Login / Register
 
Recording EQ frequency response
New Reply
Subscribe
jesusfwrl
Thread Starter
#1
23rd September 2012
Old 23rd September 2012
  #1
Gear interested
 
jesusfwrl's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
jesusfwrl is offline
Recording EQ frequency response

I am in the process of building a dedicated stereo recording interface, on a budget. That is, just two mic inputs directly onto a stereo recorder.

I've pretty much settled on an ART Pro MPA II preamp, ART Pro VLA II compressor, and I am now thinking about some kind of EQ. It seems that most decent parametric EQs are way out of my budget. Looking at graphic eqs, I saw the LA Audio EQ231G but I wasn't too impressed by the specs on paper stating that the frequency response is 20hz to 20khz. The ART units have a response of 15hz to 120khz for the MPA, and 10hz to 100khz for the VLA.

Ideally, I would like the frequency response to be limited by the recording interface, not before that. Which pretty much renders the LA Audio unsuitable. Doing some research, I noticed that a lot of the EQs out there, even the expensive ones, state a frequency response going only up to 20khz. The exceptions within my budget I have found are:

Rolls REQ215 - 16hz to 30khz
DBX 215s - 10hz to 50khz

Both still with quite a difference on the high end.

I am of the opinion that frequencies above 20khz, although technically outside the human hearing range, do have a noticeable effect on the music if present. Also part of the point of recording at greater sample rates in the digital domain, or going with analog tape.

Does anyone know of an EQ that would go higher than the ones mentioned, without breaking the bank? Also, does anyone have experience with the Rolls and DBX? Are they any good for recording, or are they just meant to be used for sound reinforcement?

Or should I just not include an EQ in my system (not sure how good of an idea this would be)?
#2
23rd September 2012
Old 23rd September 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
matucha's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 3,396

matucha is offline
I'd rather spend money on mic-preamp-AD converter than preamp/compressor/eq. Higher quality mic pre and AD will make more difference most of the time than compressor and eqs. Also when starting out and knowing little about the process, it is much easier to make bad decisions with your compressor and eq, ie ruining the takes.
__________________
Matous Godik
www.soundcloud.com/zka4t
jesusfwrl
Thread Starter
#3
23rd September 2012
Old 23rd September 2012
  #3
Gear interested
 
jesusfwrl's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
jesusfwrl is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by matucha View Post
I'd rather spend money on mic-preamp-AD converter than preamp/compressor/eq. Higher quality mic pre and AD will make more difference most of the time than compressor and eqs. Also when starting out and knowing little about the process, it is much easier to make bad decisions with your compressor and eq, ie ruining the takes.
I forgot to mention that I'm not just starting out, I just never had such a setup of my own up to now. I have a multi-track recording studio that is not mobile in the slightest, and I am looking to branch out into mobile territory with my own equipment. Up to now, I've been borrowing or renting equipment for location recording.

It will be a bit of an experiment, and I will start out without an AD conversion. I will offer three options of analog recorders for a start: A Tascam or Denon Cassette Tape deck, a Studer-Revox G36 tube reel-to-reel and a Revox B77 reel-to-reel. Cassette will be the budget option for clients that cannot afford reel-to-reel tape, and for the ones that can, I will be offering the reel thing. It will be two racks to carry around at first, which in the future I would expand with another rack with a mixer, so I can use more than two microphones, and maybe even a rack with a multitrack tape machine (if I get enough requests for one) or a rack with a DAW, for which I would then invest in decent A/D converters. But for now, I just want to keep it analog and see where it takes me. I prefer working with analog tape. In my studio I have both, and the tape sees a lot more use than the DAW.

I have enough confidence to make on-the-fly decisions with knobs, and the whole idea is to not do any post-production for most jobs. Just get the event on tape as best as I can, and then give the tape to the client to do as they wish with. Of course, I'd be more than happy to also take the tape to the studio and do post production and mastering there, but the location service will be purely recording.

I do not have the ability to invest in really high-end gear for this at the moment though, so I would start modest, and if it catches on with clients, I can upgrade later.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Remoteness / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
28
pschneider / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
47
XLR2XLR / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
4
Roland / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
2
stupid8track / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
7

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.