Opinions on Pre EQ Before Recording

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaseyCayce
  • Start date Start date
C

CaseyCayce

New member
I'm really struggling with the big WOOF in my acoustic recordings, having to EQ the crap out of my raw track to get it reasonably listenable (see attached for my neck mic EQ setting). I'm using an X/Y pair of Neumann KM-184s, having to position them nearly two feet away to cut back on the bass and mids, meaning I've sacrificed the intimacy of close-up mics, which I really like. I run through a PreSonus 32R interface, which does a pretty good job of keeping things clean, and has Gate, Compressor, EQ, and Limiter options, but I avoid using them. I know the risks of treatment on the way into the DAW—that once you record with treatment on the way in, you're stuck with it—but I need an education on what the benefits are. I feel like if I could just get a more balanced signal going in, it would give me more to work with in the mix, less of a bass-mids fight.

I follow some of the better YouTube channels for acoustic recording, but what you don't get to know with these amazing results they're getting is what was done to the signal on the way into the DAW, or after it was recorded, much of the time. Today I set up a track specifically following a Marc Daniel Nelson tutorial, and the result was just a swamp of low-mid woof. What am I missing? Is that just the way acoustic guitars record, even with the best mics, and they require such drastic EQ as a rule? I get the same results with my TLM-103 and TLM49.

So, what are the risk/benefits of pre-treatment as I go into the DAW?

Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-01-28 at 2.56.24 PM.webp
    Screen Shot 2022-01-28 at 2.56.24 PM.webp
    23 KB · Views: 48
Last edited:
Woof can be in the recording, or it might be in the room, too. It would help if we heard a raw track. (Is your space treated well?)

What kind of acoustic guitar are you recording, both as in the type (steel/nylon, body size) and the use of the acoustic guitar here (solo, backing/rhythm, lead, etc.)?

I will often only use a single mic on acoustic guitar, lately just whatever SDC I have sitting on the stand, but I'm generally only playing a backing/rhythm, so I'd use just a single mic on a lead guitar if it's in a mix. I used to use XY because I felt it gave me some control over balancing the mics if I felt the track was unbalanced, e.g., too much "body" or LF, or too much neck/finger sounds, but I decided that really didn't do anything except make a bit more work on the back end, vs. just getting the mic in a better place to start.

Over at AGF, it seems the current trend is to use a spaced pair of mics, probably the majority using SDCs, and not X/Y, but those are recording solo acoustic guitar, typically finger-style, where all the little details and nuances of both the instrument and player are important to the finished product.

When I have a really good guitar player over (hasn't happened in a couple years!) I will use multiple mics. I've been happy with MS recording with either a pair of LDCs (one in figure-of-8 pattern) or a spaced pair with a center mic in the more typical spot (out from the 12th fret, aimed a bit toward the neck joint).
 
You are using Pro Q 3. Are those EQ points you came up with? Or had you hovered the pointer over the bottom and let the EQ find the points. Fabfilter is excellent at this. The filter automatically finds the harmonics for the key played. Then enable collision detection. Then comparing two tracks a red haze appears, letting you know the area in conflict.

Sometimes I just keep pulling the points down trying to make it as flat as possible. FLAT.
 
I'm using a Taylor Big Baby with stock Elixir Light .012-.053 Phosphor Bronze. I always start with a Reaper preset. I use this for light to heavy strumming - no finger-picking.

Band 1 = High Pass @ 150
Band 2 = Flat
Band 3 = -3 dB @ 630.1 - 2 Oct Bandwidth
Band 4 = +2 dB @ 6126.3 - 2 Oct Bandwidth
AG preset.webp



Each guitar is going to be different, so there's a lot of experimenting.
 
If it's an honestly good-sounding instrument in a good sounding space, very little EQ should be necessary other than mild shaping to taste.

That said - When I see a 'pattern' in the corrective EQ, I immediately go to the room or something mechanical with the instrument.

Try putting the mics .38 of the length of the room from the short wall (if you're in a 10x15' room, put them centered, 5.7' from the 10' wall), facing the far wall. Sit on the side of the far wall and see how that compares to wherever you are in the room now. If it's the same, check the instrument for over-resonance (loose top, loose back, etc.).
 
I'm no expert here. Hardly touch the EQ knobs, unless it sounds dreadful.
There's nothing to stop you recording both unprocessed and processed versions at the same time, so that you can revisit.
You can also listen with headphones to the EQ'd signal whilst recording.
I think you get a better feel musically, by recording with reverb. It feels real.
 
I only use EQ on the way in for tone shaping rather than correcting a problem.
 
If you are using different mics and getting the same result then it's either the room, the guitar or the way you are micing. I would agree with keith about using 1 mic also. At least to start . Most of my eq'ing is done by mic choice, guitar choice and positioning. The eq I do afterword is pretty much just what is needed to get the track to fit with all other instruments.
That said, I have recorded "woofy" guitars using a standard vocal pop screen to reduce the air blast that comes out of the sound hole which often helps. If all else fails and I am going to be recording additional instruments I have found using an SM57 approx 6" away from the finger board pointed at fret area 3-5. I know it sounds weird but it is just the ticket for decent sound from some guitars.
My normal set up is a LDC(usually a 4050, mk319 or 414) which is too much bottom for some people but I have the mic positioned about 15-18" away from the guitar pointed roughly between the neck joint and the bottom part of the upper bout.
Oddly, my Taylor actually sounds terrible unless capo'd. Go figure. But I have different go to guitars for different timbres which makes it easier, plus I can record the same or similar parts on two different guitars and then spread em out for good fullness.

Once you get the timbre you want with one mic then add a second one and work out where they need to be pointed for best results. Easiest to just start with one tho'
 
well the mics and equipment sound industry proven....so without knowing anything, I would guess the room is the WOOF.

as for pre-eq I dont see why not, its no different than a tone knob on a guitar or Ringo putting a tea towel on his snare.
I have a channel strip and the eq is a key component so of course it can be tracked with.The danger is if the eq is done in a poor room, or with closed back headphones the eq is only making that specific set of headphones sound better or a bad room.

thats the demon of home recording, right? the beatles played and sang but the tracking sounds were done from the control room speakers and engineer was adjusting to the same speakers that their Mastering Room used.

in HR we often record in the same room and track with headphones and hope what we are putting down sounds good on playback.

theoretically if you have a good monitoring room and can record and make EQ tweaks and mic location decisions from the speakers, aka control room it would be easier.

those Neumann mics and presonus, and I assume your guitar are all fine, so what else is there other than the room?

interesting problem ...good luck
 
usually these things are fixed by mic placement alone.
treat your tracking room for any bad reflections.
you want a clean sound going into your mic,
everything else falls into place after that.

External EQ, printed to 'tape', is the typical way a pro records.
usually, a combination of good EQ, good Preamp, and a nice compressor, all dialed in for the sound you want.
it's common.
but you don't use those things to fix room problems.

that's cart before the horse.
 
A wise old engineer once told me, "If you don't like the sound on the way in, you're not gonna like it any better on the way out so fix what's not right when you hear it. If that means grabbing the eq, so be it."
 
That's fair.

I wouldn't change it on the way in. Leave it RAW until its tracked. Then cut it with EQ.
 
Twin miking a guitar is common, but coincident miking as in calling it X/Y or ORTF often produces less than ideal results because taken individually, which they are practically, they’re not in the right place. The point of two mics is to capture the round, warm, possibly boomy sound from one end of the guitar, and the delicate, sometimes very HF rich stuff from the players left hand, then blending them. So, one mic will be bass heavy, and the other HF heavy. Both will need EQ. Then you balance them and move them apart in the stereo space. If you use a stereo technique, then with the 90 degree or tweaked angle, the side nodes of one mic fight with the front node of the other. spreading them even a small amount reduces the impact of this and works so much better. Twin miking is not stereo miking, and stereo techniques work so well in the right place. Humbly I’d suggest miking a guitar is not one of them.
 
I get a LOT of low end and boom in my room when trying to record acoustic guitar. VERY hard to get a nice crisp sound. It's generally very boomy and very harsh in the high end. Miking amps I get tonnes of low end and boom. I bought a Drawmer 1974 specifically to help chop out or relax problematic freq in my room. Has helped somewhat. But acoustic is usually just full of ugliness across the freq spectrum. A nice room would be invaluable.
 
Yes.. a nice room would be invaluable. :>) My place mostly taught 'trap it, so you don't have to hear it for the most part. :facepalm:
Checked back some, doesn't look like you've spoke much about your room and stuff? It's one place to start.
 
mixsit said:
Yes.. a nice room would be invaluable. :>) My place mostly taught 'trap it, so you don't have to hear it for the most part. :facepalm:
Checked back some, doesn't look like you've spoke much about your room and stuff? It's one place to start.
Click to expand...
I've rambled on around the clock here at times. Mainly because I'm not getting the results I want and don't know how to do shit. But since a year or 2 ago I've just been doing a lot of songs and think I might be making progress.
 
CaseyCayce said:
I get the same results with my TLM-103 and TLM49.

So, what are the risk/benefits of pre-treatment as I go into the DAW?
Click to expand...
Well your EQ picture is a comb filter - so either your room is whack or your mic positions - I would setup in different areas of the room to see which presents the best scenario - and if nothing in your rooms works try another room - such as a bathroom - still have you recorded your guitars and taken a mix out of the room - to say your car - and played it there? It might be your room giving you false information - in which case a couple of bass traps and some diffusers on the wall would help.
 
I was thinking about this the other day, and came to the same idea that Cool Cat had.

The one thing that is a vast difference between going to an actual studio and recording vs sitting in the bedroom or basement for recording is that in a real studio you will most likely have an engineer and/or producer who will be listening to the feed in a control room, isolated from the instruments and hearing it through monitors. If something sounds out of whack, it will most like be adjusted before you start playing. You have an extra set of ears to lean on. It also means you will probably have a bit of EQ and maybe compression before it hits the hard drive or tape deck. If that isn't enough, then they will stop and move mics or equipment until it sounds good, THEN hit the record button.

When working by yourself, you might listen on headphones, or maybe do a few thru test recordings but you really don't know what it's going to sound like until it's all done and you're mixing. So it often becomes a case of "fix it in the mix" or scrap it and do it over.
 
I know virtually nothing about EQ but cut nearly everything as much as possible . If I then want a cello I cut half as much bass and it sounds fairly bassy in relatively terms . I guess it's sort of audio illusion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top