Sound f/x Need sweeter/thicker sound

[museav]

I really depends on the situation. I feel in general, the use of a parametric EQ gives you greater flexibility in situations like yours where you are talking about fine and specific adjustments, as opposed to sweeping curves.

I find that the advantage of a parametric EQ is that it can address both fine and specific adjustments as well as more sweeping and general adjustments better than a fixed bandwidth and frequency graphic EQ. A parametric equalizer can not only address narrower bandwidths and be centered at any frequency but they can also address a wide bandwidth, low Q change without the band interaction, etc. that might be involved on a graphic EQ. The challenge is that parametric equalizers can be more difficult to apply and unless accompanied by related software that shows the resulting equalization graphically, are not as visual in nature.

A point that many people don't realize is that in DSP implementation a graphic EQ is often simply a 'macro' of a large number of parametric filters with prefedined center frequencies and bandwidths. So a 31 band graphic EQ in a DSP or digital console is effectively 31 parametric filters with defined center frequencies and bandwidths and for which you can adjust only the amplitude. This was a significant factor in early DSP devices as a one-third octave graphic EQ required four to six times the processing of a 5 to 7 band parametric equalizer and that was typically a significant portion of the processing power available. You still see this being a factor in some entry level DSP devices and digital consoles where the number of graphic equalizers available may be limited as they require significant processing resources.

 

[Dionysus]

What you need is some tube preamps or a classic analog console.

There is something to be said there. A Yamaha Digital console will sound, like a Yamaha Digital Console.

There is indeed an element to the Analog/Digital "war". I do find Yamaha Digital consoles lack some "warmth".

 

[TimmyP1955]

The LS9's "lack of warmth" is the least of your problems.

Dump the reverb for now. Add it back once the sound is as you want it. Otherwise it is likely decreasing articulation and overall quality. (If you can hear any of the room in a mic that's cued in the headphones, you don't want reverb.)

If you are stuck with the Lavs you have, try putting them in the hairline instead of on the chest or collar. If they are small and tan in color, you can tape them to the cheek. If you can come up with $100 per actor, the Microphone Madness omni headsets will sound much better (unless you have the lavs on the cheek), and have much better gain-before-feedback (ask for the extra stuff ear loops - the standard are very wimpy).

Ditch the 1/3 octave and switch to parametric. Don't do it on the system EQ - that's for getting the system right in the room. EQ the vocal mics on the vocal bus (group).

90% of EQing is cutting. If something is lacking, it's likely that it's just being masked by something else of which there's an overabundance. For instance I'm surprised at the amount of low mid I have to cut from the MM and Countryman omni mics. I usually make a small cut somewhere in the 3k to 8k range.

Move your channel compressors to Dynamics1, and set Dynamics2 up as a de-essor. This works very nicely for those who get bright as they get loud. (You'll find that the threshold has to be very low before it starts to work - this is normal.)

When two actors approach each other, you need to fade one of them down a bit, otherwise their being picked up by two mics will cause nasty sounding comb filtering. This is necessary even if they are wearing headsets.

 

[WooferHound]

don't really want to add any more of low end back in because it starts to sound muddy.

I associate a "muddy" sound with the frequencies around 250 hz. Just pull the band down a little bit and everything will clear up. I also agree with another poster that you should remove the reverb until you can clean it up to the point that it doesn't sound echoey.

 

[museav]

90% of EQing is cutting. If something is lacking, it's likely that it's just being masked by something else of which there's an overabundance.

This general concept can also be applied more generally. It's easy to get into the approach of feeling that you're "missing something" so you keep adding and adding when it may really have been a matter of not so much missing something but rather having an overabundance of something else. While it's great to have digital consoles that allow you to apply processing and effects to every channel, that also seems to lead some to believe that you should apply them to every channel. The concept of addition by subtraction is often overlooked but can be very useful.

 

[mstaylor]

I watched three FOH guys run three bands. The first guy ran EQs on his mics and it sounded good. The second guy turned them off completely and it sounded good. The third guy chased his EQs all night. He barely touched his board at all, instead choosing to chase feedback on his racks and it sounded like crap. The equipment supplier was trying to help him but he wouldn't listen.
It was interesting to watch three guys take the same equipment and do things so differently and listen to the result. I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I do mix some small events and have learned the less is more theory.