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
FAVORITE EQs 500 Series EQ\'s
Old 12th May 2003
  #31
Gear Nut
 

Let me second the API 560 graphic eq. I use it on kick.

My favorite sleeper eq is the Quad Eight 444. It has a several frequencies on each band to choose from, switchable q, hpf and lpf, and 2dB stepped cut and boost. It sounds great and is very flexible.
Old 12th May 2003
  #32
those big black urei parametrics (forgot the model) there was a silver stereo version too...
they were great
Old 12th May 2003
  #33
Gear Addict
 
barforama's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by axis
EQ 1.

The GML same reasons everybody else..around here has .

Eq 2.

NTP 182-100. Danish made eq´s with 10Khz high shelve.+/-12db, and 60Hz low shelve +/- 12db. Mid freq in Khz (bandpass) 1,4..2..2,8..4..5,6 +/-10db...there´s just something about the NTP eq on amb. drums..a woow factor..!!! also on stereo programm as "sweetning"...
I have to second that. The NTP 182-100 are really awesome sweetening-eq's. The top-end is SO soft. Very good for adding sparkle and air on vocals witout any harshness. Much like TubeTech PE1C and Avalon VT737 eq's. I have 6 NTP 182-100 and I tend to use them on guitarbusses to make the tracks fit in the mix. Snares also...usually adding a few dB around 3-5k.
I really like them for kicks too. A 60Hz boost often add's just the right bottom to a 20" kick. And the 10kHz just the right smack. The presence/absence hewever is not that useful for kicks as I tend to cut more in low mids than boosting high mids. So I modded the frequenses on two of my 182-100's to 70Hz, 100Hz, 140Hz, 200Hz, 280Hz, 400Hz and 560Hz. Very simple operation. A kick mid-cut on these around 200-400Hz sounds very good. Without making the drum hollow or "tubby". Really cool.

I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY LOVE my Trident A-range eq.
These are the ultimate guitar-, kick-, snare- and bass-tracking eq's. No contest! Extremely coloured grabbing eq-Mothe$¤£#s. You have to give yourself the pleasure it is to track on these A-range eq's (re-issues that is...haven't heard the real thing). The only minus is that it take quite some work (and money) to make them behave properly - mainly due to poor PSU stike construction.....

I like tracking vocals through VT737 eq or TubeTech PE-1C.

When it comes to surgical eq's i prefer the 9098. Very clean.
Haven't tried the GML, though.....

/torsten/
Old 12th May 2003
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Berolzheimer's Avatar
 

Way back in the eighties I used to love the Audioarts 4-band parametric. Probably not the cleanest thing, but as they were the main outboard eq in a room I was spending a lot of time in, I learned to get some great results with them.
I'll probably get slammed for saying this but in the DAW world I love the Waves Linear EQ, Linear Multiband, and the Oxford Eq plug.
Old 13th May 2003
  #35
Lives for gear
 
jpaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Mario-C.
those big black urei parametrics (forgot the model) there was a silver stereo version too...
they were great



black Urei 4-band = 545

silver stereo version = 546

I have a 546 and love it on guitars, but my unit needs some work... one of these days...
Old 13th May 2003
  #36
exactly ! I love them on guitars too, I remember saving an otherwise unusable guitar track with them...
Old 13th May 2003
  #37
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

This is great info, Gang! Im embarassed to say I have never used an NTP 182, nor the UREI 546. I have used the API and remember liking it but the one studio that I used to record in, in my musician days, had a power supply buzz in their API. (Probably a Dang CAP!)

Im assuming the Siemens W295b is tube and the NTP isnt?

Its interesting that electric guitars often are the sources that show off the smoothness of EQ's. I mean electric guitars are horrible fidelity, with a bandwidth of 100 - 10K maybe. The distortion adds soooo many peaky harmonics tho, that when you start to boost something they pop out so quickly, into these prickly little nastoids. I mentioned before that the Pultecs were fun on electric guitars because you could boost the highs and it didnt become brittle. Do you suppose the NTP's, Harrisons, Manley Massive Passive (MP), and API's have some soft clipping that tamed these "pricklies", too?
Old 13th May 2003
  #38
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr

Im assuming the Siemens W295b is tube and the NTP isnt?
The Siemens is solid state, and I believe the NTP is as well.

Bear
Old 14th May 2003
  #39
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
I mentioned before that the Pultecs were fun on electric guitars because you could boost the highs and it didnt become brittle. Do you suppose the NTP's, Harrisons, Manley Massive Passive (MP), and API's have some soft clipping that tamed these "pricklies", too?
My favroite guitar EQ for tracking (besides the EQ on the amp) is a Pultec or some variation for the reason you cited. I think my favorite guitar mixing EQ is the Daking. Not surgical in the least, but it's a great circuit and very wide band, great for gentle shaping. The one thing all those EQ's (except the Harrison) share are big 'ol trannys. A huge lump of iron seems to go a long way towards smoothing out the top and making it musical.
Old 14th May 2003
  #40
Gear Maniac
 
Peter Simonsen's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Gone Fission
The Siemens is solid state, and I believe the NTP is as well.

Bear
As far as the NTP´s go...yep discrete M-100 NTP opamps,..

Kind regards

Peter
Old 15th May 2003
  #41
Gear Addict
 
Jens's Avatar
 

No one mentioned the Klein & Hummel (don´t recall the model name, but it´s huge and has orange colored buttons), so my vote goes there from a rather limited experience on high-end EQ´s.
Can´t say that I used it a lot, just on two sessions. But the high shelving section sounds sweet. Secondly, it got the looks

Jens
Old 17th May 2003
  #42
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I'm a big fan of the API 550 and 550as. I like the limited settings because they are fast and really repeatable. They were the first console eqs that had really great sounding dips at 800 and 400.

If I were designing an eq, I'd have very limited settings along with some kind of override for when I needed to get aggressive.
Old 23rd May 2003
  #43
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Since this is the EQ thread, let me ask three wierd, but related questions:

Does anyone find that they EQ more, or EQ less, when working on digital recordings?? (as opposed to analog recordings).

And on what instruments/sources do you EQ differently?

And lastly, what specific frequencies seem to need different treatment?
Old 23rd May 2003
  #44
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
Since this is the EQ thread, let me ask three wierd, but related questions:

Does anyone find that they EQ more, or EQ less, when working on digital recordings?? (as opposed to analog recordings).

And on what instruments/sources do you EQ differently?

And lastly, what specific frequencies seem to need different treatment?
Depends,

If its my own production its less, if its other people's generally more.

When it comes to instruments Digital or analog its about the same... well maybe not when it comes to kicks,bass and electric guitars(the main difference in each is the signal to noise ratio or how much noise you can get away with in analog).

Frequency wise its mostly the mids. In digital you would think its more bass, but i think this a common misconception. Because the highs are so present and clear(in digital) our ears tend to focus there and it tricks your brain in feeling that there is less bass. What most producers tend to do is add more bass to compensate for this, which tends to skewer the most important part of the mix freq spectrum the mids.

I think...no I know that I spend most of the time in mixing these days on fixing the mids. Its amazing, if you can get the mids clear and present it changes the whole landscape of the mix.
Old 23rd May 2003
  #45
Lives for gear
 

The first studio I worked at, now defunct, Giant, on 57th/b'way, had a pair of MEQ 5's that had come out of A&R. Phil had ordered them with extra bands I've never seen on an meq since. It went down into 60 and 100 in the low peak and down to 200 in the dip, so you could get...

the best bass sound EVER

crank 60/100
suck out 200
crank 3k

and it was magic. any kind of bass, any kind of song.

The thing that sucks is that I didn't know they weren't normal, since it was the first studio I'd been in, or I would have scooped them up at the auction.
Old 23rd May 2003
  #46
Lives for gear
 

As for the digital thing, I have to say, I will answer prepared for flame. I don't hate digital- I work with it every day. But I do hate using plugs in a TDM environment, because they will ALWAYS, no matter what, make the sound worse. I will use something in TDM at gunpoint. It is simply too hard to balance the desire to make things exciting against the absolute destruction of original tone that goes with TDM processing.

This leads to question two/three. If I have to mix in TDM, I find that I really want to, because they are almost always flat, boost the lows, but that will only make me more unhappy. So I just let them be, maybe giving some poke with 95-110 (somthing I never do analog.) Won't go near the real lows- no point. I will not touch the highs, because they will get very gritty real fast, unless it something like tilting everything above 1k. Overall, I leave low freq instruments alone, leave high end stuff alone, and filter and cut to try and let what is there of those things be enough. Then lots of nip and tuck in the mids. Sounds like a lot of work? Yep, that's why I don't do it.

In host base land, my now preferred place of residence, I will use the Universal Audio eq's without hesitation. The Pultec is just what it is supposed to be in the attenuation, though misses a bit in the boost. I've been doing beta on the Cambridge, and I have to say I love it- I really use it like an analog eq. When I go to turn something up, I get the thing I thought I was going to get. I can actually get the big giant puffy but punchy kick you'll never find in TDM. Highs get bright, not brittle. Sweeping for resonances really works. And all my original tone is there, but better, the way I wanted it to be.

The point of all this- NOT ALL DIGITAL IS PROTOOLS. PT is unfortunately the lingua franca of DSP for now, and its inherent limitations hold back the community as a whole.

Exit soapbox.

Still don't trust any dynamics in the computer, but that's ok. I've got 4 Distressors and a Fatso.
Old 27th May 2003
  #47
TML
Lives for gear
 

Rob-
I second the TDM thing. It sucks. Lately I've been coming out of PT and running kik/snr/toms/ovrs and bass through outboard back in. Whatever needs help. The more I do this the more I realize how it makes stuff sound crappy. Again....maybe I'm not using the right settings.....I only use eq in the box for subtracting. I'd rather lose a generation bouncing than the tone with the plugin's.
Tim
Old 27th May 2003
  #48
Gear Maniac
 
Peter Simonsen's Avatar
 

Hmmm I use to have the same problems with digital eq´s..but not since the MDW eq came in..it sound soo smooth you wont belive it..the oxford eq was the first eq where I heard good digital PT eq..ymmv

Kind regards

Peter
Old 27th May 2003
  #49
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Digital EQ's should be able to sound just fine. They are the most straightforward DSP processing, except for maybe a simple digital delay. Im sure not all people hate the Digital EQ's as much as you guys do. <Laughing>. I use them all the time. Its just that they dont do that magic smoothing or coloring as much as the best analog EQ's do.

There are some dangers when boosting the top end, because if you boost say 15Khz, the band will probably be wide enuf to boost some frequencies above 20KHz on the fringes of the bell curve. And if you do that, there is the chance there will be some aliasing brought up that will add some non-harmonics to the source. However, I think anyone who has written more than one EQ would be well aware of those dangers.

My original question about whether u EQ differently in digital or not stemmed from several experiences Ive had.

More later
Old 28th May 2003
  #50
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr

My original question about whether u EQ differently in digital or not stemmed from several experiences Ive had.
I usually find myself using around half as much digital eq. as I would expect to need with analog equalizers.
Old 28th May 2003
  #51
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

i find HPfilter is my friend working with digital. EVERYTHING gets it at some frequency. 20, 40, 50, 60, 80, 120, 300... and depending on frequency, the slope changes dramatically.

periscope is definately my favorite EQ digitally although i need to play with it a ton more. but grabbing bands and pulling them +/- feels just like it should with the sound.
Old 28th May 2003
  #52
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk
i find HPfilter is my friend working with digital. EVERYTHING gets it at some frequency. 20, 40, 50, 60, 80, 120, 300... and depending on frequency, the slope changes dramatically.
Alpha, theres a thread goin on under the "Other" EQ thread here about using HP filters and about the rumbles that can make it thru the recording chain in digital. I made some mistakes early on in Digital not realizing all these subs were happening. Headphones are your friends for that stuff. Those are interesting freqs... nothing in between 120 and 300? You feel its better to have more resolution down below 60 Hz?? I figure in any given mix, if you have more than one instrument or a sound effect goin on below 50, your mix may be "a-rumblin"... unless its a sound track!

Damn, Ive never even heard of Periscope! I better get a crackin and start catching up on things. Thanks Alpha.
Old 28th May 2003
  #53
jho
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk
i find HPfilter is my friend working with digital. EVERYTHING gets it at some frequency. 20, 40, 50, 60, 80, 120, 300... and depending on frequency, the slope changes dramatically.

periscope is definately my favorite EQ digitally although i need to play with it a ton more. but grabbing bands and pulling them +/- feels just like it should with the sound.
Alpha, is your PT a Mix or is it HD? I too have naturally done this to a certain extent but usually not every...probably about 50% of my tracks get HP somewhere. But I'll try your method. Thanks for the tip.

I also read a tip somewhere to put a LP on drums at like 15K to keep the air area reserved for other things...
Old 28th May 2003
  #54
Lives for gear
 
jpaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jho

I also read a tip somewhere to put a LP on drums at like 15K to keep the air area reserved for other things...
Is this regarding digital mixing or in general? I like to crank the air on kick and toms, something i learned from a great engineer years ago. In fact, the only elements of a mix (rock mix anyway) that I find myself boosting above 10k are drums and vocals... anything else seems to get in the way too much.
Old 29th May 2003
  #55
jho
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jpaudio
Is this regarding digital mixing or in general? I like to crank the air on kick and toms, something i learned from a great engineer years ago. In fact, the only elements of a mix (rock mix anyway) that I find myself boosting above 10k are drums and vocals... anything else seems to get in the way too much.
I was talking digital (PT HD). What you are doing accomplishes a similar thing I suppose. This stuff is samples/drum machine stuff and gives it a little darker tone.
Old 29th May 2003
  #56
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
Those are interesting freqs... nothing in between 120 and 300? You feel its better to have more resolution down below 60 Hz?? I figure in any given mix, if you have more than one instrument or a sound effect goin on below 50, your mix may be "a-rumblin"... unless its a sound track!
well, i used those because thats where i normally hit on the HPfilter for EVERYTHING. kick i hit 40-50 if i require little else... or i COULD hit 120 or 300 with a notch filter at 80 boosting with a narrow Q on the notch and like a -6db/oct on the lp filter [why they must be switchable slopes] bass will get something like 40hz with a -12db/oct. guitars at 120 with a -6/-12db/oct. toms at 60 for the floor, rack at 80. snare at 80-120 slope dependant [80/-12/-24db/oct, 120 -6dbdb/oct] and so on. the 300 is more for OH's, lead guitars i want to really cut that dont need full bottom [again, slope dependant]

those are all -ish's and not exact frequencies which i tend to dial in at small increments. fixed numbers are hard to come by.. i dont expect a variable HPfilter would be easy to make analog would it? if so by all means that i would appreciate.

this is how i set my HPfilter if its of any help. i set a steep slope and bring up the frequency until i feel its cutting out too much. then i decrease the slope until it lets a little of what i lost back in but not too much low end muck. this is the important and MASSIVE difference between digital and analog i have found. digital does capture far more low end than analog and can **** you up in a heartbeat. then, if i still cant get the bottom in as much as i want, i back the frequency down and increase the slope. its just fine tuning after that.

dont know if im right with how i do this but it works for me and my clients. that said, i do tend to push the bottom end of my mixes more than a good number of people out there... must be too much bill laswell influence, hell... my favorite rack gear i own is the DBX120X-DS which ADDs sub.... but if you can tighten up the original signal to the extreme and add CONTROLLED subharmonics, then i think it is tighter for it. again, i am probably wrong.
Old 29th May 2003
  #57
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

oh yeah... the reason why *I* like more rez below 120 is that i am also a sub junkie and most cars are LP'd at 80hz so getting the subs right in cars is where the resolution down there matters most. i would rather have a STEEP slope at 80 than a flatter one higher up and hit those frequencies with a notch filter where needed.
Old 29th May 2003
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Berolzheimer's Avatar
 

Quote:
most cars are LP'd at 80hz

???Huh????

No wonder everything sounds so muddy....
Old 29th May 2003
  #59
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Berolzheimer
???Huh????

No wonder everything sounds so muddy....
the sub systems in cars.
Old 29th May 2003
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Berolzheimer's Avatar
 

Ah yes...That's what I figured you meant, but I thought it sounded funny the way it was.

Nuthin' Personal, Alpha, I'm always on the lookout for unintentional humor.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Dean Roddey / Music Computers
39
petemin / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump