Quote:
|
Originally Posted by not_so_new ...I was just surprised that Michael says he does not reach for EQ very much at all (at least that is how I read it) and when he does it is mostly digital not analog. I could have read the post wrong so I wanted to get some comments... |
I'm afraid you did read my post wrong, or most likely I didn't explain it right.
Over the years the EQs in my racks got less and less and the mic pres got more and more. In general I avoid EQ where I can, because (analog) EQs largely work on the principle of phase shift. If EQ is used on each track it makes it sound "out of whack" to me. Digital EQ does not do that, but I do NOT prefer the sound of digital EQ, I prefer the sound of NO EQ. That said, sometimes I use an EQ (especially like the Great River) for creative control, like raising a certain frequency of an instrument out of proportion to create a certain effect or mood. EQ is my last resort in "fixing" a sound. First is the mic, second the mic placement, third is the mic pre. I feel that everything sounds more "in place" when I don't use EQ during recording. In that case, everything also tends to sound a little dull, but that goes for the whole mix and I rather treat that with ONE EQ (mostly the Massive Passive on the stereo buss) than 48 EQs on the tracks.I do use the digital EQ in my Sony consoles if I have to touch up things, but that would be nothing surgical, just a little touch up.
In any case, if something can't be made to sound great with mic choice, placement and mic pre, go ahead and use EQ, that's what they are for, it's just not my first choice. I also agree with the statement that digital EQs do something weird in the high end when used with large amounts of gain, I call it scratchy.