I attended a Burl event yesterday at East West Studios (formerly United Western Recorders) and I got to tour three different studio rooms. My favorite was studio room #3. The Beach Boys Pet Sounds room.
I think it's quite safe to say that some sort of EQ was used on pretty much all recorded music that features electric instruments. Most amps had some sort of EQ, even if it was just some tilt type. And let's be fair - initial reason to use EQ was to compensate for technical deficiencies or poor acoustics. Then it was mostly creatively abused to make certain sounds sit better in the mix, increase headroom and make sounds that would be impossible without EQ. And with all vintage gear hype (hint, it's not the gear, it's the process and general zeitgeist) I am quite sure most of engineers in the 50s and 60s would gladly trade their fully stacked racks for a laptop with decent DAW and plugins.
The reason as to why they still like to use or emulate analog eq is wrong and close. It’s oposite, certain analog gear has the specific sound/feel based on the harmonic distortion in analog gear that engineers try to replicate but buying the same gear.
Yes, to be clear I meant that in regard to EQ model plugins vs their hardware units. Not different EQ models compared to each other. I hope that makes sense!
@@southhour5241 Or uninformed response on your part. Rupert Neve contributed heavily to the enhancement of EQ design. Especially in parametric EQ and proportional Q development. He also collaborated with Lester Paul on some of these earlier designs. I would recommend researching him.
@@Benprogfuse It’s a pretty good introduction. But there’s a lot of gaps (no Joe Meek, Rupert Neve - as stated - and, of course, George Martin and the Beatles were up there with The Beach Boys in using EQ creatively). So sometimes the way things are put is a little misleading. To say ‘eq was a big part of Talking Heads, Madonna’ etc is absolutely true. But by the late 60s, eq was a big part of every recording, even direct to disk and 2 -track orchestral stuff. But pop music? Eq was as basic as multiple tracks, or compression. I understand that some things and people need to be omitted for length. But there does seem to be a strange hyperfocus on Bill Putnam ad if the UA company history page is used as the primary source. Don’t get me wrong, Putnam was very important and I’ve used gear he created since about 1987 when I first worked in a big studio. But he was one of many. He stood on the shoulders of giants and he also had a very respectable cohort of engineers and designers who contributed just as much. So, the content is great. But it might have been a good idea to run the video past a pro engineer who’s been around long enough to know much of the history and what to emphasise.
Oh dear. Out of curiousity, I listened to Les Paul "Lover". Ouch. Do you mean he put a 4k EQ on it before shifting the pitch, or after? No matter, to me there's no way to evaluate the EQ because of the massive distraction of those dreadful "Chipmunks" octave-shifted guitar overdubs. Les Paul was a technical innovator in the studio, but man, the results were hard to listen to! Surely there are other examples of early EQ use which are not as sonically obnoxious?
You're looking at his decisions from our POV. Most sound reproducing equipment/chains in his time was most likely not capable of reproducing such wide frequency ranges, as we have available today. I would say that the brilliant high end that we are used to today, was not achievable then. So abusing EQ in such a way would make your music pop out of the speakers more.
@69vrana Regardless of wide frequency ranges or not, my point was that Les Paul has all kinds of strange stuff going on with his heavily-overdubbed experimental music. Particularly, the pitch-shifted guitars. This, IMHO, makes it a less-good choice to demonstrate the use of EQ, because of all the other distracting "studio magic" that is happening at the same time. Someone who is just learning what EQ is and what it can do, might think that using a "4k EQ" can cause a guitar to sound like Les Paul's guitars, and that's not the case at all. Most of what we're hearing in that recording is not the result of EQ, it's the result of other techniques like tape speed manipulation.
A sound cannot be "iconic." Only Imagery is iconic - i.e., a person or thing whose Image is famous, usu. with the implication that it has become emblematic. (The word Icon, in orginal Greek, MEANS Image.) In addition to being the most overused word on RUclips, Iconic is also, by far, the most MISused - misusers seeming to believe it means simply "widely known," "instantly recognizable," "memorable," etc., without specific and sole reference to imagery. Increasingly, too, it is being employed, mistakenly, as a simple synonym of "very famous." This case of misuse has spiraled due to the RUclips Feedback Loop - wherein video-makers parrot and propagate each other's speech errors. A troubling consequence of such wide misuse is that dictionaries - as a matter of long-held policy (now in need of revision in this age of the viral Internet, for obvious reasons) - will update definitions to reflect vernacular usage, setting up a slippery slope towards our language's ultimate debasement.
I attended a Burl event yesterday at East West Studios (formerly United Western Recorders) and I got to tour three different studio rooms. My favorite was studio room #3. The Beach Boys Pet Sounds room.
That sounds amazing!
When people ask me what EQ is, I tell them it's the tone control knobs on your stereo, and they understand it right away.
I think it's quite safe to say that some sort of EQ was used on pretty much all recorded music that features electric instruments.
Most amps had some sort of EQ, even if it was just some tilt type.
And let's be fair - initial reason to use EQ was to compensate for technical deficiencies or poor acoustics.
Then it was mostly creatively abused to make certain sounds sit better in the mix, increase headroom and make sounds that would be impossible without EQ.
And with all vintage gear hype (hint, it's not the gear, it's the process and general zeitgeist) I am quite sure most of engineers in the 50s and 60s would gladly trade their fully stacked racks for a laptop with decent DAW and plugins.
Interesting! I enjoy learning about the history of music and recording gear
@9:02 So true!
Now i finally recognise those old compressors
The reason as to why they still like to use or emulate analog eq is wrong and close. It’s oposite, certain analog gear has the specific sound/feel based on the harmonic distortion in analog gear that engineers try to replicate but buying the same gear.
Good video. Thanks.
But different digital EQ (Analog emulated) had different sound
She meant different units, not model I guess?
Yes, to be clear I meant that in regard to EQ model plugins vs their hardware units. Not different EQ models compared to each other. I hope that makes sense!
Great documentary!
Genuinely good video, keep it up
But please CHILL on the ads
Adblocker
Didn’t realize this was a Universal Audio advertisement..
It is certainly not because then I’d be getting paid lol they just happen to be a significant company historically
@ No mention of Rupert Neve then?
@@Benprogfuse He farted at one point in time, he shouldn't be in a documentary of this nature. Immature line of enquiry on your part.
@@southhour5241 Or uninformed response on your part. Rupert Neve contributed heavily to the enhancement of EQ design. Especially in parametric EQ and proportional Q development.
He also collaborated with Lester Paul on some of these earlier designs. I would recommend researching him.
@@Benprogfuse It’s a pretty good introduction. But there’s a lot of gaps (no Joe Meek, Rupert Neve - as stated - and, of course, George Martin and the Beatles were up there with The Beach Boys in using EQ creatively). So sometimes the way things are put is a little misleading. To say ‘eq was a big part of Talking Heads, Madonna’ etc is absolutely true. But by the late 60s, eq was a big part of every recording, even direct to disk and 2 -track orchestral stuff. But pop music? Eq was as basic as multiple tracks, or compression. I understand that some things and people need to be omitted for length. But there does seem to be a strange hyperfocus on Bill Putnam ad if the UA company history page is used as the primary source. Don’t get me wrong, Putnam was very important and I’ve used gear he created since about 1987 when I first worked in a big studio. But he was one of many. He stood on the shoulders of giants and he also had a very respectable cohort of engineers and designers who contributed just as much.
So, the content is great. But it might have been a good idea to run the video past a pro engineer who’s been around long enough to know much of the history and what to emphasise.
The BSS bottom left last photo is a compressor. 😉
Oh dear. Out of curiousity, I listened to Les Paul "Lover". Ouch. Do you mean he put a 4k EQ on it before shifting the pitch, or after? No matter, to me there's no way to evaluate the EQ because of the massive distraction of those dreadful "Chipmunks" octave-shifted guitar overdubs. Les Paul was a technical innovator in the studio, but man, the results were hard to listen to! Surely there are other examples of early EQ use which are not as sonically obnoxious?
You're looking at his decisions from our POV.
Most sound reproducing equipment/chains in his time was most likely not capable of reproducing such wide frequency ranges, as we have available today. I would say that the brilliant high end that we are used to today, was not achievable then.
So abusing EQ in such a way would make your music pop out of the speakers more.
@69vrana Regardless of wide frequency ranges or not, my point was that Les Paul has all kinds of strange stuff going on with his heavily-overdubbed experimental music. Particularly, the pitch-shifted guitars. This, IMHO, makes it a less-good choice to demonstrate the use of EQ, because of all the other distracting "studio magic" that is happening at the same time. Someone who is just learning what EQ is and what it can do, might think that using a "4k EQ" can cause a guitar to sound like Les Paul's guitars, and that's not the case at all. Most of what we're hearing in that recording is not the result of EQ, it's the result of other techniques like tape speed manipulation.
Is this human narration?
Yes, I am human 😂
@JC20XX Even if it were AI, it would just be copied from human speech or you would not likely understand it.🤔
A sound cannot be "iconic." Only Imagery is iconic - i.e., a person or thing whose Image is famous, usu. with the implication that it has become emblematic. (The word Icon, in orginal Greek, MEANS Image.)
In addition to being the most overused word on RUclips, Iconic is also, by far, the most MISused - misusers seeming to believe it means simply "widely known," "instantly recognizable," "memorable," etc., without specific and sole reference to imagery. Increasingly, too, it is being employed, mistakenly, as a simple synonym of "very famous."
This case of misuse has spiraled due to the RUclips Feedback Loop - wherein video-makers parrot and propagate each other's speech errors.
A troubling consequence of such wide misuse is that dictionaries - as a matter of long-held policy (now in need of revision in this age of the viral Internet, for obvious reasons) - will update definitions to reflect vernacular usage, setting up a slippery slope towards our language's ultimate debasement.