What makes a piece of gear EQ well?

[soupking]

Like, I hear a lot about gear, microphones in particular, saying that when mixing track done with certain equipment that they EQ better than others.

Maybe my paraphrasing is a bit askew, but...What makes a device work well with and EQ whether it's microphones, compressors, combinations, etc.?

Is there a general model of science that determines effectiveness in this matter?

[TonyBelmont]

This term usually applies to microphones only and typically means that the frequency curve of that microphone allows for pleasing results when using an EQ... In other words, there aren't many sharp peaks or dips, which would cause difficulties making adjustments when mixing.

[soupking]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

This term usually applies to microphones only and typically means that the frequency curve of that microphone allows for pleasing results when using an EQ... In other words, there aren't many sharp peaks or dips, which would cause difficulties making adjustments when mixing.

Oh okay, so ribbon mics are like that right?

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by soupking

Oh okay, so ribbon mics are like that right?

Sometimes... it's more based on an individual microphone... For instance, a U87 takes EQ well.

[soupking]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

Sometimes... it's more based on an individual microphone... For instance, a U87 takes EQ well.

Interesting. My next guess was going to be LCD mics. But I imagine that's because it has more to do with craftsmanship.

I guess anybody could look at a microphone frequency graph and tell roundabout what they can expect. That is, depending on the experience of the individual of course.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by soupking

I guess anybody could look at a microphone frequency graph and tell roundabout what they can expect. That is, depending on the experience of the individual of course.

Not necessarily, because most of those charts aren't very accurate.

Better to use your ears....

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by soupking

Like, I hear a lot about gear, microphones in particular, saying that when mixing track done with certain equipment that they EQ better than others.

Maybe my paraphrasing is a bit askew, but...What makes a device work well with and EQ whether it's microphones, compressors, combinations, etc.?

Is there a general model of science that determines effectiveness in this matter?

No model of science... just aesthetics...

I personally think that most high quality microphones that drop a little in the high end tend to be the mics that people think 'eq well' simply because they are compelled to EQ them...

You hear people making those comments about Sm7, 441, R121... all mics with great mid definition and somewhat softer highs...

[soupking]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

Not necessarily, because most of those charts aren't very accurate.

Better to use your ears....

Heh, true, but if I were looking to buy something, or even trial, I'd have to have something recorded and ready to mix with the thing in order to test it right?

I mean, if there's a way of listening to mic's mixing capability without pushing faders and knobs, I'm all ears. But in terms of knowing. It sounds like that's something that's largely word of mouth or just plain first-hand.

Thanks Tony,
-soup

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by soupking

Heh, true, but if I were looking to buy something, or even trial, I'd have to have something recorded and ready to mix with the thing in order to test it right?

I mean, if there's a way of listening to mic's mixing capability without pushing faders and knobs, I'm all ears. But in terms of knowing. It sounds like that's something that's largely word of mouth or just plain first-hand.

Thanks Tony,
-soup

[soupking]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

No model of science... just aesthetics...

You hear people making those comments about Sm7, 441, R121... all mics with great mid definition and somewhat softer highs...

Ahhh, and people typically boost too huh?

Heh, I have a Midas and the EQ is so strong I'm scared a the f'r. I mostly use it just to high/low cut and sand edges.

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by soupking

Ahhh, and people typically boost too huh?

Heh, I have a Midas and the EQ is so strong I'm scared a the f'r. I mostly use it just to high/low cut and sand edges.

boosting high end... you ever listen to a modern record? It's all a giant treble boost... and you wonder why there's so much hate for the cheap chinese mics... they start to sound like ass when you boost that much... brings up all the fizz.

So yes... robust clear mid range... highs that aren't ice picks... that is generally a mic that "EQ's well". Same reason tape generally eq's well....

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by soupking

Ahhh, and people typically boost too huh?

Heh, I have a Midas and the EQ is so strong I'm scared a the f'r. I mostly use it just to high/low cut and sand edges.

Which Midas, how many bands? Midas EQs are usually excellent, I have been using them off and on for 20+ years. Experiment, trial and error will teach you!

[soupking]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

boosting high end... you ever listen to a modern record? It's all a giant treble boost... and you wonder why there's so much hate for the cheap chinese mics... they start to sound like ass when you boost that much... brings up all the fizz.

So yes... robust clear mid range... highs that aren't ice picks... that is generally a mic that "EQ's well". Same reason tape generally eq's well....

Awesome. Boy did I luck out. Most of my mics are high end ribbons, flat response dynamics, or my Soundelux e47.

And I only record to tape at 15ips. 30ips has a higher bell curve, but knowing is half the battle.

Makes me feel good that when I send tracking to a mixer that he/she won't want to get it over with.

[soupking]

Originally Posted by Beyersound

Which Midas, how many bands? Midas EQs are usually excellent, I have been using them off and on for 20+ years. Experiment, trial and error will teach you!

The Venice. Believe me, I'm not complaining, especially for the price. If I were to upgrade, I'd upgrade to a 240 cuz I'm running out of routing options.

Honestly, I haven't mixed very much at all because I've been getting the studio together to record to tape. It's primarily a tracking studio until I can get a bigger mixer or maybe and Aurora 16. Need more flexibility to consider not just sending it to a pro. That and I lack a lot of experience.

I've learned a ton though in the past two years.

I'll never install drywall for a living, I can say that much.

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by soupking

The Venice. Believe me, I'm not complaining, especially for the price. If I were to upgrade, I'd upgrade to a 240 cuz I'm running out of routing options.

Honestly, I haven't mixed very much at all because I've been getting the studio together to record to tape. It's primarily a tracking studio until I can get a bigger mixer or maybe and Aurora 16. Need more flexibility to consider not just sending it to a pro. That and I lack a lot of experience.

I've learned a ton though in the past two years.

I'll never install drywall for a living, I can say that much.

I've only used their large format consoles and matrix line mixers. Midas these days usually means great Pres and great EQ, but not cheap. I hear the Venice is excellent.