I know this thread has drifted way off topic from Cakes request, but I'm positive Sad/Not Sad: Feeding Cat" did too, so business as usual I guess. I'm checking out Eventide Split EQ right now and it is fucking bonkers.

Nate Dort wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:05 pm Orban 622B

I've been eyeing orban EQs for a while. I have a 674 (2ch graphic looking parametric) but haven't played with it yet. I like the look of the 622 and 642 but haven't grabbed one up yet.

God help me, but I'm going to agree with Dante on something.

If you are always EQing something on the way to your recording device - and you like the way the thing sounds in the room - consider putting in the time and experimentation on which mic you're using and where it's positioned. Beg/borrow/steal different mics to audition, try two together (being careful of positioning differences that may cause undesired phase interactions), be rigorous about A/Bing different results. Try to figure out why different choices yield different results. This is time intensive but likely cheaper than looking for an outboard unit to solve a consistent problem.

Not saying you haven't already done this. But I am frequently surprised at what a big difference mic choice and positioning can make. And the ability to set up really clear A/B tests is one of the best things about digital recording vs analog. Then maybe consider preamp differences - although I'll say that I worry much less about preamps than I used to. Unless I'm deliberately trying to achieve an effect (which is usually overdriving a vocal signal to distortion), the difference yielded between preamps is usually pretty small.

If you or someone else here decides they need an Orban 622B, I've got one in fine condition that's been sitting in a closet for a few years now because I never use it. I'll sell it to any PRFer who wants it for whatever they're actually selling for on Reverb minus 10% or so.

= Justin

Justin Foley wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:24 pm God help me, but I'm going to agree with Dante on something.

If you are always EQing something on the way to your recording device - and you like the way the thing sounds in the room - consider putting in the time and experimentation on which mic you're using

I'd rather buy a mic than an EQ. Mics are cool, EQ are boring.

Kniferide wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:55 pm

Justin Foley wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:24 pm God help me, but I'm going to agree with Dante on something.

If you are always EQing something on the way to your recording device - and you like the way the thing sounds in the room - consider putting in the time and experimentation on which mic you're using

I'd rather buy a mic than an EQ. Mics are cool, EQ are boring.

Yeah, need more high end? Get a condenser or a 441. Need more low? Get a good ribbon. This doesn't even mention the different mids and handling of transients in various mics.

You can do a lot by just changing a mic or pre amp. A person could also use proximity affect to a advantage some times. The API lunch box eqs are great, the Maag are even better but these are both supper high end.

bishopdante wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:54 am You can EQ in performance where it's lacking, but the sound quality is usually inferior when doing so: e.g. using an SM57 for a kick drum and low-shelf boosting at 50Hz... even if you use a maselec mastering EQ... the sound you'll find down there won't be wonderful.

Yeah, this is where the somewhat overstated "cuts over boosts" rule comes from. Arguably the best use of EQ usually comes from subtle, and often wide cuts, and perhaps some gentle boosts that help 8-59 tracks of audio work together instead of against each other. In other words, "Is my murky build up around 250hz in the guitars, the overdriven bass, or the compressed room mic?" Maybe a little bit of all, even though solo'd each of these elements sounds fantastic.

It's big-picture framing and balancing that is much harder to do while setting up a tone, or overdubbing something. This is an argument for eq plugins applied during mixing, or alternatively having a desk full of equalizers employed in an old school print-the-mix summing scenario. Very different than tailoring a single sound while it goes to tape.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

To those that have alternative suggestions: I have already used software EQ and I am looking for hardware EQ, hence the subject of this thread. I'm not buying microphones for this purpose. Did I ask about microphones? Explaining away the reasons of what one should be doing before getting an EQ isn't being helpful, it's being obtuse.

As the topic stated, recommend a decent (hardware) EQ. I dropped the ball, but I'm picking it back up.

I should restate what I'm looking for: recommend a decent hardware EQ for the purpose of utility under $500.

Cakes -

No one's being obtuse. You raised a question and the conversation has moved from there.

Good luck finding your EQ.

= Justin

Symetrix SX201 or the S400 - stereo pair parametric EQing under $400. That looks promising!