eq

FALKEN

FALKEN

*************************
I've been giving it some thought....there is one place the digital people have us beat...in the eq. With PC recording, you can slap on as many bands of high pass, low pass, and full paramentric as you want. That is really powerful. I wish there was a console that had on every channel a sweepable high pass up to 350 Hz, and two fully parametric mid bands. that would be sweet.
 
ive thought the same thing. when my church went from an analog to a digital board... man ill admit the new eq is really sweet.
 
I was buying gear from a pro producer in Southern Cal one day when he looks at me and says, "I've finally realized that EQ is everything".
 
Hmmm... yes and no. CPU's run out of power eventually and if you eat it up with an EQ or 2 on every channel you can't use your fancy convolution reverbs and realtime amp simulators.

I tend to use both- in fact it was the ease of using analog EQ's and their SOUND that sold me on tracking digital and mixing analog. Nothing quite like 16 channels of great sounding EQ that doesn't tax the CPU at all. The 2 mixers I have now have swept mids. The SOLO has high and low pass with 2 swept mids, the m520 has high, mid, and low sweeps. I tend to high pass with digital EQs when using the M520 so I can use the low sweep as a low mid.

I dunno. You can do a lot with a digital EQ, but you have to spend quite a bit on them if you want one that sounds good. They're pretty bland, for the most part. Even a cheap mixer tends to sound more musical. IMO.

Take care,
Chris
 
E-gads! Smooth, musical EQ is one of the most desirable elements of an analog console. Not all EQ is created equal, but the best and most sought after are analog. The most digital can hope to do is simulate some legendary analog board.

You do have more choices with digital, but it’s just a longer list. What it does for your sound is another story. I do as little processing as possible in the digital realm, because this is where the integrity of the original sound really starts to fall apart sonically.

If you want to roll off or notch out certain frequencies get a good 1/3 octave analog graphic equalizer, or a 4-band parametric for treatment of individual channels, if your board doesn’t have it. :)
 
Well since I went back to analog I've been stuck with a frigging "Low" knob which is completely worthless (try to separate a bass from a bass drum with one of those), 1 sweepable mid with no bandwidth control, which helps but can do more damage than good, and a "high", which is almost as equally worthless as the "low". I agree that the digital quality is worse but in this isolated case of eq I don't think it matters, because most of us analoggers are using live mixers for consoles anyway.


...anybody know of a recording desk with a sweepable high pass and two fully parametric bands?
 
Thanks, Ghost.

I've thought about the outboard options and I might end up settling on that, but I think the mixer is my "weak link" anyway, and I would really like to have something useful on every channel. plus, If I got 4 of those, for all 16 channels, that would be a heck of a lot of patching...

I was looking into something like an Amek Angela but its hard to find the specs on equipment that is so old... thats why I was wondering about recomendations...
 
I wish I didn't live in an apartment. musicians really need hardwood floors for anything to work.

blech
 
Falken, what kind of board do you have? – I can’t remember. Boards with good EQ are definitely pricier. The M-300 series has nice EQ, 10k top shelf, 200 Hz-4 kHz mid and 50 Hz-1kHz low. And from there, the 500, 3500 and later 2600 etc have nice EQ sections. The Soundcraft Spirit, and of course the Ghost -- one of those legendary boards I was talking about above.

Now and then you find a cheap something or other with nice EQ. I still have an old Tascam PE-20 parametric, which was part of the old System 20 modular series. It has a 10k top shelf; a really nice mid at 1-8 kHz and a low at 60 Hz-1.5 kHz. I use the Alesis M-EQ 230 and the Rockman Instrument EQ around the studio as well.

The M-200 series is my main console at home (216 & 208) with no major complaints. It has as much to do with the sonic character of the board as it does the individual EQ options. I’ve always looked at more extensive EQ treatment as a job for outboard processing, but then I’ve heard really nice sounding consoles with no on-board EQ at all.
 
lanterns said:
I wish I didn't live in an apartment. musicians really need hardwood floors for anything to work.

blech
Click to expand...

dude this is so true. unfortunately I can't change that for another year. tile isn't so bad, you can get good sounds. I think even more important is high ceilings, which alas, I am also without. fortuantely, my setup is somewhat portable.
 
Last edited:
Beck said:
Falken, what kind of board do you have? – I can’t remember. Boards with good EQ are definitely pricier. The M-300 series has nice EQ, 10k top shelf, 200 Hz-4 kHz mid and 50 Hz-1kHz low. And from there, the 500, 3500 and later 2600 etc have nice EQ sections. The Soundcraft Spirit, and of course the Ghost -- one of those legendary boards I was talking about above.

Now and then you find a cheap something or other with nice EQ. I still have an old Tascam PE-20 parametric, which was part of the old System 20 modular series. It has a 10k top shelf; a really nice mid at 1-8 kHz and a low at 60 Hz-1.5 kHz. I use the Alesis M-EQ 230 and the Rockman Instrument EQ around the studio as well.

The M-200 series is my main console at home (216 & 208) with no major complaints. It has as much to do with the sonic character of the board as it does the individual EQ options. I’ve always looked at more extensive EQ treatment as a job for outboard processing, but then I’ve heard really nice sounding consoles with no on-board EQ at all.
Click to expand...

yamaha MG. you are correct, the sonic character of the board is very important. the MG should have done the job in my eyes but it didn't. so I am thinking about skipping right over the soundcraft range, over the tascam range, up to a large frame-something or other. (glutton for punishment?) I can't afford to keep upgrading though, and some people can't stand the ghost. plus the ghost is ugly as balls.

I have a peavey 2 channel 4 band parametric outboard box, it adds way more noise than is worth-while. I have a couple of outboard graphics as well which work well on some things but there is no headroom at all. and since the "sonic character" of my board sucks, I am thinking that my thinking is along the right track. I am totally willing to spend up to 5k on a board for the reasons stated above plus I would love to teach myself to repair these things (planning on getting a modular board with more channels than I need for this reason). heck, its cheaper than recording school and i'd probably learn more.

as for the options you mentioned...

after recording digitally I dont think I could get by without a sweepable high-pass and a full parametric mid on every channel. *especially* with tape. I can hear my mud going away now just thinking about it.
 
peopleperson said:
Basic eq can accomplish most goals. Editing is where the digital world wins.
Click to expand...

without trying to take this thread in another direction....if the parts are played right to begin with this is a mute point.
 
I’ve never tried any of the MG series, but I dismissed Yamaha a long time ago as a contender for recording mixers… but that was so long ago I have no idea what their stuff sounds like now.

There are a lot of choices out there with 4 bands of sweepable EQ if you have the money to spend. And if you want one of those huge things that you have to get a drivers license for and have room for it. :D

So, you want a sweepable high-pass filter, as in to roll off frequencies below a certain point, or do you mean sweepable high frequency band as opposed to a fixed 10 or 12 kHz shelf EQ?
 
Just wondering, given the topic on this thread, what the general thoughts were on the Mackie 8 bus range? I've been dreaming a bit recently on what I'd like to get, and I've used Mackie live mixers a bit and quite liked them. I know they are by no means high end, but seem to be solid.

The EQ isn't exactly 4 sweepable channels, but does look more flexible than a lot of the live mixers I've used: http://www.mackie.com/products/8bus/images/8xBChStrip32.html
 
Beck said:
I’ve never tried any of the MG series, but I dismissed Yamaha a long time ago as a contender for recording mixers but that was so long ago I have no idea what their stuff sounds like now.
Click to expand...

Nnnggg. I was just about to buy one of those. I might still have to since I can't in good conscience afford anything on the next level (yet still having 16 channels). It's either one of these or sticking with the 8-channel Behringer MX with the dodgy fader. Not good..
 
Beck said:
I’ve never tried any of the MG series, but I dismissed Yamaha a long time ago as a contender for recording mixers… but that was so long ago I have no idea what their stuff sounds like now.

There are a lot of choices out there with 4 bands of sweepable EQ if you have the money to spend. And if you want one of those huge things that you have to get a drivers license for and have room for it. :D

So, you want a sweepable high-pass filter, as in to roll off frequencies below a certain point, or do you mean sweepable high frequency band as opposed to a fixed 10 or 12 kHz shelf EQ?
Click to expand...

The yamaha is nice..of all of the live boards I've seen in that range (3,000 or less) like the A/H's, Soundcrafts, mackies, etc. etc. the layout of the MG seems the best suited for recording. And they're not gonna break your bank either just to get a live board.

"4 bands of sweepable EQ" would not meet my requirement. I am looking for Parametric EQ. I want to be able to adjust the bandwidth.

And I mean a sweepable high-pass filter, "as in to roll off frequencies below a certain point". would be nice to have a low-pass also but I'm not THAT picky. eh heh.

Any Thoughts??????
 
Nothing that I would buy anytime soon... not until I get a 1969-70 Mustang Mach I with a 351 Cleveland anyway, which is next on my list of things to have. (used to have one but a "friend" totaled it running it through the quarter with a glass of wine in his hand. No, he didn't spill a drop, but the cow didn't pull through... he cleared the top of the fence though).

If you really think you need to spend that kind of cash and really need that sort of EQ ask Bruce Valeriani (Blue Bear Sound)... seriously. No, I'm not being sarcastic. :)

Make sure that's what you need though... you may want to spend the big bucks on other things. Most of us can do wonders with much less than you're talking about. Just remember, the best Jedi keeps all his limbs, so don't spend an arm and a leg if you don't have to.

The Mackie that arjoll mentioned looks pretty sweet too.

http://www.mackie.com/products/8bus/index.html

That's how we white middle class, middle aged Americans who learned to drive watching "The Dukes of Hazard" are... "Record with a little thang, and drive a classic Mustang." :cool:
 

Attachments

  • m351c.jpg
    m351c.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 136
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top