EQ TECHNIQUE
One of the best things about almost all EQs is that you don’t really need an instruction manual. You plug it in, turn a few knows and when nothing happens you take it out of “bypass” and the rest is easy. You just keep twiddling until it sounds like you want it to. Most digital devices like synthesizers and reverbs tend to get a lot of use from the included presets. Most guys just don’t want to get into that kind of “programming”. EQs are the opposite where most guys will ignore the presets and start from scratch or flat. This section may be most helpful for the musician non-engineers, and may be applicable to EQs in and music engineering in general. There are no real rules here, just hints, suggestions and bits of other peoples wisdom.
Not so long ago, in order to get your chance at the console, you had to follow the path from cleaning toilets, to making coffee, to assisting, to engineering to producing. It cost years of micro- paychecks and humble pie. Not so anymore. If you want your turn at the console, you buy a console or be the main employee at a private studio. There were some benefits of watching the old pro’s make the gear sound great and being able to ask how and why. What we hope to do here is be a small substitute for those who didn’t get that opportunity. Specific settings for EQs are different for different situations. Some of these examples drift a bit from just EQing but we include them for reference and to make EQing less of a fixer.
Live Sound: In this author’s experience, live sound usually required the most drastic and heavy handed EQ. Every factor contributes to this: Not the greatest mics, lots of leakage, feedback, strange sounding stages and rooms, questionable house speakers. No luxuries like mic positioning, just a quick sound-check (sometimes) and the doors open. Tapes from live shows are almost as tough. If you are accustomed to studio recording and clean tracks, you may need to adjust your techniques in a hurry. Sometimes, you get these wonderful clean tapes with a lot of energy. These tapes should be easy. Other tapes can be pretty messy. Some of your usual studio tricks are not working this time. With these tapes, you just might try taking the “house mixer” approach. Pull down the effects, there’s too much leakage, and dig in with those EQs. It might help to start out with a good “fader only” mix and avoid using those “solo” buttons until you get the EQ roughed out. Gates may help, but may be audible and disconcerting if the leakage is gruesome. You might have to write mutes early and avoid too much compression. EQing the vocals may causealotofleakageproblemsifyouboostlowsorhighssignificantly. If you get a raw tape with virtually no EQ or compression when it was recorded you may need to use "unusual" and more EQ on many of the tracks. Usually, the best approach is to try to smooth it out but not kick it into submission, but remember, this is raw and may need more help than studio tracks.
Tracking the band: (in the studio) A bunch of musicians, a bunch of mics, and typically not a bunch of budget. Well, at least you have some good mics. By far, the best way to EQ at this stage is to use those good mics to your advantage. With the right mic and the right position, very little console EQ is needed. Use the rooms appropriate to the instrument and use separation to control unwanted spillage, get the instruments physically sounding awesome (we wish), then use the mics to create a natural picture with real room ambiance. The better the mic technique, the less EQ that will be needed. In fact, with less fix-it EQ, the easier it will be to finesse your available EQ . Hit "Record", finesse it in the mix. More important to get the vibe, than to burn out the band doing sound checks and tweaks.
If mic choice is a mystery, you might want to research some Steve Albini or George Massenburg interviews. Rather than guess wrong, some engineers compare 3 or 4 probable choices. Some choose the mic that minimizes EQing later, some hear the mic’s transient or dynamic character and anticipate what some EQ should add in a nice way. Some guys have been there, done that, and know exactly what they like and don’t, (but always seem to be ready to learn more) and bring in their own mics to get thier trademark sound.
The closer you have the mic to some instruments, the more likely EQ will be needed and less likely you will get both some great leakage and some not-so-good leakage. Close miking is better when you intend to sculpt the sound. Distant miking is better for documenting (recording) the music. On vocals and room mics, many use big diaphragm condenser tube mics where you want smoothness and richness. Some tube mics may add a bit of “attitude” and aggressiveness and some are very “real” sounding. The biggest differences in this family of mics is the two lowest and highest octaves and what the back of the mic sounds like. Small diaphragm condensers can be fast, bright, clear but sometimes brittle, hard or thin. Some are quite good for acoustic instruments, cymbals and hi- hats. Watch out, there is a wide variation in maximum SPL and noise with these. Of course most engineers favor large diaphragm condensers and typically use FET types on drums and guitars. The pattern choice is an important tool. Remember that the proximity effect (low boosting) is biggest in “figure 8”, moderate in “cardioid” and non-existent in “omni”. It is worth listening to both the “room tone” and instrument in the 3 main patterns - it's often surprising. The low roll-off (HP) should be used where ultra-lows are not needed or wanted and the filter kills some of the room noise and air conditioning rumble. Dynamic mics are more commonly used close for guitar amps, drums and sometimes horns. Ribbon mics have their resonance in the deep lows and typically have a softish top end. They seem to have a more “ear-like” dynamic range. This makes them a superb choice for raunchy guitar amps, horns and anything that may be too edgy. Some are cardioid and some figure 8. Try using 2 figure 8's as a stereo pair (rotated 90 degrees ala Blumlein). Officially, miking technique is not EQing but it does some of the same things and does it in the beginning. This makes EQing easier and elegant.
When you do have to EQ, the band tracking session is the time to be careful and conservative. Most experienced pro engineers don’t wing it here. Safe, fast, ready, recorded. It may not sound as “slamming” as it could be, but wait, it still gets overdubs and a real mix. Engineers who don’t play it safe at the right time tend to find other occupations like accounting. You can fix the EQ and Compression later particularly if you are working digital. You may want to save those initial more-or-less flat tracks though, for a few days or weeks, just in case.
Another little detour. There always seems to be some fascination with re-capturing some of that 60’s and even early 70’s sound. These were the days of 4 track and 8 track analog machines and no time- code or sync systems. They didn’t have a lot of gear, so it was important to have the good stuff. Much of it was vacuum tube or passive. Overdubs were a luxury but they could mix those 4 or 8 tracks to mono or stereo and bounce them over to another machine. It was analog tape so you couldn’t do it more than a few times. So, what are the priorities when you record that way?
