Do we try to get the EQ right going in?

RackAddict

Previous handle "Djenter"
I know that tone matching for performing to get a nice sound out of the fractal is one thing, but was wondering if anyone can answer some basic daw recording questions and if anyone reccomends I do the same to get my tone EQ-d in the fractal right off the bat as close as possible to whatever reference recording I compare to going in from the axe FX 3? Or should a person just use as less as possible EQs going in and just get a raw sound and then use studio plugins or gear to shape the EQ-ing later?

If so do I roll down highs going in or boost highs and then filter them after?

But going in can I please know the best method because I have seen many and don't know whats the best. In other words to record with a lot of top end and bottom end then to do the usual top and bottom filter and Eq after or to just try to shape the EQ-ing right off the batt within the box?
f so I thought that's just for live. And even so how to work with that engineer? Let him add or subtract or do we assume and just add or subtract within the axe the way we would envision the final sound?

and on the studio filtering, why are so many YouTube teachers in mixing saying to high pass lows and low pass highs? Have they not heard how much bottom end is in the guitars on the deftones diamond eyes album?

And on top end, if low passing everything above 12k, if we are doing that then how are we supposed to get the top end clarity and fairness? Are we supposed to do it then add some processor like a tape plugin then boost the highs after to get a sort of silky clarity? I thought I saw that trick before but I can't remember where I saw it.

Also, these days so many people are calling themselves experts and releasing a course of some sort that it's hard to know who to trust really.
 
Well, there is a “third school of thinking” and it’s called re-amping. Your question is a valid one though. If you are not re-amping It might pay of to capture as many frequencies as possible because when you mix later on it’s easier to eliminate unwanted stuff than it is to add stuff that isn’t there to begin with.
Having said that, record a dry direct signal as well so you can postpone you choice of amp (and pedals and the whole shebang) to the moment you are actually going to mix and you have a clear view of what’s going on with the other instruments (and vocals).
 
I would get a good basic sound going in and then do shaping EQ within the DAW.

You certainly want to tame highs and lows say, cuts at 85 and 6500) before going in.

If you are listening to reference songs and/or stems, there is likely a lot of EQ happening during mixing.

For example, to get a single note part to stand out during a verse, without stepping on a vocal, I'll typically try to find a frequency range to emphasize in the single note part and maybe cut the same in the overall rhythm guitar parts.

You wouldn't want to try to "print" that on the way in as you may not even know what will be needed in mixdown.
 
Well, there is a “third school of thinking” and it’s called re-amping.
That!

And not surprisingly, the reamped presets that are already shaped for the mix, sound great for live use. They cut and fit at the band like a pro, saving all the work for the FOH technician.

I've been using reamped tones for live use since the begining of modelers, and always got praise from the sound guys and random audience listeners
 
I would get a good basic sound going in and then do shaping EQ within the DAW.



You wouldn't want to try to "print" that on the way in as you may not even know what will be needed in mixdown.

But what about the big studios that only track electric guitars through a neve preamp to a pultec? I'm thinking maybe to add a UAD Apollo system to track Adat to my avid omni since the Apollo would allow virtually zero latency tracking with the dip plug-ins apparently. Maybe at least for some of that neve circuit emulation. But I am not sure if the axe FX 3 is already considered to have mic preamp simulation in it.
 
But what about the big studios that only track electric guitars through a neve preamp to a pultec? I'm thinking maybe to add a UAD Apollo system to track Adat to my avid omni since the Apollo would allow virtually zero latency tracking with the dip plug-ins apparently. Maybe at least for some of that neve circuit emulation. But I am not sure if the axe FX 3 is already considered to have mic preamp simulation in it.
That's all fine and I would put that in the category of getting a good general sound coming in.

The more aggressive EQ would be done using the console channel strip EQ if needed during mixdown.
 
That's all fine and I would put that in the category of getting a good general sound coming in.

The more aggressive EQ would be done using the console channel strip EQ if needed during mixdown.

I looked into Apollo x8p and while it's nice, I have not gone that direction. I've decided to upgrade my avid omni HD from HD native to adding an HDX core card and to expand the omni with a digi-linked HD I/O 8x8x8 I got lucky with a ridiculous offload for.

With the aax dsp you have the ability to print tons of dsp-processed and unprocessed simultaneously and all with instant 0.5ms latency round trip. This all seemed like light years ahead of anything else out there so this was a no-brainer rather than paying the 5G for an Apollo x8p. My total investment was 4200 value total including the trade-in.Total no-brainer here.

I'd prolly just track with some light dsp. Apparently there is Neve simulation AAX dsp coming from various companies.

All that's left now is to consider sending my HD i/o rack to black lion audio for the converter upgrades and line level signal path improvements. But honestly, when I compare my Axe FX 3 going in line level compared with going AES, I can't notice a difference so I'm not even sure if the black lion audio upgrades are snake-oil. Some people say that others say it's night and day.
 
Last edited:
That's all fine and I would put that in the category of getting a good general sound coming in.

The more aggressive EQ would be done using the console channel strip EQ if needed during mixdown.
Probably a good idea.

Because there is a lot of EQs in the axe FX and I have no idea if they are phase aligned or phase compensated Eqs.
If they are not colored ones then ideally they should be.

But I still tent to reach for parametric Eq blocks and I don't think it's a good idea anymore unless for performance mode.
 
After recording 10000000 shitty guitar tracks, I'm more likely today to try to limit the lows going in, and deal with the high-shelf/pass in the DAW.

Excessive low end wastes precious DBs. It makes compressors work when they really shouldn't. It builds up over tracks. These are all things I refused to listen to experienced recordists tell me, until I learned the hard way through my hard head.
 
After recording 10000000 shitty guitar tracks, I'm more likely today to try to limit the lows going in, and deal with the high-shelf/pass in the DAW.

Excessive low end wastes precious DBs. It makes compressors work when they really shouldn't. It builds up over tracks. These are all things I refused to listen to experienced recordists tell me, until I learned the hard way through my hard head.
Maybe multi-band compress on your guitar tracks?
 
Maybe multi-band compress on your guitar tracks?

I went through a phase where I was putting MBC on everything. Ultimately, I was always chasing them around later in the mix.

MBC is certainly useful. I try to only use them these days to solve very specific and obvious problems. It's another example of being better off with a prepped sound going in. That's just me.
 
Back
Top Bottom