Manley Labs STEREO EQ - Manual (Page 20)

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
cause a lot of leakage problems if you boost lows or highs significantly.
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?
20