The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Preamp with EQ Single-Channel Preamps
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 
razorboy's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Preamp with EQ

Until now I have done EQ ITB, and now I have viewed the Golden Age preQ-73: [ GoldenAge Project – PreQ-73 ] which has "" A two band LF (+/-15 dB) and HF (+/-20 dB) shelving equalizer with two selectable frequencies for each band."" The site goes on to describe the critter as ""The PREQ-73 is a one-channel vintage style microphone-, line- and instrument preamplifier with a two band shelving equalizer offering a smooth and effective sound shaping.""

I expect that this will sell well, as the home recordist finds an extra tool to shape the sound for about $80 more than the pre without the EQ feature. Radial has a preamp with 3-band EQ for just over $300: Radial PreMax™ Channel Strip. There may a lot of similar critters which I don't know about.

I think that for a lot of home recordists, that sort of EQ may be enough, or or mostly enough, with maybe a little bit done ITB if necessary. Hardware recording equalizers aren't cheap.

What do y'all think of that sort of combo-device / channel strip or whatever you want to call it? Also, do you use an OTB equalizer?

Thanks for any wisdom

Last edited by razorboy; 1 week ago at 03:08 AM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
CJ Mastering's Avatar
 

Quote:
What do y'all think of that sort of combo-device / channel strip or whatever you want to call it? Also, do you use an OTB equalizer?
These are words I live by: Why would you do "Destructive Editing", when you can do "Non-Destructive" editing in the box?

Ask yourself this: How many times have you went back and adjusted your EQ in the mixing stage?
You cannot do that if you record your audio with an outboard EQ!!! And you do not start Eqing until you have all your tracks recorded, because you need to hear the relationship between all the tracks in your song, before you start to EQ them individually, Right!!!

CJ
Old 1 week ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
razorboy's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
These are words I live by: Why would you do "Destructive Editing", when you can do "Non-Destructive" editing in the box?

Ask yourself this: How many times have you went back and adjusted your EQ in the mixing stage?
You cannot do that if you record your audio with an outboard EQ!!! And you do not start Eqing until you have all your tracks recorded, because you need to hear the relationship between all the tracks in your song, before you start to EQ them individually, Right!!!

CJ
I'm not saying that you're not right, but every time a player changes the tone controls on his guitar or amplifier, he's changing EQ.
Old 1 week ago
  #4
Lindell makes that 18SX thats cool as far as Pre+EQ read some on that, sometimes $499 used/discontinued?.
LA610 & 6176 looks tasty...
GapreEq is $250?

With unlimited tracks why not record one dry and one processed?
Old 1 week ago
  #5
To quote the great and eternal Slipperman, "EVERYTHING IS EQ"

Quote:
Originally Posted by razorboy View Post
I'm not saying that you're not right, but every time a player changes the tone controls on his guitar or amplifier, he's changing EQ.
Old 1 week ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
tedtan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
These are words I live by: Why would you do "Destructive Editing", when you can do "Non-Destructive" editing in the box?
Conversely, why wait to fix it in the mix if you can get it right when tracking?


Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
Ask yourself this: How many times have you went back and adjusted your EQ in the mixing stage?
You cannot do that if you record your audio with an outboard EQ!!! And you do not start Eqing until you have all your tracks recorded, because you need to hear the relationship between all the tracks in your song, before you start to EQ them individually, Right!!!

CJ
That holds true for surgical EQ, but for broad tone shaping/sweetening like you'd do with a Neve/API/Pultec/Trident 2- or 3- band EQ, there is no reason why you shouldn't do it up front while tracking.
Old 1 week ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 
CJ Mastering's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedtan View Post
Conversely, why wait to fix it in the mix if you can get it right when tracking?




That holds true for surgical EQ, but for broad tone shaping/sweetening like you'd do with a Neve/API/Pultec/Trident 2- or 3- band EQ, there is no reason why you shouldn't do it up front while tracking.
Everyone knows when you track, you don’t know how the different individual instrument tracks are going to sound when they’re mixed altogether with the other instruments in the song.

Everyone should also know that you can have the same track in 2 different songs and the track will sound different in each of the two songs!
So you cannot EQ correctly when you’re tracking.

If you didn’t know that, now you know that!
Old 1 week ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 
tedtan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
Everyone knows when you track, you don’t know how the different individual instrument tracks are going to sound when they’re mixed altogether with the other instruments in the song.

Everyone should also know that you can have the same track in 2 different songs and the track will sound different in each of the two songs!
So you cannot EQ correctly when you’re tracking.

If you didn’t know that, now you know that!
You're still thinking about it from a "fix it in the mix" perspective.

When you EQ tracks while tracking, you adjust their individual EQs to work together as you add tracks, so you don't need to hear all of them together before you EQ a single track. Obviously, this won't work as well if it's the first few times you've ever mixed a track, but with a bit of experience, it can make your time spent mixing a lot more fun and creative rather than just fixing problems.
Old 1 week ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 
CJ Mastering's Avatar
 

Ugggg, I never said fix it in he mix. You’re not comprehending what I’m saying looking at the big overall picture of our song comes together.

Can you quote me where I said “ fix it in the mix”? You cannot, because I never said that. That’s the trouble with forums.

Maybe it’s my fault your misunderstanding me, as I may not be conveying it correctly.

The premise of my answer is why should do “Destructive” editing when you can do “Non Destructive” editing.


I record all the time with NON DESTRUCTIVE effects. This is not fixing it in the MIX!

I hope I cleared this issue up
Old 1 week ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 
G-Sun's Avatar
Tracking eq for me is:
1) Corrective.
An eq fix. And yes, it affects performance.
2) Creative eq.
When the eq is part of the sound.
3) Sonic enhancement
Like a pulteq eq you like the sound of.
Old 1 week ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 
tedtan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
Ugggg, I never said fix it in he mix. You’re not comprehending what I’m saying looking at the big overall picture of our song comes together.

Can you quote me where I said “ fix it in the mix”? You cannot, because I never said that. That’s the trouble with forums.

Maybe it’s my fault your misunderstanding me, as I may not be conveying it correctly.

The premise of my answer is why should do “Destructive” editing when you can do “Non Destructive” editing.


I record all the time with NON DESTRUCTIVE effects. This is not fixing it in the MIX!

I hope I cleared this issue up
You never used the phrase "fix it in the mix". What you said was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
And you do not start Eqing until you have all your tracks recorded, because you need to hear the relationship between all the tracks in your song, before you start to EQ them individually, Right!!!
And given that mixing is largely identifying and fixing problems, what you are talking about is waiting to fix EQ issues in the mix rather than addressing them up front.

Don't get me wrong, you can't fix everything while tracking. But you can get further than you realize - perhaps 75 to 85% of the way to the final mix.
Old 1 week ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 
CJ Mastering's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedtan View Post
You never used the phrase "fix it in the mix". What you said was:
And given that mixing is largely identifying and fixing problems, what you are talking about is waiting to fix EQ issues in the mix rather than addressing them up front.

Don't get me wrong, you can't fix everything while tracking. But you can get further than you realize - perhaps 75 to 85% of the way to the final mix.
You need to study the English language, as I never said fix in the mix.

You’re borderline trolling me now and it’s unacceptable.

Stop twisting my words around to mean something else and get on with your life
Old 1 week ago
  #13
Gear Head
20 years in pro studios here.

of course you EQ to tape.

whats the engineer getting paid to do????? sit around and wait till mix land???

no
Old 1 week ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
tedtan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
You need to study the English language, as I never said fix in the mix.

You’re borderline trolling me now and it’s unacceptable.

Stop twisting my words around to mean something else and get on with your life
No trolling or twisting words here, I just presented a different perspective. One you might be able to learn from at that.

No offense intended.
Old 1 week ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
CJ Mastering's Avatar
 

Quote:
No trolling or twisting words here, I just presented a different perspective. One you might be able to learn from at that.

No offense intended.
Learn from you LYING? Twisting words and putting words in peoples mouths is not a different perspective. Its outright lying.

Now i see how your mind thinks and now i know the reasons why you do that
Old 1 week ago
  #16
Old 1 week ago
  #17
Geariophile
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
Everyone knows when you track, you don’t know how the different individual instrument tracks are going to sound when they’re mixed altogether with the other instruments in the song.

Everyone should also know that you can have the same track in 2 different songs and the track will sound different in each of the two songs!
So you cannot EQ correctly when you’re tracking.

If you didn’t know that, now you know that!
Everyone knows that sentences that start with 'everyone knows' are suspicious as green dog turd. Or, at least, everyone should know this.
Old 1 week ago
  #18
Lives for gear
 
razorboy's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
I wish that someone made a little outboard 3-band EQ which didn't cost a zillion.
Old 1 week ago
  #19
Lives for gear
 
CJ Mastering's Avatar
 

Quote:
Everyone knows that sentences that start with 'everyone knows' are suspicious as green dog turd. Or, at least, everyone should know this.
Everyone knows that people who use Dog turd in their sentences must be familiar with the taste of it. Just Saying
Old 1 week ago
  #20
Lives for gear
This thread is mostly a number of tracking/mix engineers arguing with a mastering engineer. The OP asked for advice, the mastering engineer gave his advice, and a bunch of people are tag-teaming bashing him. Calm down! If you have different advice, just give it.
I am mainly a mastering engineer who also does recording and mixing. I definitely favor some EQ and a little compression on some mics and/or sources going in. I generally will use a low-cut on mics that aren’t for bass instruments. I tend to add some HF shelf EQ to ribbon mics. I have some EQ that I know I like on certain mics with certain sources. So I agree in part with EQ going in.
I think CJ Mastering is cautioning against any knob-turning during tracking that isn’t very conservative. If you have a choice of a lot or a little of anything during tracking, “little” is the correct choice. If you aren’t absolutely sure that the EQ is right and that you aren’t just hearing more level from additive EQ, don’t EQ.
I know that many people are in audio in part for the sheer joy of cranking this, cutting that, and strapping something else across the whole thing. “Less is more” is an offensive statement to that group, but it isn’t bad advice (even if it isn’t your method).
Old 1 week ago
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
Learn from you LYING? Twisting words and putting words in peoples mouths is not a different perspective. Its outright lying.

Now i see how your mind thinks and now i know the reasons why you do that
Things are getting pretty heated and having read everything above, I really don't think tedtan means anything the way you're taking it. It definitely comes across as just the other perspective and you're both using different terminology for the same thoughts. For the record, I prefer your approach - record without EQ to give myself more options later (later being at the mixing stage). But I understand the thought of "we don't need anything below 70Hz on this vocal track, let's high pass it so there's no murk to EQ out later." I don't mind using plugins for that but I understand why some people might want to get ahead of it during tracking. Sometimes I do that with my mic's high pass filter. Anyway, both ideas are equally valid, and I don't think things need to get so heated.
Old 1 week ago
  #22
Geariophile
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Mastering View Post
Everyone knows that people who use Dog turd in their sentences must be familiar with the taste of it. Just Saying


Yup. Have it for lunch most days.

Aside from that very many people know that reasons to eq in all stages of production abound and are not as simple to boil down as you did. Not without making it in effect a nonsense statement.

Just like compressing when recording isn't the same act as compressing in context of the mix, the same goes for eq. Just means you do it from a different headstate with different objectives. Still plenty situations where it makes utter sense to do it.
Old 1 week ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 
razorboy's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Nobody seems to make a two or three band outboard EQ. Perhaps that is because no-one wants one except me.

I'm wondering how difficult it would be to buy the parts and build one, of the type and quality (more or less) as the EQ section of the PreQ box.

GoldenAge Project – PreQ-73
Old 1 week ago
  #24
Lives for gear
Check out revive audio. They have older good fixed up channel strips and a decent cost
Old 1 week ago
  #25
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorboy View Post
Nobody seems to make a two or three band ]
A quick check on Sweetwater shows that there are a few 3 and 4 band outboard EQ. They are less than a zillion, but a little to a lot pricey.
But there are many 500 rack EQ that fit your needs, and they are way less than your zillion limit.
Old 6 days ago
  #26
Gear Maniac
 
haysonics's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG BUDDHA View Post
20 years in pro studios here.

of course you EQ to tape.

whats the engineer getting paid to do????? sit around and wait till mix land???

no
Hi Dave,

I didn't realise you were on Gearslutz! I'll PM you on facebook and post you my new CD. IMO, the sound of one hand clapping is sort of a whooshing sound.

(BTW folks, Big Buddha is correct)


To the OP: I own a PREQ-73 and apart from nailing the Neve opamp, Golden Age have nailed a couple of bands of the 1073, meaning it is an accurate reproduction of Neve's inductor eq. I bought it because I am foremost a bass player and if you purchase the PREQ-73 I recommend setting the low band to 175Hz and turning the gain to 2 o'clock and then setting the high band to 8kHz and turning the gain to 2 o'clock. And don't worry about the Plus versions with the Carnhill transformers as i modded mine and the difference is not worth the money. Bo (founder of Golden Age) was very careful in choosing the right Chinese made input and output transformers.

Regards,

dean
Old 6 days ago
  #27
Lives for gear
 
tedtan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by staticwhitesound View Post
I really don't think tedtan means anything the way you're taking it. It definitely comes across as just the other perspective and you're both using different terminology for the same thoughts.
Exactly. I'm not trolling and have no ill will towards CJ Mastering at all.

I was legitimately just pointing out (mainly to the OP, though I quoted CJ Mastering) that there are other ways of doing things as I believe that people benefit from knowing multiple ways of doing something and choosing which one(s) they prefer based on that knowledge. I'm not even pushing it as "the right way" of doing things, just an option used by many tracking engineers.

Regardless, find what works for you and run with it. Just don't get dogmatic about it, as something else may work better under a different set of circumstances.
Old 6 days ago
  #28
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by haysonics View Post
apart from nailing the Neve opamp, Golden Age have nailed a couple of bands of the 1073
dean
You wrote “opamp”. I think you mean “preamp”. Golden Age avoids opamps in their audio circuitry, which is in that respect like the original Neve designs.
It’s one of the Golden Age selling points.
Old 6 days ago
  #29
Lives for gear
 
razorboy's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by haysonics View Post


To the OP: I own a PREQ-73 and apart from nailing the Neve opamp, Golden Age have nailed a couple of bands of the 1073, meaning it is an accurate reproduction of Neve's inductor eq. I bought it because I am foremost a bass player and if you purchase the PREQ-73 I recommend setting the low band to 175Hz and turning the gain to 2 o'clock and then setting the high band to 8kHz and turning the gain to 2 o'clock. And don't worry about the Plus versions with the Carnhill transformers as i modded mine and the difference is not worth the money. Bo (founder of Golden Age) was very careful in choosing the right Chinese made input and output transformers.

Regards, dean
Thanks for that. Your remark about the Carnhills is similar to what was written in an SOS review.

Is it the case that, on any particular song, if you turned the gain down to zilch and the output up, you could (sort of) effectively bypass the transformers and still use the EQ full bore? (...or woud the ungained pre still add some colour through the Babyface pres?)

Last edited by razorboy; 6 days ago at 10:00 PM.. Reason: confusion
Old 6 days ago
  #30
Gear Maniac
 
haysonics's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman View Post
You wrote “opamp”. I think you mean “preamp”. Golden Age avoids opamps in their audio circuitry, which is in that respect like the original Neve designs.
It’s one of the Golden Age selling points.
The opamp section of the preamp is discrete (transistors) rather than integrated (IC) which is one of Golden Age's selling points. And interestingly, a FET (type of transistor) will behave (in certain operating conditions) like a Tube.
Mentioned Products
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump