Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: EQ recording basics, pro/cons  (Read 6981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ultfris101

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 764
  • Gender: Male
  • Spoon!!!
Re: EQ recording basics, pro/cons
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2014, 03:36:44 PM »
Lots of solid advice so far. Lee and I have posted about this in the past and some of that is worth reading (and I sadly don't have the time to track down the posts right now, maybe later).

One thing nobody has mentioned is the value in having an editor that can pass audio through it in real time to monitor (something Audacity won't do last I checked).

I started this thread a while back and got some good discussion going. Lee and Page among others chimed in with some good advice on getting started. I've taken to using both speakers (still just computer desktop speakers right now) and headphones to evaluate EQ and imaging. I've spent some time listening to commercial recordings to get references on how things sound. I hadn't done that much and it helped get some perspective.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=169072.0

Definitely try a DAW other than Audacity. I like Audacity for simple edits and matrixing audience and sbd recordings but I definitely need the real time adjustments I get in Samplitude and do my EQ'ing there.
Mics: Schoeps MK5,MK41 CMC6,KCY,KC5 | AKG ck63,ck1 C460B,C480B | DPA 4061 | Naiant X-R card,hyper | CA-14o,c
Pres: Sound Devices USBPre2 | Naiant Tinybox | Church Audio 9200, UBB
Recs: Zoom F8 | Edirol R-44 | Sony PCM-M10 | Tascam DR-2d
Video: Sony CX550(2), CX580, HX9

LMA: http://archive.org/bookmarks/ultfris101

Offline Chuck

  • Trade Count: (42)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
  • Gender: Male
  • time between the notes...
    • My recordings on the LMA
Re: EQ recording basics, pro/cons
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2014, 04:29:50 PM »
As a starting point, I sometimes will look at a frequency analyzer to see if there are any overly weak or strong areas in the spectrum.

Dont mean to hijack the thread but this question may also be relavant to the OP.
I have Spek installed but have no idea how to read the output.
What would the output attached show?

Here's an example of what I'm looking at in Ozone's EQ:

The grey line is a guide. If an area is well below or above that line, I might try an adjustment there to see if it improves it. It helps train your ear/brain to identify frequency ranges, and eventually you get better at knowing what should be adjusted by ear, without having to refer to the graph.

I'm not sure how to interpret the type of graph you've posted, maybe someone else can chime in on that.

Sloan, how do you like that Ozone EQ? It looks nice. I'm using Waves Paragraphic EQ now and like it a lot, but I might be up for trying the Ozone. I use their noise reduction at work and it is very good.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Microphones: AKG C 480 B comb-ULS/ CK 61/ CK 63, Sennheiser MKE 2 elements,  Audix M1290-o, Micro capsule active cables w/ Naiant PFA's, Naiant MSH-1O, Naiant AKG Active cables, Church CA-11 (cardioid), (1) Nady SCM-1000 (mod)
Pre-amps: Naiant littlebox, Naiant littlekit v2.0, BM2p+ Edirol UA-5, Church STC-9000
Recorders: Sound Devices MixPre-6, iRiver iHP-120 (Rockboxed & RTC mod)

Recordings on the LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/ChuckM
Recording website & blog: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: EQ recording basics, pro/cons
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2014, 04:36:33 PM »
As a starting point, I sometimes will look at a frequency analyzer to see if there are any overly weak or strong areas in the spectrum.

Dont mean to hijack the thread but this question may also be relavant to the OP.
I have Spek installed but have no idea how to read the output.
What would the output attached show?

Here's an example of what I'm looking at in Ozone's EQ:

The grey line is a guide. If an area is well below or above that line, I might try an adjustment there to see if it improves it. It helps train your ear/brain to identify frequency ranges, and eventually you get better at knowing what should be adjusted by ear, without having to refer to the graph.

I'm not sure how to interpret the type of graph you've posted, maybe someone else can chime in on that.

Sloan, how do you like that Ozone EQ? It looks nice. I'm using Waves Paragraphic EQ now and like it a lot, but I might be up for trying the Ozone. I use their noise reduction at work and it is very good.

I actually rarely use it for EQing. I mostly use it on a monitor channel in Reaper to see the graph. I've been using the Waves Scheps 73 for general tone-shaping EQ, and only use the Ozone when I need to notch something offensive, which isn't very often.

Offline hi and lo

  • Trade Count: (38)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2294
Re: EQ recording basics, pro/cons
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2014, 05:21:32 PM »
Ozone is amazing. It's the single best equipment upgrade you can make, imo.

Offline Chuck

  • Trade Count: (42)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
  • Gender: Male
  • time between the notes...
    • My recordings on the LMA
Re: EQ recording basics, pro/cons
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2014, 06:45:56 PM »
Ozone is amazing. It's the single best equipment upgrade you can make, imo.

Have you used their EQ?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Microphones: AKG C 480 B comb-ULS/ CK 61/ CK 63, Sennheiser MKE 2 elements,  Audix M1290-o, Micro capsule active cables w/ Naiant PFA's, Naiant MSH-1O, Naiant AKG Active cables, Church CA-11 (cardioid), (1) Nady SCM-1000 (mod)
Pre-amps: Naiant littlebox, Naiant littlekit v2.0, BM2p+ Edirol UA-5, Church STC-9000
Recorders: Sound Devices MixPre-6, iRiver iHP-120 (Rockboxed & RTC mod)

Recordings on the LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/ChuckM
Recording website & blog: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: EQ recording basics, pro/cons
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2014, 12:42:49 PM »
As a starting point, I sometimes will look at a frequency analyzer to see if there are any overly weak or strong areas in the spectrum.

Dont mean to hijack the thread but this question may also be relavant to the OP.
I have Spek installed but have no idea how to read the output.
What would the output attached show?

Spectrals can be very useful on a number of levels but in terms of eq would not necessarily be my go-to view unless I'm looking for a noise that doesn't belong. 

The spectral provides a view of the relative intensity of the sound across the range of frequencies.  It's often a red at the bottom lowest and moves progressively to a lighter color and black where there's nothing. 

It's real good for seeing how high the signal reaches.  Cheaper mics or doctored recordings usually stop at 20K or below but the Schoeps will show information all the way up as high as the scale goes (though for mastering engineers typically set an upper limit above audible range like 22K or so and remove anything above that). 

It also shows quality of the signal (when you zoom in a very smooth. blurred continuity is what you want to see, not the brick squares you'd see from MP3 compression).   

The one you posted looks fairly normal and does not really show anything I'd necessarily be concerned by. 

Sometimes if there is some sort of fault (buzz or hum) you may see a solid band straight across at a certain frequency or a red band somewhere way up where you wouldn't normally see it or alternatively there might be gaps where there are weak areas or something missing.  It can show you where to look to notch something out with a filter (though a frequency plot will often show that if you zoom enough on something obnoxious). 

I think the frequency plot (like the Ozone pic below yours) is a lot more useful for eqing a fairly normal source. 
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.103 seconds with 31 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF