Topic: How often do you EQ? And how much?

[acidjack]

Not a particularly original poll, but something I've been thinking about it a lot again after reading a great post by DSatz in another threat (to very heavily summarize, if I may, he said "don't be afraid to EQ to take out unwanted sound").

To me, the biggest concern about doing it is that what may show up as a "flaw" in one playback system may not on another - particularly with regard to bass, which, if you have a giant subwoofer for instance, may sound perfectly fine on that system, but terrible on headphones (especially small headphones).  And of course, all listeners are different, too. 

It is an issue I grapple with as I post many of my recordings on a public site, and for me, a lot of the enjoyment comes from knowing other fans are enjoying my recordings.  To some degree, that means satisfying "average" taste as well as my own.  But of course, if you go too far in that direction, you end up with the heavily compressed, heavily treble-boosted sound that people now take to be "normal." 

I'm also curious, when people do EQ, how heavily they are really doing it.  Personally, I try to really only roll off low frequencies and/or boost high frequencies by a few dB (+/- 3) unless something is really off.  I only play with the presence and midrange to compensate for more unusual flaws, and I've only done that maybe a few times.

I suppose I could have broadened this to discuss compression and other techniques that are common to studio recordings today... feel free to mention how heavily you, for example, use compression to boost "loudness" in the comments. 

[Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B)]

I make my recordings sound good to me. More often than not, I bump up the high end just a titch.

If I'm recording at a great sounding venue (ie Fox in Boulder)...I usually leave it because it sounds great to begin with.

[jlykos]

I don't EQ at all; I leave that for the final listener.  I have a fairly accurate recording and playback system; not perfect, but what is?  I like to listen to the show as it happened so I don't EQ if I can avoid it.  If I am stealth recording indoors with my omnis, I will engage the bass rolloff on the recorder at 75hz.  That's one form of EQing of course, but I try not to touch it too much after that.

Honestly, most of what you can call "EQing" comes with my selection of source components.  I like Gefells because guitars sound fantastic on them; the PSP-2 gives a very coherent presentation; my Moon Audio cables are solid silver for maximum transparency of the PSP.  My playback system reflects this as well with B&W speakers and a Cambridge Audio amplifier.

[rokpunk]

+ or -3db is a fairly significant cut/boost.
just sayin'...

[Belexes]

I make my recordings sound good to me. More often than not, I bump up the high end just a titch.

This is what I do. My mics give me all the bass I need.

[Jhurlbs81]

I only EQ when necessary,  and it is usually a resonant frequency in the room I drop down.   I take a 30 band EQ and just go hunting for the boomy rubbish above the deep bass.  (I'd only use a roll-off in extreme cicumstances.) It usually is somewhere between 150 and 250Hz for the stuff I tape.  I find dropping that pesky frequency down a bit clears everything up and no other adjustments are required.  One or two bands get dropped , less than 3db usually.

YMMV
Jesse

[notlance]

If you consider HPF a form of eq, I do that quite often, especially on vocal and choral music.  Lots of venues have rumbling HVAC and nearby truck traffic.
Otherwise I may sometimes add a few dB to bring out a bass line or perhaps subtract a couple dB to reduce mouth noises in a vocal.  Then I'll try to find a better mic placement next time.

[ero3030]

its a live recording.  never touch them.  ed

[greenone]

I voted for the first option, but mostly because a) I don't know what I'm doing, and b) my playback system consists of a cheap set of earphones.

[rhinowing]

sameas greenone--I have a crap playback system. I only EQ if I can hear something majorly wrong with a tape

[capnhook]

I only EQ when necessary,  and it is usually a resonant frequency in the room I drop down.   I take a 30 band EQ and just go hunting for the boomy rubbish above the deep bass.  (I'd only use a roll-off in extreme cicumstances.) It usually is somewhere between 150 and 250Hz for the stuff I tape.  I find dropping that pesky frequency down a bit clears everything up and no other adjustments are required.  One or two bands get dropped , less than 3db usually.

YMMV
Jesse

Yup, there is almost always a room resonance or two that you can hunt down and remove.  Excellent technique for improving indoor recordings.  +T 

[acidjack]

Yup, there is almost always a room resonance or two that you can hunt down and remove.  Excellent technique for improving indoor recordings.  +T 
[/quote]

I have tried to do more of that after the engineer for a band I recorded recommended (very specifically) that I drop the 400Hz range by -6dB (she must have quite an ear).  Admittedly, I lack her ear and don't have nearly as good an idea where bad room resonances lurk.  Is it generally in the 150-400Hz range?

For that matter, is there any good source of "test tones" of the various frequencies that one can listen to?

[Nick's Picks]

i typically dont do it, but sometimes it can yield an improvement.

I EQ stuff we do as a band, but seldom on AUD recordings that I make.

[jagraham]

never done it

im actually really intrigued by acidjack's post about reducing certain frequencies to help with bad room resonance.  never made a "bad" outdoor recording but there are a few indoor recordings ive done i may consider this approach on for a "remaster".  any links to posts that deal with that specifically?

again, ive never done any of this to a recording before.  all i do is amplify to -.01 in audacity and remove peaks from clapping or other nusiances and amplify again.  i see no need to fuck with the original signal so the laypersons have a better "listening experience".  with decent/basic speakers and a receiver a recording has to be pretty terrible to be unlistenable with some EQ on that.  i have an OLD kenwood KR-5600 receiver with basic bass/treble knobs and "high filter" and "loudness" buttons.  IMO, this pretty basic setup is enough to make any of my recordings at least listenable. 

[Scooter123]

My Schoeps are "warm."  Read:  Can be a little bass heavy and high end deficient.  Highpass (60-80 or 100 depending on room) every time.  Rarely need any high end boost, but sometimes. 

[OOK]

I burn a 24Bit48K untouched (except for fades) master wave to DVD.....  From there I master to what my ear like.... eq, compression, exciter, imager, maximizer etc etc.... whatever it take to make it sound just exactly perfect..... then re-sample, change the bit rate burn to CDR.. and enjoy.... and yet sometimes I do nothing to them what so ever...

OOK

[DSatz]

Just for context, here's a link to the original thread: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=134252. Someone felt that some of his recordings, made with a pair of excellent Sennheiser cardioids, sounded "boomy," and he was considering whether Sennheiser supercardioid microphones might be a solution to that problem. I just thought that there was something else worth trying first.

I also remarked on the psychic resistance which some people seem to have against the very idea of using EQ. Not meaning to make it sound like a universal cure-all, but EQ has been a basic professional audio tool since before we were all born. Those engineers who have learned how to use it well can solve more problems with it, while avoiding unwanted side effects, than other people can achieve with exactly the same equipment or software. So when someone condemns the use of EQ out of hand, but they don't have the skill to use it effectively, you never quite know whether they're describing some actual shortcomings of the process itself or their own limitations as users of it--and they may not even know this difference themselves.

--best regards

[Tedley]

I use a Sontec parametric equalizer to remove room resonance. It does not use phase shifting to work like other parametrics. If needed, I will tweak the sound depending on the mics used etc., but usually very little in music recording. Speech is another matter. Most audio guys I know like to boost the mid range on speech to help lift it out of the background a bit.

[lastubbe]

I have applied it only when necessary, which has been rarely.  I think there is obvious value to it when needed, as we are not always fortunate enough to record in the most ideal situations.

The tools are there, use them but only when you need them.

2 cents.

[capnhook]

Just for context, here's a link to the original thread: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=134252. Someone felt that some of his recordings, made with a pair of excellent Sennheiser cardioids, sounded "boomy," and he was considering whether Sennheiser supercardioid microphones might be a solution to that problem. I just thought that there was something else worth trying first.

I also remarked on the psychic resistance which some people seem to have against the very idea of using EQ. Not meaning to make it sound like a universal cure-all, but EQ has been a basic professional audio tool since before we were all born. Those engineers who have learned how to use it well can solve more problems with it, while avoiding unwanted side effects, than other people can achieve with exactly the same equipment or software. So when someone condemns the use of EQ out of hand, but they don't have the skill to use it effectively, you never quite know whether they're describing some actual shortcomings of the process itself or their own limitations as users of it--and they may not even know this difference themselves.

--best regards

+T

[Dede2002]

Just for context, here's a link to the original thread: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=134252. Someone felt that some of his recordings, made with a pair of excellent Sennheiser cardioids, sounded "boomy," and he was considering whether Sennheiser supercardioid microphones might be a solution to that problem. I just thought that there was something else worth trying first.

I also remarked on the psychic resistance which some people seem to have against the very idea of using EQ. Not meaning to make it sound like a universal cure-all, but EQ has been a basic professional audio tool since before we were all born. Those engineers who have learned how to use it well can solve more problems with it, while avoiding unwanted side effects, than other people can achieve with exactly the same equipment or software. So when someone condemns the use of EQ out of hand, but they don't have the skill to use it effectively, you never quite know whether they're describing some actual shortcomings of the process itself or their own limitations as users of it--and they may not even know this difference themselves.

--best regards

You're my hero.

[deadhoarse]

Voted "Regularly, but only a few..."

I used to subscribe to the "never touch it, keep it real" mentality, but it just got annoying after awhile (Having to manually apply EQ during playback if a recording was too boomy...then adjust back when putting on a show when the sound was more balanced...then add some highs...remove highs....volume...etc....) This might work if you sit down and listen to entire shows at a time, but if your listening habits are a bit ADD, it becomes work.

Typical editing I'll do is a high pass filter (Waves Q1) anywhere from 40Hz to 100Hz, and some compression (Waves L3 UltraMaximizer). I keep an archive of the original untouched masters as well. The trick really is though to make sure you have a listening setup where you can really hear the recording, so you're editing while listening to a close representation of the real sound.

[Fried Chicken Boy]

Would absolutely use EQ if I find it necessary to enhance the recording but I'm a staunch proponent of "less is more".  That being said, a) I'm originally a studio guy so that may color my attitude and b) except in circumstances where unruly low/high-end is really getting on my nerves, I generally leave my live recordings alone.  On a similar note, since I started doing 2-source live recordings (combination of SBD, LD's, SDC's and varying patterns) I've found that blending the sources will, much more often than not, take care of most issues and result in a mix that sounds pleasing to my ears.

[bugg100]

M u l t I - b a n d
c o m p r e s s I o n

but, I decided to stop making far-field tapes,
onstage stereo and board vocal, if not a drum sub mix as well.

[tbrown4]

Almost always! I do my post-processing with my home playback system connected to my PC. I get it sounding what I deem to be "just right" on this playback system. From there I know what results to expect from my mobile playback, be it in the car or through my Shure ear bud monitors.

Low-end roll off (or complete cut out) is sometimes needed, depending on the room where I recorded. When using my cardioid caps I almost always have to do some boom dumping and som high-end boost as they tend to not be as "crispy" up top.

I've been able to take some unlistenable master recordings and turn them into nice little gems through some careful and clever EQ processing. So, I'm all for it.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

It depends...  But generally not.   So much depends on the source material, and the target playback system.  A lot also depends on how often you are recording, and the format.  100+ shows a year at 24/96 can make it hard to find time to make 16 bit versions, let alone carefully listen and EQ.  And once you fall behind...  I find post processing work rather tedious and not fun, especially when the weather is good.

It also helps to know your venue, placement, and gear well.

Once you apply EQ, the result becomes your interpretation vs. what was recorded.  Are you trying to make it sound like the venue experience (and, btw, what kind of ear plugs were you wearing?), or your interpretation of something better?

I avoid EQ/compression/etc.  I find it tends to smear soundstage detail, especially 3d placement.  On some recordings that does not matter.

A lot depends on the "hi fi" system that is the target.   What sounds bright on one system may sound fine on another.  Do I want something I can crank in the car?  Bass that sounds great on the VR4's may not work at all in a car.  Are you targeting headphones?  Low or mid-fi systems?

One thing I do always want... I want to be able to crank a recording without loud applause, whistles, etc, distracting me, or making me wince.   Since I do a lot of 'tape from your seat', I tend to spend quite a bit of time dealing with those issues in a neat and clean way..  That can be very time consuming.

[H₂O]

I have only done this 1-2 times and think it should be used sparingly as IMO the recordings I make are more or less masters

[Fonky]

I've yet to make any recordings of my own so ignore this if it's irrelavent. (Should have my set-up soon). I'm a great believer in keeping the recording untouched if possible. Au naturale if you like. I've been gradually converting my live cassette & vinyl recordings to wavs then FLACs and MP3@320 and in their case, I've had to use eq, compression etc. in an attempt at improving the sound, taking away tape hiss mostly. I always try to do as little as possible if I can get away with it though. I use Wavelab 6/plug ins for any editing though like I say, very sparingly.

I normally run everything through an Arcam amp/ B&Ws3 speakers for playback, if it sounds good on those it should sound ok on most half-decent systems.

[bgreen]

I can totally understand the folks that don't know how, don't want to learn, don't have time, and don't have a setup, or an earnestness to get one.

Mastering properly is expensive and time consuming.

But I don't understand all the other reasons for not mastering. I mean, you guys are all well aware that even in a studio, in a controlled environment, with better equipment than 99% of us use, in rooms specifically tailored to be acoustically proper, and with the engineer having the chance to do multiple takes, they are EQ'ing. You all get that right. The very thought that it will make it sound worse, or it spoils a recording is kinda goofy to me unless the person doing the work is whats amking it bad. The actual eqing won't ruin a recording, the person doing it can though. I guess if you fall into the above category of not knowing how or wanting to, thats perfectly viable. It is a hobby. You make it work to bring you enjoyment. To think that a recording doesn't benefit from proper mastering is way off in left field for me.

I always use as light a touch as I can, but I have had a show or two where for example the bass was so high below 44 hz, I've knocked of 10 decibels. It's not about how much is ok, it's about how much is necessary to make it sound better.

[Matt Quinn]

Great thread, I've suggested before that we should have a sub-forum dedicated to editing recording, still think it's a good idea.


I edit virtually all of my tapes. I never did when I was starting out, but as I learned more about the process & gear, I've become less & less afraid to really get in there & mess around. My typical chain for editing a recording is to use the T-Racks Deluxe VST in Ableton Live. I generally go Linear Equalizer>Opto-Compressor (set to the 'Transparent Leveler' preset to start, then tailored from there)>Brickwall Limiter. The EQ is generally scooping the mids a bit, as I find this a lot more sonically pleasing than boosting the highs or lows, which is how I used to handle it. I may bump the highs or lows depending on the tape. As a couple of people mentioned, I also try to go as light as possible. I've definitely over done it on occasion, and it's taught me to dial it back a bit most of the time. So I EQ to taste, use the opto compressor to mostly level everything out, then the Limiter to bring the gain up as far as possible without crushing it.

I find editing the tapes more interesting than the actual taping these days, to be honest.

[hummat]

I find editing the tapes more interesting than the actual taping these days, to be honest.

You're not the only one