[James Price[_5_]]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference. Granted, the sound will change to a
degree when you start mixing guitars with other instruments, but that applies
to guitars that have been dialed in with or without EQ matching.

[geoff]

On 7/05/2019 4:29 PM, James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Generally that is what the guitarist does, and he/she complains muchly
if you overly dick with it ! The recorded guitar tone is a decision
between the guitarist and the 'producer' - whoever that entity is in the
particular recording situation.

Granted, the sound will change to a
degree when you start mixing guitars with other instruments, but that applies
to guitars that have been dialed in with or without EQ matching.


This EQ matching thing starts to sound like a universal automatic
hyper-compressor idea.

Just get it right in the first place. If the tracks are significantly
disparate to the point of not sitting well in an album worth of
material, that is where 'mastering' comes into play.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 07/05/2019 09:17, geoff wrote:

Just get it right in the first place. If the tracks are significantly
disparate to the point of not sitting well in an album worth of
material, that is where 'mastering' comes into play.

The plugin was sold as a way to make the "sound" of a radio station or
compilation album a little more even. It's another tool such as the
ubiquitous Orban radio compression, introduce to make life a little
easier for the station staff and improve intelligibility at the edge of
the range.

Other uses and abuses are up to the production team.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:17:40 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 4:29 PM, James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Generally that is what the guitarist does, and he/she complains muchly
if you overly dick with it ! The recorded guitar tone is a decision
between the guitarist and the 'producer' - whoever that entity is in the
particular recording situation.

Agreed, and many guitarists use EQ matching specifically for the purpose mentioned.

Granted, the sound will change to a
degree when you start mixing guitars with other instruments, but that applies
to guitars that have been dialed in with or without EQ matching.


This EQ matching thing starts to sound like a universal automatic
hyper-compressor idea.

Just get it right in the first place. If the tracks are significantly
disparate to the point of not sitting well in an album worth of
material, that is where 'mastering' comes into play.

My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

If a guitarist wants to replicate a particular tone, EQ matching can simplify
the process. If the tone a guitarist wants can be dialed in by ear, great,
then there's no need to employ EQ matching. However, in situations where a
guitarist wants a specific tone(assuming there are reference tracks for it),
EQ matching can be faster than dialing it in by ear. It's not something you'd
use in every situation. In fact, you may find you rarely (if ever) need to use
it, but it can be useful in certain situations.

[geoff]

On 8/05/2019 2:03 PM, James Price wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:17:40 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 4:29 PM, James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Generally that is what the guitarist does, and he/she complains muchly
if you overly dick with it ! The recorded guitar tone is a decision
between the guitarist and the 'producer' - whoever that entity is in the
particular recording situation.

Agreed, and many guitarists use EQ matching specifically for the purpose mentioned.


None that I've ever met.


My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

I've certainly never felt the need.


If a guitarist wants to replicate a particular tone, EQ matching can simplify
the process. If the tone a guitarist wants can be dialed in by ear, great,
then there's no need to employ EQ matching. However, in situations where a
guitarist wants a specific tone(assuming there are reference tracks for it),
EQ matching can be faster than dialing it in by ear. It's not something you'd
use in every situation. In fact, you may find you rarely (if ever) need to use
it, but it can be useful in certain situations.

Especially great for lazy guitarists, or guitarists who don't know how
to get what they want for themselves I guess...

geoff

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:13:02 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 8/05/2019 2:03 PM, James Price wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:17:40 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 7/05/2019 4:29 PM, James Price wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/6/2019 10:14 PM, James Price wrote:
The guitar sound will change to a degree to fit in a mix, however I'd contend
that ultimately, EQ matching is still a useful tool for getting a guitar tone
in the ballpark. The guitar sound is going to start somewhere, so why not
start closest to the target tone?

That's what the guitar player or the tracking engineer or the producer
is supposed to do. If it isn't at least in the ballpark when going into
the mix, you're just fooling yourself trying to believe that it's better
when the "EQ match" says it is.

If it just needs some EQ to get it to fit into the mix better, if you
don't do that by hand-and-ear you'll never learn the craft.

The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Generally that is what the guitarist does, and he/she complains muchly
if you overly dick with it ! The recorded guitar tone is a decision
between the guitarist and the 'producer' - whoever that entity is in the
particular recording situation.

Agreed, and many guitarists use EQ matching specifically for the purpose mentioned.


None that I've ever met.

None that you're aware of anyway, not that that's relevant.

My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

I've certainly never felt the need.

Then what are you basing your opinion on?


If a guitarist wants to replicate a particular tone, EQ matching can simplify
the process. If the tone a guitarist wants can be dialed in by ear, great,
then there's no need to employ EQ matching. However, in situations where a
guitarist wants a specific tone(assuming there are reference tracks for it),
EQ matching can be faster than dialing it in by ear. It's not something you'd
use in every situation. In fact, you may find you rarely (if ever) need to use
it, but it can be useful in certain situations.

Especially great for lazy guitarists, or guitarists who don't know how
to get what they want for themselves I guess...

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.

[geoff]

On 8/05/2019 6:52 PM, 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.


Could be a hindrance to ever developing that skill if used exclusively
or excessively.

But whatever works for your guitarist, if you find the thing that makes
everybody involved happy, then go for it I guess.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/8/2019 2:52 AM, James Price wrote:
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.

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 08/05/2019 11:11, Mike Rivers wrote:

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

Sometimes "good enough" is the enemy of excellence, though without your
ability, quick'n'dirty can be a good starting point.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 5:11:40 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 2:52 AM, James Price wrote:
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.

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

Quite possibly. 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,

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 5:11:40 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 2:52 AM, James Price wrote:
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.

And maybe I could find a better sound than the reference.

Quite possibly. 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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Price[_5_]]

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.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/7/2019 10:03 PM, James Price wrote:
My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

You're correct. I've never used it. Nor do I work with musicians who
want to "dial in" a specific tone.

Sorry, but I think this is a misguided attack on what isn't really a
problem. If you have a record and you want to get a similar guitar tone
on a project you're working on, how close does it have to be? Why do you
think that a program can do what you can't?

And, if you recorded a song 10 years ago and want to remix it with a new
guitar track with the same tone as the original, maybe that can help,
but if you aren't using the same guitar setup, how can you expect to
match the tone with any tools? And if you are using the same guitar
setup, how hard can it be to get it pretty close - as close as a program
would get it - with the tools you have already?

Save your money and buy a better vocal mic. Or use a free EQ matcher and
use that to get started.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 5:10:16 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/7/2019 10:03 PM, James Price wrote:
My impression is that you've never used EQ matching software.

You're correct. I've never used it. Nor do I work with musicians who
want to "dial in" a specific tone.

Sorry, but I think this is a misguided attack on what isn't really a
problem.

I wasn't suggesting that EQ matching necessarily solves a problem. It
simplifies the process of replicating a given tone.

If you have a record and you want to get a similar guitar tone
on a project you're working on, how close does it have to be? Why do you
think that a program can do what you can't?

I never said EQ matching can do something I (or anyone else) can't. You
might very well be able to match the tone of a previous session, however
EQ matching makes it super simple. Sure, if you find it's quicker to match
it by ear, you should do that.

And, if you recorded a song 10 years ago and want to remix it with a new
guitar track with the same tone as the original, maybe that can help,
but if you aren't using the same guitar setup, how can you expect to
match the tone with any tools?

That's precisely the beauty of EQ matching; you can generally match the tone
of a guitar setup that's different from the one you're using so closely that
most people wouldn't bat an eye in a blind test if they didn't know better.

And if you are using the same guitar
setup, how hard can it be to get it pretty close - as close as a program
would get it - with the tools you have already?

Depends on the recording. If you're using the same mic, in the same
position, with the same cab and guitar, the differences may be negligible.

Or use a free EQ matcher and use that to get started.

As far as I know, there aren't any free EQ matching plugins or software,
though there are quite a few with free trials.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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?"

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

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.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/7/2019 12:29 AM, James Price wrote:
The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Why is this so hard? It can't add something that isn't there, and it
doesn't really even teach you anything that you can use on your own.

It's like not learning how to multiply because you always have a
calculator. Sure, I use a calculator pretty often, but I don't need one
to decide how much I should leave for a tip at a restaurant. I can
decide what percentage of the bill to tip - the equivalent of "the
guitarist's preference" - based on what kind of restaurant it is and how
good the service was. And I can calculate close enough in my head to
calculate 15% or 18% or 20% or decide to leave a $5 bill based on my a
combination of my knowledge and experience.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:16:14 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/7/2019 12:29 AM, James Price wrote:
The main purpose is simply to aid the process of dialing in a specific
sound per the guitarists preference.

Why is this so hard? It can't add something that isn't there, and it
doesn't really even teach you anything that you can use on your own.

It's not that it's so hard. Dialing in a specific tone by ear may
ultimately be more time consuming by comparison. EQ matching is a
time saving tool that's used in very specific circumstances.

It's like not learning how to multiply because you always have a
calculator. Sure, I use a calculator pretty often, but I don't need one
to decide how much I should leave for a tip at a restaurant. I can
decide what percentage of the bill to tip - the equivalent of "the
guitarist's preference" - based on what kind of restaurant it is and how
good the service was. And I can calculate close enough in my head to
calculate 15% or 18% or 20% or decide to leave a $5 bill based on my a
combination of my knowledge and experience.

When you use a calculator, you do so because it saves time. When there's
no time saving advantage, you don't use one. The same applies to EQ
matching. For those who use it, they do so because it saves time and often
produces a more accurate result.