EQ.. I don't buy it

  • Thread starter Thread starter maxman65
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No i don't believe that at all. I've had 24 track capability and so far less came out of that than I'm creating now
 
I assume you’re not saying that 24 tracks held you back........or are you? (Somehow I think you’re going to say it could have)
 
Creativity is not directly proportional to the availability of equipment . If anyone thinks that 128 tracks has anything to do with focusing on the creative essence of where something is going then feel free. I wish you luck with that one
 
maxman65 said:
Creativity is not directly proportional to the availability of equipment . If anyone thinks that 128 tracks has anything to do with focusing on the creative essence of where something is going then feel free. I wish you luck with that one
Click to expand...

No one here has said that. Another example of you changing the subject to declare that since the sun rises every day.............the moon may not be real.
 
The point is simple enough. Yes i do believe that a proliferation of equipment can hold you back creatively .it can become a pursuit in itself
 
maxman65 said:
The point is simple enough. Yes i do believe that a proliferation of equipment can hold you back creatively .it can become a pursuit in itself
Click to expand...

Only if you let it. Equipment is merely tools to get your creative output out of your head and into a listenable medium.
 
Good point . But for some i think a philosophy of starting small and back to the beginning is a valuable and possibly even cathartic position
 
maxman65 said:
Good point . But for some i think a philosophy of starting small and back to the beginning is a valuable and possibly even cathartic position
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point.....it's cathartic for YOU.....for some reason........to declare that "basic" is the best way to creative nirvana.....and more than basic is not good for that. It's likely YOUR need and not a common need for OTHERS to be basic. Yet you seem to desperately need others to agree with you. Your blind denial......is a defense against having to face something real in your life situation..........something that you may not be able to do anything about.

(my wife is a Clinical Psychologist......don't hold that against me guys)

We all have some weird wiring up there somewhere.
 
maxman65 said:
I hadn't understood this issue would be quite so contentious . I don't believe my assertion is really all that radical . If people are happy to spend a lot of time adjusting with eq then fine.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't, really. I think most people have agreed with your broad view.
What's contentious is that you're continually obsessing over a knife and fork during the soup course.

It's clear you still have a warped view based on limited knowledge, and still want to add in little jabs about other people being happy to waste their time this and that.
We did arrive at a suitable compromise a few pages ago but now I'm thinking it was the right words in the right order rather than any kind of understanding.

If your base point is that it's easy for someone, who lacks knowledge, to get hung up wasting time using the wrong tools for the wrong job then yeah, we probably agree,
but that's very much your problem.
As has been said many times; The tool gets a pass here.

There are manuals, guides, tutorials, and forums, where this information can be had in a click.


We've had versions of this conversation many times before but the OP is usually less biased, so it usually goes smoother.
'Can someone tell me what you use EQ for, cos I've been doing X and getting nowhere.'
Usually the outcome is a realisation of user error and, despite your blanket assertion the the original post, addressing the arrangement and other pre-recording variables is often suggested.
 
Mickster . I'd love to know how you get think that 8 track capability is quite so minimal . Pet sounds was probably one of the more complex productions in the history of making albums. The real proliferation there was in creativity in spite of their relative "limitations" by today's standards
 
Last edited:
You can not polish a turd.... it's still a turd

Garbage in garbage out

These are golden rules to follow BEFORE you push the red button..

Fix in the mix...is not meant to fix something REALLY awful.... just finessing things that already sounded good when they went down ...

EQ is a powerful , wonderful tool in sound production but it is not a magic wand and is incapable of being one. In live situations a God send for controlling feedback...but in the recording world... awesome ....but to be used as a seasoning not as the main course...

If you are trying to capture a particular sound digitally that you hear and like in the real world, the path that sound goes through to get to the box is critical. Starting at the beginning with the signal being created...then captured with hardware (mic or pick up ) and then converted to digital. If it sounds good in the real world but sounds different, not the same ...once recorded...there is a fly in the ointment between creation and recording and that needs to be corrected starting with the hardware in between the audio you are trying to capture (be it a vocal or instrument) and the box.... The obvious places to start are at the mic's, mixers and interface.
 
Yes I accept that . Huge emphasis on the signal chain prior to any eq consideration / source instrument / mic / mic placement / gain .All of that stuff . I do wonder about the limitation of record units inbuilt preamp itself .its not pro level kit
 
maxman65 said:
Mickster . I'd love to know how you get think that 8 track capability is quite so minimal . Pet sounds was probably one of the more complex productions in the history of making albums. The real proliferation there was in creativity in spite of their relative "limitations" by today's standards
Click to expand...

I never said it was minimal. Never implied that. Did not mean that. Wasn't thinking that. Etc....etc. As for what bands recorded on 4 tracks or 8 tracks or 2 tracks or whatever......I'll repeat what I asked you before in a previous thread. (which you did not answer) Do you really think that ANY of those bands or producers or studio engineers would not have wished that they could have the tracks....technology.....resource.....etc...etc....that we have today? As if they would have said......."oh no......I don't want that....as a matter of fact....I wish I had less than I have now". Now....I'm willing to bet that you reply by saying......."well they might have......or it wouldn't have changed anything". Am I close?

Ok....I'm making a pledge......to everyone........and mostly myself.......that I will resist ANY urge to say ANYTHING else in this thread. For the sake of.......progress.
 
Actually no I don't . I can tell you why. If you manage to dig out interviews from one of the ex beatles engineers he would be able to tell you ( and he's on record as having said so ) that he was particularly fond of the 4 track format available to them In 1967 and wouldn't have had it any other way . Fact
 
In his book "All You Need is Ears" George Martin expressed envy of American studios with 16 tracks and frustration that Abbey Road was stuck with 8 tracks.
 
Having read through this whole thread now and reading some of your other posts, I've come to this conclusion;

You haven't got a clue. Your writing skills and your ability to counter what people who actually are well versed and skilled in the art of recording is astounding to me.
A skilled mastering engineer comes onto this thread , lays out the importance and use of eq and you still persist in fighting. Amazing. :)

I wonder how you got up to 24 tracks of analog without getting some basics. That doesn't happen overnight as analog was a signifigant investment in the day. How could some one get to that track level with analog gear without learning basic skills? Most started out with a four track cassette, learned skills, then step by step graduated to better gear wirh higher track counts and learning along the way. I'm not buying it. (Your story)

So in conclusion, you haven't got a clue, or you're trolling the shit out of us. :)

And with that said, I'm withdrawing my involvement in this thread, epic as is may be. :D
 
Yes he most likely did. This interview i think was geoff emerick the engineer . He was pretty emphatic
 
The reason at that time I went to 24 analogue was that I believed anything less was insufficient (which I no longer believe ).yes it's true i was out of my depth with it but its also true it was overkill anyway for potential purpose. Yes I did start out with a fostex 160 4 track
 
I don't think this is going anywhere good.

Thanks for all the contributions. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top