There are plenty of good reasons not to EQ or do any post processing, but when people claim their reasons for not doing any of that are because they want to faithfully and accurately record what it sounded like when they were there, I claim they are simply deluding themselves. I don't mean to be snarky, and I realize that is not at all the position you are taking, actually asking for sort of the opposite.
For accuracy in an objective measurable sense, record using a single calibrated flat measurement mic referenced to an SPL meter. If the goal is recreating the experience of being there, that's a subjective thing, often moving in the opposite direction from objective measureable accuracy.
This. I don't intend to be snarky or demeaning about it when I say that I see the reason
most people choose gear is because they like how it sounds (not how faithful it is), but they don't want to EQ because they don't have the necessary skillset or knowledge to do it well instead of trying to be faithful. Sometimes we don't really understand our objective, or we respond to different cues and go in a direction without knowing it, or a plethora of other reasons. I work in education, an industry fundamentally built around eliminating ignorance (which is just not knowing something), so I approach this as a teachable task and not something to be embarrassed about. I came from an analytical background, and it took me a couple years to really grapple with the fact that audio creation (and it's various steps) is an art, not a science. There are scientific elements, but those elements don't play the major part in decision making. I'm not going to say that doing "documents" for live events is futile, but I think it takes a careful approach and an honest assessment as to what you want to keep and what is better to embellish given a value system (professed openly or subconsciously hidden) in people who will listen to it later.
Play around with simple graphic EQs. I think simple graphic EQs are better for this self-education than more complicated parametric EQs. Regularly bypass the EQ to remind your brain what that sounds like.
All that is sort of like practicing and instrument, after a while you'll hear something and just recognize what frequency range needs correction, have a general idea of the shape of the curve, how broad it needs to be, how sharp and narrow, etc. You'll still need to listen, adjust; listen, adjust again; listen, adjust something else; listen, re-adjust the first thing again, and over again.. but you'll begin to home in on things quicker and quicker, and get things were you are happy with them faster and easier.
Spend a bunch of time playing around with adjusting your recordings or other tapers recordings until they just sound better and more 'right' to you. Then compare with the EQ switched out. Write down the settings or save the curve, then do it again another day and see how different and how similar the curves you end up with are. Notice how you'll tend to EQ certain microphones or recordings made in specific venues, or different types of music differently. Always suspect your choices and second guess them. Notice when you just can't seem to get the timbre right for some recordings not matter what you try, and how some microphones seem to be able to withstand much more EQ adjustment than others. It might be something other than your EQing ability or anything you could see on an RTA display that is the problem.
Beware of the visual trap. Displays can be useful tools, but can also just as often mislead you or hide things.
If I need to do a "surgical" correction after I've shaped with this one, then I'll use a parametric with a narrow Q in a subsequent step.
While tone can be adjusted to at least some extent, instrument balance is even more important in the mix of what is being recorded. That can almost never be fixed in an ambient recording since the ranges of nearly all (or all) the elements overlap.
Those who record music rather than play it rarely have so finely developed an ear, but the musicians learned it by experience (whether or not they are more sensitive to that skill to start with), so almost anyone else can too.
In terms of the flatter lines element, what generally sounds best is on some sort of a diagonal starting from lows and declining toward the highs (in a linear FA view). Most recordings naturally look like that. The peaks and valleys are what give them character. Some of those peaks and valleys are of a pleasing character, others may not be.
Mild EQ is great! Nobody is suggesting radical moves. Perhaps it's my gear but it's exceedingly rare that I make a recording that isn't improvable by a gentle EQ move or two.
This is solid advice (the entire post is actually, I can't disagree with it. The above is just bits that need to be reinforced). Sometimes I just wait and let Lee et al do my work for me.
Specifically about decreasing volume in frequencies that bombdiggity notes, i've seen the rule of thumb that you're sub 2khz. should be relatively flat, and above that it trails off. I think for room recordings, it's best to drop that to around 1.3khz and then trail off. My rationale is that low frequency reverb sounds more spacious and pleasing compared to high frequency reverb which I find I want "real" details in, not reverberation.
In general, it's a skillset as I mentioned earlier. Getting good at it takes time and a methodical attention to what you're doing. Some tips on getting started I think would be to pick a couple recordings, and listen to them on 3 or 4 radically different setups (your home speakers, your best headphones, your car playback with the engine off, office speakers, etc). What stands out? Make notes as Lee says. Now learn how frequencies sound. I used to take a low Q value (that gradually grew the higher up I went) and amp something by 10DB and do a gentle sweep so I could hear what 400hz sounds like, what 1k, 2k, 2.6k, etc. Learn these. Now listen to the recordings in those environments again and make more notes using your new knowledge of frequencies. Over time things will get better and the various environments will show you something different compared to each other. I have an excellent set of headphones (in terms of flat tonal response and transient response) and a plugin to simulate speakers. Thats well and good for the workhorse of adjustments once I got a feeling for it,
but it doesn't replace those other environments. Once you do this enough, it becomes easier to anticipate what you'll hear in other environments. Thats mixing with anticipation as Sloan points out.
It's not easy, or fast (took me a solid year or two to really get as far as I am now) but it's very rewarding to get good at it. I'm going to whip out one of Lee's favorite quotes:
"At the core is the illusion vs document debate. I look at it more as an "effort/ROI" question." —page
How strict of a document do you want? Who are you trying to fool into thinking it's a document? (and will they care) How much do they need to be fooled? If you do the job well enough, they may not even care (or know) that they aren't hearing "reality" so much as a view. You can create a view that sounds like reality (and that sort of sounds like what you want), but if you chuck that requirement out the window, you have more freedom to create something even better.
I get your point, but you are kind of making my point (or the point I was trying to make), if I don't have a calibrated, flat, measurement mic but a less expensive mic which is not flat, could I get closer to what the measurement mic would have picked up by starting with an EQ setting which compensates for deviations in the particular mic's frequency plot?
You can on the assumption that you have a mic which has a consistant polar pattern through the entire frequency range (so that eliminates LD mics and a ton of SD mics), OR you are EQing to return just one segment of the experience back to "flat" (the PA, the room, etc). In my experience, in beautiful rooms, it's less of an issue, in crap rooms though, the off-axis of your polar pattern will exacerbate this decision. It's inherently a trade off.
And yes, if I'm needing to do this at all then it must be because I didn't like the raw result and somehow want to improve it so I'm creating a bit of a paradox.
correct.
Phish
completely off topic; the Gin from Randalls night one is a sick jam. I forgot what I was typing a couple of times during it. And thats my post for the day.
Topic: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help? (Read 12800 times)