EQing mics to come closer to another mic.

[xFkx]

this is retarded

 

[nezvers]

There's no point in it. Matching EQ mics won't bring your mix together. You'll have to EQ everything and match EQ just change your starting point.

 

[LBTM]

this is retarded

No, it's not if it's done right you'll get good results.

There's no point in it. Matching EQ mics won't bring your mix together. You'll have to EQ everything and match EQ just change your starting point.

It's about having a better starting point, not to transform a garbage mic to a Neumann.

 

[botus99]

There's no point in it. Matching EQ mics won't bring your mix together. You'll have to EQ everything and match EQ just change your starting point.

First off, I never match EQ, but please don't use flawed logic just because you don't like the method of operation here (I don't like it either, but that doesn't make it ALWAYS wrong). Maybe match EQ'ing something is EXACTLY what a certain track needs to sit in the mix. People like you and me like to do it manually, but that doesn't mean you can't get good results through other methods. And since when does EQ'ing something ALWAYS mean you have to re-EQ your entire mix? Just saying man...

I don't know many things about electronics and how a microphone picks-up sound but can't you get closer by EQing the mics based on these diagrams? Could you elaborate?

Check this out

You can see that these mics all pick up transients differently. I think of this EQ matching thing like guitar cab impulses. Maybe you can get the same tone (not really, but close enough for the human ear to deceive itself), but you can't get the dynamics and, for lack of a better term, the life/vibe of the particular microphone. You're always going to be stuck with your current mic's transient response and several other characteristics (THD for instance).

I'm not saying its useless. If it works for the song in question, then it works. But by no means will EQ matching mics ever sound the same as the real deal :Smokedev:

 

[LBTM]

I've noticed that too on the tests I did. Thanks for posting so others can see it too.

 

[~BURNY~]

Not only this but you can't recreate an harmonic content that wasn't there in the first place or the way a mic translate the envelope (not just the attack) with an EQ (that will impart its own artifacts on top of that)

 

[LBTM]

Let's hope that there will be someone to make such a plugin in the future thought. Don't forget it was "impossible" to make good amp sims years ago.

 

[xFkx]

yes, but you're trying to bend physics

it's like trying to turn a strat into a les paul, you can eq the strat to have the same frequency response (more or less) as a gibson, but it will still be a strat with a whack eq

 

[Kohugaly]

There is one way to EQ match mics very closely... capture IR's of the mics at the same spot (in dead room and with flat response speaker if possible)... Subtract IR of mic A from IR of mic B ... you get the difference between those two and if you add that (using IR loader with 50/50 wet/dry) to a track captured with mic A it should be EQ matched as if it was tracked with mic B.

About bending physics... today it is not a problem to recreate the dynamic and frequency response of a device almost perfectly. Problem is to undo that stuff! To turn signal captured by your mic&preamp to be like captured by different, you first have to undo what your device does first.

 

[FrankTheSmith]

Match EQ EVERYTHING.

Profit.

I took the stems from an Unearth song and used it to match EQ everything for a song like a year ago. Guitars, Bass, Drums, Vocals then when it was all mixed I match EQ'd the whole mix to the actual Unearth song. I don't have it anymore, but I might try it again later tonight. I honestly remember it working out pretty well haha

 

[LBTM]

Check this out

Transients also represent EQ so If I take a signal, EQ and export it I get different transients. Here's an example:

 

[Mago]

^ I think you should get some reading done on how different microphones work.
You don't have to be able to build and repair a mic yourself, but every AE should be aware of the different ways the sound gets captured and transformed.

Then it would be pretty clear to you why EQ won't help you with that.

You also don't think you can Match EQ a pair of behringer monitors to Event Opals.
Mics are the same thing as monitors, just the other way around (very simplified, mind)

 

[LBTM]

Thanks Mago. This is for getting closer to the real thing though, not the same, and I take it as an experiment. I've got all sorts of good expensive mics and high-quality gear so I wouldn't apply it on a real recording.

Any recommendations on sources I can learn about how microphones capture the sound?

 

[drew_drummer]

Maybe we can just get back to recording kick ass bands?

Oh wait. There aren't any of those anymore. Except for Faderhead obviously.

 

[~BURNY~]

Maybe we can just get back to recording kick ass bands?

Oh wait. There aren't any of those anymore. Except for Faderhead obviously.

 

[Mago]

Thanks Mago. This is for getting closer to the real thing though, not the same, and I take it as an experiment. I've got all sorts of good expensive mics and high-quality gear so I wouldn't apply it on a real recording.

Any recommendations on sources I can learn about how microphones capture the sound?

Nothing wrong with experimenting, but you shouldn't think of it as a replacement too much.

I guess wikipedia should be a good start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone

unfo for you the german versions are more detailed with better pictures for understandment...

oh, and what I forgot to mention for the EQ matching thing:
the frequency response is only accuarate on the 0° axis of the mic.
So it won't be accurate with off axis micing or if the mic wasn't dead on straight to the source.
Someone correct me if I have a mindfuck here, but I think that's a thing to consider for the whole matching stuff, or isn't it?

 

[LBTM]

Maybe we can just get back to recording kick ass bands?

Oh wait. There aren't any of those anymore. Except for Faderhead obviously.

Surprisingly or not the best and easiest mixes I've done was from great bands but that's off the subject. No samples, no editing, no reamping. Just pure mixing and little automation. You don't get that often.

 

[Aaron Smith]

LBTM, part of me really feels like you're just hardcore trolling, but I don't think you actually are (the "Proud Behringer User" isn't helping at all, haha). The fact that a person can EQ one mic to more closely resemble the sound of another mic only strikes me as extremely mildly interesting, and unless you have some immaculate A/D conversion to work with (which, I think it's safe to say that no one trying to match $20 mics to the sound of $99 mics does!), I would say it's a complete waste of time to even play around with the idea. Even with the best A/D available, it's still pretty lame, considering the physics of each microphone's components, as others have mentioned. Any engineer, even a newcomer, who is motivated to improve in their prospective field should be far more focused on learning first-hand the role proper mic placement, which is often times a matter of only a centimeter or less when it comes to an inherently good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant sound being captured. Yes, microphones are an important tool and should be chosen thoughtfully, but my sense is that you're focused way too much on the gear part of the recording equation, when really you'll find that you are making far greater improvements in your recordings when you simply start using your ears, instead of looking at frequency response charts of microphones. Yes, you may make (accidental) improvements to the sound of a track by EQing it to resemble a better mic, but how is that any better than just EQing that track to instead sound the way that the mix dictates? In fact, you're likely to just boost or cut frequencies that actually didn't need adjustment anyway, which you will need to compensate for again during mixing. Then you're quickly just piling EQ upon EQ upon EQ, and the phase within those heavily-EQed frequencies just starts to get really messy and unpleasant, and at that stage you're just going entirely in the wrong direction.

Instead of spending hours EQ-matching mics, spend those hours earning money and buy better mics to record with

 

[LBTM]

LBTM, part of me really feels like you're just hardcore trolling, but I don't think you actually are (the "Proud Behringer User" isn't helping at all, haha).

haha. I've got Avalon and Universal Audio preamps among with others but I also love my cheap behringer ADA8000

LBTM, part of me really feels like you're just hardcore trolling, but I don't think you actually are (the "Proud Behringer User" isn't helping at all, haha).

Instead of spending hours EQ-matching mics, spend those hours earning money and buy better mics to record with

I'm on a 3 week break from recording and mixing and what's the best way to spend it? EQ Matching of course.

 

[~BURNY~]

haha. I've got Avalon and Universal Audio preamps among with others but I also love my cheap behringer ADA8000

Don't be offended if I'm wrong but you don't sound like someone who does have expensive gear and/or big experience in the audio field.
That's just the impression I'm getting from many of your posts.
Not trying to be a dick.