"Takes EQ well"...hmmm?

CoolCat

CoolCat

Well-known member
not trying to troll, but this phrase "takes EQ well" always seemed like rattlesnake oil words for saying "I don't really like how my $3600 Neumann 87ai sounds".

takes EQ well....my Shure mics and Rode mic and MXL can all "take EQ well"..... actually to be honest they all sound a little better with EQ.
to be filed under: I had my $4500 mic modded..lol?
 
its a common phrase... if you spend too much time reading and not recording you'll notice it posted when people review mics.

I think it refers to flat mics, that are neutral across the freq range, ....so "it takes eq well" means something, idk...

I also saw some video where a pro had a $4600 mic Red something, and the big credit he gave the mic was "it doesn't need eq" and I thought, is adding eq that much of a struggle to add that one will pay huge amounts not to use an eq? Maybe its because they record a lot and are under pressure to be done with the track and eq = time lost?

is it like saying "his singing takes Auto-Tune well"?
 
CoolCat said:
its a common phrase... if you spend too much time reading and not recording you'll notice it posted when people review mics.

I think it refers to flat mics, that are neutral across the freq range, ....so "it takes eq well" means something, idk...
Click to expand...
Weird. I've literally never heard or read it. Not being a jerk.

But anyway...
CoolCat said:
I also saw some video where a pro had a $4600 mic Red something, and the big credit he gave the mic was "it doesn't need eq" and I thought, is adding eq that much of a struggle to add that one will pay huge amounts not to use an eq?
Click to expand...
I agree. That's a weird flex. Besides the fact that it doesn't make sense. It's not usually the mic that needs EQ. It's the person's voice that might need it.
 
Yes, this is a common phrase to describe the quality of a microphone. If you have a variety of different mics, you can try this yourself. Because we are particularly atuned to the human voice, it is a good source to try this on but works with stuff like acoustic guitars which also has very complex sound. Record a track and bust out the EQ and boost at different frequencies to near extremes. Cheap Chinese mics are often described as being grainy or harsh particularly at high-mid to high frequencies. These boost with EQ is like a flashlight on quality via exaggerating the deficiencies. A better mic will handle these extremes aka takes EQ well.

Not unusual to have to boost a frequency of a track to get it to fit or to get an instrument to pop in a mix.
 
I might have noticed the phrase more than others as I never got my brain around it. "takes eq well", some mics don't? some take it poorly? some well?

interesting explanation Folkcafe,
 
There is a complimentary phrase used for guitar amps "takes pedals well". Can be a good thing but can also mean "lacks gain and versatility"!

Dave.
 
CoolCat said:
not trying to troll, but this phrase "takes EQ well" always seemed like rattlesnake oil words for saying "I don't really like how my $3600 Neumann 87ai sounds".

takes EQ well....my Shure mics and Rode mic and MXL can all "take EQ well"..... actually to be honest they all sound a little better with EQ.
to be filed under: I had my $4500 mic modded..lol?
Click to expand...
The emperor has no clothes.
Over the decades people built better mics for a lot less. The only thing that keeps these afloat is their marketing hype in the past because they used to be one of the few mics in existence. That was 6 decades ago. I laugh when I blind test mics and people get it wrong.
 
I dont know, quality parts, hours of qc is part of the cost. Name brand is earned and paid for. ...some unknown boutique amps are maybe better built than Marshall but wont get the sale due to brand name...

But yeah for that can of layout maybe we want magic without effort (aka EQ)...U47 ..Idk... my KSM44 takes EQ well, its kind of drab sounding dry and clean, imo.
add some opto and EQ, its a different mic sound but then it only costs $350 used...10x's less?

and I suppose I cant add to what folkcafe mentioned, the slang meaning.

like my untreated bedroom takes a noise gate well!


ADD>
. The KSM32 has a very neutral non hyped top end which i love (it takes EQ very well if you want to have a bright top),
.- Ronan Chris Murphey (king crimson)
 
Last edited:
Until i owned ‘nice’ mics i got very used to putting EQ on everything. When I started using better mics, i found i did not need as much EQ. So im now a bit confused with what ‘takes EQ well’. Does it mean the mic is a bit poor but with EQ, its fine, or does it mean the mic is so horrible, it is impossible to EQ. My better mics can be EQ’d of course, but ‘well’ ? I dont know.
 
CoolCat said:
I dont know, quality parts, hours of qc is part of the cost. Name brand is earned and paid for. ...some unknown boutique amps are maybe better built than Marshall but wont get the sale due to brand name...
Click to expand...

Marshall is a bad example as they used to make a somewhat decent amp that over the years their application of technology slowly caused complexity in their designs that have degraded them over time. How ever, a good example from guitar world is the Celestion speaker a lot of people think is good. Which in a few cabs sound decent, but there are better sounding speakers that work better in the cab. But there are other things guitar players get limited with recording, like using exclusively a sm57.

But like a u47, I wouldn't buy one now these days. Because there are better mics and don't have to take out a loan either. Check this one out:
 
rob aylestone said:
Until i owned ‘nice’ mics i got very used to putting EQ on everything. When I started using better mics, i found i did not need as much EQ. So im now a bit confused with what ‘takes EQ well’. Does it mean the mic is a bit poor but with EQ, its fine, or does it mean the mic is so horrible, it is impossible to EQ. My better mics can be EQ’d of course, but ‘well’ ? I dont know.
Click to expand...
I leave eq decisions after tracking, but what I consider a great mic for something is when I don't have to apply much EQ to it.
 
drtechno said:
I leave eq decisions after tracking, but what I consider a great mic for something is when I don't have to apply much EQ to it.
Click to expand...
To add to this, I fall somewhere in between. I've just no issue with making certain commitments when tracking. I did years running FOH while multitracking. So I am in essence, pre-mixing when doing FOH. I'm also an EQ minimalist in that I'd rather have a mic on the source that sounds correct for the mix. 451 on hi-hat for instance where it works. Very rarely the live mix tracks don't work for the overall mix afterwards. Early adopter of digital and the console had plenty of routing options. I've done plenty of tracks sent to the decks pre-fader but end up pretty much in the same place when mixing down.

That Lewett mic is interesting but would rather get the pair of 440 pures for the price. Essentially the same sound and where I don't have the need for the technology this adds. Tons of good mics out there.
 
Folkcafe said:
That Lewett mic is interesting but would rather get the pair of 440 pures for the price. Essentially the same sound and where I don't have the need for the technology this adds. Tons of good mics out there
Click to expand...
I've been finding this mic company has been cranking out decent mics and engineers passing up using the standards (u47,U87, 251, and c414) and using them. I've been deciding off and on getting their Pure Tube mic and seeing if I can apply some mods to make it sound like the c12 I've modded for big studios. Even though tube microphones don't really need to exist at all anymore. What you get from the tube sound can be accomplished in the mic preamp or a line stage.
 
drtechno said:
I've been finding this mic company has been cranking out decent mics and engineers passing up using the standards (u47,U87, 251, and c414) and using them. I've been deciding off and on getting their Pure Tube mic and seeing if I can apply some mods to make it sound like the c12 I've modded for big studios. Even though tube microphones don't really need to exist at all anymore. What you get from the tube sound can be accomplished in the mic preamp or a line stage.
Click to expand...
The noise floor spec on that tube mic is pretty remarkable.

I'm working with someone I started recording with 50 years ago. He has it in his head that he's going to get a U89 for this latest project. We had a bunch of good mics back in the day but we both sold off much of our collection. So far, I've gotten by with what I've got left and a combination of used and bargain mics. One day we are auditioning some vocal tracks and he just dumps all over them blaming the mics. My response "Look, I know what your voice sounds like and no mic is going to make it any better". Then I let him know if he spends all that money on one mic and brings nothing else to the table, he can record from his bedroom and stay the hell out of my studio. The topic hasn't been brought up since. Nostalgia and vanity.

Here is an interesting perspective on both the 440 Pure and Pure Tube from someone I started following a few years ago and like his perspective.

 
drtechno said:
I leave eq decisions after tracking, but what I consider a great mic for something is when I don't have to apply much EQ to it.
Click to expand...
but I wonder at what cost sometimes.
one Uber big studio YouTube guy went on and on about the uber expensive mic and at the end of his summary the biggest goal seemed to be his comment "I don't even have to eq it!!" and I thought ok, but when did turning a knob become painful and or a mouse eq.? ...that's the cost justification? I don't have to turn some knobs.
I understand the holy grail plug n play and no work is needed studio beauty mic with no "help" needed...its great, no doubt that's a great thing....but at what cost?
$2800 or $4500 for a mic no eq vs a $250 Lewitt or whatever mic, that sounds great too with eq ...it seems crazy.

I was messing with my dry bone flat "boring" KSM 44 and then when I pressed a couple buttons on the JoeMeek VC1Q (opto comp and eq and more) it could be in another world, so is that really such a bad thing? it doesn't seem bad but it is like "helping" the mic.
Then I wonder why spend more on a KSM44, when a SM7b or a old RODE or MXL can get customized with the "help" of a channel/outboard too. The KSM 32 is even flatter and less sparkle than a 44 and $285-$300 and it can sound like 1,000 mics with eq applied in various ways. I haven't done much with the RODE NT2 but I will, it was free basically...

That's why trying all these mics out is fun but perplexing at times.... U89, U47...U67i vs new 67 or a clone and everyone's making better and better clones and the original U47 are dying off and don't even have the original parts anymore or reskinned capsules...and cost the price of a used car. ..I don't want to dive deep into psychology but how much of the Neumann is emotional, its the brand of our fav stars and famous studios etc.. Like Rob was doing in his videos, black market mics from China ....maybe a $123 U87 off AlibabbaExpress and eq it, compress it, put a vocoders on it and who would know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top