do you print EQ while tracking?

Jerome Hawkes · Post by **Jerome Hawkes** » 16 May 2014 12:08 pm

basic question here regarding recording/mixing workflow.
do/should you EQ your instrument(s) while tracking or just try and get good levels/sound and wait to EQ during mixing when you get a picture of how everything needs to sit in the mix.
I'm using UAD (universal audio) so to free up DSP i need to print the effects to track, which i know is not optimal, but i'm just talking EQ here.

Jon Light (deceased) · Post by **Jon Light (deceased)** » 16 May 2014 12:21 pm

Interesting question because of something I just watched recently (sorry I can't find the link). It was a quick tutorial on the subject of 'great guitar tone' in the context of recording with a band. They solo out the guitar track of some classic rock solos and demonstrate that the tone, by many guitar geek standards, ranges from not so awesome to damn near awful. But in the context of the full band and in terms of cutting through, it is just right.
So your question is a good one.

mtulbert · Post by **mtulbert** » 16 May 2014 12:57 pm

Overdubbing a guitar is much harder than recording with the band when trying to get the best tone. With the whole band present, you have an idea of the final mix and if you need to do some minor eq to the guitar go ahead. Did it all the time in Nashville with good results.

Extreme tonal changes such as distortion and reverb should always be done in the final mix IMHO since none of it is reversible if you want to change it later. Every situation is different and do what you think is best.

Jerome Hawkes · Post by **Jerome Hawkes** » 16 May 2014 1:35 pm

mtulbert wrote:Overdubbing a guitar is much harder than recording with the band when trying to get the best tone. With the whole band present, you have an idea of the final mix and if you need to do some minor eq to the guitar go ahead. Did it all the time in Nashville with good results.

thats a good point - i'm sure back in the days of doing live sessions with everyone there, it was easy to see what needed to be eq'd and you did it on the spot to tape.

these days it seems tracking is the trend where you don't really know til all the tracks are recorded.

for you guys that do internet tracks - i would imagine you just send straight up raw di files?

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 16 May 2014 1:42 pm

I try to get the sound I want at the mic first before applying any kind of EQ. I'm pretty careful about overlapping frequencies and not being too heavy with drums (which are mostly always loops). I avoid too much bottom end on my steel and guitar tracks.

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 16 May 2014 1:45 pm

mtulbert wrote:....Extreme tonal changes such as distortion and reverb should always be done in the final mix IMHO since none of it is reversible if you want to change it later. Every situation is different and do what you think is best.

It's hard to add effects like distortion after the fact, because you'd play differently if the effect was engaged. Also, I think it's pretty good to commit to a sound and print--the attitude comes through the recording. Plus, you can always record a second steel track.

John Macy · Post by **John Macy** » 16 May 2014 7:58 pm

Having the right mic/pre amp/compressor is way more important than printing with EQ...that said, I never hesitate to print with EQ to achieve the sound I am looking for...

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 20 May 2014 1:33 am

for me generally not, as the final mix may need to find some EQ space here and there. A pro may print during tracking but he or she already knows where the frequencies will lay. I will however use POST EQ's that are pretty darn close and perhaps the exact same EQ's that will be the final deal. For E Guitars I may use some drive on the track , depends, in most cases I will tweak the EQ and processors patches and SAVE AS for the final deal, it's really a 50/50 deal for me but I would not be afraid to print to the track while recording. It's the playing part that matters !

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 20 May 2014 2:30 am

I generally record dry and then add what I want afterwards. But, what is being recorded really dictates how I do it.

Bryan Daste · Post by **Bryan Daste** » 20 May 2014 11:20 pm

Generally I try to get as close to the tone I want as possible using everything before the recorder - even down to stuff like player, instrument choice, picks, strings, playing techniques, pickups, tone controls on the instrument, amp settings and EQ, mic choice and placement, and preamp. I do like to compress a little on way in if needed. For EQ, I try not to do much except a HPF (usually on the mic itself) if I feel like I'm recording more low end from that particular instrument than I will ever use in the mix. This tends to keep things cleaner come mix time. Occasionally I will use finer EQ on the way in to "rough in" an EQ'ed sound I know I will go for in the mix, but I will leave the finer EQ tweaking until mix time when I can hear everything working together.

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 21 May 2014 1:41 am

let me add a qualifier for me, I am not a recording pro, I don't make records for retail or regional demo, I don't have clients lined up paying me big bucks to get them on tape. What I do is for my own products ( plus local friends now and then ) and pretty much nobody cares how I record if they like the music, My #1 position is to write melodically and play the best I can..after that it's all downhill ! yes I can record clean tracks and mess with the process but that's not my #1... I'll leave the formal engineering process to those like John M. who do it for a living, and very well I might add ! So if I print EQ or effects to tape or not, pretty much in my world nobody cares ! That includes me !

I would say though, that if you are not sure, do not print to tape anything but raw tracking. Don't ruin a good performance with the wrong EQ or processing. The purpose of recording is to capture the performance first and foremost. Add crud after the fact that's not permanent !

Like Bryan states above , make your pre- track recording tone as good as you can get it , strings, amp settings, AC guitar , mic positions , preamp settings, fret noise, pick noise etc... whatever it is, start with the best you can achieve. Don't settle for an "almost as good as you can" get performance because at the end of the day that's what matters. We have all heard this "Oh, I'll fix it in the mix" , here's a concept..fix it now !

http://www.reverbnation.com/control_roo ... 8126/songs

mtulbert · Post by **mtulbert** » 21 May 2014 5:56 am

Tony,

You may not be a recording pro but detesting the phrase "fix in the mix" is a sign that you are moving in that direction.

Great comment.

M

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 21 May 2014 10:58 am

mtulbert wrote:Tony,

You may not be a recording pro but detesting the phrase "fix in the mix" is a sign that you are moving in that direction.

Great comment.

M

With today's abundance of great plugins, the term "fix it in the mix" is more of a valid reality. There's so much more that can be done than in the old days. Notes can be changed, moved, lengthened, shortened, etc.... A good engineer knows how to use these things effectively, and without it being obvious. It often allows a problem that shows up after everyone has gone and the engineer is listening by himself, to be corrected that would otherwise require a player or singer to come back to the studio.

To answer the original question. My experience is that in most cases,I generally listen to the wet, effected, signal in the headphones, but only print the raw signal. Most of the time I don't change it very much when I mix. However, I might add more plugin effects when I mix because using too many when tracking requires a lot of CPU power and latency becomes an issue. When mixing, you can use a faster processing speed and input latency is not a concern. Effects like tape simulators are a CPU hog. I can't play without at least some reverb in the headphones. With today's digital recording equipment, setting the monitoring up this way is an easy thing to do.

RC

mtulbert · Post by **mtulbert** » 21 May 2014 12:29 pm

Rick,

I don't disagree with you, but the reason that I don't like to do it is because you can take mundane average performances and make them technically correct. The more plugins that are available sometimes lead to making mediocre people sound great. How many times have we heard about an artist sounding lousy in a live situation because they are a "manufactured" in the studio singer. I heard about one performer who was so far off key in a live performance that Auto Tune thought he was trying to hit the note below the one he missed!!!

My point is; great talent will require very little repair in a performance most of the time and it is nice to have those tools to fix a small spot or two to improve it. Taking someone with no talent and using the tools to make the performance correct is an abuse of the tools IMHO.

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 21 May 2014 6:47 pm

Mark,

I think I agree with you too. I guess we both recognize that today's technology can at the very minimum make people not work as hard to get it right.

RC

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 23 May 2014 8:56 am

I have a had a change of heart over this topic, for years , before DAW's, we played, we played what we wanted it to sound like, we recorded THAT... I think BOTH options are viable but what I really agree with is "too many options" distracts from the original intent, which is..recording what we want to hear on the tape. We spend more time fudging and experimenting after the track is on the hard drive...

Fixing stuff is good, but I am also guilty of fixing or modifying stuff that is technically or musically incorrect.

heck, record with tremelo, record with anything, if thats the intent and part of the big vision then it's proper and correct.

IF you need to record another track down the road..then so be it...that's the beauty of the DAW, never at a loss for yet another track !