How Many Of You Have Eq I.q?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RDMSstudio
  • Start date Start date

I use an Equaliser to......

  • Total voters
    91
R

RDMSstudio

New member
An interesting thought occured to me.
How many of you have an EQ licence? What I mean is are you using or abusing them?

How many of you have tried to do an entire mix without a single equaliser?

Do you track a sound with 2 microphones, then use the balance and phase of them as an EQ?

Have you ever found yourself using 2 EQ's on 1 track?

Who cut's as a rule?

Do you use narrow Q as a way of getting the "Black background"?

What's your favourite trick with an EQ?
 
all of the above

but only if it needs it, the latest instruments I tracked (sax & harmonica) I left flat
 
None of the above... I use EQ to correct any imbalances.
 
I TRY to record without EQ. It's not that I feel it's evil or inferior or any of that, I just try very hard to get the sound I want at the source and mic choice/placement. It seems to be easier to make things fit in a mix if I do. And if I still want to sweeten it I'll EQ till the cows come home. I feel that cutting is mo betta than boosting but again, whatever makes it sound better to me, I'll do.
 
I try to mix the entire tune without EQ first. Then use Eq if its needed... Usually its needed.

Years ago I had no option to EQ anything. Its amazing how when you've never had the option of using something you can still come up with something you are completely happy with. Then, once I had got the EQ bug it became almost mandatory. Now I make a point of trying to not use it, or to not have to use it.

I don't use Eq when recording.
 
Nowadays, all i do is apply some low cut to my recordings, and everything sounds fine without a touch of EQ. i love my Motu pres. But then again, it really depends on the mic and preamp you're using. things vary drastically.
 
I decided to be a bit of a prick just to make a point ;). Forgive me RDM...

The answer is "To change the way something sounds". "All of the above" is a redundant and therefore unnecessary choice.

All three of the choices change the way something sounds, it's just that choices B and C do so in specific ways. A is a general blanket statement that also covers B and C. D is therefore an unnecessary option. :)

That said, yes, of course I use EQ for everything in a hundred different ways, and yes often times several of those ways will be thrown at one track either sumultaneously or consecutively.

G.
 
can anybody hook me up with a link to a great eq tutorial?

i got a ton of info out of Southside Glen's Compression tutorial, thanks alot for that man!

i use EQ because im a follower and everyone tells me that i need to cut here and raise the gain there, but honestly, i dont know what i am doing with it.

BUT I KNOW HOW TO USE COMPRESSION NOW!!!
 
I would have selected only the first two choices in the poll if the poll allowed it. To me, it doesn't make sense to use eq to alter the volume. That's what the fader is for.

I'm no expert at this stuff, but I find that piling eq's (using more than one per track) causes me problems. The only exception I use is using one eq for a low cut and another for flavoring. An example is using a Pultec for color while using a RenEq for a low cut since the Pultec doesn't really do that.

However, if you check out the "Mix it like a record" DVD, Charles Dye piles eq like crazy. I recall him using something like +10db at 60Hz on the kick, plus some more on a kick group that follows. Whatever it takes.
 
PhiloBeddoe said:
I'm no expert at this stuff, but I find that piling eq's (using more than one per track) causes me problems. The only exception I use is using one eq for a low cut and another for flavoring.
Click to expand...
I am with the majority here in that I believe one should use EQ only when the sound asks for it, and the key is to try and get some solid tracking that calls for as little EQ as possible.

That said, it is not uncommon for me to find myself "piling on" the EQ for tracks or mixes that simply are screaming for it. Then again...I guess that depends upon the definition of "piling on".

Is using all four bands of a parametric EQ using four EQs or just one? Is using something like the Eqium meta-EQ plugin (which I use quite often) and allows you to independantly control as many parametric, bandpass, shelf, notch, etc. EQ settings as your processor can handle, and using those seperate EQ settings simultaneously in order to create a really custom EQ response shape, is that "piling on" the EQ or is that just creating a single custom EQ curve? Depending upon the answers to those questions, I could easily be accused of using several EQs at once and really piling on the EQ.

Add to that the fact that some EQs just sound "better" (to me, anyway) for specific purposes than other do, and that fact can easily justify using more than one EQ per track. I may use EQium a lot, but not for everything. Sometimes I'll first get a decent-sounding curve out of Eqium, then go back and touch up the mid-bass with, say, a dbx2215 or even a Kjaerhus Classic EQ plug and add some air with - believe it or not - Voxengo's very basic EssEQ 7-band. The reason for using the different EQs is because to me they have different strengths and weaknesses in how they sound for different tasks. So if that's piling it on, call me king of the mountain :).

But just to emphasize again, I'll do any and all of that only when my ears tell me it's necessary - or when they tell me that it'll make it sound better ant not worse for doing it. I don't go into a session armed to the teeth with EQs locked and loaded on a "Hot 5", I just pull them out when the session takes me that way.

G.
 
for electric instruments, like guitars and bass, I generally don't need any eq at all. Its far easier to adjust the controls on the amp and move the mic to a good position. I am lucky to have a separate control room to do this in. I can sit with the guitar in the control room and go back and forth making adjustments until its right. For acoustic instruments like drums and vocals, eq is more often necessary, to make it sound like an "album". The last album I used a ton of eq on everything from cymbals to bringing out the sub bass tones from a synth. the album before that I used no eq at all, on anything, and it sounds extremely "polished". I just took a long time to get the sounds right at the source. I really make use of high pass filters though.
 
Last edited:
I use eq when I feel it's needed, to make something sound good.
 
Aside from the mixing stuff I also use EQ as an effect, sort of like a filter. Oddly enough, the crappier EQs tend to work better for this kind of abuse. For example the Cubase built-in EQ tends to get kind of brittle at high gain settings, but when you sweep it, specially on harmonically rich synth tones, you can get some tasty growling stuff that will make the "better" EQs go hide in a closet. :D
 
noisewreck said:
Aside from the mixing stuff I also use EQ as an effect, sort of like a filter. Oddly enough, the crappier EQs tend to work better for this kind of abuse. For example the Cubase built-in EQ tends to get kind of brittle at high gain settings, but when you sweep it, specially on harmonically rich synth tones, you can get some tasty growling stuff that will make the "better" EQs go hide in a closet. :D
Click to expand...

mcdsp filterbank EQ plugins are good for that as well
 
PhiloBeddoe said:
I would have selected only the first two choices in the poll if the poll allowed it. To me, it doesn't make sense to use eq to alter the volume. That's what the fader is for.
Click to expand...

There is a little known effect that allows you to fine tune the timing of tracks with the volume control.
If you listen to two tracks together then slowly lower the volume of one, you will hear the timing of it change subtly. Find the volume that makes your track sound most syncronised, then adjust the volume with EQ...

Clever isn't it ?
 
for the most part, ill use EQ to separate tracks. im always Eqing the kick and the bass guitar. Just so they dont fight each other so much.

ill usually EQ electric guitars (if there is more than 2 tracks of em) so they have some separation too......................

if i ADD any EQ.......usually its on the highs for drum cymbals/splashes for crispness, and its on the Lows (50-60 hz) to give either the kick or Bass guitar some thump. but i try to cut more than i do boost!
 
A good trick for bass guitar is to invert the wave if it's a bit muddy in the mix.
I think most of us have problems with Bass guitar at times. The easiest way to a clearer mix is always using less bass.
 
RDMSstudio said:
There is a little known effect that allows you to fine tune the timing of tracks with the volume control.
If you listen to two tracks together then slowly lower the volume of one, you will hear the timing of it change subtly. Find the volume that makes your track sound most syncronised, then adjust the volume with EQ...

Clever isn't it ?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to follow what you are saying here. Is the track that you are lowering in volume being offset with the constant volume track or are you saying it's own timing is changing? Is the track you are lowering getting slower or faster?
 
The initial definition of EQ as per the wikipedia

"In audio processing, equalization (EQ) is the process of modifying the frequency envelope of a sound. Etymologically, it means to correct, or make equal, the frequency response of another audio device. The term "equalizer" is sometimes applied to audio filters in general, though strictly speaking not all audio filters are equalizers."
Click to expand...



I feel eq is one of the most misinterprited and abused items in music production. Myself, personally if I can avoid EQ at all from start to finish, then I feel I get the best results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top