I used to use so much EQ...

[WhiteStrat]

I'm not saying EQ is a bad thing, or that I'll ever get to the point where I don't need it at all--but there's an organic energy to tracks that fit with each other because they were planned and tracked well. Here's a sketch--an instrumental without a lead yet--that I'm working on. Lots of compression, some volume automation--but no EQ. This is how they sounded as I recorded 'em:

No EQ

 

[timbreman]

I have more luck when I use EQ cuts rather than boosts. Stay away from the boosts and EQ is a very helpful tool.

 

[gecko zzed]

I'm not saying EQ is a bad thing, or that I'll ever get to the point where I don't need it at all--but there's an organic energy to tracks that fit with each other because they were planned and tracked well. Here's a sketch--an instrumental without a lead yet--that I'm working on. Lots of compression, some volume automation--but no EQ. This is how they sounded as I recorded 'em:

No EQ

A great sound* and convincing argument for minimising the use of EQ. I am a strong advocate for minimalist intervention in the sound, with the idea of living up to "this is how they sounded as I recorded them".

For interest, a piano and violin sample: am short.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage
No EQ, no compression, no FX apart from reverb.

* I hope your project goes well. The busy kick was a bit disturbing and led to a bit of timing tension. You may need to re-check that.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I'm not saying EQ is a bad thing, or that I'll ever get to the point where I don't need it at all--but there's an organic energy to tracks that fit with each other because they were planned and tracked well. Here's a sketch--an instrumental without a lead yet--that I'm working on. Lots of compression, some volume automation--but no EQ. This is how they sounded as I recorded 'em:

No EQ

I agree with what you are saying about arrangement being key to avoiding conflicts but you also have to have your individual tracks sounding right from scratch too. To me, and just an opinion, the guitar in your tracks sounds like scratching on a chalk board and could really use some EQ on the top end and other stuff but this ain't the mp3 clinic.

You can't ignore that the room you are tracking in and the compression is a way you are eqing this too. Saying no EQ on what you have is a stretch.

I sound negative so I apologize but they're my thoughts on it.

 

[Greg_L]

I mostly agree with NYMorningstar. That track could use some EQ. It sounds like a good starting point though. The drums sound pretty nice, but that performance/pattern does not serve the song well at all. Bass is boomy and fluffy with no definition. A little EQ can fix/help that.

I totally agree with the principle though. Track the best stuff you can. Spend time on mic placement and tones and EQ corrections will be minimal.

 

[WhiteStrat]

I agree with what you are saying about arrangement being key to avoiding conflicts but you also have to have your individual tracks sounding right from scratch too. To me, and just an opinion, the guitar in your tracks sounds like scratching on a chalk board and could really use some EQ on the top end and other stuff but this ain't the mp3 clinic.

You can't ignore that the room you are tracking in and the compression is a way you are eqing this too. Saying no EQ on what you have is a stretch.

I sound negative so I apologize but they're my thoughts on it.

Scratching on a chalkboard? Really? Ouch!

No seriously, thanks for your thoughts! The funny thing is that the guitar is my favorite part. I recorded that to a click track, then pulled a slice of drums from a session a few months ago (that's why they don't fit as well as they could). I recorded the bass fresh, but just kinda plugged it in and went--wanted to get the sketch down more than the perfect sound.

But I was kinda stoked at how it sounded without the usual EQ battles. But maybe I was a little too stoked--and not critical enough, huh?

 

[grimtraveller]

Sometimes, it pays to be somewhat ignorant of what's what and accepting of what someone else presents. I actually like the guitar sound. I wouldn't know if EQ had been applied or not !
Sometimes, I apply EQ just to shape the sound. I used to rather overdo the effects and EQ. Now I've learned that while it may be appropriate once in a while, for the most part, I go very light or not at all. Depends on what I'm trying to do within the song.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Sometimes, it pays to be somewhat ignorant of what's what and accepting of what someone else presents. I actually like the guitar sound. I wouldn't know if EQ had been applied or not !
Sometimes, I apply EQ just to shape the sound. I used to rather overdo the effects and EQ. Now I've learned that while it may be appropriate once in a while, for the most part, I go very light or not at all. Depends on what I'm trying to do within the song.

Dittos.

Normally though I'm an advocate of learning all you can because the bigger your bag of tricks the more likely you'll have the right one to use when needed.

The biggest trick I've learned so far is getting it right before you even hit the record button. Even things like changing the gauge of your strings can have awesome improvements in getting the tones you're needing diminishing the need post processing EQ. Different mics placed in different places at different angles can zero in the sounds you need and make instruments dance together in a mix.

Like WhiteStrat says planning your music ahead of time helps. You really need to develop conducting skills to some degree if you want to have awesome productions which can be surprisingly enough just keeping things simple and simple/stupid for slow learners like myself

 

[gecko zzed]

But I was kinda stoked at how it sounded without the usual EQ battles. But maybe I was a little too stoked--and not critical enough, huh?

Don't be too hard on yourself. I thought it sounded fine.

But that's the thing. I've got this guy who comes around to record. He is a very particular and precise guitarist (acoustic).

So we record a bit of his guitar to sort out EQ and stuff, working on it until we arrive at the sound he likes.

During this process we might try a number of settings: "what about if you take a bit of top off? how about a bit more mid . . . . ?" and so on.

Each iteration he asks "what do you think?"

Each time I say "it sounds fine".

In a way, I don't really care what it sounds like. The half-dozen combinations we've tried all sound different. None sound bad, but the only thing that makes one 'best' is the one that suits the guy's taste. I don't think it is intrinsically better . . . it's just one of six different flavours.

So when I hear the guitar, or drum or whatever, unless it's fundamentally flawed, I'm ok to accept it for what it is. I really have no knowledge of the recorder's intentions or aspirations for the sound, so it's hard to say whether nirvana has been achieved.

 

[CannedFunkMusic]

Sound wise it's great, but it seems like you got a timing issue w/ the drummer

I also don't see where much eq is needed? I'm not a treble freak so for me definition is more where it's at. Keep the lower end intact and you're fine. The best quality music don't have much treble sheen. Listen to the best bands. They always sound meaty for a fuller sound. The guitar sounds fine as well. I like the fuzz in guitars. Usually older people will have a problem with guitars like that. So it all depends on your listeners. More treble for younger audiences.

 

[Relic1882]

I used to EQ the crap out of my stuff too but now I mainly use it for adding presence or cutting out mud. I totally agree that the less you need to EQ the better off you'll be. Not just for the sake of the song sounding more natural but because you save a lot of time trying to achieve that "perfect sound".

 

[miroslav]

I don't think it matters how much EQ you use (or not)...as long as it works. No one gives points for applying more or less EQ.

Sure...you try to get "the" tones when you track...but it's not always clear how things will fall into place when your track count starts to go up and you're mixing it all together.

 

[gecko zzed]

I don't think it matters how much EQ you use (or not)...as long as it works. No one gives points for applying more or less EQ.

Sure...you try to get "the" tones when you track...but it's not always clear how things will fall into place when your track count starts to go up and you're mixing it all together.

I agree.

In the end you gotta do what you gotta do.

This is where I'm coming from . . .

It is common to try and fix the problems of one stage of recording in the next stage. For example, many performance and tracking mistakes receive remedial attention in the mixing. Then we try and fix mixing mistakes in the mastering. Sometimes the remedial action is successful. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes it makes things worse.

I contend that the less remedial work required, the more cohesive a mix will be.

 

[Greg_L]

If your mix doesn't sound perfect with the faders up and no panning or processing whatsoever, you're doing it wrong!

/HR audio snobs

 

[aaronmcoleman]

EQ is a tool to be used when necessary. No matter how well something is recorded, there is always a need for EQ at some point in the mix. If not big studios wouldn't waste tens of thousands of dollars on EQs. I guess nobody has said "never EQ", but I read all the time that tracking well should solve most EQ problems. It doesn't always, and sometimes EQ is not fixing a problem, it's adding an effect.

I have also read that cutting EQ is an old analog idea because boosts added distortion. So boost/cut/whatever, there are no hard and fast rules anymore.

But good idea to limit it anyway, and try to get things to sound good without a lot of effects. That's just the style I like, less production makes me happy!

 

[gecko zzed]

As I said . .sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

I was advocating a policy of getting it right to start with, rather than try and fix it later. They are thoughts on EQ as a remedial tool.

But EQ (and other effects) can also be a creative tool. That's a different use altogether, but not the point of the OP's original post.

 

[WhiteStrat]

C'mon, gang--let me clarify!

I'm not saying EQ is bad, or that it shouldn't be used. I'm just saying that it's fun to know your sound going in and come close to nailing it with the instruments and mics.

 

[miroslav]

Yes...getting the tones you want at the outset is the right approach....just sayin' that when you're focused on one track's tone, you don't always have a clear picture all the way through to the final mix, and then when you get there, if you need to cut 10dB at 8kHz to remove some nastiness in the high end of a given track...I wouldn't feel like:
"Aww shit, I pooched my tones during tracking...I musta not done it right.".

Like I said...whatever works...cut, boost or do nothing.

That said....if you're at the mix stage and you gotta go real EQ extreme on all your tracks just to get something decent going...mmmmmmm...yeah, then maybe you need to reevaluate what you did during tracking.

 

[grimtraveller]

That said....if you're at the mix stage and you gotta go real EQ extreme on all your tracks just to get something decent going...mmmmmmm...yeah, then maybe you need to reevaluate what you did during tracking.

Unless of course

If your mix doesn't sound perfect with the faders up and no panning or processing whatsoever, you're doing it wrong!

which brings me to

But EQ (and other effects) can also be a creative tool. That's a different use altogether, but not the point of the OP's original post.

Bit of frivolity on my part there ! They are two separate points though. I once found it difficult to understand exactly what artists, producers and engineers meant by 'using the studio as an instrument' but I have a clearer grasp of that now.

No matter how well something is recorded, there is always a need for EQ at some point in the mix.

There are no hard and fast rules anymore.

That seems like a bit of a contradiction. Or is it a paradox ? I always try to avoid 'always' and never will be caught saying 'never'.

In the end you gotta do what you gotta do.

Ultimately, each person knows why they use the tools they do. Even if it sounds awful.

 

[RAMI]

I............. never will be caught saying 'never'.

I just vaught you saying it.....twice.