As you may have (BARELY) guessed, it appears I may have found something with this analog EQ thing. In fact, this is the first time I'm going to flat out endorse a higher end product. The only other time I recommend expending this much cash is room acoustic treatments (bass traps specifically) and studio monitoring, in general. I'm flat out blown away by what analog EQ can do for me.

Back in 2009 I was loaned a Great River MEQ-1NV. That thing was a hell of a beast. I loved it. I can't say I had one complaint. My wallet was the only one complaining. (That damn thing seems to have a mind of its own!) That was my first real experience with a high end equalizer. As you may read in Killer Home Recording, I was never able to replicate what the MEQ-1NV did using any of my plugins. There was something special about what this EQ did sonically. This peaked my interest. I didn't expect to hear this kind of difference. (We'll get to that in greater detail.)

Back in October, Chameleon Labs did a special where if you bought 2 of their 7602 MKII 1073 clones (Preamp / EQ) they'd throw in a $700 (give or take) stereo tube compressor for free. This seemed like a hell of a deal so I ordered it. Of course, I waited until February to get the damn 7602 (apparently, I'm not the only one who thought this was a great deal!) but now I've got two records under my belt with the them.

Lesson learned: I'm never tracking again without a kick butt EQ. I'm too spoiled by the 7602 EQ!

Why?

I had looked at analog equalizes a billion times since 2001 when I jumped into recording. I always asked the question that still gets me in trouble....”WHY?”. I already had plugins that seemed to be working. (Barely! We'll talk about that here in a minute.) I've noticed that when I get a track to do exactly what I want going in, the damn thing sounds finished. I've noticed that the quality level of tracking has taken a BIG step up.

Get It Right On The Way In

In the past, I'd mic up X instrument, hit record, and most of the time I'd say, “This needs something.” Sometimes the problem was solved solely by mic placement, tone controls, different mics, different pre, etc. Sometimes it was clear I needed something more. So there in the middle of tracking, I'd toss on a EQ plugin and super quickly get something that I more or less thought was right. There definitely were times when I thought I had nailed the sound in this way, but a majority of the time I was convinced that I had come up short. I would attribute this flaw to the EQ setting, which I would improve on later on my own time. Then, of course, when mixing came around, I'd spend more time on the EQ and still end up unhappy. In most cases, the issue was something else. (An acoustical phenomenon in the room, out of tune this/that, etc).

The real crime was I would hit the record button without being happy and just assume I would fix it later. Then, I would find out that I can't fix it later. DO NOT DO THIS!

By tracking with an analog EQ, I've gotten into the mindset that whatever I'm recording better sound exactly how I want it to sound. Sure, I'll add ambiance or whatever later, but there is no reason why the dry mix shouldn't be 98% there. If doing all the usual engineer stuff and then playing with the analog EQ doesn't get us exactly there, I know I need to rethink the usual engineering stuff.

This “methodology” is not something you can put a price tag on. However, it's a MAJOR benefit from using an analog EQ. You get your checks and balances real time. I guess a person could force themselves to do this with a good EQ plugin, but there are other reasons I'm huge into analog EQ these days. We'll get into that here in a minute.

A Personal Victory

While more of a personal victory than anything, when I hit the “reset mixer” button in Cubase, the result isn't all that different. Granted, I don't have analog EQ for all my drum tracks (YET!) so they may need a little something here and there (usually bus compression more than anything). Other than that, it's just panning, levels, and ambiance. A super quick mix sounds pretty damn finished these days and gives me time to max out creative possibilities.

Analog EQ vs Plugins

So what's the big difference I'm so wound up about? I've written extensively how EQ does not change the core tone of a track. My example is you can never make a Strat sound like a Les Paul just by tossing an EQ on it. (The point is not to EVER think an EQ is going to make up for piss poor audio engineering.) While this particular analogy still holds up even with analog EQ, there is something extra that a good analog EQ does.

When I boost the top end with any plugin I've ever heard, it feels like it's just adding fizz on top of the signal. It's like there's a clear distinction between the real tone and changed frequency response. However, when I boost the top end with a good analog EQ, I feel like we sent little microbes to get down deep into the signal and fundamentally reprogram it to BE something else. It doesn't sound like I used EQ when I've used a good analog EQ. It just sounds “that way”. Of course, the effects aren't limited to just adding top end. I've noticed this with all aspects of EQ.

You could compare this to my “chemical change” theory I like to talk about. Basically, if you put reverb on a guitar BEFORE sending it to a high gain amp you'll be distorting the reverb. If you put the reverb on afterwards, you'll hear a high gain amp with “clean” reverb on top of it. These are two dramatically different sounds. To me, a good analog EQ is much more like doing the changes before the amp. It becomes an inherent part of the sound and tone in a way that sounds very, very natural.

Actually Solves Problems

Because a good analog EQ has the ability to do “fundamental reprogramming” to the core signal, this can actually solve problems in ways that I've never been able to do in almost 10 years of using EQ plugins. While probably an extreme exaggeration, it feels like when I'm using plugins that I'm often trying to cover up a lie. The analog EQ, in comparison, doesn't necessarily erase the flaw, but maybe it makes sure the parents never found out about a mailbox smashing adventure or a no-condom-adventure so you don't have to lie in the first place.

The One High End Thing A Person NEEDS

Being that most us are on a limited budget, most people ask me where to put their cash. As a dude who has very nice tools, the one area (other than monitoring) that I've gotten the most benefit is analog EQ (other than mega studio monitoring! Yes, I just repeated myself!). I could live without analog compression. I really like my Distressor, but there are compressor plugins that could hold me over. I could live without my most expensive preamps. (I'd WAY rather have a True Systems Solo or a Chameleon preamp AND a killer EQ than have just a super high end preamp!) I don't think I could ever go back to only EQ plugins ever again. They just don't work the same way.

More Like Guitar Amp Tone Controls

While some equalizers come with dramatically more features (more frequency points, control over bandwidth, more options for shelving, etc) I've found something awesome about even a simple EQ like the Chameleon Labs 7602 MK2. I can't do microsurgery and for tracks needing complex EQ treatment, I still have to resort to plugins for the “problem solving” surgical stuff.

What is cool about this EQ (and presumably others in the same style) is I don't feel like I'm using brain power. I feel like I'm just twisting knobs looking for “it” while I play around. It's very similar to toying around with a guitar amp. I don't think about 234Hz. I just see what the thing can do. I've found this to make A TON of sense while tracking. I have trouble switching from “mix mode” to “tracking mode” in my brain. They are two different worlds. This creative use of EQ tends to be extremely intuitive during tracking. It's also great for those of you who aren't technically inclined. You don't have to be! Just play around and have fun!

Not All Equalizers Are Created Equal

I've gotten my paws on several equalizers lately. In my experience, there is something mega that happens when you move up to a “really good” EQ. I'm not sure where to draw the line, however. So far, I've not heard any $200 hardware equalizers that had “it”. Usually they are short on features – which is another story we'll get into later on – but generally they are lacking the magic to fundamentally change the source without anyone noticing.

I've mentioned the Great River MEQ-1NV, but that damn thing costs over $2,500+ for a preamp and an EQ. That's hard for me to recommend even though I couldn't imagine a person not loving the thing. The Chameleon Labs 7602 MK2 comes in at around $800 for a preamp and EQ is still DAMN GOOD. Keep an eye out for my review!

Analog EQ Features

If a person never heard a good analog EQ, they may assume that they would be better off with their usual plugins that offer tons of flexibility in terms of bandwidth, frequencies, etc. For example, the stock Cubase EQ found on every channel of Cubase has infinitely more options and flexibility than the 7602 MK2 I've mentioned here. However, the Cubase EQ simply CAN NOT do the same thing. They are almost different processors! (I said ALMOST, people! Don't sensationalize this!)

There are certainly high end equalizers that have tons and tons of flexibility. In fact, I've set my mind on the Empirical Labs Lil Freq because of my extreme success with the 7602 MK2 to handle the more complicated EQ type of stuff. However, you'll have to pry analog EQ out of my cold, dead hands even if I can't solve EVERY problem with it.

Conclusion

-I consider analog EQ to be flat out required for my style of engineering.

-I do consider every plugin I've heard so far to be inferior to the two “good” analog equalizers I've gotten my hands on.

-Non-techy nerds would enjoy the more creative usage that analog EQ demands.

-This is not the usual bullshit, “You must blow $3k on a mic preamp to sound any good” advice. This is a real world, battle-hardened view from a dude who seldom recommends cash wasting of this magnitude.

-Again, don't blow this out of proportion. Your penis is not going to enlarge and your bald head isn't going to sprout. We certainly aren't going to part any oddly colored seas. All the usual fundamental engineering requirements exist. If you don't know what those are, you may want to hold off on any fancy gear and get yourself Killer Home Recording.

-You'll have to pry analog EQ out of my cold, dead hands even if I can't solve EVERY problem with it.

I call them “silly plugins” because the music that inspired us to get into music recording ourselves didn't have these types of plugins and the music that most of us want to make won't be improved a bit this type of gadgetry. I'm not necessarily against new technology if it will improve the music.

There is an implication that we need to perform some sort of “processing” to our music to make it sound awesome. This processing is along the lines of “magic”. Well, we do have EQ, compression, reverbs, delays, etc but I consider these to be more like a shovel and a hammer. They are simple tools that help us do relatively simple things. An EQ either boosts or it cuts. There is no auto. A compressor says “Hey signal, you cross this volume line and I'll smash you”.

With mastering, people seam to think you need some sort of incredibly advanced algorithm to analyze and perfect the audio. If my ax and shovel analogy continues, than these mastering plugins must be NASA super computers! Well, I hate to break it to you. Big time mastering engineers are using shovels and hammers on your music, too. (They had a big problem with cds skipping until they figured out that only the music should be “worked on”.....okay I'm not a comedy writer. Give me a break.)

What Tools Are Pro CD Mastering Dudes Using?
When Eric Conn from Independent Mastering got a hold of a recording I had produced, there were not any spectrum analyzers or crazy gadgets. He had an API eq, a high end compressor, and a limiter. To my knowledge, that was the extent of it. It was a very simple chain when compared to how the usual home recording dude views the mastering process.

Okay, so Eric frequently has his hands on multi-platinum albums and a great sounding compressor, eq, and limiter make up the overwhelming majority of his tools. I thought to myself? Why do I need “mastering software” for this? What is mastering software going to do for me?

I've concluded that mastering software will do NOTHING! Now if the plugins in the mastering software packages sounded incredibly, that would be a reason to use them. However, if a mastering software company had an INCREDIBLE eq and compressor plugin, I would want to get the “normal” version so I could use it on my kick drums, guitars, and room mics. I would want it for mixing.

Mastering In Cubase SX3
I just fire up my recording software of choice (Cubase SX3) and go to town. I put each song on it's own track and space the tracks out to mimic the play order of the album. I grab the best sounding song and see if I can improve it. It may use a subtle amount of EQ, a subtle amount of compression, and a subtle amount of limiting. These are all plugins I load up on the insert to each track. I often put the limiter on the 2 bus because I can apply that to all tracks with the same setting and just control the volume going into the limiter. I MAY put some sort of multiband compressor on, but this is rare and I use it with EXTREME caution. (Nothing tears up a great mix faster than a multiband compressor).

So how is this different from using specialized software? It's not! I'm doing the exact same things. I usually don't use “spacial restoration” type of plugins, but I don't know what those are anyway and I'm pretty sure I don't want any “weird” processing done to my tracks anyway. “Weird” processing almost always sounds need on the system you put it on and almost always sounds terrible when getting it to translate to other systems. I'll let the people at home add their “surround” simulator or whatever.

Why Mastering At Home Sucks
Without a doubt, mastering at home sucks and it sucks for a number of reasons.
#1 I'm listening on the same system I mixed on. Mastering is a subtle process yet I'm supposed to hear these subtle changes on a system I just mixed the record on. If I didn't think the mix was the 100% best job I could possibly do, there is no point to mastering.

#2 If I did the 100% best job I possibly could on my studio monitors, than every mix should sound great and not need much in the way of mastering.

#3 I don't know what I'm dong. Seriously, I'm not a mastering guy. I just try to get all the songs to sound similar. Some songs will be brighter and some songs will be darker. The idea is to make the album “cohesive” so that the changes from song to song aren't distracting.

#4 I don't learn anything from mastering my mixes on my system.

What A Pro Mastering Dude Can Do For You
A real mastering engineer has a system that probably sounds WAY more accurate than your room. He's probably been mastering on those same speakers for 20 years. He knows them better than you know your wife. (And his studio monitors will never take half!......how was that one? You are right, my comedy writing sucks!). A real mastering engineer has more variety of projects than a male pornstar and can detect the subtle (and not so subtle) differences between the two with ease. Most importantly, a real mastering engineer can tell you what to work on and how to improve.

If You Have $300 To Blow On Plugins
If you have $300 to blow on plugins, don't buy something just because they wrote “mastering” on it some fancy font. Put your money towards buying some great sounding plugins that can be used during the mixing AND mastering process. You'll be happier in the end, trust me. If you are not sure what the best plugins for $300, just ask on the recording forum forum.recordingreview.com

Conclusion
Mastering at home sucks, but if you have to do it due to budgetary constraints, don't waste money on a program simply because it says “Mastering” in the title. The extra gadgetry it may contain is not something that the big boys are using, anyway. If you want to apply “neat” or “weird” effects to your mix, do it before you master. Your mix should sound PERFECT when you say “I'm done”. If you are relying on mastering to bail you out of a tricky situation, it's like waiting for your drunk step-dad to pick you up after baseball practice. (How was that one? That one was pretty good, I thought).

I find it strange that people will “trust” their recording software with every piece of their audio to handle the mixing process, but feel that their recording software is somehow inadequate for mastering. This is just not true.