Well - is there something you don't like about your current EQ situation?

That's the place to start.

I've definitely found that, in the world of EQs, there are the following:

Entry level:
Good units all around - most if not all to be found in the plug-in environment. Usable, decent sounding and relatively transparent. Your current EQ likely fits here.

Mid level EQ:
Again, mostly plugins but some hardware may fit in here (I'm thinking Toft or Speck). You'd have to pay a pretty high premium to get into this bracket from the entry level bracket and not really gain all that much.

High level EQ:
This is reserved for a select few EQs that do what they do REALLY well -
Weiss, Algorithmix, some of the UAD stuff (the plugs are cheap, but the price of admission for the card is the expensive part). A lot of hardware EQs fit in here but are dreadfully expensive. Crane Song Ibis, Manley Massive Passive, Summit, and a few others.

Crap EQs -
A lot of these are budget hardware units. They're better off being used as paper weights or simply to fix some feedback in a live-sound environment in a pinch. Don't waste your money on these for mixing/recording.

Does that help at all?

I mean it works okay. I wish I was able to set more than 6 points sometimes, even though I usually don't need more than this. I guess I just wanted to learn more about what most people use to EQ their tracks during mixing. I don't know how a piece of hardware would work without essentially rerecording the track. I didn't know if there was a "studio standard" when EQing.

Nope...no real "studio standard"

Until about 15 years ago, the "studio standard" was whatever EQ was built into your console. Now, we have tons of choices - all of them quite adequate.

My only advice would be to figure out how to use your EQ with 3 points or less. 2 would be preferred.

For a single channel, more than this is simply dangerous and will (not might...will) kill your mix.

Bear in mind, using 1 control affects two places -
For example - say you boost a notch about an octave wide centered around 200Hz by 2 dB. This will increase the overall perceived loudness of the lower mids. It will also lower the perceived loudness of the upper mids/lower treble. By adjusting one frequency, you always make a perceivable difference in another as well.

Cheers-
J.

This all depends on how it was recorded. What kind of equalizer's do I like to use?? I love the simple, rudimentary, equalization in my old Neve 3115 modules (a.k.a. 33115) and very similar to their most popular 1073 class A output modules. Stupidly simple equalization but what it gives you, is an unforgettable sonic signature from its ferrite core inductor equalizer's. Just blows me away!

In software, my favorite go to equalizer is the FFT " drawl your own" in Adobe Audition . Gives me all of the versatile equalization I could possibly ever hope for.

But when I am tracking through the old Neve, I will print EQ, compression and/or limiting if I should so desire. I don't care if it can't be undone. You don't need to undo something that already works. And since I am the best, they're rarely is ever any problem.

Now some guys truly love the API 550/550 A/550 B type of variable Q, nonreciprocal equalization. Those are probably my next favorite, having owned many in the past. I just happen not to have any of those anymore but thankfully, since obtaining the Neve, I just love those equalizer's as simple as they are.

Truly simple engineer
Ms. Remy Ann David

Cucco wrote: By adjusting one frequency, you always make a perceivable difference in another as well.

where can i find out more about this?

"where can i find out more about this?"
http://recording.org
People there are always willing to help.

Cucco wrote:

Bear in mind, using 1 control affects two places -
For example - say you boost a notch about an octave wide centered around 200Hz by 2 dB. This will increase the overall perceived loudness of the lower mids. It will also lower the perceived loudness of the upper mids/lower treble. By adjusting one frequency, you always make a perceivable difference in another as well.

It's kinda like this illustration:

Please excuse the crude drawing.

If all the coffee cans have 1# of coffee in them, then everything's balanced.

If I take one scoop of coffee out of can A and put it in can D then,

the balance between A/B is changed, as is the balance between can C & D.

In addidtion, the balance between A/B & C/D is also changed.

Cucco, does this accurately illustrate the principle?

Yes and no.

The reason for the "no" is because what I'm referring to is perceptual change, whereas you're referring to actual change.

Think of it more as a matter of light and dark.

Take a black piece of construction paper. Look at it in a normally-lit room. The paper will appear black or darn near it (we've all seen construction paper, it's not 100% black).

Now, take a highly-directional and high-intensity flash light and shine in at the dead center of that paper so that only a small portion of it is illuminated. The center is now brighter, but the outside appears darker to us than it did before (more black, if you will).

This is our senses' way of dealing with extreme contrasts.

You're absolutely right, Cucco. My bad. I assumed we all knew you were talking about a perceptual change.

neat analogy with construction paper. but how's it apply to audio? that is, are there any studies or specifics on the perceived change? what frequencies effect what other frequencies? etc etc

NEAT!

I did a google search for "studies on the perception of sound frequency in relation to sound frequency" and got:
http://www.anstendig.org/EQ.html
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/19/4/1508
The second link is in relation to Crickets. But cool none the less.

Take it literally. Shine a bright light on your frequency analyser and see what happens.

Now, as for bright headphones...:lol:

"Recording procedures. Animals were waxed on a platform ventral side up after removal of the wings, midlegs, and hindlegs. The femur of each front leg was fixed, with warm wax, perpendicular to the cricket's longitudinal axis. The tibia was held flexed against the femur. The prothoracic ganglion, which is where auditory receptors terminate (Eibl and Huber, 1979), was exposed by ventral dissection and kept moist with modified TES ringer (Strausfeld et al., 1983; Pollack, 1994). The ganglion was stabilized by a silver platform, and a chlorided silver ground wire was placed into the abdomen. Experiments were performed in a sound-attenuating chamber at 20-23°C."

Imagine what that sounds like to a cricket.

Yuk!

Sounds like sick children getting paid to pull the wings off flys and burn ants with a magnifying glass.

ah, for simpler times eh?

Has anyone spoken of the phase anomolies introduced by the improper use of EQ?

I guess I'm really old-skool and always look for it to sound 'right' with no EQ at tracking. Then any EQ used at the mix is simply for a bit of patina and not so much for repair.

Six points of EQ kinda seems to be compensating for something wrong in the tracking room.....dont you think....?

I find myself having a very narrow Q most of the time when mixing and not a lot of cut or boost unless its to simply notch something out that doesnt need to be there or it needs to make room for something more important.

Davedog wrote:

I guess I'm really old...

Hey, he said it, not me.

...and always look for it to sound 'right' with no EQ at tracking. Then any EQ used at the mix is simply for a bit of patina and not so much for repair.

As I gain more experience, I come around more and more to this way of thinking.