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

[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.