mic pre eq. what would you like to see in one

[pucho812]

might as well ask the collective minds here.

If you were tinkering with a mic pre eq combo strip idea, what would you like to see in it?

 

[PRR]

EQ is not the mike preamp's job.

That said... *rarely* I "need" a 150Hz 50Hz 20Hz low-CUT, *IN* the preamp, to avoid overloading on subsonics.

 

[ruairioflaherty]

Is this for a commercial product or a DIY project?

 

[ricardo]

If you were tinkering with a mic pre eq commo strip idea, what would you like to see in it?

Four position M (Mojo) switch marked

• U47
• C12
• STC 4038
• Calrec Soundfield Mk4

You may need another switch for the Calrec & C12 positions as they have multiple polar patterns.

 

[okgb]

Yup , variable & steep or switchable hi pass / low shelf
No reason to amplify frequencies you don't  need and won't use

 

[JohnRoberts]

It kind of depends on the market you are going after. When Peavey designed their nice tube mic preamp they added simple bass/treble shelving EQ. I argued to limit the range of that EQ, so users could "not" make it sound bad, as they often do by applying too much EQ.

So KISS and limit the range for a high end box, for low end you can get more extreme, so even the idiots can hear it working.

JR

 

[CJ]

Vocals?
V76/Pultec MEQ

Instruments?
API/Pultec EQP

 

[pucho812]

just kicking ideas around.

no commercial intent at all.

 

[SSLtech]

The idea of 'marrying' to an equalizer is absurd to me. -And if this were for a rock/pop situation, an EQ that is "suited" to vocals is unlikely to be an EQ which is suited to -for example- bass guitar. -or piano -or guitar... and so forth.

Hence, imposing the limitation of 'marrying' to an EQ is -in essence- silly, to me.

Likewise, If I'm using a ribbon mic at a distance, I would LOATHE the idea of being tied to the same mic preamp as if I were using a U47 on a kick drum.

I mean... who on earth needs to have things 'decided' for them.

You buy these components in separate boxes, and then if -down the road- you discover that your frequency of use suggests a different common combination, you sell whichever you want, or buy an alternative. -The idea of 'tying' yourself to one of each seems unnecessarily restrictive.

Now I'm not saying that you CAN'T make a record with all one preamp and all one EQ, -I made dozens back in the day- but if you're beginning from an 'a-la carte' proposition, build what you like and go from there... If you build it into one box however, it seems to unnecessarily limit your options.

 

[peterc]

I've always wanted a pre without EQ but with some kind of tone control. The Quad 'Tilt' EQ looks good for those times when a source is just a bit too dark or a bit too sharp.

Another extra for me would be an 'Air' band as well.

Variable low-pass filter would also be good.

Plus the usual suspects.

Peter

 

[CJ]

OT:  V76/LA2a  would be a nice box,

the V76 has bass and treble switches so maybe no EQ needed,

 

[gyraf]

Peter,

Quite funny - this is almost exactly what I'm currently trying to fit into a 2u stereo EQ, code-named "G23 Tilter"!

Jakob E.

 

[Indecline]

I've always wanted a pre without EQ but with some kind of tone control. The Quad 'Tilt' EQ looks good for those times when a source is just a bit too dark or a bit too sharp.

Another extra for me would be an 'Air' band as well.

Variable low-pass filter would also be good.

Plus the usual suspects.

Peter

That is pretty much exactly what I want in a tracking pre. Something with tonal controls and a hpf to remove rumble. If you need to carve up the spectrum, you could get better results with a different mic/placement.

I haven't used a tilt eq and have mixed feelings on the idea. Sometimes I want a little more up top while keeping the low end as is. Maybe if I used one I'd be better informed and would have this reservation

 

[JohnRoberts]

I did some work on a tilt EQ (decades ago) and it makes the most sense IMO for applications like side-chains in noise gates or dynamic processors. the one knob to shift emphasis between HF and LF seems reasonable in that context. To EQ a primary audio path for recording or live sound, more is expected, or nothing at all.

A variable HPF could be useful. Perhaps a companion variable LPF.

JR

 

[okgb]

one knob, variable HPF  [ reasonably steep slope ] always useful
how many things have significant energy below 60hz ?

 

[ruffrecords]

I think it depends what you intend to use it for, If it is for tracking in a multi-track set up them presumably you want to leave most of the EQ to the mix down stage. In that case the only EQ you need is to help you track a clean signal so an HPF of some is all you need. Yhe only other thing I can  think of would be a brick wall limiter to manage those unexpected occasional transients that can ruin an otherwise perfect take.

If you are mixing live to 2 track then there's an argument for a more comprehensive EQ.

Cheers

Ian

 

[pvision]

I always worked on the principle of getting the output of the microphone as pristine as possible so I could squash & bend it however I wanted to.  So I had a GML Mic amp, an 1178 and a GML EQ

When recording vocals they'd usually go to tape flat, but compressed, because I could choose a suitable mic.  Things like bass or keyboards might be EQd

The problem with providing EQ is that everyone is so particular about it.  Whereas a super-clean - or super-coloured - simple Mic pre is a great building block to add to any setup

Nick Froome