Robertt8 said:
Okay...I don't believe this really either. I mean when EQing say the snare (this is just a general sample), you tend to roll everything off under 150Hz, Bass guitar you can roll everything off at 520Hz and boost generously at 2kHz if those aren't boosts or cuts more than 2 or 3 dB, than i don't know what is. Every instrument has huge chunks of it's sonic spectrum that can either be seriously rolled off or cut to make the sound better in the mix...and often has to be to make it sound better.
OK, you are absolutely correct there (though boosting the bass in the mid-highs is commonplace, one typically should not need to do it more than a few dBs, but that's a hair-splitting point here).
Rolling off unnecessary or unwanted portions of the spectrum is not what I was referring to, though. That has nothing to do with the quality of the microphone or microphone technique; you are going to get stuff under 150Hz on a snare that you may want to roll off whether you're using an $80 SM57 or or a $3500 Royer ribbon mic. It's the EQing of the stuff "you want to keep"
that's the main point. The better your microphone usage, the less you should need to EQ.
And also, if done well, the less you have to get rid of with shelving or radical parametric notching. You are absolutely correct that you need to get the instruments to fit in the mix spectrum-wise, and that EQ is an effective tool for doing so. However, it will sound one hell of a lot better if your microphone technique takes this into account. Using complimentary pairings of microphones that by way of their natural tendencies/sounds work and fit better together and keepng the EQ to a minimum will, nine times out of ten, sound a whole lot better than slapping a couple of standard microphones out there and throwing massive amounts of boost/cut equalization at them to *force* them to fit together in the mix.
This forum is constantly barraged with questions like "which is better for miking a guitar cab, the SM57 or the U87?" Good lord, there are so many other variables involved that it's impossible to give a single definitive answer to that question. Not even counting a dozen other factors like music style, cabinet type, guitar model, etc., there are also the very important factors of desired sound and interfacing with other instruments/tracks.
As far as "desired sound", that's directly analogous to H2H's example of the SSL EQs. Just as no matter how much you try and tweak you'll never get a Mackie EQ to sound like an SSL EQ, it is equally true to say that no matter how you tweak or EQ an SM57, it will *never* sound like a U87. Period. (and the same goes in reverse, too, FTM. There are times when a '57 will give you "that sound" that you just cant get from an '87 no matter how you EQ.)
And finally, as far as "interfacing", some mic combos just work better and "fit" better together in a mix. I might want to use an MD421 on a Telecaster when I know it will be competing for sonic space with a background vocal running though an AKG tube, but if I am using an MD 421 on a sax part, I might want to switch the Tele over to a '57 so there is less sonic competition. No EQ in the world could acheive the same results that such mic switching could. The differences in response are just too complex to model with graphic or parametric EQ.
And, while complex, the differences are never more than a few dB at any given frequency. It's not like a U87 is ever going to be 6 or 8dB hotter or quieter than an SM57 at any point in the spectrum (except maybe at the extreme fringes.) The differences are usually miniscule at any given frequency, certanly rarely more an a few dB. Yet they capture one hell of a different sound, don't they? There is no mistaking the differece between a '57 and an '87. Even a deaf person could *feel* the difference. The exact same principle is true with EQ; one should rarely, if ever need to use more than a few dB boost/cut at any given frequency to radically effect the sound.
G.
