General Recording Discussion > Tracking, Editing, and Cleaning
Outboard EQ in the signal chain?
stainless:
If you'd worked with a vocalist (including yourself) and typically perform the same EQ cuts/boosts would it be a logically safe practice to throw an outboard EQ in the signal chain and make the adjustments there? (I'm looking for ways to be more lazy than I already am)
I'm once again re-routing my patch-bays and adding/removing some gear- My Prism pre is 4 channels and I'm thinking about setting 2 up with nothingt else normalized in the signal chain, 1 with a tube compressor, and one with EQ (or maybe compression and EQ)
I would think the EQ Would work best after the pre? if used with the compressor in the chain- before or after?
stainless:
so is your EQ pre or post mic pre?
I have a pair of old Altec Lansing EQ's 1/3 octave with separate hi and lo pass
aside from taking up more rackspace than newer pieces of gear, they work really well
I think you and I may be the rare few who post here ;)
RawDepth:
I would always put the mic preamp first in the chain. The main function of a preamp is only to boost a weak signal coming from the mic. Almost all mics (with the exception of tube mics) put out a weak signal and need a little boost. You need the signal to be strong enough so that all other processing gear can be used efficiently. A preamp is designed to do that cleanly.
If another piece of gear ends up having to boost the signal volume it usually also adds a lot of noise, (background hiss.) This undesirable effect is what we call raising the noise floor. Ideally you want to raise the signal level without raising the noise, keeping the signal to noise ratio as wide as possible.
As far as the order of the other gear, I think it matters very little. I would probably put the compressor next, after the preamp, because like the preamp, it is sort of related to signal level correction. But it is all just personal preference from the mic-pre on. My preference really, is to not use any other gear on the way in. I always add my EQ and compression after the fact. But if you want to you may. If you get results you are happy with then more power to ya.
(PS. My site traffic went down sharply about a week ago because I ran out of advertising dollars. I must rely on word-of-mouth from here on out. It sucks to be poor.) :(
stainless:
It's a question to ponder- recording completely raw is perhaps safest as there's less chance of negatively impacting the recording (assuming it's not poorly tracked from the get go)-
My reasoning is that since I routinely do the same EQ adjustments to my own vocal tracks relevent to the mic used- I could (he says with as much confidence as he can muster) simply make the adjustment "going in" as it seems like the fewer plug-ins I feel compelled to use, the better (and it's not really a concern over processor demands.
One mod I may make to the Altec EQ's is a true by-pass switch, as they do not have this feature (seems a DPDT switch to "jumper the input to the output should do it... a triple pole seems overkill as I wouldn't think I'd have to interupt the ground circuit into the EQ cicuitry..... )
I'll keep spreading the word!!!
stainless:
If I'm using the Karma Tube mic- I roll off below 80 and above 12K, -2dB cut ~ 520, and a -3 dB cut at ~ 910, and a 2 dB boost at ~ 5.2K
If I'm using the Oktava MK-319's in an X/Y I have to roll off below 120 and above 12K, cut at ~520 and boost slightly at ~1.2K
same room, same pres- The A-L EQ requires I do a slightly broader cut/boost, whereas the plugs allow for the finer sculpting- however on working tracks, or those "in progress" where I'd rather not spend time inserting plugs and adjusting (though I could set up presets) for the working mix....
One of the female vocalists in the band I'm in has come in and laid down tracks enough times, I'm getting the EQ dialed in on her voice as well
Otherwise- I may just sell off the A-L EQ's... there's just something about real knobs and dials I can touch and move.....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version