Greatest mixes of all time that use no EQ...

[cashhewn]

Hi SoS folks,

I recently listened to a podcast with SoS's own Mike Senior as the interviewee wherein he mentioned, when asked to give what he thought was his best advice based on his own accrued experience, a story (*HEAVILY PARAPHRASING Mr. Senior's words, FOR GIST ONLY*): "I was at an audio seminar where [famed recording engineer] Al Schmitt was in attendance and was a panelist and was asked what his "favorite EQ" was, and he replied 'I cannot answer this question, I do not use EQ'".

This was as powerful a revelation to me now as it was at the time to Mr. Senior.

I got me thinking: was Mr. Schmitt saying this in reference to tracking or mixing..or *gasp* both?!

It's hard for me to find quickly what Mr. Schmitt engineered vs what he mixed: for example, he apparently won a Grammy at the 20th Annual ceremony for Steely Dan's "Aja" for "Best Engineered Recording", but it's hard to find what he actually "mixed". Whether or not you're a fan of that album and band, I think it's undeniable that those recordings are clinically lean and crisp without ever being harsh or too bright, no low end rumble or muddiness, tight bass response, crisp and sharp stereo image, clear and clean...basically all the hallmarks of a "good" recording.

All that said:
1- can we identify a recording that Mr. Schmitt was involved with that we think is "one of the greatest sounding recordings of all time"
2- can we extrapolate how he might have achieved this without ANY EQ

My two cents (still a beginner engineer/mixer but gaining experience):

Obviously microphone choice and pattern selection and placement must be the biggest part of what he is doing technique-wise to get the source's frequencies as he wants them down to tape/digital. Also, maybe he is using compressors as coloration/EQ as well. But is he not high or low pass filtering at the mic or preamp? I guess that counts as EQ?

I'm really interested to know from the SoS folks' experience how this might be possible. For example, I will "typically": high pass filter loads of inputs except maybe low bass and kick drum, low pass filter overheads/cymbals or bright sources, pump the low bass guitar below 120Hz, fiddle with the bass guitar midrange between 300-5K, give the snare a huge dose at 220hz and at 1.25 or 2.5 or 5k, mult/aux tracks and heavily EQ and compress them and then parallel/sneak them back underneath the original unmolested track, cut healthy swaths of 250-300Hz out of acoustic guitars or pianos etc etc etc...all of this is using EQ of course.

It had never occurred to me to attempt to get these results not using EQ. This is rather revelatory. Thanks to Mike Senior for relaying the story.

[Drew Stephenson]

Before you get into microphone choice and pattern selection you've got the source material and arrangement, the performance, the room, and the microphone position.
All of these will have a huge affect on the captured tone.

Also some folks don't think of high and low pass filters as EQ so that might play into it a bit.

[James Perrett]

A quick search brings up this article which would be worth reading

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... dows-night

[tea for two]

Al Schmitt, I shall state the bleeding obvious, is mixing World Class musicians session players : they have sorted their own sound, they already know how compliment the other musicians. They are being recorded in a World Class room by World Class engineers. They are being mixed in a proper room suitable for mixing with suitable monitors.
Makes mixing a darn sight easier.
I reckon I as a bedroom amateur could readily mix a release ready record with such World Class at my disposal, I wouldn't require any Eq.

An analogy I suppose could be plonking a starter photographer with a basic camera in the Antarctica : they will take a brilliant picture because of the Antarctica scenery.

I would like to hear Al Schmitt mix my hamfisted efforts at trying to play recorded in my flat with its poor acoustics, mixing in my flat with the basic speakers I have. Yep we can guesstimate Al couldn't polish this turd lol : i.e. Al's mix would sound as amateur as me.

::

Fwiw I shape some sounds using Eq for my own stuff.

[Stuart79]

Giant Steps was done without EQ. It's in the liner notes along with the microphones they used.

The players weren't bad I guess...

[sonics]

Since mixing desks with built-in EQ were invented, almost every mix will use EQ. Only a pure "direct-to-disk"-style recording might avoid it, and even then there may be EQ on the preamps in use, as well as guitar amps, etc. That's all EQ.

Even Schmitt said "In general, also during mixing, I try to use as little EQ and compression as possible."

[cashhewn]

Thanks for the responses.

Drew Stephenson makes a good point, for a lot of what Al Schmitt is recording, like the Dylan album that James Perrett points out for example (thanks for that information, great read), he is recording, as Tea For Two points out, "world class" musicians in "world class" rooms that are meant to sound "recorded all together simultaneously in one room with as little as possible done to it". So it is kind of hard to miss I suppose.

That said, it brings up more questions than answers for me, like, I don't have any feel for Mr. Schmitt's personality, is he saying "I use no EQ" a bit tongue in cheek? In the article James Perrett linked Schmitt says "It is very rare for me to use EQ while recording. I try to make adjustments to the sound like that using different microphones and microphone placements. In general, also during mixing, I try to use as little EQ and compression as possible." So I suppose he is actually indeed using some EQ after all.

So for an album like Dylan's "Shadows In The Night" (or as Stuart79 points out, Coltrane's "Giant Steps" [Tom Dowd?]) it's very easy to see how Schmitt tackles that recording and mix without use of EQ, but with an album like Steely Dan's "Aja", that record was made (depending on your research) over an entire year with over 40 musicians in at least six studios with at least three different engineers...so it's hard to know what exactly WHAT Al Schmitt did on something like that album, making it difficult to have a conversation about, say, the kick drum sound on "Deacon Blues" or whatever.

So lastly and accordingly, seeing how Schmitt says he leans heavily on U47s and M49s for vocals, and M49s and M149s for room and instrument mics, I reckon I can see how he's not needing EQ on these "live in the room" recordings: I know from personal experience how neutral the M49 is (I use an M49V but am not familiar with the M149) meaning that what goes in comes back out, and the U47 (I have been lucky to sing through original Telefunken badged ones, WOW) with its midrange sizzling beauty means no further vocal EQ necessary on the appropriate voice.

But, when taken to task by legendary task masters Fagen and Becker, working on tracks for over a year across multiple cities and studios and musicians, searching for some "idealized sound", how did Schmitt do it (or retain his sanity)?!

This has been fun to think about, I appreciate the responses and links, many thanks!

[James Perrett]

Maybe not on the level of Al Schmitt but I've had a few things released that have used no Eq on the mix. Mostly they've been rough mixes to show the client what is on a tape which the client has liked so much that they've kept them as-is. It certainly applies to the first 3 tracks on

https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list ... LNsgGHDGB4

which was recorded on 2" tape at Polygram studio over 40 years ago but never mixed until I got hold of it in 2019.

[Bob Bickerton]

Interesting thread and I think the important lesson to be learnt is to do with our 'attitude' towards using EQ.

I can remember a time when I felt it was almost compulsory to use EQ on every track - because that's what I thought people did - and often when working in live sound, under less than ideal circumstances, that was often necessary.

These days I'll only use EQ IF it's necessary and on many tracks I don't use it at all. It's probably a little genre specific too. I record mainly acoustic music in a well-treated studio, or on a concert stage, with very good microphones.

So, as has been said, room acoustics, mic choice and placement are necessary pre-requisites to capture accurate recordings and if you get those right, then instrument/music dependent, it may not be necessary to use corrective EQ at all.

Having said that, there are occasions with more 'processed' tracks where I may use EQ more as an effect. A modulated filter sweep over a drone for instance.

So whilst it's whatever works, I do believe in trying to get it right at source.

Bob

[Hugh Robjohns]

Context is everything, and I can absolutely guarantee that Al Schmitt uses EQ and compression when needed quite happily.

The point I expect he was making is that if the musicians make the right sounds that dovetail in the studio well, and chooses and places microphones well, there will be no need (or very little need) for EQ when tracking or mixing.

It's really all about getting the right sound in the studio — the right music, arranged well, played on the right instruments with the right tonalities to dovetail without unwanted frequency masking.

If you've got all that — and you should with pro musicians — then the rest is pretty straightforward and the sounds coming from the microphones should work as is. No further processing needed.

This is in contrast to the common amateur approach of any old sounds playing a thoughtless arrangement, captured with poorly selected and placed mics (or, more often, a pointless array of mics), in an inappropriate acoustic.

In such circumstances the response when mixing is inevitably to use handfuls of EQ on everything to try and carve out spectral separation and fix the unfixable.... The hopeful 'we'll fix it in the mix'... but you won't. It needs to be right in the studio... and thats what Al Schmitt and his contemporaries are very good at achieving.

[RichardT]

Good points above. It’s an option in the toolkit, to be used when necessary and hopefully not used when it isn’t!

And maximising the quality of the source is always the best approach. In reality, most of us don’t have access to the best performers, instruments, spaces and gear, so we do have to compromise somewhere.

I have heard some classical recordings that definitely could have done with some (or more) EQ. It shouldn’t be taboo if it helps.

[jimjazzdad]

It is also a reasonable assumption that the mastering engineer - Bernie Grundman in the case of the Aja album - used EQ when they got the mix.

[Drew Stephenson]

Not up to James' standard (and not aiming for it either to be fair) but here's a track that, for complex reasons I shan't get into, has no processing other than high and low cut filters and some master bus limiting to get it up to typical volumes.
https://soundcloud.com/blinddrew/years- ... al_sharing
All instruments recorded in my room with the exception of the piano which is a VST (because I don't have a piano).
The drumming is particularly terrible because it's me drumming - again for experimental reasons I shan't get into. I have zero doubt that a better drummer would produce a better sound from the kit.

But no EQ (other than HPF / LPF), no compression, no other effects other than reverb and a leslie emulator on the (real) reed organ.

[RichardT]

It is also a reasonable assumption that the mastering engineer - Bernie Grundman in the case of the Aja album - used EQ when they got the mix.

Very likely true!

And while Aja is a superb recording for the time, it doesn’t stand up against modern recordings that Donald Fagen has made.

[RichardT]

It is also a reasonable assumption that the mastering engineer - Bernie Grundman in the case of the Aja album - used EQ when they got the mix.

Very likely true!

And while Aja is a superb recording for the time, it doesn’t stand up against modern recordings that Donald Fagen has made.

Just my opinion, of course…

[Martin Walker]

And while Aja is a superb recording for the time, it doesn’t stand up against modern recordings that Donald Fagen has made.

I find this intriguing, since I love the sound of Steely Dan albums in my collection such as Aja and Royal Scam, yet given all the praise attached to Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' for its production quality, I was disappointed when I bought the CD, since despite its wonderful balance and detail, to my ears it has excessive top-end hi-hat/cymbal 'tizz', wiry guitars, plus a lack of low end on bass and kick.

Any other opinions?

Martin

[Zukan]

EQ has been around since Keith Richards gave us fire. It has been used both for corrective tasks and colouring processes. In all my years as a dodgy ethnic I have never come across a single mix engineer or producer who has not used eq. I could be wrong though as I struggle with laces and medicine bottle caps.

[Kwackman]

EQ has been around since Keith Richards gave us fire.

[RichardT]

And while Aja is a superb recording for the time, it doesn’t stand up against modern recordings that Donald Fagen has made.

I find this intriguing, since I love the sound of Steely Dan albums in my collection such as Aja and Royal Scam, yet given all the praise attached to Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' for its production quality, I was disappointed when I bought the CD, since despite its wonderful balance and detail, to my ears it has excessive top-end hi-hat/cymbal 'tizz', wiry guitars, plus a lack of low end on bass and kick.

Any other opinions?

Martin

The Nightfly was 1981 or so, early days of digital. His later albums are better. you could try the track 'Morph the Cat'.

[adrian_k]

And while Aja is a superb recording for the time, it doesn’t stand up against modern recordings that Donald Fagen has made.

I find this intriguing, since I love the sound of Steely Dan albums in my collection such as Aja and Royal Scam, yet given all the praise attached to Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' for its production quality, I was disappointed when I bought the CD, since despite its wonderful balance and detail, to my ears it has excessive top-end hi-hat/cymbal 'tizz', wiry guitars, plus a lack of low end on bass and kick.

Any other opinions?

Martin

I agree about The Nightfly, especially the title track, horrible snare sound and fizzy cymbals. The apparent lack of low end, definitely on some tracks. The mixes seem quite inconsistent across the album - e.g. I.G.Y. sounds ok-ish to me, Green Flower Street and Ruby Baby sound thin, The Nightfly has that nasty snare sound.

I like the sound of Two Against Nature much better. I'll have to go back and listen to it in comparison to Aja, suspect it will have a more modern "up front" feel.

Actually listening to Kid Charlemagne as I type - if forgot how much I loved that guitar solo, not a wasted note in sight. Mind you I'll eat my hat (my second best) if no EQ was used.

[Martin Walker]

The Nightfly was 1981 or so, early days of digital. His later albums are better. you could try the track 'Morph the Cat'.

Woo - the balance on that track is one HELL of a lot better

[Martin Walker]

Actually listening to Kid Charlemagne as I type - if forgot how much I loved that guitar solo, not a wasted note in sight.

Just re-listening myself right now, and it's one of the best guitar solos ever IMO

[RichardT]

The Nightfly was 1981 or so, early days of digital. His later albums are better. you could try the track 'Morph the Cat'.

Woo - the balance on that track is one HELL of a lot better

It's incredibly powerful isn't it? That bass guitar....

[RichardT]

EQ has been around since Keith Richards gave us fire. It has been used both for corrective tasks and colouring processes. In all my years as a dodgy ethnic I have never come across a single mix engineer or producer who has not used eq. I could be wrong though as I struggle with laces and medicine bottle caps.

I call those caps 'granny-proof' - kids can open them, us oldies less easily.

[sonics]

Any other opinions?

I agree about The Nightfly, especially the title track, horrible snare sound and fizzy cymbals. The apparent lack of low end, definitely on some tracks.

I agree also. The Nightfly album mixes are quite variable. It was a full-digital recording; Roger Nichols seems to have been obsessed with "clean" recording.
The mixes (by Scheiner?) tend to sound thin and lacking weight.
New Frontier is one of the better ones. The title track has that "papery" snare with a peculiar EQ. It may not be the best snare sound ever, but it's very useful for comparing midrange frequencies between speakers and headphones!
I did remaster the album to my liking some years ago.

I think something like Gaucho (from a little earlier) sounds better, although I think the WENDEL drum machine (on Hey Nineteen, for example) is simply horrible.

Something like Jack of Speed (from Two Against Nature, 2000) sounds much better than any of The Nightfly to me.