#1
When I see pics of studios, most of them have some sort of EQ/Compressor/Effect unit that the signal is run through before it reaches the DAW. My question is, why would you buy an effect unit when you could just EQ it in the box, and change the EQ in the middle of the mix instead of permanently changing the signal by running it through a box?
Call me Andrew. It's my name.

Quote by theogonia777
i fond God too, man! i sat next to him on the bus once. he told be the meaning of life and then gave me a pretzel. i can't remember what the meaning of live was, but it was a good pretzel, man!
#2
Partly because most of those high end EQ units they use color the sound in a way that they like. Thats why you see an EQ for $200 and an EQ for $2000. And no, you cant just get a program that will model the $2000 EQ, it doesn't matter how accurate, its always different than the real box.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
#3
Not all EQs are equal. Every model is different, in that it adds a different characteristic to the sound other than the EQ job. Also, it isn't necessarily run through the EQ on the way into the DAW. Most likely, it's patched into the monitor path, meaning that it only affects what you hear. That way, you're manipulating the signal, but still have the original.
Call me Michael...

Mixing
Need something mixed? Send me a PM with the details! Cheap rates, fast turnaround, satisfaction guaranteed!

Certifications:
Pro Tools HD9
Logic Pro 9 Master Pro
#5
Quote by TasianSensation
Not all EQs are equal. Every model is different, in that it adds a different characteristic to the sound other than the EQ job. Also, it isn't necessarily run through the EQ on the way into the DAW. Most likely, it's patched into the monitor path, meaning that it only affects what you hear. That way, you're manipulating the signal, but still have the original.


What's the advantage of that? In order to mix, you need to hear what you're actually working with, rather than a "prettied up" version of it? How you can make EQ decisions if you are hearing EQ that only affects the monitoring?

In most cases, they probably do print the EQ to the track so they can get "that sound" - so long as it is the sound they want.

Alternately, they might use the EQ as an insert, and then record the signal through it later, once they've decided that is the sound they want. For instance, I have an effects unit I really like - wonderful delays and reverbs, especially. My interface has an effects loop in it, and Cubase will actually see that hardware rack unit as a plugin. When I render my audio, I have to do it in real time, but I can do so using that hardware unit in the loop.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#6
The way I see it is you can partial EQ something with a hardware unit to get its character and then go back with a DAW and make it more percise (cutting out the freqs a bit, for example lows on guitar).

Other then that the axedude makes the best points in this thread...
#7
So a lot of it is just the coloring the signal gets from being run through analog equipment?
Call me Andrew. It's my name.

Quote by theogonia777
i fond God too, man! i sat next to him on the bus once. he told be the meaning of life and then gave me a pretzel. i can't remember what the meaning of live was, but it was a good pretzel, man!
#8
Well no it EQs also if you adjust the knobs, but if you were to run it flat then yes.

Although technically it still "EQ"s flat as the coloration changes your signal.
Last edited by FireHawk at Jun 15, 2011,
#9
My mistake with the monitoring comment. What I meant was you basically use it as an insert, affecting a signal that has already been recorded. Once you get it to sound how you want, you re-record the part with the processing and you have your master file.

If you're recording a band doing basic tracking, at least in my experience, you'll pretty much just mic stuff and send it to tape. Then, once you start the mixing process, you'll apply processing. The advantage to this is that you still have the raw tracks that have no processing. If you record your EQ'd, compressed, or other processed signal to tape right off the bat, you're screwed if you or the band or the producer decides that they don't like it later. Obviously, there are people who like to print processing to tape, but that requires commitment and certainty right off the bat, with no option to change it later besides re-recording the part. Personally, I'd much rather have the raw tracks to work with and manipulate than to have a processed track that I need to fix when someone isn't happy with it.

That being said...
Once you get the sound that you're sure you're going to use (usually decided during the mixing process), you will re-record the whole thing with the processing, ending up with master tracks, like I mentioned above.
Call me Michael...

Mixing
Need something mixed? Send me a PM with the details! Cheap rates, fast turnaround, satisfaction guaranteed!

Certifications:
Pro Tools HD9
Logic Pro 9 Master Pro
#10
^ Yes.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#11
Quote by GoIrish668
So a lot of it is just the coloring the signal gets from being run through analog equipment?


Close. Not just any analog equipment. That *particular* piece of equipment - whether it is analog or digital.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.