Common tools that never get used?

[Arpangel]

There are few essential recording/mixing tools that are considered de rigueur in some circles, that for me personally, never, or hardly ever, get used.
The first one is the solo button, I can honestly say I've never ever used it, to do anything with.
The second is compression, I talk a lot about it, and actually own some compressors, but I never use them.
The third is EQ, how over rated is that! I hardly ever use that either, I just make sure the sounds coming from my instruments or mic's is OK to start with.
The only things that ever get used on my mixer are the aux sends as reverb is my favourite effect, in my DAW I use nothing, apart from reverb too.
I'm wondering if there are others here who may have similar dislikes for certain quite major things, but you still manage to turn out acceptable results that work for you.
Sometimes the act of just getting rid of one what is normally considered "essential" element can catapult you off into something good you didn't expect.
A friend was in a well known band that at an early stage decided not to,use ride cymbals in their music, none at all, ever. And it became their sound.
Another decided never to use snare drums, that also became his trademark.
Just a simple act like this can give you an edge, some originality.

[Dr Huge Longjohns]

The third is EQ, how over rated is that!

I never use monitors or headphones or speakers of any sort, they are massively over-rated as a mixing tool. I just guess what each track sounds like and move the faders as I feel it. (Cries of "Your tracks sound like it, too, Dr Huge!" from offstage.)

[John Willett]

I have never used EQ - I prefer using the right mic. in the right position.

I can see the need for compression, but I have never needed to use it yet.

I have never also used my mixing console - I used to use one in the early days, but bought an upgrade a few years ago and have never actually used it.

[ManFromGlass]

Sorry to be a buzzkill but I’m going through a phase of thinking there is nothing that hasn’t been done or not done before. There is almost nothing that hasn’t been done by someone on this planet at some point in time with the tools available.
That being said, when that special something done or not done gets us excited then that’s all that matters.

Somebody can suggest the simplest thing that they’ve done in a posting and I’ll go off and try it and suddenly kaboom - it could be the most inspiring to me, but so common to everyone. I like this idea of not doing a specific thing because in my quest to be a skilled recordist/mixer etc. I have been trying almost everything I read here.

[Tim Gillett]

As I see it, EQ and compression are part of the "meat and potatoes" tools of audio work. I cant imagine life without them, 40 years ago or now.

[MOF]

If you’ve never used a compressor, on a lead vocal for instance, then you’ll end up hearing it too loud in your mix or it will disappear a lot of the time due to a lower mix level and it being masked by other sound sources, unless you do a lot of level riding which in essence is what a compressor does.
Eq is also very useful in carving out space for it to cut through.

[CS70]

There are few essential recording/mixing tools that are considered de rigueur in some circles, that for me personally, never, or hardly ever, get used.

So be it. They're all tools, what matters is the result. So long you get the results you want, it's irrelevant how you get 'em.

[The Elf]

Wow! Just Wow!

[Mike Stranks]

I can only concur with Mr Elf....

... and for those who don't know, John Willett is a classical recordist so operates in a different world to many (most?) others here. If you are not a classical recordist then bear that in mind as you read his comments.

[Arpangel]

I can only concur with Mr Elf....

... and for those who don't know, John Willett is a classical recordist so operates in a different world to many (most?) others here. If you are not a classical recordist then bear that in mind as you read his comments.

I suppose I come from a certain background too, regarding recording experience.
I started off being very radical with my recordings, extreme EQ and every effect imaginable.
It was fascinating, and I enjoyed it. I spent hours applying all sorts of things, like EQ, going back later to listen to it flat, and eventually, preferring the flat version, thinking that all that time spent on EQ just didn't make a worthwhile difference to warrant using it.
The same with compression too.
Then, during my middle years I got the chance to help out on sessions quite regularly with a friend who's work was mainly in the classical recording field, and he taught me a lot, mostly about how to make recordings with the minimum of equipment, and still get fantastic results.
So I'm a mixture of all sorts of ideas, but "now" I personally think that the less there is in the way of the music the better.
Sometimes, I think that if you removed a lot of the processing from a mix that you thought was so important at the time, that 3dB increase at 8k on the guitar etc you wouldn't even notice the difference.

[The Elf]

The simple application of an HPF to remove thump from a hi-hat mic is pretty fundamental stuff. If you can get a good mix without such tools, then good luck to you, but it's not somewhere I'd want to go.

[Arpangel]

The simple application of an HPF to remove thump from a hi-hat mic is pretty fundamental stuff. If you can get a good mix without such tools, then good luck to you, but it's not somewhere I'd want to go.

Yes, it's down to what we record, I've ever recorded a hi-hat in my life!
I do use low-cut filters on mic's sometimes, normally the built in ones, or, the low-cut button on mixer preamps, if it needs more surgical EQ I'll use it, but not often.

[Tim Gillett]

The simple application of an HPF to remove thump from a hi-hat mic is pretty fundamental stuff. If you can get a good mix without such tools, then good luck to you, but it's not somewhere I'd want to go.

Here, here. Or if I was recording a piano in someone's living room and there was distracting LF traffic rumble which I could carefully filter out in post without impinging on the performance, I'd do it every time.

Equally if the only way I could reduce bad room sound in a recording was to use cardioid mics close enough to the instrument to incur some bass boost (proximity effect), again I'd record it like that and correct the bass boost in post. Then perhaps add artificial reverb.

These are sometimes judgement calls of course but if it's not part of the performance, why leave it in?

[John Willett]

The best recordings come from capturing a PERFORMANCE.

It does not matter what the musical genre is - first and foremost, it's the PERFORMANCE that matters most.

So, don't get bogged down with minutia if it detracts from the performance.

Even if a lot of punch-ins and overdubbing and many tracks are needed - still keep in mind that the performance is what matters most and don't get bogged down in the "notes" rather than the "performance of music".

Any song where the performer has put his/her heart and soul into the performance will be listened to again and again - a recording that may be note perfect and technically superb will be listened to only once and put away if there is no heart and soul in the performance.

Just my €uros worth.

[Tim Gillett]

..It does not matter what the musical genre is - first and foremost, it's the PERFORMANCE that matters most...

Totally agree John. So I was a little surprised when you said you've never used EQ to, one assumes, reduce or eliminate what is in the recording but is not the performance.

[The Elf]

The best recordings come from capturing a PERFORMANCE.

Of course, but this isn't about one rather than the other - it is about serving BOTH. I'd no more ignore a wonderful performance that has a few flaws than I would a wonderful performance enhanced by appropriate processing.

One example - where would some of those dreamy Clannad songs be without that dripping HF boost, heavy compression and overtly synthetic reverb on the vocals? The processing becomes part of the emotion, and certainly doesn't detract from the performance!

Or how about Pink Floyd's 'One of These Days' without delay?!

[Arpangel]

The best recordings come from capturing a PERFORMANCE.

It does not matter what the musical genre is - first and foremost, it's the PERFORMANCE that matters most.

So, don't get bogged down with minutia if it detracts from the performance.

Even if a lot of punch-ins and overdubbing and many tracks are needed - still keep in mind that the performance is what matters most and don't get bogged down in the "notes" rather than the "performance of music".

Any song where the performer has put his/her heart and soul into the performance will be listened to again and again - a recording that may be note perfect and technically superb will be listened to only once and put away if there is no heart and soul in the performance.

Just my €uros worth.

Getting bogged down in the notes, hhhmmm? Familiar with that one.
How many sessions have an sat in on while a producer goes on and on about shortening the decay of that crotchet in bar four of the aria, and could we replace that semiquaver in bar ten with one from another take. Blow me down, if I wasn't told about it I would never have noticed.

[Mike Stranks]

I've said it before here, but one of the privileges of being old is that people (somewhat) tolerate you repeating yourself. So:

There are broadly two types of people here: those who capture a performance (either straight to stereo or via multitrack) and those who use their DAWS and their tools to create music.

The disciplines of one type do not always translate easily to the other. FWIW, I'm a performance capturer - usually live - but the constraints under which I often have to work with audiences present or the rooms chosen mean that I often have to use careful EQ, compression, reverb et al to regain what I heard and experienced live as my brain rejected all the artefacts that the recording system didn't.

Simplistic right/wrong statements don't help. It's horses for courses in whatever way you work.

[Arpangel]

I've said it before here, but one of the privileges of being old is that people (somewhat) tolerate you repeating yourself. So:

There are broadly two types of people here: those who capture a performance (either straight to stereo or via multitrack) and those who use their DAWS and their tools to create music.

The disciplines of one type do not always translate easily to the other. FWIW, I'm a performance capturer - usually live - but the constraints under which I often have to work with audiences present or the rooms chosen mean that I often have to use careful EQ, compression, reverb et al to regain what I heard and experienced live as my brain rejected all the artefacts that the recording system didn't.

Simplistic right/wrong statements don't help. It's horses for courses in whatever way you work.

I'm not trying to say my way is the only way, in fact I don't have a way!
I don't have a set method, I capture a performance straight down sometimes, other times I have loads of tracks in my DAW and build up a piece that way.
When I was working with my friend on classical location stuff, we'd have our own way of doing things, but he'd be the first to admire other people's work that used methods that were the polar opposite of ours, he'd always say "listen to me boy! this recording business is a black art, and none of us is right, it's the end result that matters, and we can get there in many different ways"

[Sam Spoons]

The problem is that those tiny mistakes which pass unnoticed in the live performance can become jarringly intrusive by the 20th listen. Music is an ephemeral medium that we have learned to make permanent and the producers job is to spot these things. I don't disagree that they can get a bit overzealous though

[John Willett]

..It does not matter what the musical genre is - first and foremost, it's the PERFORMANCE that matters most...

Totally agree John. So I was a little surprised when you said you've never used EQ to, one assumes, reduce or eliminate what is in the recording but is not the performance.

I have never had the need (so far).

I choose the microphones and get them in the best position I can and that has been enough.

I can understand the need if the venue is accentuating certain frequencies that you then need to tame - but I have never needed to do this so far.

I feel that the more you "fiddle" the further away you get from the magic of the performance of the music, so I try and do as little as possible.

[John Willett]

The best recordings come from capturing a PERFORMANCE.

Of course, but this isn't about one rather than the other - it is about serving BOTH. I'd no more ignore a wonderful performance that has a few flaws than I would a wonderful performance enhanced by appropriate processing.

One example - where would some of those dreamy Clannad songs be without that dripping HF boost, heavy compression and overtly synthetic reverb on the vocals? The processing becomes part of the emotion, and certainly doesn't detract from the performance!

Or how about Pink Floyd's 'One of These Days' without delay?!

I'm not saying never to use the tools - just that I never have.

And would you not say that those Clannad tracks and Pink Flowd are superb performances?

I was one of the first people to hear Clannad's theme for "Harry's Game" as I was asked to transfer the open reel tape to cassette as the people at the TV company could not get an open reel machine and needed the recording on a cassette (Revox to Nakamichi 1000 if you want to know) and I found it magic at the time.

But the original was still a great performance.

Even creating music on the DAW at home needs to be a "performance" when you are creating the tracks - put something of yourself into each track - the final result will be much better thanif you are just plunking away at the notes.

[The Elf]

And would you not say that those Clannad tracks and Pink Flowd are superb performances?

I would agree that they are superb performances, but can we agree that the production takes that performance and pushes it up to an entirely new level of the sublime?!

[Hugh Robjohns]

This is a bizarre thread!

We have an array of tools at our disposal.

We use them when they are necessary and appropriate, and we don't when they aren't.

The end.

There's nothing big or clever in not using EQ or compression, or indeed in using them... The only prizes are in what the end result sounds like and the emotional impression it creates -- which is the point The Elf is making.

[Zukan]

I perform corrective procedures prior to any mixing and this usually entails band-passing channels to remove redundant and wideband high amplitude frequencies. These Trumps can trip compressors and limiters so why keep frequencies you can't hear but cause havoc with achieving the right compressor/limiter settings?

Like Hugh and Elf have said there is nothing magical about not using a specific tool that only needs to be adopted when the situation calls for it.

Oh, and don't start me on compression. I'm still tired and it's Monday and I am a mod and can therefore ban your ass if you don't pamper me a touch.