I think I would get too much latency if I tried to use EQ
plug-ins while tracking. -- WRX

So, don't use them... Get
sound as close as possible with micing. You can always twick the
EQs later. That what mixing is for.

Provided the sound source is well recorded in the first place, I much rather prefer using digital EQ rather than EQ'ing to 'tape'. I find that there are a number of very strong EQ plug options which negate the use of hardware EQ's (oooh, I can hear the murmurs already).

If there are some annoying sound charactersics that you absolutely know you want to get rid of and that no amount of mic choice or mic positioning will solve than I say go ahead but that is the only time I use it. If your ear is epecially well tuned so as to be able to truthfully discern the difference between an API EQ VS. Neve VS. Pultec and no other software EQ will do than I say go ahead. However, given that you are asking they type question that you are my guess is that you are probably not there yet.

Unless you know specifically know how your EQ'ed instrument is going to sit in the mix when all is said and done I find it restrictive to make EQ commitments that early. Granted there are going to be those amongst us who are so experienced and know exactly what sound they want and how it will soind with the final mix, yada, yada, yada.....I am not there yet!!

I use EQ'ing during tracking all the time and latency is not an issue for me. Unless there is some specific purpose to using EQ while tracking it is really irrelavent whether you use it during or after. Digital EQ's are not written to the sound source and can be changed at any time after the recording. That may be obvious but it sounded like you might not be aware of that fact.

Anyways, I hope that helps, best of luck.

Some sequencers, like Logic, will allow you to effect incoming audio, rendering the "damage" done.

Something to bear in mind (at least with hardware EQ) is that you're introducing a phase shift to the signal by using it. That doesn't sound too dangerous, but by the time you go to mix 24+ tracks with phase components...........well, you just made your life more difficult.

I eq while tracking.

I usually remove unwanted lows, to get a cleaner signal. It's amazing how much is going on at those frequencies (air conditionning, bad sound proofing, vibrations...)
Sometimes, I boost the highs, using shelve eq.

IMO, if you do anything else, you either need to reconsider mic choice and/or placement, or you know exactly what you're doing...
I'm talking about "Standard-I want as many options as I want-Clean takes" department, ok?

You need to do something sounding a little special? Get your hand dirty and EQ.

I like to use stepped API EQ, first because they sound yummy and if you do something you don't like afterwards, at least you have a chance to reverse it in the mix. Stepped frequencies and gain settings... the positive and negative curves match. (Of course, you don't expect to get your signal exactly as it was, because you run twice through the outboard unit, and go through several A/D and D/A conversions...

It is not necessarely a bad thing. Many of us run their signals through a certain piece of outboard gear, with all controls in neutral, just for the sake of "that" sound...
Years and years of practice. I hope I'll get there before I'm old and deaf.

On inbound stuff, I generally stick to HPF on the mic themselves or the preamp...(no phasing issues) and mic choice...

Mic positioning has a lot to do with EQ as well...remember a mic dead on at 4" will (as specs show and ears tell) sound way different than the same mic 8" away slightly off axis.

Digger wrote:
Unless you know specifically know how your EQ'ed instrument is going to sit in the mix when all is said and done I find it restrictive to make EQ commitments that early. Granted there are going to be those amongst us who are so experienced and know exactly what sound they want and how it will soind with the final mix, yada, yada, yada.....I am not there yet!!

I totally agree with this. Most of the time I really dont know where my tracks are gonna sit in a mix until im ready to mix (done tracking). Using eq to fix problems on a individual track might sound good solo, but in a complex mix could create potential unreversable problems. I always try to think in my head which "pockets" the insturment im recording will sit in the final mix. then use mic placement to give it the best balance for that "pocket" im shooting for. I find im usually only eq'ing for slight shaving and fine tuning in my mixes.

Can someone please recommend a mono or dual mono EQ that won't color sound too much that I can use with a Great River MP-2NV. A bypass switch would be nice, but isn't necessary. The Great River dual mono EQ is out of my price range right now. Something around $1000 per channel would be good, and I need something that I can do minor EQ'ing with while tracking(cutting out some mids, lows, or slightly boosting highs). Thank you

Speck ASC

How about the API 550b's?

Hardware Eq's add noise floor and shift in phase. Be sure its the kind of stuff you can live with later on. The more noise floor the smaller the sound. I can live with API 550's. Not much else. HPF on the mics....Thats about it...Use the EQ on the source...first.

if I mix multiple mics to one track (e.g. 3 mics on snare to one snare track, or 2 mics on kick), I eq to tape (or well, to harddisk)..
Otherwise there's no way to eq the mics separately..
But it's mostly hpf or lpf though..
And I use some nice hardware that I have available while tracking..(mixing I do at home, where I only have 1 urei 1178 and some plugins..)

I prefer to add any FX, which includes EQ, as an edit, keeping the original track as unaltered, and "neutral" as possible. As others have said, that always assumes using good equipment (budget permitting) and techniques. Remember that you cannot always "fix" something in an edit, if it has problems in the beginning. Also, if you use an EQ setting when recording, keep good records, so you can at least try to get back to the baseline, including equipment used.

I know what I'm looking for in a track. It's taken me a very long time to get to this point. I'll get the microphone and preamp as close as possible to what I want (my preamp selection consists of generally about 10 types or more), but EQ is often still necessary. For instance, I was micing guitar for an album I'm doing right now for Locomotive Records, it ended up that an SM-7 through a Great River NV won for this track after trying a ton of different combinations. But it still needed more than a few db of 100hz, and a small cut @ 400hz. I could have added bass from the guitar head, but all it was doing was pushing more air and making it sound muddy and eating up headroom. The EQ was actually more benficial in that it sounded more natural according to everything else that was going on. Once that was decided it fit extremely well with the drums and bass, to the point where I don't think anything will have to be done in mix. But like I said, it's taken mixing hundreds of projects to get to this point. You start to find out what all the common denominators are, and eventually it's intuitive.

I agree with what Nathan said. The more you record and mix, the more you start learning what you want. But I have also found that the further along I get, the more I start trying to tweak the mic placement instead of just applying EQ. It sure is sweet when you can get a great sound from the beginning and use little or no EQ. That said, there are a lot of situations where I have to get pretty agressive with it.

I do whatever it takes on the way in, and always in the hardware domain.
I don't believe in extra points for no eq.

I only really care about the result.

Alan Parsons told me once that there are plenty of +15 EQ's all over Dark Side Of The Moon.
When someone makes a beter sounding recording than that, without any EQ, perhaps I'll reconsider the position.
Until then, I don't consider EQ a "failing" or the lack of it a poiint of pride.

wwittman wrote: I do whatever it takes on the way in, and always in the hardware domain.
I don't believe in extra points for no eq.

I only really care about the result.

Alan Parsons told me once that there are plenty of +15 EQ's all over Dark Side Of The Moon.
When someone makes a beter sounding recording than that, without any EQ, perhaps I'll reconsider the position.
Until then, I don't consider EQ a "failing" or the lack of it a poiint of pride.

YES!!!!!!!!!
+10@10 on those Ribbons = yummmmmmmmmy

RecorderMan wrote:
YES!!!!!!!!!
+10@10 on those Ribbons = yummmmmmmmmy

Yep, that's about right. Although I find a little 350 out of KM84's/86's a little tastier. Ribbons are too polite in that app for my tastes.