Well since I'm here already...
I'd not necessarily be too dissatisfied with this one, though it is (again, at least in conjunction with the other thread about this live now) lacking in some low-end punch.
I suspect the relative cause being that at 10 foot distance those highly directional capsules may not have had a window on the fullest range of the sound.
Per Schoeps:
"MK41
supercardioid with highly consistent directionality throughout its frequency range
high directivity, comparable to that of a short “shotgun“ microphone up through midrange frequencies
The MK 41 is strongly directional. Sound arriving from off axis is attenuated even more than with a cardioid.
The pickup is “drier” and less susceptible to acoustic feedback than any other SCHOEPS capsule type (a loudspeaker should not be located directly along the rear axis of the microphone, however)."
I like those at a distance. They're good in really big rooms.
The software may not matter much (assuming a decent standard) unless you favor tools/helpers/plug-ins that process in a proprietary or behind the scenes way.
You do need something with 30 bands (for a graphic eq) and real time monitoring to really be effective.
Of course I forgot to mention it but assumed you have a good flat playback system (or know the biases of your playback system). It will sound like what you're playing it back through so I personally only commit to changes on one dedicated setup I use all the time. Playing anything you've worked on back in several different systems will help you get better attuned to how those playback systems are coloring the results.
As in the other example start by looking at the statistics (in Audition/CEP there's a window to gather that). Are the channels relatively balanced? Is the average/total output of the channels similar? Is there any DC offset? Are the channels in phase? Listen to both channels independently to evaluate their content. Even all that up first and note if there are substantial differences remaining between channels (sometimes a little adjustment of the balance can be all you need if there is a really wide difference in content in a really directional a full stereo image, or you might even need to eq vastly disparate channels independently for best results).
All the above seems OK from a quick look here, other than eliminating the DC offset.
Then look at a spectral analysis and frequency analysis. Both those suggest this is a little light in the low end (up to maybe 1.5K-ish). The graphs are sort of a rough guideline and there may be good reasons some frequencies are up or down. Learning to read them does give an idea of where to start but in the end it is up to your ears. You generally want to just shape it all a bit into a more natural sounding/looking slope if you feel the need to modify the tone. It is generally better to subtract/reduce than to add and to not to be too radical.
If there is some major disaster an FFT filter is best to reduce/remove offending narrow bands. That is much more targeted than EQ and notches out issues that can be notched out really well. An FFT filter is actually very good for eq type functions on things that need major changes. They give a lot of very specific control.
For eq some prefer a parametric eq, which is more of an overall shaping tool. I prefer the graphic eq, which gives you a little more control over where you're making changes.
Think about and try to identify what you don't like (have a plan going in).
With this I'd relatively increase the lows/low-mids (up to about 1.5K). You might taper the extreme highs. Sometimes they clean up if you drop the stuff well above hearing range (which the Schoeps will capture, for better or worse). If the vocals seeming a little low bother you, you can see if you can find the bands those are in and nudge them a bit (I think that improved with bringing up the lows though). Most vocals are heard in that 1K to 4K range, though there can be a little bit of a sparkle above that. He's pretty low/raspy though and it's already fairly bright up there so I would see if there's something in the low-mids if needed.
Also note that things change (sometimes a lot) through a show. If I'm really doing a full job I may wind up applying several different variations of an eq pattern on a song by song basis. In Audition you can save any particular batch of eq settings as presets and try various gradations.
Izotope Ozone is often quite useful, especially for spectral cleanup/adjustment (and declipping!). HarBal is really good at running a more automated sort of thing over shows and analyzing what you're working with.
Topic: EQ help for me too! (Read 2581 times)