Should you EQ during recording?

  • Thread starter Thread starter amonte
  • Start date Start date
amonte

amonte

New member
Sorry - that title wasn't very clear. My question has to do with the ACTUAL recording. I've got some tube preamps, and I also have a Mackie 1202 VLZ. Is it better to go with an un-EQ'ed sound (as with the preamps) while recording, or is it better to adjust some levels (eq levels, not channel levels) prior to recording the track?
 
I would say unless you have some serious deficiency in you're recording environment, or you're trying to prevent a certain frequency from being recorded, you wouldn't want to eq on the way in
 
i think generally you wouldn't because you won't have as much to work with later. however, after recording a certain instrument over and over you may find that you might not need certain frequencies all the time. like throwing high pass filters to cut out some rumble and what not. sometimes you'll just decide you don't need certain things.
 
In a perfect world, you should be able to get the sound you want without using any channel eq during the recording process with mic selection, placement, adjusting the sound source(amps etc.) placement of sound sources within the room etc. etc.

However, it isn't a perfect world and sometimes I will find myself making modest eq adjustments, usually slight cuts here and there AFTER I have done everything I can to optimize the incoming signal using the above techniques. If you find yourself having to make radical eq changes to try and get a good sound to "tape", it's time to go back and analyze the source and techniques to find out why.

Good luck!
 
Very true, however I believe it's still preferable to leave eqing until after you've recorded. It's a lot more flexible, and you can audition different settings to see what works best.

Doing it on the way in, you've only got 1 shot to get it right
 
I wouldn't EQ vocals or drums on the way in, but I think it's pretty important to get guitars sounding the way you want them when you record them. More so electric guitars than acoustics. Just my opinion.
 
amonte said:
Sorry - that title wasn't very clear. My question has to do with the ACTUAL recording. I've got some tube preamps, and I also have a Mackie 1202 VLZ. Is it better to go with an un-EQ'ed sound (as with the preamps) while recording, or is it better to adjust some levels (eq levels, not channel levels) prior to recording the track?
Click to expand...

Save the EQ for the mixing stage. You can't really make a final determination of what kind of frequencies you should boost or cut until you hear it with all of the instruments in the mix. Things like masking can completely change the types of decisions that you'll make later in the mix.

The only logical exception to this rule that I've heard is to boost high end if you absolutely know that the instrument will need later when recording to analog tape in order to help reduce noise.
 
Contrary to what everyone in the "prosummer" recording market seems to think, professionals use EQ during the recording stages all the time. While I was at Berklee, I sat in on a master class being given by Eddie Kramer. If you don't know who he is, he was (among other things) the recording engineer for Jimi Hendrix, Bad Company, and MANY others. He is one of the true greats in the industry. While he was setting up, he spent a great deal of time telling us how important it was to not use EQ, but to instead move the mic around to get the sound you are after. He then went into the control room, and the first thing he did was set levels, and then start to EQ the signal. I have seen this with every professional engineer I have ever worked with. You spend the time you can getting the sound by moving mics, and then you EQ, compress and gate (and yes, you SHOULD do some dynamics during recording). If you want more evidence that pros do in fact EQ while recording, go over to the guitar forum on the MARSH (over at prosoundweb) and read Slipperman's thread on recording distorted guitars. He goes into a lot of very good stuff on there (and I have only read about a third of it), but one of the points he makes is that, when you EQ before you go to tape, you get more of the information you want to tape. Now, with analog this is important because it means better sounding tape saturation, but even with digital, it improves you signal to noise ratio, and just plain sounds better. Better bit management.

On the other hand, if the only EQ you have available is that of the 1202 (or any Mackie EQ, really), you are probably better off not EQing at all. Those Mackie EQ's suck major ass. Invest in a Crest X-Rack or a Speck ASC to get some good quality EQ for a reasonable price. You could also do it in the digital domain, if you have a digital EQ you like the sound of.

My point is; EQing to tape is an important, and common, technique. Trying to put a "rule" of when you should use EQ, or compression, or anything else (for that matter) is foolish. You should learn the techniques, and then use them as seems best. It is usually best, in my opinion, to make things sound as much like you want them to in the mix as possible when you are tracking. It frees you mind up to worry about more important things while you are mixing (such as levels, panning, and ambience). "Fixing it in the mix" is the call of those who lack the creativity, the talent, or the skill to get it right the first time. Make it sound good from the beginning, and you will be much happier in the end.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
light i hope he was talking about the eq on the amp not on the board you dont want to eq before going to tape and compression other then limiting before you get to the recorder is a major no no. you can push levels hotter without red linning ,but wait till you start mastering in the end when you crank the volume up you start to hear the clipped signal from over compression to harddisk. tape is very much more forgiving with compression on the way in casue it has natural compression, but a daw doesnt you have to be 100 times more carefull never compress going in limit definitly but unless you have a very musical compressor aka la2a la50 1176 etc dont even think of compressing on the way in. The only eq i will ever do in recording is SUBTRACTIVE EQ and only things that make scence like cutting 160 and lower on a female vocal cutting 80hrz on an acoustic guitar etc never creative eqing to tape the only time ive broken this is when i was eqing a guitar solo nothing was in its pan position and i could make it sound like what ever i wanted and i did. more options on mix down is always better then restrictive decsions based on poor tracking.
 
Light said:
You spend the time you can getting the sound by moving mics, and then you EQ, compress and gate (and yes, you SHOULD do some dynamics during recording). If you want more evidence that pros do in fact EQ while recording, go over to the guitar forum on the MARSH (over at prosoundweb) and read Slipperman's thread on recording distorted guitars. He goes into a lot of very good stuff on there (and I have only read about a third of it), but one of the points he makes is that, when you EQ before you go to tape, you get more of the information you want to tape. Now, with analog this is important because it means better sounding tape saturation, but even with digital, it improves you signal to noise ratio, and just plain sounds better. Better bit management.
Click to expand...

Yes there are some engineers that EQ going to tape, this seemed to be a practice among engineers in England more than the US. The idea being that you kind of mix as you go along. You will find just as many if not more engineers however that reserve EQ decisions for later during the mixing stage and use mic choice as the main technique for getting sounds initially. There are advantages as I mentioned before in the analog medium, but the distortion that comes from EQing twice is the other issue if you don't get it right the first time. For example if you add or subtract too much, trying to add or reduce the same frequencies later isn't going to be optimal, nor will it sound like the original, also issues with phase distortion and other artifacts.

Using dynamic processing such as gates can be a bigger risk however. For example if the drummer gets "the perfect track" and you found out later that there were parts that didn't trigger correctly and there is "chattering" on one or more tracks "you've got some 'splaining to do Lucy". Likewise too much compression can ruin a track and can be difficult if not impossible to fix.

My personal philosophy is "Do not that which cannot be undone" or at least don't commit to something until your sure it's going to work or be the best it can possibly be.
 
Light said:
Contrary to what everyone in the "prosummer" recording market seems to think, professionals use EQ during the recording stages all the time.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree, it's nothing to do with "what novices seem to think" - it's two trains of thought among pro engineers - one is to use mic placement/selection to shape the sound, the other is throw up something reasonable and tweak with EQ to get the sound.

I think there can be good rationales for either approach... depending on the expereince and the working methodology of the AE...

I think it's better to teach novices/rookies the more flexible of the two - using selection/placement before reaching for the EQ knobs - because it teaches them good technique up-front. Once they're seasoned, they'll be in a position to use what they've learned in any manner that's appropriate.... (ie - they can break "the rules" later - once they know what they're doing!)
 
I'll weigh in. First, there are no rules. The way I try to work is to get the sound AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE with mic choice and placement. For the most part, I'm tracking with stand alone mic preamps that have no on board EQ (except for the low cut) so they're going to tape dry. If I'm using the consoles preamps, I admit that I usually "gas" the EQ just a bit on the way in. In my experience, the less I screw with the signal on the way in, the easier it seems to work with at mix time. YMMV.
 
the only eqing i do on the way in is subtractive.
i do occasionally add a little compression on the way in for certain drummers.

on the other hand, i will do some pre eqing and compressing on the way in for certain vocalists.
 
First, thanks for all the replies. I appreciate the feedback and have been enjoying the conversation a lot.

Second, I understand that there are "no rules". I wasn't looking for a yes or no answer, I was looking for some opinions, and trying to get a feel for what others have done. I probably should have phrased the title of the post differently.

In the past, I've used the tube preamps direct to the DAW, but (to be completely honest), this was mainly because I didn't have a mixer available to me at the time. Now that I have one, I was weighing my options.
 
my $.02 fwiw

One thing you didn't mention (i am very sleepy and may have missed it) is what you are recording on.

i have made a personal choice not to go into the computer. There are limitations on what my MR-8 can do, so i have to adapt.

when i begin a session (but hey.....i am new too) i set absolutely everything at 0. i do everything i can to get a good sound without moving a knob.

but, because i cant deal with an individual track like they do in the puter, i may add very mild compression (probably limiting to keep out of the red) and the eq if it is necessary. I know it is NOT THE BEST way to do it, but it is what i have to do with the equipment i have.

just remember, what you record IN you cant change. If you record a "flat" signal, you can process it later. But if you record a processed signal, you are pretty much stuck with it!

hell, when in doubt try. the worst thing that could happen is a small explosion (lol) ! good luck
 
As I already said, go read the Slipperman article over in the guitar forum at the MARSH (on ProSoundWeb). I have spent hundreds, and maybe thousands, of hours recording guitars, and I learned something - and I have not even finished it yet. He talks about WHY he likes to EQ on the way in far better than I can. I have to admit, I do it because I am lazy. I spend all the time I need to get the sound with the mic, but I want to save time during the mix. This is particularly important as I will not let anyone in the room with me while I am mixing. I get it to where I think it should be, and then the client gets to make comments. If I get the sounds right in the first place, it takes less time to get the mix to the starting point.

Anyway, it is a moot point if your only EQ is a Mackie. You gotta move 6-12 dB before it does anything, and I almost never use that much EQ.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
I can see rolling off in the lower range for vocals on the way in. The same for guitars and cymbals but only after the drums and bass have been recorded. Otherwise you have no reference for how to lay in the guitars.

I can't see a lot of additive EQ on the way in unless you are trying to get some color from hardware. There are some EQs that sound good just being in the chain however.

My2Cnts
 
Light said:
Anyway, it is a moot point if your only EQ is a Mackie. You gotta move 6-12 dB before it does anything, and I almost never use that much EQ.
Click to expand...
Light... seriously -- I know that you know your stuff, but please cut the rhetoric...! I've done many, many mixes on a modest Mackie 8-buss - I DO use the EQ on it during mixdown and very rarely is it anywhere near 6-12dB! Imagine that!!! ;)

I'm a huge fan of minimal front end, so most of the time it's mic -> mic pre (API/GR/Phoenix/RNP) -> recorder... I'll save any EQ'ing for mixdown unless absolutely necessary.

And I'm not at all suggesting this is the way everyone should do it -- just what works for me!
 
Light said:
Anyway, it is a moot point if your only EQ is a Mackie. You gotta move 6-12 dB before it does anything, and I almost never use that much EQ.
Click to expand...

Hrm, my old mixer was a Mackie CR1604 and IMHO it didn't sound good pushed up much more than 6-7db... anything greater than that and it wouldn't sound so hot.

Honestly, and this is by no means an insult, but I'm suspiscious if you have trained your ear to hear small EQ changes properly.
 
Cloneboy Studio said:
Honestly, and this is by no means an insult, but I'm suspiscious if you have trained your ear to hear small EQ changes properly.
Click to expand...


Well, I can hear extremely small changes when the EQ works properly. I admit, I am used to something nicer than a Mackie (I learned studio work on SSL's, and live work on a Yamaha PM-3000 and a couple of PM-4000's. These days it is mostly live work on Crests, Midas', and Yamahas.) But every now and then the union (IATSE) has me doing house sound at the convention center, and they use Mackies.

I know what I am talking about. This is my job, not just a hobby. Aside from literally thousands of hours of mixing, I have been through more than a few audio ear training exercises in my school days. Yes, I can hear subtle changes in EQ. Try a Crest sometime, and you will know what I am talking about with the crappy Mackie EQ. The little Crest X-Rack mixers have some of the nicest EQ's I have ever heard on a sub $10,000 console. I have friends who like them more than the Midas Venice series EQ, but I think they just sound different. Neither one better nor worse.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top