Which EQUALIZER / EQ good enough for recording?

[smo]

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping you can all help me choose wisely.
I like to play bass & guitar through my board, and alternate between fingers & pick on bass. I'm looking at an EQ pedal that can help me not only be flexible, but reduce the amount of pedals I'm currently using for this purpose.

First up;
I prefer 9v, so anything with headroom issues @9v is a big no.
I'd like to avoid anything that introduces noise into my signal, so no Boss suggestions please.
Ideally, something smaller than the Whirlwind.
I like vintage tube amp kind of tones, play passive instruments, if that makes a difference.

So far the Source Audio Prog. EQ looks interesting. Anyone have one of these?
How suitable is it for bass work?
Hows the noise floor? Are they noise-free enough for recording?

Any others I should consider?

Cheers

 

[PeaveyPlayer]

You should checkout the
Nordstrand startlifter

Or a Aguilar tone hammer di
I prefer the tone hammer

 

[lz4005]

Why would you be using an EQ pedal at all while recording?
Equalization happens during mixing and again during mastering.
Unless you're using it as an effect you need to turn on and off, or as a boost to drive a tube amp, there's no reason to have an EQ pedal in your chain in a recording studio.

 

[Bassmike62]

Why would you be using an EQ pedal at all while recording?
Equalization happens during mixing and again during mastering.
Unless you're using it as an effect you need to turn on and off, or as a boost to drive a tube amp, there's no reason to have an EQ pedal in your chain in a recording studio.

This.

 

[smo]

Unless you're using it as an effect you need to turn on and off, or as a boost to drive a tube amp, there's no reason to have an EQ pedal in your chain in a recording studio.

In quite a few songs we have faster sections and slow sections, alternating between pick and fingers.

 

[lz4005]

In quite a few songs we have faster sections and slow sections, alternating between pick and fingers.

That's what compressors are for. Still no reason to record with an EQ pedal.

 

[DarkStar90]

To the previous posters: Don't record with EQ? Ok, I guess you shouldn't record with active basses then, right? Gimme a break. This is art, people.

I come from a different school of thought. I was taught to get the best sound possible during tracking. Processing can often do some harm if the sound has to be heavily processed post tracking. In my world, its ok to record with an EQ. You can shape your sound to be closer to what you need, and then maybe less work later. Using a High pass filter for example while tracking, is common. Some basses do not translate well through a multitude of hardware or plugins, though it may sound great through an amp. I have found that with a bit of pre-EQ, some life can be given to a DI signal. If you feel you need to record with one, then do it. Relying on outboard gear or plugins to fix your sound later is an example of poor recording/mixing. If there is something wrong/undesirable on the recorded track, post-processing will only do so much before sounding like overkill. Over production is evident on all current, shi**y Pop music.

Some people really neglect to recognize how important the tracking stage of recording is. It's literally more important than mixing. The best sounding recordings are the ones with the least amount of post-processing. Any engineer with good sense would rather it sound perfect at tracking then have to labour later. The point of mixing is to allow the NATURAL/RECORDED sound of instruments/sources to work together and is not to provide the character you lack.

Telling someone not to record with an EQ is like saying "don't record your amp, the DI can be manipulated later" or telling Chris Squire not to bi-amp because "I can get your sound with EQ" or telling Marcus Miller to remove the Sadowsky preamp in his bass before recording. The point I'm trying to make is many players record with something that provides them THEIR sound, and that is part of creating art. Some people are not satisfied with vanilla tones. Clearly the OP is after some character in his tonal palette.

After all, the OP did not come here to be told how to record, he asked for a recommendation.

Anyway: My recommended EQ for recording is the Tech 21 Q-Strip. Its literally a channel strip in a pedal. HPF/LPF, parametric mids, XLR out, and sounds great on bass, guitar, keyboards and many other sources (I have stopped recording guitar cabs at home, because the Q-Strip sounds real, and I always get a cleaner result. Thanks to this pedal, recording Distorted guitars via DI is no longer something to fear). Its a MOSFET circuit. Its quiet, 9v, and smaller than the whirlwind. If you like Ampeg tones, I can also recommend a VT Bass pedal (many on this forum will tell you they have recorded with it to great success).

 

[FaithNoMan]

I just ordered the Empress Paraeq, and I plan on using it in front of my overdrive pedals to hit certain frequencies before saturation. So that's another way a post eq would not work.
@vinnydbass makes a good point as well.

 

[jblock]

It's easier to add EQ later than take it away, which is why many have the approach of no EQ during recording. I always prefer to go completely clean and add anything later. However, I often track 2 channels of bass at the same time; one completely clean and one with EQ and sometimes effects. Best of both worlds and more flexibility at the mixing stage.

 

[DarkStar90]

IME, subtractive EQ is far better at cleaning up the signal and preserving the tone you recorded. Thats why capturing the character you want is important. You can't just produce a tone by adding EQ, it has to come from the source. The timbral difference between different basses is not a matter of EQ during mixing, for example. If you dont like what you recorded, eq in the mixing stage likely wont solve the problem.

 

[Jim C]

Books have been written...
Some folks have a recording budget that isn't that big.
Make it sound great and print it is often the best plan.

Another great reason to print EQ, compression, etc. is to tell whomever mixes that you went to great trouble to print the tone that represents your bass voice and that slighly keying in a freq. is expected.
Turning you're bass tracks into something entirely different is not acceptable.

You can print subtractive EQ just as easily.

 

[DarkStar90]

Yes exactly.

 

[crguti]

I'd like to avoid anything that introduces noise into my signal, so no Boss suggestions please.

Educate yourself before coming with such a comment.

 

[smo]

Thanks for (sigh) some of the replies guys.

FYI;
I've been through recording plenty of times guys. I've been performing live for 20 years.
We favour recording on the cheap, so generally live recording with the whole band at once, getting our tones pretty damn close to what we want, to minimize post-processing time and expense. We've done home-recording in the past too.

Some folks have a recording budget that isn't that big.
Make it sound great ... is often the best plan.

Exactly Engineers I've spent time with love it when a band has their sound sorted, or can bring previous recordings to show where they're aiming to land.

I come from a different school of thought. I was taught to get the best sound possible during tracking. Processing can often do some harm if the sound has to be heavily processed post tracking.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more.

That's what compressors are for. Still no reason to record with an EQ pedal.

You've not actually been helpful at all.
Feel free to offer up something helpful, like your favourite EQ pedal for example.

Educate yourself before coming with such a comment.

How old are you?
I used to own the Boss GEB-7. It hissed at high volumes, so I sold it. End story

My recommended EQ for recording is the Tech 21 Q-Strip.
If you like Ampeg tones, I can also recommend a VT Bass pedal (many on this forum will tell you they have recorded with it to great success).

Q-strip looks good. And the HPF would be pretty damn useful for home-recording Double Bass too.


OK, lets try something different. How about;
Whats a top-quality EQ pedal that is clean enough, so as to not introduce any hiss or noise into my signal?

 

[Jim C]

I've just read some very good reviews on this board for this pedal EQ/Pre-amp.
Even has a built in compressor.
Bassics BPA-1 Bass Preamplifier | Diffusion Audio Inc

The designer also designed the Trident mixing console and had a few big record engineering credits.

 

[DarkStar90]

FWIW, I have not noticed any noise from the q-strip. I have recorded with it many times. I almost always have the LPF engaged for guitar and bass, so any hiss would be cut. It really just removes the clanky top end on bass (you won't miss it), and removes annoying hiss on distortions. The LPF doesn't smother the top end, just kind of makes it more listenable. Their isn't a mix session I've been a part of that hasn't used an LPF on guitar and bass. Other users here have written that it works well on Double Bass.