Yes, we should EQ on set

February 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Cooper EQ

Should EQ be avoided on the set? Only when it is not needed.

I’ll preface the following explanation by stating the obvious: Everything about a production Sound Mixer’s job should be done judiciously, whether it involves the use of faders, limiters, choice of microphones, how hard to press when writing on a 4-part sound report, and decisions about EQ.

Also obvious but worth stating: It is rare that large amounts of EQ adjustment are required to neutralize (equalize) a voice, and if a microphone sounds drastically unnatural, then the first actions should include checking the mic placement or checking for equipment failure (mic, cable, console, whatever).

What becomes obvious when setting out to writing about the many complex issues of EQ, is the fact that it will take much more than the two thousand words below to cover the topic.

So, please keep in mind that all of the above is considered when stating all of the following:

How much EQ should we use? As much as needed.

The proper amount of EQ adjustment-large, small, or none-is equal to the amount required to neutralize the voices going to the mono mix. It is the Sound Mixers job to make that determination and perform the task. This is true whether you are a seasoned pro or a nervous beginner. The amount of EQ that should be applied is equal to the amount needed.

Do not be afraid.

Many production sound mixers are reluctant (afraid) to use their EQ. Often, this stems from indoctrination early in their careers by discussions with post production mixers. “Don’t turn the EQ knobs… I’ll do that stuff later” (read this again with reverb added for effect). But the fact is that under-EQ-ing (not using the EQ controls enough) is an improper use of EQ every bit as much as over-EQ-ing is. If there is any use for a Sound Mixer’s fear of the EQ controls on their equipment, it is to motivate the Mixer to be as mindful of not using the controls enough as they are of using them too much.

Times change.

It may well be that on-the-set use of EQ has slowly become more important than it has been. Overlapping dialog (two or more actors talking at the same time) is no longer the taboo practice it used to be, and is now rarely avoided; sometimes it is even encouraged. I should make a t-shirt that says “Overlap Happens”, because you can pretty much count on it.

Overlapping dialog, and the fact that it will happen, is the primary reason that EQ-ing a microphone should be done on the set, when needed. This is because a mono mix of overlapping voices into two or more microphones cannot be EQ-ed later to affect only specific microphones. If any voice is EQ-ed then the others are automatically EQ-ed along with it. Therefore, during the recording of the mono mix, it must be the production sound mixer’s job to EQ (equalize, normalize, neutralize) the voices going into the mono mix.

Use of multi-track recorders (4 to 16 or more tracks) for film and video production sound is now the norm, and the most accepted way to use those tracks is to have a mono mix on track 1, with all microphones also recorded prefader onto their own tracks. But even with all of these isolation tracks, the hope of post production mixers is that the mono mix can be used as often as possible, saving them the time and effort of importing isolation tracks and remixing.

It is also more and more a trend to use multiple lav wireless microphones. If any microphone type is going to need the help of EQ to sound more natural, it is a wireless lav. This is primarily due to placement and the clothing that lavs may be hidden under. But different models of lav mics are often used together (due to size, color, availability, sound preference, etc.), and any model can sound quite different from the next.

If a mic is particularly dull or bright sounding (because of any number of factors), and this mic is put into an overlapping mono mix without being EQ-ed, then there is nothing post can do to alter that mic without imposing the same change on the other microphones in the mix. In this case you absolutely should EQ the mic with whichever available knobs that seem to work, to normalize it with the other microphones, based on what you hear in your headphones.

Of course, I am not suggesting that EQ perfection can always (or ever) occur on the production set, but even when satisfaction is not achieved on the set, much can be done during production to improve a situation, especially in the mono mix, thus reducing the workload for postproduction, ultimately contributing to a better final product.

Isolation Tracks: Pre-EQ or Post-EQ?

OK. So we need to trust ourselves to EQ on the set. But should our isolation tracks be pre-EQ or post-EQ? Thankfully, it is now the accepted standard that our isolation tracks be pre-fader (as odd as it may seem now, even that was often debated not too long ago). But should our isolation tracks also be pre-EQ? After all, since the iso tracks are postproduction’s chance of remixing with a clean slate, wouldn’t it make sense that these “insurance tracks” be completely free from our artistic input, EQ included? I used to think so. But the way that these tracks have most often become beneficial has changed my mind.

When prefader tracks are used in postproduction it is usually not to completely remix the scene. Rather, it is more often to replace a phrase or a word that might have been ruined in the mono mix by something like clothing noise from another actor’s mic (or any number of other possibilities). Therefore, when taking pieces from the isolation tracks to rebuild a part of the mono mix, it is much better that the EQ-good or bad-matches what’s in the mono mix. This prevents the postproduction mixers from having to try to EQ the isolation tracks to match EQ adjustments that the production mixer may have done in the field.

What are the odds?

I’ve heard postproduction mixers who are against the practice of on-set EQ-ing mention that they’ve had to fix EQ problems caused by production mixers, which, like anything else, is bound to have happened. However, of all the times that post production mixers did not feel they had to fix the production mixer’s EQ mistakes (presumably most of the time), how do they know that it wasn’t because the production mixer EQ-ed the tracks properly? The answer, of course, is that they don’t know, because, as it should be, the best work of a production mixer goes unnoticed.

When EQ in post production is called for (presumably very often), it still stands to reason that the EQ efforts of the production mixer, based on experience, skill, and listening, are much more likely to have improved things than to have made them worse. On the relatively rare occasion that a production mixer’s efforts actually made things worse, that would be a great time for the post-production mixers to open their magic toolboxes.

How much EQ should we use? Enough to have the desired result–no more, no less.

Among attempts to discourage production mixers from using their EQ knobs include the phrase, “A little goes a long way.” But this is simply not true with regards to EQ. The truth is, “a lot of EQ goes a long way” and, “a little EQ goes a short way.” If a little EQ is all that is needed, then a little EQ is what should be applied. If a lot of EQ is needed, then a little EQ is not enough and would be a misuse of the EQ controls. You should apply the amount of EQ needed to achieve the desired results. More or less than that amount is the wrong amount.

Monitoring with headphones?

“But can production sound mixers be trusted to make decisions based on what they hear with their headphones?” When pondering that question, consider this. It is universally expected that production sound mixers use their faders to achieve a natural balance between voices, using only their headphones for reference, yet the frequency curve of voices has a significant affect on perceived loudness. So, why should it be different with EQ judgments? It shouldn’t. They are actually one in the same. Other commonly accepted decisions involving EQ are also made all the time, even without adjusting any of the controls. For instance, any time a Sanken COS-11 and a Countryman B-6 are chosen for the way they sound to the production mixer, an EQ decision has been applied. When a Schoeps mic is chosen instead of another brand, based on what the sound mixer prefers, another EQ choice has been made. When repositioning a hidden lav microphone to obtain more “crispness”, another bold act of EQ analysis has occurred. All of these decisions were based on tonal quality determined by the production sound mixer by listening through their headphones.

It’s up to you.

Regardless of your decision about EQ-ing on the set, remember, as the production sound mixer, that decision is yours-and yours alone-to make.

Glen Trew Signature

Tags: