it.

There is one other reason to do it' on the way in- besides just 'work flow, when the hardware does something better or simply unique.
Either way, no one dies.

 

[mixsit]

As far as the general question of tracking EQ vs. post EQ, if you absolutely know both what you want and what you're doing because you've done the exact same thing a few dozen times before, then I see no reason to waste studio time by giving yourself extra work to do in post, just get it done in real time in tracking and move on.

If you're like almost all of us on this BBS, though, and your name is not Alan Parsons, T-Bone Burnett or Bruce Sweiden, and you are not rock-sure of your desire and your result - or even if that is you're name and you want to save some creative decision for post - then track it clean and wait until mixing to figure out just what processing you want/need where.

As far as carving out frequency domains for each track, I'd save most if not all of that for mixing so you can wait and see exactly what sticks to tape *and* which parts of which tracks you actually decide to finally use.

For example, it's not unusual to record (just for example) a couple of gits and a keyboard, and by the time you get to mixing, it's decided that you only want to use git two after the second verse, or that you want change the keyboard sound from a Farfisa to a Clavinet, or maybe leave one of the three tracks out altogether. In such cases, whatever plan you may have had in tracking for getting the instruments to "fit" will have been quite invalidated.

And finally, in many good mixes, such "carving" can sometimes be dynamic. For example, if the keyboard only comes in during the choruses and is big there, and during the verses or bridge the guitar plays a dominant lead roll, one might only carve the guitar during the choruses and not throughout the entire track.

G.

I like Glen's better than mine..

 

[cygnus49]

Thanks Glen - probably about as clear a reply as I could hope for. I already believe EQ is a lifetime learning process