Tracking with EQ

Johneecatt · Post by **Johneecatt** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:49 am

I'm tracking in DP5.13 and I can't find this in the manual. Is there a way to add EQ on the way in? I've got a strange timber to my voice that I can correct with EQ. I used to track with a mixer, and I had an EQ patch that made my vox OK on the way in. Now I'm using a Duet, but if I EQ the track, I have trouble getting levels right. I insert a trim plugin so I can see pre-fader levels, but it's all kind of a pain....... so is there a way to insert EQ going in so it prints EQ to the track? Thanks!

merrek · Post by **merrek** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Try creating an Aux track and assigning your mic input to that track. Then, bus the aux track to an audio track.

Now the aux track is acting like an input fader.

Insert EQ on Aux track... and the effected signal will be printed to your audio track when your record.

David Polich · Post by **David Polich** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:15 pm

That is the way to do it - but I'd caution against tracking with EQ. You can't undo it once it's tracked. And later in mixing, you will always be adjusting EQ in relation to everything else.

Tracking with EQ (or other effects) was one of the first things I learned not to do, way way back. Except for delay on a guitar solo, perhaps.

Johneecatt · Post by **Johneecatt** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:31 pm

Excellent! Thanks for the info. Ordinarily, I never print effects, except in this case, I know exactly what I'm gonna get.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:10 am

I'm with David. It's difficult to predict the minor tone tweaks that'll be required to get that "perfect" mix.
I too was taught this as "recording 101, page one, paragraph one" gospel.

How 'bout this scenario:
You decide to remix a slightly brittle, sterile, "digital-sounding" song having realised down the track that it could be much punchier and warmer.
You employ the HF roll-off trick (of which I'll say no more!) on your tracks in an attempt to get into "black background" territory.
As the trick obviously involves re-EQing your recorded tracks, you'll want a clean slate to begin with, lest further adjustments double-up with existing ones, which in 90+% of cases won't be even arguably a good thing.

I'm sure there are many examples of situations in which you'd not want qualitative decisions of this nature to get in the way of a worthwhile mixing experience, and indeed result.

Just MHO, but I am sure you're inviting future trouble doing this.

tomeaton · Post by **tomeaton** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:54 am

The extension of that argument would prohibit you from choosing a mic, because each mic has a sonic signature that is not removable from the recording.

It is never too early to commit yourself to a tone. It can be a huge help as you overdub to be working against the actual sounds that you will be hearing in the mix, rather than waiting until "the mix" to decide how everything should fit together. Getting your starting tones as close as you can to what you think they should sound like only helps the arrangement.

In records where everything will be overdubbed it can be safer to choose to come in unprocessed, especially when the artist might throw you a curveball later on (like adding a string quartet after you've tracked electric guitars to fill up all the space). But if you know where you're going, there's absolutely no harm in printing the right thing from the get go.

Many, many classic records sound great off the multitracks with just a fader balance...the sounds are there, and then you balance them.

-tom

1nput0utput · Post by **1nput0utput** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:17 am

tomeaton wrote:It is never too early to commit yourself to a tone.

+1

My approach is to have some courage and make some decisions, even early on in the tracking stage. If you know that it is very unlikely that you'll need the sound of snare drum in the kick drum track, print the LPF. If some EQ and dynamics control make for a distinctive vocal sound that fits into the plan for how the recording should sound and they serve the tune, I don't think an engineer should be reluctant to print those effects during tracking.

newrigel · Post by **newrigel** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:07 am

"Rules are made to be broken!"
If we didn't break the rules then 9/10 of all the killer music wouldn't exist!
Sure there are the fundamentals but really... it's all about the end result.

merrek · Post by **merrek** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:47 am

If your situation requires a safety-net, you could always simultaneously record the unprocessed mic to another audio track.

But lets keep in mind that there is no one-way to record, as we all have different production demands, recording styles, mixing styles, degrees of "hearing"... etc.

Obviously, recording raw signals to disk provides the most flexility further down the production chain... but sometimes that approach doesn't lend itself to real-world scenarios. Sometimes you print effects, sometimes you don't. And that discretion is best left to the competent engineer who's actually working on the given project.

bongo_x · Post by **bongo_x** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:04 am

merrek wrote: But lets keep in mind that there is no one-way to record, as we all have different production demands, recording styles, mixing styles, degrees of "hearing"... etc. ...Obviously, recording raw signals to disk provides the most flexility further down the production chain... but sometimes that approach doesn't lend itself to real-world scenarios. Sometimes you print effects, sometimes you don't. And that discretion is best left to the competent engineer who's actually working on the given project.

Agreed. I print eq and compression when tracking. I try not to go overboard, but if I'm recording something and know that it would sound better with some eq, why wait till later? I think putting off those commitments just makes your job harder. Do I ever regret a decision I make while tracking? Yes. C'est la vie.

bb