EQ in the tracking chain vs. post EQ?

[Brackish]

Just wondering your general thoughts regarding tracking with
EQ in the chain vs. doing it in post. Say, for example, you know
that, because of mic placement or selection (or whatever), there
will be some (maybe not a lot but some) EQ needed on the
track. What would be your thoughts on which way to go?

One situation I'm envisioning is running some test tracks with
the client there and then playing back those tracks to get the
"okay" on the sound before doing the real recordings. But what
if you know some EQ would improve the sound and will be needed
in post? You can tell the client you'll fix this and that in post but
it's hard for the client to make the assessments when he's
listening back to non-EQed test recordings. So this has lead me
to consider doing the EQ during the tracking so that the
client has a better idea of the end product.

A third option that has occurred to me is to put some
EQ just on the playback of the test tracks for the client so that
the client can have a better idea of the final outcome of
what the tracks will sound like after I've EQed them in post.

Would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

[Dayo]

If you're confident with your ears then go with it. This is what we do isn't it?

[pkautzsch]

Are you recording to a dedicated device, or to a DAW?

[joelpatterson]

I look at things in a certain way, and that way says: there's two distinct and non-overlapping phases, one is the capture and two is the processing.

For capture, I like to feel I'm using the proper tools for the job (the right mics into the right pre's, placed right, gained right, no funky buzzings in the line, just shooting for the highest quality achievable-- there are lo-cut filters for the occasional obnoxious and unavoidable rumblings, but you're aiming for clarity and solid levels.)

Once you get back to the studio, and it's time to mixdown, that's when you discover how well it all went and what measures need to be taken to compensate for anything that was less that ideal. You can't tell any of this on location, in the heat of battle. You need the repose and ideal acoustics of the playback to "decide" what needs doing.

It seems like a dangerous game of monkeying to try to pre-judge EQ on the spot, and it also seems like the ultimate in distracting to get your customer to audition his or her soundcheck and snap-judge if it's okay or if it's not okay, what needs to be done to make it okay. They need their full concentration on their performance-- they need their full trust that you know what you're doing-- and since it's inevitably going to sound different (and much better) when it's finally all mixed down... why bother with this step?

Those are my thoughts.

[DCtoDaylight]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Once you get back to the studio, and it's time to mixdown, that's when you discover how well it all went and what measures need to be taken to compensate for anything that was less that ideal. You can't tell any of this on location, in the heat of battle. You need the repose and ideal acoustics of the playback to "decide" what needs doing.

+1 on this, especially the "heat of battle" aspect - it's as much a mindset issue as it is a technology issue.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by Dayo

If you're confident with your ears then go with it.

Sorry, not quite following here. What should I go with?

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

Are you recording to a dedicated device, or to a DAW?

Dedicated device. No computer on site.

[sonare]

IMO irreversible decisions should not be made on location. Unless you are recording in DSD there is no good reason to commit to something that later in a known monitoring situation you wonder WHY you did it.

Rich

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

you're aiming for clarity and solid levels.

Once you get back to the studio, and it's time to mixdown, that's when you discover how well it all went and what measures need to be taken

Sounds like the sensible approach.

Thanks.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

seems like the ultimate in distracting to get your customer to audition his or her soundcheck ... They need their full concentration on their performance

Good point I hadn't considered! I hadn't considered that involving
the artist in making soundcheck decisions might take them out of
their own "zone of preparation" for their performance.

Nice to receive feedback here before making mistakes out
in the field.

[Remoteness]

Since the advent of digital multitrack recording I haven't used EQ or any signal processing for that matter during the capture...

That doesn't mean I don't gussy up the 2mix while on location!

Back in the analog days I would use anything it took to maximize the sound of the multi-track recording.

IMO, you really didn't have an option with analog media.

Today's recordable media gives you loads of options that can be addressed in post.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

it also seems like the ultimate in distracting to get your customer to audition his or her soundcheck and snap-judge if it's okay or if it's not okay

So what's the thought regarding bringing a nearfield monitor
into the field for small jobs? Even really need a monitor along
if only doing tracking? Or headphones will do?

What about a situation where a client asks, just out of curiosity,
to hear some playback? Or is it so rare that this comes up?

[joelpatterson]

I do understand that this is done: people bring nearfields with them, and then isolate themselves in some kind of soundproof room far from the action...

Ain't the world I live in. I want a full view of the concert, I want everyone to see me, and the more compact and portable my rig the better. And stringing XLR's say 50 or 75 feet to their stands-- that's plenty enough for me, as opposed to down the hallway and around the corner and into a broom closet.

So, monitoring in headphones, I am hearing enough to tell if things are going swimmingly or there's some kind of rip tides-- mics all working, placement good, levels fine. Quite often anyway-- the only "soundcheck" will be the murmur of the crowd before the concert starts.

If anyone wants to hear something, I'll hand them the 7506's-- can't say it's never happened, but generally they are doing their thing and I am doing mine. They're paying you to do this job-- I don't jump in a taxicab, and then start checking the fuel gauge and the oil and the tires-- even though, I guess I have the right, I mean, I wanna make sure we get there and all...

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

as opposed to down the hallway and around the corner and into a broom closet

LOL!

[rprecording]

I would agree with the consensus....get the best sound coming in from the mic's as you can and record with no eq. I would not do any eq on it, even if I had near field monitors there.

Record the tracks flat and eq later if needed...when you can actually listen in a controlled monitoring environment.

If you want to tweak the sound for the client then use the approach you mentioned earlier. Tweak the playback eq.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

the more compact and portable my rig the better

Do you bring a table with you to work off of?

Maybe you have a picture of your setup in the pictures sticky above.

[joelpatterson]

I think there is some kind of picture there, but it mostly shows my current hairstyle...

What I have is a box I built for carrying the mics, it's something like 24" tall, 10" deep and 18" wide. (It's got wheels on the side for rolling it along the sidewalk.) I set that at the scene of the crime, and then the rack with the pre's, compressors and HD24 sits atop that-- so, a fully self-contained little campsite. I made a rolling rack for the mic stands, looks like some kind of golf club caddy, and then a little rolling suitcase for the XLR cables.

[boojum]

In concurrence with the thread, philosophically recording the actual and unadorned, untweaked or unmodified session seems best. And if only for the reason that you know what you have "on tape" is the performance as it actually happened. It is the baseline, gold standard, whatever. It is what can always be gone back to in a screwup and work your way forward again.

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by Brackish

So what's the thought regarding bringing a nearfield monitor
into the field for small jobs? Even really need a monitor along
if only doing tracking? Or headphones will do?

What about a situation where a client asks, just out of curiosity,
to hear some playback? Or is it so rare that this comes up?

Clients asking: does come up, but mostly they want to listen to their playing. I'm always a little astonished to how little classical musicians actually care for sound quality in playback of their recordings. A regular client of mine often just uses a ghetto-blaster or car stereo. He knows, however, that it's technically fine. Even balance aspects aren't his job in his view.

If you need a proper stereo speaker setup depends mostly on if you need to set the stereo image on location. That's how you usually do it in classical (however it IS possible to judge a main pair's stereo image on headphones IF you know them well and are able to predict how it will translate) - when recording each instrument on their own, phones will be fine. Except that they lead to ear fatigue faster than good speakers.