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
Tracking with EQ
Old 28th July 2014
  #31
Lives for gear
it depends on the music, the timbres and everything. use your ears.
Old 28th July 2014
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
It's tough to get a good drum sound day in and day out with average bands playing average equipment without eq....

I checked out that thread it said nothing about not using equalizers. I'm sure people used eq on all those recordings.

but didn't hear too many high level recordings if any, though I didn't go through the whole thread
On post #88 I put up an example that I recorded that's why I mentioned post #88. And recorded it with no eq or compression on the way in, the rough mix has compression on it, that's it. And if the drummer is bad you're not getting a good recording no matter what, there isn't enough eq in the world.
Old 28th July 2014
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth View Post
GREAT records were tracked in GREAT rooms by GREAT engineers for many years. Many selected the right mic, put it in the right place, then EQ'd and compressed that SOB to taste. Commit. Done.
and many waited for the mix to eq, btw if you eq and compress on the way in and eq and compress on the way out you committed to exactly nothing
Old 28th July 2014
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yippie37 View Post
400 hz sucks
it does, that is the classic cheap drum tone....cardboard
Old 28th July 2014
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
On post #88 I put up an example that I recorded that's why I mentioned post #88. And recorded it with no eq or compression on the way in, the rough mix has compression on it, that's it. And if the drummer is bad you're not getting a good recording no matter what, there isn't enough eq in the world.
oh sorry I didn't know what #88 meant in your previous post , I will check it out
Old 28th July 2014
  #36
Here for the gear
 

It depends on the song itself. Usually you can cut the lower frequencies in which you can't really tell they're there. Doing that gives me a sense of giving an instrument of vocal a nice thicker tone. For Clarity I would say boost from 1k and 5k.
Old 29th July 2014
  #37
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
btw if you eq and compress on the way in and eq and compress on the way out you committed to exactly nothing
What do you mean?
Old 29th July 2014
  #38
I know people tend to get all pissy over threads like this and start throwing around the generic responses like "it depends on this and that and blah blah blah" and all of that is true

but the people who are making the effort are putting forth some solid advice

personally, I go for the things I KNOW are going to be done at mixdown anyway....throwing on a high pass to tape can save you some time and processing resources later on but that's already been mentioned

this is the best two cents I can add here: once you start noticing patterns in your mixdown phase, you can slowly start introducing some of those elements into tracking...you'll be surprised at the time it saves you but of course, you need to be careful what you commit to...

start with hp filters and any sort of destructive room resonance...that type of thing takes care of the vast majority of my eqing on the way in...

you aren't mixing a live show, you're trying to get quality, pliable tracks down that you can work with later...how you get there is up to you
Old 29th July 2014
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
What do you mean?
the idea of committing to a sound is when you record it and you " committed" then that's it, you don't need any more processing. If you are again processing in the mix you really didn't commit.
Old 29th July 2014
  #40
Lives for gear
 
code green's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champagne Ivers View Post
Wish I knew what "100k" and "250k" sounds like...
You need "high-end" gear to really get a sense of those frequencies.
Old 29th July 2014
  #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
the idea of committing to a sound is when you record it and you " committed" then that's it, you don't need any more processing. If you are again processing in the mix you really didn't commit.
I think this is a little subjective. I totally get what you're saying, but one could also argue that "committing" when tracking just means that whatever decisions you made, you're satisfied with, you don't regret, and you won't wish you could "undo" them. Even if you decide to do further processing later.

Perfect example would be using HPF on the way in. Even if that's all you do during tracking, you've "committed" to that because it obviously can't be undone, regardless what ELSE you do later.
Old 29th July 2014
  #42
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
the idea of committing to a sound is when you record it and you " committed" then that's it, you don't need any more processing. If you are again processing in the mix you really didn't commit.
I don't agree. The choices you made when tracking are final. You can't un-do them, you have in fact committed to them. If you later choose to make additional adjustments, that won't change any of that. Nor will it prove that the choices you made originally were right or wrong. It is just a continuing process.
Old 30th July 2014
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I don't agree. The choices you made when tracking are final. You can't un-do them, you have in fact committed to them. If you later choose to make additional adjustments, that won't change any of that. Nor will it prove that the choices you made originally were right or wrong. It is just a continuing process.
the fact that you had to change the sound again means you didn't commit to the sound, you took a guess and it turned out you were wrong because you needed more adjustment. Or be realistic and don't call it committing, because if you changed it, you didn't commit. When you've recorded anything you can't undo it, you have to do it over. If you were to say you're trying to get the best tracking sound you can fine, that's still not committing. Rather than turn knobs, I switch out mics or move them, in a way you could argue that's a form of eq, I go for the best sound I can get that way, and if I couldn't get a sound I'd do whatever I had to, it just so happens that it's very rare when I have to. But to go along with your argument, essentially I'm committing, same as you, I just don't turn any knobs in tracking.
Old 30th July 2014
  #44
Gear Addict
 
Ave Crux's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
the fact that you had to change the sound again means you didn't commit to the sound, you took a guess and it turned out you were wrong because you needed more adjustment. Or be realistic and don't call it committing, because if you changed it, you didn't commit. When you've recorded anything you can't undo it, you have to do it over. If you were to say you're trying to get the best tracking sound you can fine, that's still not committing. Rather than turn knobs, I switch out mics or move them, in a way you could argue that's a form of eq, I go for the best sound I can get that way, and if I couldn't get a sound I'd do whatever I had to, it just so happens that it's very rare when I have to. But to go along with your argument, essentially I'm committing, same as you, I just don't turn any knobs in tracking.
Committing in this case could mean to its primitive form. Again, very subjective, but I don't disagree with you.
Old 30th July 2014
  #45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ave Crux View Post
Committing in this case could mean to its primitive form. Again, very subjective, but I don't disagree with you.
really? don't you think that's kind of really parsing it? If you say I eq and compress on the way in, and usually do more in the mix, that in my opinion is being honest, whereas saying you commit to a sound means that's it, you got the sound, that's the implication. Look I track almost every instrument except drums with some sort of compression, but usually it's a small amount and it's to maybe impart some of the character of that compressor and in the case of vocals to get a bit of a handle on the level so the rides are not insane in the mix. But I wouldn't call that committing.
Old 30th July 2014
  #46
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
really? don't you think that's kind of really parsing it? If you say I eq and compress on the way in, and usually do more in the mix, that in my opinion is being honest, whereas saying you commit to a sound means that's it, you got the sound, that's the implication. Look I track almost every instrument except drums with some sort of compression, but usually it's a small amount and it's to maybe impart some of the character of that compressor and in the case of vocals to get a bit of a handle on the level so the rides are not insane in the mix. But I wouldn't call that committing.

Yes, based on what you are saying I guess I would then have to say I would never commit to the sound. I might be changing it even in mastering. In fact no doubt about it.
Old 30th July 2014
  #47
Here for the gear
 

The way I see it is, if you're confident you can get the tone you want and that you're not going to want to mess with it too much, sure record with some EQ. But personally, I don't like to. I would rather have the dry signal, with no EQ and take care of those things when I actually go about mixing. Let's say you're in a room though, with a lot of killer outboard gear that you won't always have access to. Maybe at that point I'd think about it, since it would be the only time I'd have a chance to use that gear. I think if you're confident in your abilities and you know what you're looking for, then you should go for it. If you're not quite confident in what you want to EQ or get done, then hold off and take care of it in a later stage.
Old 30th July 2014
  #48
It all depends on how the source sounds and how I want it to sound. But I try to get it right with mic placement first and then use EQ if I still need to. And 9 times out of 10 I use the EQ to cut or lower frequencies that I don't want. I save the boosting until mix if needed.
Old 30th July 2014
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Yes, based on what you are saying I guess I would then have to say I would never commit to the sound. I might be changing it even in mastering. In fact no doubt about it.
Well I think what we strive for is a mix strong enough that you could do a flat transfer or just a bit of loudness processing. At some point we do commit, and I suppose there are some that do all of their processing during tracking, some even tracking so that you could put all the faders at 0 and the thing sounds real good. And then you could say you committed to a sound. My personal philosophy is to try and get the best sound I can get with out eq, and to use eq if it needs it. Since I been using this approach, I find even in the mix it's just about a little carving to make things fit better.
One last thing mic placement and choice is in a way EQ'ing, without turning knobs, just minus the phase shift an analog eq will introduce.
Old 30th July 2014
  #50
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
Well I think what we strive for is a mix strong enough that you could do a flat transfer or just a bit of loudness processing. At some point we do commit, and I suppose there are some that do all of their processing during tracking, some even tracking so that you could put all the faders at 0 and the thing sounds real good. And then you could say you committed to a sound. My personal philosophy is to try and get the best sound I can get with out eq, and to use eq if it needs it. Since I been using this approach, I find even in the mix it's just about a little carving to make things fit better.
One last thing mic placement and choice is in a way EQ'ing, without turning knobs, just minus the phase shift an analog eq will introduce.
I agree 100%. Where we differ is on the commitment thing, as I guess I'm never fully committed. I might change my mind about stuff 5 minutes after tracking is complete.
Old 30th July 2014
  #51
Here for the gear
 

It depends on what instrument you want to Eq. For example if its the kick, you want to take out the muddiness by cutting out around 250-600 Hz. For Basslines, you want to take out the really lows such as 20-100 Hz, and boost upper lows such as 100-300 Hz. For cymbals and hi hats, highpass it and boost the highs so you can leave room for other instruments. When it comes to Eqing you always want to leave room other instruments as well. But like you said, always use your ears.
Old 31st July 2014
  #52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I agree 100%. Where we differ is on the commitment thing, as I guess I'm never fully committed. I might change my mind about stuff 5 minutes after tracking is complete.
Like you I don't print processing in tracking at least as far as drums go, if you do at least you don't think of it as committing. This whole "commit" to the sound most of the time is a load of hooey. UNLESS you really do that, which I'm willing to bet most don't.
Old 31st July 2014
  #53
Gear Guru
A lot of times I eq to what I'm hearing which then allows me to hear something else..... Maybe wind up adding something I took out, but the context is different. I really like the tips of what people are finding as general problem frequencies. Very helpful and a good place to start looking. Sometimes it also helps a singer's confidence to hear eq and compression as it allows them to sing towards the ideal better. Whether you print that is really up to how experienced and confident you are!
Old 31st July 2014
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardis View Post
A lot of times I eq to what I'm hearing which then allows me to hear something else..... Maybe wind up adding something I took out, but the context is different. I really like the tips of what people are finding as general problem frequencies. Very helpful and a good place to start looking. Sometimes it also helps a singer's confidence to hear eq and compression as it allows them to sing towards the ideal better. Whether you print that is really up to how experienced and confident you are!
about compression I completely agree, but if you have the right mic you probably won't need eq in the tracking, even with that if you were eq'ing I'd recommend doing it on the return, rather than the recording side.
Old 1st August 2014
  #55
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
I think there is some arguing here about what "commitment" means (that's what my girlfriend is always saying anyways)...

These days, with unlimited possibilities in DAWS and plugs and soft synths etc, and then changing platforms and os's etc.. I find myself "committing" to sounds a lot more then usual. So I bounce stuff as audio, whether it be soft synths, analog outboard etc., fx, etc... part of if being that I know more then I did when I was younger and having a better idea of how it will work or what hazards there are in the OG tracks, but also have to be able to adapt to when songs change, and do some further sculpting etc., and that's no big deal.

Great producers like Roy Thomas Baker, and Mutt Lange etc., would get the right sounds to tape generally 100% of the time. Probably why they are so great.

I remember taking the 2" of Queens "Tie your mother down" and "stone cold crazy", putting the faders at 0, and boom, there was the song about 98% of what I heard on the radio or whatever. From Freddie Mercury using excellent mic technique to control his volume etc (they weren't using fly faders), etc... but not all of us are that good!
Old 4th August 2014
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post
I think there is some arguing here about what "commitment" means (that's what my girlfriend is always saying anyways)...

These days, with unlimited possibilities in DAWS and plugs and soft synths etc, and then changing platforms and os's etc.. I find myself "committing" to sounds a lot more then usual. So I bounce stuff as audio, whether it be soft synths, analog outboard etc., fx, etc... part of if being that I know more then I did when I was younger and having a better idea of how it will work or what hazards there are in the OG tracks, but also have to be able to adapt to when songs change, and do some further sculpting etc., and that's no big deal.

Great producers like Roy Thomas Baker, and Mutt Lange etc., would get the right sounds to tape generally 100% of the time. Probably why they are so great.

I remember taking the 2" of Queens "Tie your mother down" and "stone cold crazy", putting the faders at 0, and boom, there was the song about 98% of what I heard on the radio or whatever. From Freddie Mercury using excellent mic technique to control his volume etc (they weren't using fly faders), etc... but not all of us are that good!
I do a similar process with virtual instruments except rather than bounce I take the instrument out to a nice tube pre and print it as is I was recording hardware.
I don't know about RTB but you description is a good example of "committing"
I remember reading an interview with Mike Shipley where he talked about using an SSL automated eq, so they certainly tweaked Mutt Lange's projects.
Old 4th August 2014
  #57
Lives for gear
 
JayTee4303's Avatar
Only time I track w EQ is after my crystal ball has forseen the entire process, thru mastering and distro, and there is no mathematically possible way to achieve the desired end result without EQ on the way in.

Processing on the way in is a permanent committment, and I believe that he who dies with the most preserved options, wins.

That belief COULD mandate pre-pro, but its so rare, it hasn't happened yet in this incarnation of my facility.

It probably WILL, after I thrash this build out granular enough to experiment, but experiments equal RISK, unless practiced side by side w tried and true.
Old 4th August 2014
  #58
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
I do a similar process with virtual instruments except rather than bounce I take the instrument out to a nice tube pre and print it as is I was recording hardware.
I don't know about RTB but you description is a good example of "committing"
I remember reading an interview with Mike Shipley where he talked about using an SSL automated eq, so they certainly tweaked Mutt Lange's projects.
I do the same thing with virtual synths etc myself, adds a little more "something".... In reference to Mutt Lange, I'm more then sure he uses automation etc now, but when he was doing ACDC and the earlier Def Leppard stuff, he painstakingly laid the sounds to tape, to the point where you could pretty much unity the levels of "Rock of Ages" or whatever, and that's what it was... Like when the beatles where recording to 4 track, bouncing 3 tracks to one, they would "commit" to the drum sounds, bass sounds /levels all etc... before bouncing because there was no going back!
Old 4th August 2014
  #59
Gear Addict
 
takka360's Avatar
 

Not that I track much but most can be sorted in the mix eq wise. Right mic and good room helps but use your ears if you think you need to eq .
Old 4th August 2014
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post
I do the same thing with virtual synths etc myself, adds a little more "something".... In reference to Mutt Lange, I'm more then sure he uses automation etc now, but when he was doing ACDC and the earlier Def Leppard stuff, he painstakingly laid the sounds to tape, to the point where you could pretty much unity the levels of "Rock of Ages" or whatever, and that's what it was... Like when the beatles where recording to 4 track, bouncing 3 tracks to one, they would "commit" to the drum sounds, bass sounds /levels all etc... before bouncing because there was no going back!
I'm pretty sure the Def Leppard record is the one Mike Shipley was talking about. I know they took forever to make those records. Yes The Beatle records are excellent examples of committing. They really had no choice. Some of the punches on the Sgt Pepper track are really nuts.
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