EQ- Are you a Cutter, or a Booster?

philbo · Post by **philbo** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:24 am

Cutting, primarily.

Boosting? Depends on how badly the EQ mangles the phase...
Most of them chew it up pretty good on a boost. A very few outboard EQs sound good on a boost. Most do not sound good.
________
CLASSACTION LAWSUIT

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:38 am

i barely use eq at all, usually just cut some low mid murk outta the kick and very occasionally the room mics...that's about it. although i did have a little leslie cab here for awhile and i ran a ton of stuff through that, which sounded amazing BUT it was soooo murky sounding regardless of how i had the amp set. so i was cutting a bunch of 200 and hi shelfing the crap outta that stuff. but generally i try and get things sounding nice at the mic and then make it work in the mix somehow. i've opined on here before about how i think eqing distorted guitars screws up the overtones...

YOUR KONG · Post by **YOUR KONG** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:20 am

I cut like a fiend. People have told me my stuff sounds "pro" so I guess it works.

What I do is I'll put in mind the instrument's "character" - the sound that's the reason I added it (twang, spooky echoes, etc.), then I'll creeeep up with a high-pass filter and back off when it seems to affect my target "sound." Then I'll do the same with a low-pass filter. But usually it's the high-pass filter that has the greatest impact.

I *will* add if need be, but I don't think I've ever added to anything besides kick drum and bass.

For you adders, how much do you usually add? If I get above .5 dB I find it's time to reassess my whole mix.

apropos of nothing · Post by **apropos of nothing** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:29 am

If I'm boosting, I'm usually boosting for "character", so if I add some odd-order harmonics, phase weirdness or whatever, well, that's why I came to the party!

The Real MC · Post by **The Real MC** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:44 am

Mic'd: 50% mic placement, 40% cut, 10% boost.

Direct: 60% cut, 10% boost, 30% nothing

If I boost, I do it to add character. If I cut, to null out peaks or interfering harmonics.

Bill @ Irie Lab · Post by **Bill @ Irie Lab** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:54 am

Cut then make up gain = HiFi
Boost then attenuate level = character

I feel (rightfully or not) if I have to EQ I've botched it somehow; just the same I guess I'm a cutter.

Bill

Bill @ Irie Lab · Post by **Bill @ Irie Lab** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:59 am

To qualify my previous post:

That is if I'm tracking. If I'm mixing someone else's stuff or attempting to rescue an old 2-track all bets are off!

vvv · Post by **vvv** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:03 pm

To riff on the above:
I cut to make a track fit,
I boost to change a track's sound.

Except with drums; I often cut and boost hugely to change the sound of toms and snare.

trodden · Post by **trodden** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:23 pm

I like how people think that using the freaking EQ is like a "bad" thing, or if you have to use it you've "botched" it.. why in the fuck do they put eq's on mixing boards, from a behringer to a freaking SSL, eq's, its not the enemy.. it there to be used.

my room is small, drums have to be cut up a bit to get them not so boxy. I have to mic in ways sometimes where i need to add a little top end, so what?

my mic collection is limited, an EQ makes the sounds my mic capture vary how I think they should fit.

the whole EQ or not to EQ is as old and tired and pointless as the analog vs digital debate.

yeah mic placement and choice is important as well as type of amp/instrument/room. but isn't that the same thing kinda as "EQ"?

kayagum · Post by **kayagum** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:30 pm

Subtractive EQ was the most important revelation I've gotten from this board.... it has made all the difference.

If I boost, it tends to be on the very low and the very high end, and just a smidgen. And after all of the subtractive EQ. And applying the "whatever you think you need, scale back just a bit under that" rule.

lightandmind · Post by **lightandmind** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:22 pm

Some really great posts today gentleman-

Boost and attenuate are the opposites actually...could have more accurately appeared in your header...fyi

Thanks for the head's up, but I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying that I should have replaced "cutter" with "attenuater"?

You know what? Don't even answer.
Communicating information is why we're all here, and I think these fine people know exactly what I meant. The more time we focus on what the "proper" terms are, when a more-universal word is quickly available- is time that could be spent filling our minds with something far greater. Besides, our terminology and vocabulary words are mostly internal, and if you'll notice in the description that I stated "constructive" comments-
meaning "having to do with the technical issue at hand", you know, for learning and stuff,- fYi.
Sorry to unload, but I'm soooooooooo tired of comments I feel are mostly ego-fueled and counter-productive to the real issue at hand. Is that all you came in for/wish to leave here? How about some usefull advice?

Sorry guys.
Next time I'll leave w/my tail between my legs, if for no other reason than to allow them to feel superior in there own little world built from imagination.

cut more than I boost. I was once told "cut and re-gain."

That's only during tracking, right? Thanks Tony, your a pretty swell guy, ya know?

A very few outboard EQs sound good on a boost.

Recommend any good boosting EQ's?

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:20 pm

trodden wrote:yeah mic placement and choice is important as well as type of amp/instrument/room. but isn't that the same thing kinda as "EQ"?

kinda. i just think whatever you can do in front of the mic (or with it) is always gonna be better than what you do after, that's all.

i do sort of feel like if i have to eq i didn't record it right, but really its just because i'm lazy and would rather not be bothered, honestly.

trodden · Post by **trodden** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:20 pm

lightandmind wrote:Some really great posts today gentleman-

Boost and attenuate are the opposites actually...could have more accurately appeared in your header...fyi
Thanks for the head's up, but I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying that I should have replaced "cutter" with "attenuater"?

You know what? Don't even answer... How about some usefull advice?

Sorry guys.
Next time I'll leave w/my tail between my legs, if for no other reason than to allow them to feel superior in there own little world built from imagination.

haha totally dude. Its like being at the bar close to last call sometimes, some people keep talking just to hear themselves while nothing really necessary comes out of their mouths.. talk talk talk... "well i can post/talk in a certain manner that makes me sound like I know what i'm talking about" situation.

trodden · Post by **trodden** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:38 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:
trodden wrote:yeah mic placement and choice is important as well as type of amp/instrument/room. but isn't that the same thing kinda as "EQ"?
kinda. i just think whatever you can do in front of the mic (or with it) is always gonna be better than what you do after, that's all.

i do sort of feel like if i have to eq i didn't record it right, but really its just because i'm lazy and would rather not be bothered, honestly.

Oh totally, if you get it right at the source, then hell yeah, less work down the line, but realistically there are always obstacles though.

for one, Time. sometimes there isn't the time to spend two day/2months moving mics around to get drums miced up.

kinda related to time, Budget. this in regard to how much time one can afford setting up mics/rooms/instruments. but also budget on what kind/quality of gear is used/afforded as well.

and then what if the idea of the song changes from the time it was tracked to when it is mixed? recordings evolve, new ideas come along during the process.

spontaniety? that happens a lot in the studio, and usually the "best" mic, and the "right" mic placement just isn't going to happen.

shit gear, i record some bands with really crappy gear, you gotta make due sometimes, cause i don't have the time to have them find the cash for a new kick head, on a drum that is a pain in the ass to tune.

so you know, people who think that if it wasn't right at the source, then the engineering skills are subpar, really aren't working in the real world. At least not in my reality. Lucky for them i guess. I wish i could say i don't have to push, bend, mold, and work to get audio to come together, hell that would be great if i could just put up the faders and go "TA DA!!". but unfortunately, my life isn't that simple, i'm sure it isn't for a lot of people here working in their bedrooms, offices, basements, rehearsal rooms. I just wonder if its threads like these that make people "scared" of using eq, scared of using their ears to make a sound the way they feel it should be in a mix of other sounds. These types of threads did that to me once.

lightandmind · Post by **lightandmind** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:29 pm

My whole thing is taking the time to perfect the source and mic placement to the absolute best of my ability, and use EQ more for it's ability to blend the tracks togather, rather than relying on it for making corrections. However, I play all instruments myself and record in a home studio- which means time is far less of a factor, but I'd shure hate to think that many engineers skimp on the tracking/placement only to rely on EQ to fix their mistakes. Mic placement technique is a rather large part of being an engineer, and I would hope that most engineers have found a cozy medium between "finding sweet-spots" and "time restraints".

Message Board

EQ- Are you a Cutter, or a Booster?

Who is online