Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help?  (Read 12731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help?
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2014, 03:22:51 PM »
I'd prefer that those uploaders who don't really know what they're doing or don't have solid ears not EQ but others I've gotten used to and I don't think twice when I see they said they eq'd something they recorded.

I mean, I guess I understand, but how do you know that when the guy with lousy ears EQed, he didn't make it sound exactly like he wanted it to sound?  Along those same lines, for reasons mentioned above, I've never mentioned in my notes whether or not I EQed my source.  It's not because I don't care if anyone knows...but because  to my way of thinking, it's almost totally irrelevant.  If the FOH guy had too much bass on the mix for my taste and I had to EQ bass out to make it sound like I wanted it to sound, I don't really see why my personal taste in EQ would matter to someone else.  The only exception would be to evaluate the native sound of the gear I used, but we've discussed how even that sound is going to be subjective to the room, location, source, FOH, etc.

Well if someone changes a recording to sound the way they want it to and that is lousy (or worse than the untouched recording) it is that much harder and more a waste of time to get the recording to sound better (or even to sound like it started before the processing).  Some things can't be undone (or attempts to remedy those things will be futile). 

Like with the "remasterers" who don't know how to remaster (or master) recordings anything can be ruined by unnecessary or improper processing. 

A bad set of changes is certainly worse than none at all.  So if one doesn't know what they're doing it is better not to do it (for circulation), though it seems those who don't know what they're doing are often most firmly convinced they know exactly what they're doing and everyone else who points out how something was botched is wrong.  There is one series of "remasters" with a pretentious "label" where those behind it clearly have no idea of many basic principles of audio engineering and editing, but they've hacked up a lot of shows and sent them on the way to thousands of downloads. 

Of course one can do whatever they want to do to their recordings (and many do).  If that includes (as an extreme example) a crappy eq job made into MP3's then the remaining option is not to listen to it (though I'd hope it wasn't some special show there are no other sources of).   There are some that are just too annoying to listen to.  I don't know if they started that way but they certainly ended that way for me. 
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

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help?
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2014, 04:19:32 PM »
I won't argue what people should note and what not to, but I do think post manipulations like EQ are one of the more relevant things that might be noted if one is inclined to do so, given those influences are far greater than detailed lineages listing meaningless post-ADC digital chain details, or even relevant but more subtle and less influential signal chain details like microphone cables, preamps and recorders. 

The most important things I personally look for in recording notes are what sources were used, what microphones were used, the microphone configuration (important yet all too often lacking), general placement, and an indication of whether any sound changing pre or post production stuff was done  such as rolloffs, EQ, compression, limiting, exciters, stereo imagers or whatever.  Not necessarily advocating calling all those things out and listing details about what was done, just a heads up that the recording is not a straight microphone feed.  I don't care much about stuff which doesn't change the sound of the raw recording, like if it was peak normalized (which often is noted).

Mostly that gives other tapers, gear-heads and more serious collectors a heads up that there may be significant sound modifying influences beyond the mics and their configuration which affect the technical attributes of the recording, altogether separate from the quality of the music performance.  Sampling various recordings made with the same microphones, listening for trends, as is done by tapers and often recommended around here as an insight into selecting appropriate microphones, is a subset of that.  Once post-manipulated, a recordings strongest comp value is how good it might be made to sound.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 04:22:01 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help?
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2014, 06:27:09 PM »
^ In terms of others' recordings (as with EQ-ing one's own) there's often no substitute for listening despite what they may or may not say about them.  Certain people's efforts do carry a general TMOQ though. 
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

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help?
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2014, 06:46:00 PM »
When is there ever a substitute for listening?  It really the entire point, no?
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help?
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2014, 06:58:16 PM »
When is there ever a substitute for listening?  It really the entire point, no?

Yep.  My point was more that some people will bring it back alive and I don't need to listen first to know if I should download or not, others I know what to expect and avoid (usually because of what they do in post!).  There is a sea in between though. 
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

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help?
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2014, 08:00:58 PM »
When is there ever a substitute for listening?  It really the entire point, no?

Yep.  My point was more that some people will bring it back alive and I don't need to listen first to know if I should download or not, others I know what to expect and avoid (usually because of what they do in post!).  There is a sea in between though.

It's not the same, but I'm much more annoyed by the pro's that futz up a recording by normalizing the sh** out of if than the tapers that mess up their EQ job.  Then again, I record so much on my own that I haven't been downloading a hella lot of other peoples recordings over the last 3 or 4 years.

Offline page

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Gender: Male
  • #TeamRetired
Re: Learning to EQ with purpose - response curves help?
« Reply #36 on: July 21, 2014, 10:02:20 PM »
It's not the same, but I'm much more annoyed by the pro's that futz up a recording by normalizing the sh** out of if than the tapers that mess up their EQ job. 

limiting and compressing, not normalizing. Small nuance.

I haven't been downloading a hella lot of other peoples recordings over the last 3 or 4 years.

+1  :-\

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.

I "chose" not to EQ for a long time for this reason.  I knew I didn't know what I was doing and stuck to a Hippocratic first-do-no-harm approach.
 

This is one of the best good reasons.  I think when deciding to EQ a recording for general release, there is something of a responsibility for objectivity involved, which doesn't apply when just EQing to suit your own playback environment and personal enjoyment.  The aim should be good sound in general, which works on as many different systems as possible.  The danger is making it sound great on you own monitoring system, but not realizing some of the changes you are making are corrections to your monitoring system, which don't apply elsewhere.

I agree. Not all of my posts have been stellar, but then again, some have. I think as long as someone's making an effort, then have at.

* page shrugs.
"This is a common practice we have on the bus; debating facts that we could easily find through printed material. It's like, how far is it today? I think it's four hours, and someone else comes in at 11 hours, and well, then we'll... just... talk about it..." - Jeb Puryear

"Nostalgia ain't what it used to be." - Jim Williams

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.226 seconds with 35 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF