"EQ as little as you can" a good rule?

[franknputer]

I don't think anyone really thinks you should never use EQ or effects - again, the point of that statement goes to the quality of the recording itself, not necessarily the mixing process. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have beautiful recordings of a guitar, a piano, and a vocal that don't sit well together in the mix. Then you might go to the EQ to help them sit well - or you might not, depending on what's necessary. (There's more than one way to skin that cat.)

 

Also, you have to take into account what people are going for, especially when you're running a commercial studio. If the client wants heavily processed tracks, then you have to give them what they want. The guys at "the higher end boards" are catering to what their clients & the market demands. However, if you're recording a band that basically wants to sound like itself - jazz combos, bluegrass bands, or orchestras to name just a few - then the approach of getting it with just the mics carries much more weight.

 

Still, I'd bet you anything that any engineer worth their rate would agree with the truth in the statements about getting it right at the source.

[Lee Flier]

 

I was just saying that I read post after post from people who say that "a good recording shouldn't need any EQ in the mix."

 

 

Really? Where? I guess I don't actually see that very often.

 

 

I don't use extensive EQ or processing on most of my mixes, but there's some on most every track, and I don't really feel guilty about it...

 

 

LOL same here.

[halljams]

To take the makeup analogy one step further, at first listen, a heavily processed CD might be impressive - like seeing a woman across the room who looks stunning. But when you get closer, you see the bad boob job, the stretched skin from the facelifts, the weird smile from the botox, and the asymmetrical nose job...and she's not quite so stunning any more

 

Sure sure....But what about a natural beauty, just a dream but done to the t's, dressed like a dirty Whore and chewing tobacco!?

That's what I'm talkin' bout!

[amplayer]

OK, OK. Do tell! Who REALLY is the woman you're referring to here?

 

To take the makeup analogy one step further, at first listen, a heavily processed CD might be impressive - like seeing a woman across the room who looks stunning. But when you get closer, you see the bad boob job, the stretched skin from the facelifts, the weird smile from the botox, and the asymmetrical nose job...and she's not quite so stunning any more

[UstadKhanAli]

I'll take that challenge. Get it right at the source IF you have time to. Otherwise, crank up the +/- 18dB parametric and get carving. Examples: low budget recording, remixing someone else's craptastic recording, running live sound. So there. Terry D.

 

Uncle!!!!

[UstadKhanAli]

I was just saying that I read post after post from people who say that "a good recording shouldn't need any EQ in the mix."

 

Not in this thread, right? I mean, everyone's been arguing the exact opposite. Get it right at the source, use EQ for aesthetics, try not to use it for "fixing" mistakes or bad sound unless necessary, use EQE simply to make things sound good, use it for extreme settings....

 

I mean, I don't think I've EVER read someone saying a good recording shouldn't need any EQ in the mix.

 

~~

 

At the risk of being a "broken record" (huh? what's a record? ), I think one often-overlooked manner of EQing is arrangement.

[Dean Roddey]

And the thing is, if you have drums, bass, a couple guitars, a couple synths, lead and backup vocals, maybe a couple of spotlighted instruments here and there, there's no way you are going to get good separation on all of that without EQ. It doesn't seem to me that any mic and pre-amp is going to do the kind of selective notching required to get all those instruments optimally out of each other's way in the way that most of us would probably want them to be.

 

If you EQ them in the process of tracking, that's still EQ and I don't see how it's that much different really, other than you can't change your mind once it's tracked.

[Anderton]

 

I was just saying that I read post after post from people who say that "a good recording shouldn't need any EQ in the mix."

 

 

I've also seen people say that if a record is mixed properly, it doesn't need mastering...and that's not true either. I think what's REALLY being said here is that fixing it in the mix, or in the mastering, is just not going to give the same kind of results as not having to fix it. This isn't just about technology, this is also about the "vibe." If there are drastic problems and musicians are doing overdubs to the tracks with drastic problems, when those problematic tracks are fixed the overdubs might not work with them as well any more, meaning that THEY have to be fixed as well.

 

This also argues against the thinking of "Well, we'll add plug-ins during the mix to get the right sound." I really think that when you're doing overdubs, you want to do them against as accurate a representation of the song's intent as possible.

 

One more thing: Remember that some "rules" are developed but then technology changes, and the rules don't...sort of like some strange vestigial organ. In the days when audio engines were 16-bit, just changing gain repeatedly messed up the sound, so adding multiple stages of EQ worked against sound quality as well. Now that we have floating-point 32 bit, 48-bit fixed, and 64-bit fixed, you can get away with lots more processing and never have to worry about roundoff errors messing with the sound.

[kevinnem]

 

From the discussions we've had of mics here, and from comments I've read all over the web and in SWEETWATER catalogs, I repeatedly hear sound people say, "I used (X) mic, and by the time I got to the mix, almost no EQ was required." Now here's a question sure to brand me as the n00b I really am: Why is this a desired thing? Or, to put it another way, nowadays, when digital toys can make anything sound like anything, why would you want to refrain from EQ'ing a signal? Seems to me, in this day and age, you can make even a lousy mic sound darned good if you twiddle with the signal long enough and in just the right way...? Comments?

 

 

would you use the same argument for the insterment? .. why buy a good one, when you can buy a cheap one and just EQ.

 

How about the talet... we can just "fix it in the mix " right?

[Kendrix]

 

And the thing is, if you have drums, bass, a couple guitars, a couple synths, lead and backup vocals, maybe a couple of spotlighted instruments here and there, there's no way you are going to get good separation on all of that without EQ. It doesn't seem to me that any mic and pre-amp is going to do the kind of selective notching required to get all those instruments optimally out of each other's way in the way that most of us would probably want them to be. If you EQ them in the process of tracking, that's still EQ and I don't see how it's that much different really, other than you can't change your mind once it's tracked.

 

 

IMO- Thats what a good arrangement is for - to prevent sounds from stepping on each other. If they are significantly masking each other then perhaps the voicing or arrangement should somehow be changed. otherwise how does it sound live?

 

I rarely have to take major notches out of sounds to get them to coexist with other sounds. I might take out a few DB of low-mids to remove mud build up across tracks. However, thats different than really carving out the spectrum and dividing it between various instruments. If the sounds are conflicting to that degree I'd try to fix that before getting to the mix.

[Dean Roddey]

Well, major or minor notch, it's still EQ'ing. And, though you call it composition, it still means getting the tones and frequencies correct for each instrument which is going to require tone shaping somewhere in the process. Guitars and basses by themselves eat up huge amounts of frequency. If you are EQ'ing it with a pedal or a graphic in the amp or during tracking, that's still EQ'ing.

 

And I just kind of find it hard to believe that all that huge amount of info out there written about how to complementarily EQ instruments exists because everyone is a bad composer. I think it's just a fundamental aspect of getting clear, nicely separated mixes.

[Kendrix]

As for he use of pedals I agree with you.

This can be just a form of EQ that is upstream from mixing.

 

However, Selecting a cello versus a violyn is not EQing.

Selectng a baritone sax versus and alto is not EQing.

Using a different background singer rather than overdubbing the primary vocalist and applying EQ to help multiple tracks sit together isnt EQ.

 

Compsoing so that instruments in the same frequency range dont step on each other is perhaps the biggest point. If you really listen to some great arrangements ( S. Dan comes to mid) you find many sounds that pop up very briefly and then drop out to leave space for the next sound.

There is very little overlap of competing sounds goin on at all.

This beats EQ for producing clarity by a wide margin.

People talk about Entwistles bass being so clear.

There is very little else competing with it.

 

So, I do disagee with your final point.

EQ used to get instruments out of each others way is not necessarily a fundamental aspect of getting a clear mix.

 

Many many masterful mixes have been produced with only minimal EQ.

There are many very successful mixers who dont practice that approach.

There are many that do.

 

Even if you are a relatively EQ happy mixer why would you NOT want to get things a close as you can at the source???

Why would you not want an arrangement that works well live without the benefit of significant EQ mojo involved?

 

If, after that, you need to EQ go for it. Thats what its there for.

Im not sure I see the conflict between our views.

[Lee Flier]

To take the makeup analogy one step further, at first listen, a heavily processed CD might be impressive - like seeing a woman across the room who looks stunning. But when you get closer, you see the bad boob job, the stretched skin from the facelifts, the weird smile from the botox, and the asymmetrical nose job...and she's not quite so stunning any more

 

LOL... that is a good analogy.

 

And as with the opposite sex, the recordings you end up loving for life aren't necessarily the first ones that grab your attention.

[Dean Roddey]

 

People talk about Entwistles bass being so clear. There is very little else competing with it.

 

 

True, but that kind of means you have to limit yourself to a power trio, which isn't exactly a fair comparison. Many rock/pop bands have very prominent drums, bass, and big guitars, often quite layered, numerous vocal layers, etc... It's a common part of the style, and you have to work with the big frequency suckage that causes.

 

 

Even if you are a relatively EQ happy mixer why would you NOT want to get things a close as you can at the source??? Why would you not want an arrangement that works well live without the benefit of significant EQ mojo involved?

 

 

I think everyone would, I'm just saying that that's probably seldom sufficient to avoid use of considerable EQ in a typical, fairly dense, rock/pop mix, where strong, clean separation is desired, and there are lots of layered parts and so forth. For other styles I'm sure it's easier.

 

Partly of course I'm coming from the DI'd world, where there is no processing during tracking (same for drums since I use BFD which just provides raw samples.) So any EQ'ing or compression that would be done during tracking is not there in my case, so I do it all in the box, including that that might be done with pedals or amp EQs or EQs in the input chain in a more traditional scenario.

 

So it may just be a different type of situation relative to someone who is sitting down to mix something that someone else tracked and did a good job of EQ'ing obvious issues out during the tracking, but still it would have been done and any detremental effects are there (if the argument is that EQ is detrimental, and that must be the argument if you are willing to do a lot of work to get a sound to avoid any EQ.)

[UstadKhanAli]

I'd guess that the use of EQ while mixing is far more prevalent now that it was before. Why? Possibly due to lots of EQ from plug-ins, delaying decisions until later, tracking in acoustically sweet sounding rooms less...

[Kendrix]

Buildin on Kens last comment...

To me a production is better enineered/better tracked if it needs less EQ to get a decent sound happening in the mix.

 

I don't like heavy makeup on girls either.

[Kendrix]

 

True, but that kind of means you have to limit yourself to a power trio, which isn't exactly a fair comparison. Many rock/pop bands have very prominent drums, bass, and big guitars, often quite layered, numerous vocal layers, etc... It's a common part of the style, and you have to work with the big frequency suckage that causes. .)

 

 

Dean,

 

Just to clarify: My point is that, if you manage the arrangement carefully, you can accomodate a wider range of insrutments than just a power trio and still keep sounds from steppin on each other. To me thats a big part of what really skillful arranging is about. ...Of course high quality "wall of sound" moments are also great.

 

BTW I dont mean to impy Ive got all these skills down myself. I'm still trying.

[Dean Roddey]

 

BTW I dont mean to impy Ive got all these skills down myself. I'm still trying.

 

 

Me neither. But, of course the up side of that is that you then always have a justification to buy more toys, you know the ones that are going to make the mix finally sound really great :-) If I just had that Trakker, or that VariMu, or that original unused U47, then I'd be set.

[UstadKhanAli]

Me neither. But, of course the up side of that is that you then always have a justification to buy more toys, you know the ones that are going to make the mix finally sound really great :-) If I just had that Trakker, or that VariMu, or that original unused U47, then I'd be set.

 

If you want to justify buying more toys, there's nothing like beautiful signal paths. Great mics > great preamps > great converters. Makes it so much easier to mix then if you're "fighting" your equipment. There. Now go forth and spend!!