MOTUnation.com

I have a newbie thought, when we look at the frequency response graph(s) of our microphones, do we eq to compensate for its dips and peaks and basically bring it as close as we can to flat? What do we really use these responses for?

KED wrote:I have a newbie thought, when we look at the frequency response graph(s) of our microphones, do we eq to compensate for its dips and peaks and basically bring it as close as we can to flat? What do we really use these responses for?

These response charts simply show what frequencies a mic is sensitive or insensitive to. They can help you understand how they may be of particular advantage when recording one source and disadvantage when recording another.

For example:

Let's say your source is a little boomy. Recording it with a mic that's less sensitive to those booming frequencies may allow you to minimize that boom.

Conversely, let's say you have a source that sounds a little muted. A mic with a high frequency boost may add a sense of brightness to the recording.

RE: EQ to compensate for mic responses --

Here's the only rule to EQ: Use it to make things sound better to you. There's no equation here. It's application is part of the subjective art of mixing.

chrispick wrote:RE: EQ to conspensate for mic responses --

Here's the only rule to EQ: Use it to make things sound better to you. There's no equation here. It's application is part of the subjective art of mixing.

You know one of the things I miss most about working on old school analog boards is the fact that you were required to use your ears when eq-ing as opposed to looking at the curves (like in most plugins) and doing what you think seems like the right thing to do. Does that make sense? I feel like when I'm staring at a graphical representation of an eq curve I have a tendency to strictly adhere to the basic rules of equalization instead of just doing what sounds best. Sometimes it seems like all of this great technology is getting in the way of just using my ears and trying to be creative.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!!!!

KED wrote:That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!!!!

Cool. You're welcome.

jmoore wrote:You know one of the things I miss most about working on old school analog boards is the fact that you were required to use your ears when eq-ing as opposed to looking at the curves (like in most plugins) and doing what you think seems like the right thing to do. Does that make sense?

Absolutely, yeah.

To build on that: I tell you, the more I mix, the more I try to not mix, if you will. By that I mean, most of the time, the best sonic treatment is capturing it right to hard drive, the way you want it, pre-hearing in your head how it'll fit in the overall mix. It takes a lot of experience, and I'm just at the beginning of that road, but my faith in that philosophy grows the more I do it.

Cool crispick that is not always easy. I try to get a good clean recording and the add effects and eq. to each part to give them their space and feel. Your way is less forgiving but could be faster. I need to be able to tweek things.

To add to the above EQing is used to bring out an instrument or mix it in or control problem freq's if each voice and instrument have a space (EQ, pan and reverb) it can make the over all mix clearer and more sonic.

jmoore wrote: You know one of the things I miss most about working on old school analog boards is the fact that you were required to use your ears when eq-ing as opposed to looking at the curves (like in most plugins) and doing what you think seems like the right thing to do. Does that make sense? I feel like when I'm staring at a graphical representation of an eq curve I have a tendency to strictly adhere to the basic rules of equalization instead of just doing what sounds best. Sometimes it seems like all of this great technology is getting in the way of just using my ears and trying to be creative.

After years of looking at DP's graphical EQ plugin, I'm getting myself used to the UAD-1 Pultec and Channel Strip EQs, which don't have graphical displays. Sometimes I find myself wanting the display, then I have to remind myself that it's better to EQ this way, focusing on the sound.

it's funny - the mere act of "looking" at the mix and the meters and then all the data for the FX (like freq., Q and boost/cut on an EQ plug) suddenly throws you into the whole analytical/left brain world...and it's really easy to forget your ears need to lead the way.

When I EQ I try not to look more than I need to to click in the right spot and then just listen. It's hard enough to remove all the distractions without trying to over think things like EQ...you know...do I really want to cut right at 314 Hz, maybe I should just move it up to 325 or down to 300, 'cause 314 is a weird number...you know that crazy thing our mind does to put thing in neat & tidy packages.

I think DAWs, in general, make it more of a struggle to just listen because of all the analytical stimuli.

And I sometimes really feel sorry for those that never knew anything but a DAW. Never sat at a huge console and pushed real faders, twisted real knobs and patched in effects wit real cables.

Of course, they also never had to calibrate a tape machine or splice a tape that suddenly snapped. So there are the up sides too.

chrispick - Your comments about mic selection and equalization are right on. I have always felt that intuitively, but I've never understood it so directly. Thanks for the lucid explanation. It validates my thoughts on the topic. I am also a believer in capturing and committing the best sound to tape initially so as to minimize EQ and other treatment during the mixing stage.

And I also agree with the observations about DAW's and visual representation of sound. Sometimes I wish we didn't have so many tools available to us so we could just focus on the sound. There was once a time without meters or any other visual representations of sound.

This is one of those threads that I was like "yep!" "yeah!" "totally, dude!" the whole time.

Chrispick wrote :

pre-hearing in your head how it'll fit in the overall mix. It takes a lot of experience, ...

That's exactly one of my main goals as a playing musician !

sdemott wrote:Of course, they also never had to calibrate a tape machine or splice a tape that suddenly snapped. So there are the up sides too.

Yeah, I said to a band once that I remember what a razor blade was used for in the studio. I think they thought I was making a drug reference...Kids!

When EQing, I will often click on the control and close my eyes, then move the mouse. Sometimes I can hear better with my eyes shut.

Phil

Phil O wrote:Sometimes I can hear better with my eyes shut.

Phil

Precisely why I no longer listen to music while driving.
Seriously.

TheHopiWay wrote:

Phil O wrote:Sometimes I can hear better with my eyes shut.

Phil

Precisely why I no longer listen to music while driving.
Seriously.

I always wounder why drive up teller machines have braille on the keys.

twistedtom wrote: I always wounder why drive up teller machines have braille on the keys.

Hopi Way - I laugh when people tell me about their state-of-the-art car sound system. I mean, is there a worse listening environment than a car??

But don't get me started on that...I still listen to albums beginning to end, and consider listening to music and active process...and I hate that MP3s are the accepted delivery method for audio. I'm still pushing for a new CD standard of 24-bit/65kHz (and I'm really not that blown away by DSD, to be honest).

You see...I got myself started.