Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
free EQ match plug in for Audacity?
On 9/05/2019 8:16 AM, James Price wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:36:30 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote: James Price wrote: It's a matter of efficiency, not laziness. Assuming we were both given the same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software than you could by ear using EQ alone. I wouldn't want to use EQ if I could help it, I'd move the microphone or change the amp position or change out the microphone. The better you track, the more you get the sound in the room and at the mike, the less EQ you need to get things to work. EQ is a crutch. If you don't have to use EQ, don't use it. That said, a calculator is a crutch, albeit a very useful one. A poor comparison. For anything more than basic calculations a calculator is a necessary and convenient tool (unless an arithmetic genius, or pencil-and-paper fundamentalist), which is used almost exclusively. OK many people wouldn't be able to do it long-handedly. geoff |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
free EQ match plug in for Audacity?
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 3:04:50 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 1:02 PM, James Price wrote: EQ matching is well suited in the case of a guitarist who has a specific sound they're interested in replicating and to which they have a reference track. If you can find a tone that the guitarist or producer agrees is better than the reference, all the better. than the reference, But wouldn't the first step be to listen to what comes out of the amplifier and adjust the amp, the guitar, and the playing to get the sound you want - using your reference track as . . um . . a reference? Or are we assuming that you're mixing a track that's fully baked, must be part of the production, and will not be replaced? I'm glad that I don't have to take jobs like that. Either/or. In the first instance, you could adjust the amp, guitar, mic/position, etc. and use the reference track as a reference. That's obviously the most commonly used option. I mean, if you can copy the sound of the reference by ear faster than you can EQ match it, great. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
free EQ match plug in for Audacity?
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:39:42 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2019 8:16 AM, James Price wrote: On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:36:30 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote: James Price wrote: It's a matter of efficiency, not laziness. Assuming we were both given the same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software than you could by ear using EQ alone. I wouldn't want to use EQ if I could help it, I'd move the microphone or change the amp position or change out the microphone. The better you track, the more you get the sound in the room and at the mike, the less EQ you need to get things to work. EQ is a crutch. If you don't have to use EQ, don't use it. That said, a calculator is a crutch, albeit a very useful one. A poor comparison. For anything more than basic calculations a calculator is a necessary and convenient tool (unless an arithmetic genius, or pencil-and-paper fundamentalist), which is used almost exclusively. OK many people wouldn't be able to do it long-handedly. geoff In my opinion, it's a rather fitting comparison. There are many instances where it's simply more convenient and faster to calculate numbers using a calculator that it is to calculate them hand or in my head. If I need to add a series of numbers, a calculator can save time. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
free EQ match plug in for Audacity?
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 3:06:08 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 1:23 PM, James Price wrote: I wasn't suggesting that EQ matching necessarily solves a problem. It simplifies the process of replicating a given tone. Isn't the problem: "I don't know how the heck they got that tone?" That's not necessarily how I look at it, but that's one way to look at it. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
free EQ match plug in for Audacity?
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:39:42 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2019 8:16 AM, James Price wrote: On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:36:30 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote: James Price wrote: It's a matter of efficiency, not laziness. Assuming we were both given the same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software than you could by ear using EQ alone. I wouldn't want to use EQ if I could help it, I'd move the microphone or change the amp position or change out the microphone. The better you track, the more you get the sound in the room and at the mike, the less EQ you need to get things to work. EQ is a crutch. If you don't have to use EQ, don't use it. That said, a calculator is a crutch, albeit a very useful one. A poor comparison. For anything more than basic calculations a calculator is a necessary and convenient tool (unless an arithmetic genius, or pencil-and-paper fundamentalist), which is used almost exclusively. OK many people wouldn't be able to do it long-handedly. In my opinion, it's a rather fitting comparison. There are many instances where it's simply more convenient and faster for me to calculate numbers using a calculator than it is to calculate them by hand or in my head. If I need to add a series of numbers, a calculator can save time. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
trying to match my voice to existing recording with Audacity | Pro Audio | |||
Free Free US Dollars dollaras per month 10.000 $$$$$$$ Free Free | Pro Audio | |||
VST Plug-Ins with Audacity | Pro Audio | |||
IK Multimedia offering free plug-ins | Pro Audio | |||
Free Bomb Factory Plug Ins! | Pro Audio |