3-band vs. 4-band EQ

[jstark]

Hey guys, long-time lurker, first-time poster.

I recently finished up a GDIY 51x rack, so now I'm deciding what to fill it with. Looking at 500 series EQs, I see a lot of 3-band EQs. I'm still early in my digital-to-analog transition, and I'm wondering about 3-band vs. 4-band EQs. In the box, my goto EQ is the Waves 4-band REQ, and to my newb mind, 4 bands seems like the minimum number for a "useful" EQ. For instance, guitars; cut some lows, knock the highs down a bit, cut the fatiguing high-mids, maybe a little boost around 1k-2k.

But I'm wondering if this is illustrating a lesson that I should learn; *should* 3 bands be completely sufficient? I can think back to when I first started, reaching for 6 or 8 band EQs--just ridiculous EQing. I'm trying to learn if 3 bands is too far in the other direction...

My project for the afternoon is doing a couple mixes with 4 band EQs, and a couple with 3 band EQs--seeing which feels better to mix with. Just wondering if anyone here had any additional insight.

Thanks!

[Dominick Costanzo]

Not to be smug, but a 2 band eq is often sufficient and is a good "learning" tool.

[farview]

It really depends on how much fixing you need to do on a regular basis.

When I record the guitars, most times I just need to add some high shelf and that's it. When I mix other people's recordings, sometimes it takes a lot more than that to get it done.

For the most part, if you record things the way they need to be recorded, Dominick is correct, a little high and/or low shelf is usually as much as you need.

[donny]

this is a totally personal subjective thing. a lot of good records were made with 2-band. i think EQ is a thing that you can do more harm than good with unless you really know what you're doing. the board i've mixed all of my stuff through only has a 2-band and i've often thought back to how much i would have messed it up if i'd had more options (and lord knows i messed up enough with the 2-band). i personally wouldn't know what to do with a 4-band but i think i've learned enough mixing on 2-band to move up to 3-band at this point (in the process of upgrading my mixer).

[Snarl 12/8]

I feel like if I can't get it done with two bands, subtractively, I need to rethink something else that's going on. Mic choice, arrangement, instrumentation, mic placement, levels, etc., etc. But I only ever record myself.

[TheRealRoach]

A two band EQ is sufficient if I'm the one recording the source. If I'm mixing something that was recorded elsewhere then a 4 band is nice to have to fix problematic sounds.

[farview]

Here is a question, when people are talking about 2 band EQ, are they talking about 2 bands of parametric, or simple treble and bass controls (high and low shelf)?

[drumsound]

I've really grown a custom to having 4 bands. There just always seems to be more done with the different ends of the "mid range" and having hi-mid and lo-mid is really useful. Sometimes, I'm just using a little of the shelves, and some channels will have one of the four bands doing anything. Some things need no EQ.

[bluesman]

4 band...because....well, its one more innit!

[T-rex]

Three is a magic number! I think for most people who record in "less than ideal acoustic spaces" being able to modify the lower mid range or scoop out some of the room while still having the flexibility of highs and lows is necessary. Usually on my ghost I rarely use more than three bands and usually just two if its something I have tracked. But, like everything, its nice to have the extra band when you really need it.

I bought some Little Devil Eqs which are four band and I usually end up with a hair of boost or cut on every band because they all sound so damn good. I like the ghost eq's, but I can't say the same for them.

[Jim Williams]

At least 2 swepted mids for me. I rairly use my hi shelf band, usually only to cut. That last 2 mixes they were all flat.

I don't need to boost top EQ here. That's because when I track, I don't loose any so there is no need to gain anything back.

This is not normal, for decades I lived on "11" in top boost, mostly for attempting to recover lost air from analog tape.

I recall the band "Felony" in 1984. It was the mix of "The Vigilante". At Soundcastle in LA, the Neve 8128 had every top boost shelf EQ floored at mix. Full up, all of them. Then the producer yells "more top end"!

Then I start cutting mids. Don't miss that crap at all.

I don't use EQ to track, I make sure it sounds right first without it. Then you find you need less at mix time, usually none. If I need to get wanky on EQ, I have 15 and 31 band graphics that can slice and dice anything. Nothing beats a great 31 band graphic for tone shaping. You can do almost anything with it. Few studios have one.

[Dominick Costanzo]

I'm talking about hi & lo shelf
Like the Electrodyne 511

[Nick Sevilla]

Hi,

I like 3 band EQ when recording. If needed.
Then mostly use 4 band when mixing.
I use a 7 band for really shaping a sound, if it needs it.

Cheers

[trodden]

ummm I pretty much use what I need. And since sometimes I need both the high and low pass and all five bands on the sonnex oxford eq plug, and sometime i only need the shelf and sometimes none at alll...... well, I guess I'd get an eq that can offer what you really need.

...and that depends.

[ott0bot]

whatever is clever....just cause you have 4 bands doesn't mean you have to use them!

also...dont rule out graphic eq's. The API and old Melcors sound great and can sculpt like a champ or just do some subtle cut and boost action.