To EQ or not to EQ before print?
 

Okay... I've been trying to figure out the ins and outs of this next question:

I am recording a source that should be silent in the 20-190hz range (woodwinds).

Of course, if I record 'direct' without any inserts or plugins before the printed source, I get bumps and thumps and roars that really don't belong in the material.

Is there any difference in EQ'ing this out later or EQ'ing in an aux track before the audio track while recording?

Your thoughts appreciated. yingyang

If the filter is before the preamp eg.a hpf on the mic or pre itself then i believe you will have a smoother more "in tune with the signal"response from the mic and pre .

If the filter is post preamp i can,t see it being any different to eqing after recording,;unless you are printing to tape or going through a compressor before the signal hits the recorder ,in which case eqing first may again be desirable.

Do a quick test and judge for yourself.

Always try to get the sound YOU want before it goes to drive/tape. Sure you can do it later - but save yourself a step in the mixing process

it depends on your mics and pres
i like to use a HPF on a pre where possible, second choice would be on the mic.
if you dont have either, then it comes to plugs, i dont like tracking through plugs. i would track it dry then run your HPF, in non-realtime, a HPF dont change so there is no point using real time processing power for it.

that said if you are getting so much low end rumble you should start by isolating your mics. either with shockmounts or isolate the entire mic stand.

I would record it as is. Eq it afterwards. You can easily take out those frequency with the right plugins. You can always go back if you edit it after coversion.. but never before.

Thanks, all...

Sounds like if I can do this pre-DAW it would be worthwhile but Post-DAW it's a moot effort.

Anyone know of a simple high quality (static/passive) analog HPF circuit that I can put in line with the mic? I'd love to knock out 20-30db below 120 hz?

peachh

Yes you can do it, and plenty do...

It's all about how much experience YOU have and how well you know your own room and your own gear.

After mixing a certain style over and over again, you'll begin to know what it is you're looking for and you'll go after it right away!

So, my advice is to probably start without it for now and then develop a sense for your room and your go-to outboard gear. Once mixing, you'll see what it is you need for every song and soon enough, you can almost mix your songs while recording them. (Provide that you know your room's character 100%)

If you find yourself tweaking one song a hundred times because it doesn't sound the same in your car as what it did in your room, then post DAW production might be better since your room is doing something crazy and needs to be tamed.

hpf 100hz 12db oct
http://www.shure.com/accessories/a15hp.asp

Hardware prior to DAW = effective (mic bas cut / mic pre bass cut / channel bass cut)
Within DAW mixer = do it / dont do it - makes no diference
I vote clean signal up before daw - PROVIDED you arent losing frequencies you may require..

But I am not a classical instrument recordist.. I am going to move this to where the classical recordists hang out to see what they say..

Thanks Aussie... jummpp

I'll see if I can pick one of these up. Looks perfect for the job kfhkh


Jason... Yes, I've been into this almost 4 years but not a large mix of genre's. This particular purpose is for recording woodwinds where anything under 200hz is noise. I prefer to filter this out as early as possible preferably on the analog side.

The room is good and the monitors are good; most of the 'hard work' is playing with effects more than the song. You just cannot simply mimic wide open spaces in 14 x 16 room heppy

The chain I'm working with right now is Apex 460 => Digimax LT => DigiOO2 => PTLE 6.4 => Mackie HR824's, alt reference => M-Audio BX5 & Masterlink for burning coasters for other reference media's

I like EQ before, cause sometimes I like the Analog EQ better than a plugin later...but if it's something I care about less I'll leave it and do it later.

I like to process as much as I can before going to DAW, as long as I don't remove too much. I feel it's the only time I get to process on my analog gear using a full bandwidth unsampled signal. I also compress if I need to, but this is more for tonal reasons than dynamic range reduction. I have no technical data to support this, it just seems that when I do it this way I have to work a lot less to get the mix sitting well. (at least what I call sitting well)
Cheers

AE

Where is that anyway? (Especially those cute flautist girls) I tried the local library but there were only some old men surfing porn.

Most of the time, keep it clean & simple!
 

The only thing I'd "print" would be a HPF to reduce muddiness, and that is IT 90% of the time. The 10% of the time that I print EQ & any channel dynamics is when I am also the post-production mixer. When recording location tracks for other (star or unknown) engineers to mix, they always want the raw, un EQ'd track. But nothing is wrong with putting HPF's on drum OHs and Hihat, but most mix engineers want options. Don't use a 400Hz HPF on OHs because what if you WANT the floor tom? Less is often better and you CAN'T fix a mistake like that in the mix.

I know you know this, but it always is worth repeating.
Whatever you do while tracking, for yourself or someone else to mix, DOCUMENT it as accurately as detailed as possible.

When mixing bands like Staind live for broadcast, I've often been told that "we" (some producer far above my pay grade) is recording/multitracking for a third party, live album, DVD release, etc etc and often it is suggested that they take my mixed tracks. I always say no to that. I make sure they get the raw tracks plus a copy of my two-mix as a reference, so they get as accurate a signal path as possible without ME inducing phase shift, limiting dynamic range, etc to the original source. Since I'm not Eliot Scheiner (sp? sorry!) Bob Clearmountain, Mutt Lange, or one of the three dozen guys who gets hired at 2x my day rate to record, then the appropriately huge fee + points to mix the album later. Every time I've worked with one of these guys, they want clean tracks well-recorded. Don't f*ck with the basic waveform, no matter WHAT the format, is my mantra.

Hope this helps!

Back in the day when beautiful analog machines ruled the world I always EQ’d to these wonderful devices. Well, IMO, you really had to. I’d rather EQ it just right before it hit the tape (and, I’m not talking about “tape.”) I wanted to get the most out of the tape saturation by EQing to suit my needs. Tightening up the low end before it hit the tape was also important to me. I have also EQ’d more top end so I can take some away during the mix process to help reduce tape hiss.

Nowadays, I rarely EQ when tracking -- With the advent of good sounding digital recording devices, there’s really no need to EQ ahead of time. I want plenty of options. I would rather leave those decisions until the post production process or for my live show mix. I use digital recorders so I can capture the sound check or rehearsal. I then use those tracks to set up and finalize my mix before the live broadcast and such.

If I’m tracking I will isolate the mics with proper shock mounts to minimize the potential thumps and rumble. If that is not enough I will filter when necessary… Who needs that crap on the recordable media anyway? I also like to use a HPF on a pre or on the mic where possible. But, I will never track with filter plug ins.

I like to get the sound I want with “EQ”. Well, a different kind of EQ that is – I position the mics until they sound good to my ears. Whenever possible, I pick the right mics and pres for each and every instrument I’m recording. EQing doesn’t always have to be an electronic equalizer inserted into the chain. The acoustics of the space, the instruments used and the positioning of these things play a big role in the final EQ of the instrument.

The biggest challenge to this game is the fact that you never really know what the final settings need to be until the entire arrangement and musical balance has been put in place. What makes this tricky is that something approximating a final mix is necessary for people to perform to and to provide a valid context for making production decisions.

I find myself leaving both eq and dynamics processing off lately because both seem to create a need for more subsequent processing than "flat" tracks do.

Well... I won the auction for one of these today.
$20- can't hurt to try this thing out.

Thanks again, Aussie kfhkh

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.

I received the Shure A15HP filter and it works perfectly for my application! boing

peachh

I was not clear on whether or not the woodwinds were the only thing you were recording. If YES, then for heaven's sake, do NOT roll off the LF as you record. Reasons: You did not say WHICH woodwinds you were recording-- bassoon produces fundamental down to about 50Hz, and if a pair of them are playing 5ths (low B flat and F) the resultant tone will have a 25Hz fundamental.

Even if they are not going down that low, the sound of the room is really another instrument and you want to capture the weight of the sound of it.

If your concern is room rumble or HVAC you can better deal with that later. Location monitoring is a crapshoot below 60-80Hz.

Rich

Thanks Sonare. I am taking Native American Flutes. Even a low C has nothing intelligible below 200 hz. And what I really want is to make sure of is that a stereo CD doesn't trigger the .1 surround speaker if someone forgets to change their dolby system to stereo. It really sucks to hear thuds that don't belong there.

I can get the room's noise floor down to -80dbfs and still get a great signal. Problem was that 10 db of that was sub 150hz. The filter is working perfectly to level out the spectrum to -90dbfs on this setup. The overall room response is fine with this filter in place and never touches the flutes.

BTW, I'm using a Apex 460 with it's filter and a pop filter into a Digimax LT micing within 18" or so, Digimax PAD OFF for full dynamics or ON for closer micing. So far, I'm liking this combo. These imprecise instruments are a bear to record cleanly.

While a high pass filter might be a good idea in this case, in general I've found that doing remote recording with no eq or compression works great and allows me more control when I mix. Maybe its the short signal path from pre to recorder (but that's after a splitter and 150 plus feet of mic cable!) but I love the way things sound this way.

I do use eq and compression on the monitor mix console but this affects the stereo mix only.

BTW we are son going to be switching to Aphex remote controlled pres and converting to MADI onstage so it will be interesting to see what the improvement is after removing 150 feet of mic cable from the signal path. Frankly I've always been amazed at how you can get away with long mic cable runs and in most cases still have a good quiet signal.

Mark Linett

When I put my micpres near the mics and ran line level 180ft to the rest of the rig thru AES snake the difference was startling. I am sure that normal high-quality snake will do but I decided to go all out and am glad I did.

Rich