Which "Air" do you prefer ?

PDP

There once was a note
A lot of vocals are recorded with "Air" EQ.
Do you prefer the sound created by a mic that has a high end lift, or a flatter mic using a plugin/ outboard preamp (EQ) to add the "Air"
Or both ?
 

TalismanRich

Well-known member
To be perfectly honest, the whole thing confuses me. People complain about mics being too bright, having too much top end, then they turn around and bump the high end with "air" circuits, high shelf eqs, etc. I've seen people rave about the Lewitt 440 Pure, but to me, it's quite bright. The same people complain about the Rode NT1a being way too bright.

It's like the days when receivers all had an EQ circuit for "loudness" that was supposed to compensate for Fletcher Munson effect. People would punch the button even when things were cranked up, just because it boosted the bass and treble.

In the end, it's all what you like, I guess. I tend to record mostly flat. I often roll some vocals off above about 12k, unless you want a lot of breathiness.
 

PDP

There once was a note
To be perfectly honest, the whole thing confuses me. People complain about mics being too bright, having too much top end, then they turn around and bump the high end with "air" circuits, high shelf eqs, etc. I've seen people rave about the Lewitt 440 Pure, but to me, it's quite bright. The same people complain about the Rode NT1a being way too bright.

It's like the days when receivers all had an EQ circuit for "loudness" that was supposed to compensate for Fletcher Munson effect. People would punch the button even when things were cranked up, just because it boosted the bass and treble.

In the end, it's all what you like, I guess. I tend to record mostly flat. I often roll some vocals off above about 12k, unless you want a lot of breathiness.
I had the Lewitt Pure it is very bright, I found it to be too sterile for me. I'm currently using a WA-47 tube mic which is flat and rich. I'm careful not to over-do the "Air" effect but I do find it enhances the enunciation on the lead vocal. I have a 1073 clone with a 30k boost setting at 3db or 6db. My Focusrite Scarlet has the ISA Air setting they both sound pretty nice with the WA-47.
 

rob aylestone

Well-known member
I'm so glad Rich posted that - exactly my thoughts too. I tend to pick mics to suit the person - so I have favourites for loads of different voices but in a way - that sort of forms my EQ? If I have a girl singer who is more chesty sounding, then I pick a mic that has a bit more sparkle at the top, but if I get somebody who is toothy and a bit cutting up top, I pick something warmer - probably the EV 320 that I don't use for much else. Then if I have got this choice right (and sometimes it doesn't work) any EQ tends to be very gentle and only what is needed to make work in the mix. Bass EQ is similar for me. If I want a different sound, I play a different bass!
 

mjbphotos

What?!?
When your ears are as old (and ringing) as mine, you can't tell the difference! Literally! I tried the 'Air' settings on my Scarlett 8i6, could not hear or see (on an EQ graph) any difference.
 

LazerBeakShiek

AKA Optimus Prime LEGO Vampire
A lot of vocals are recorded with "Air" EQ.
Do you prefer the sound created by a mic that has a high end lift, or a flatter mic using a plugin/ outboard preamp (EQ) to add the "Air"
Or both ?
You mean, like a distortion pedal? That will buzz it up good.

The Avalon unison model has a setting like that. The white noise from a distortion pedal is more radio lo fi.
 
Top