> Hello! > > On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 10:16 pm, Anders Elverhøy wrote: > >> If you are particularly anal about your mic placement, you will be >> amazed of how little EQ you need. > > I completely agree - if your recording room, mics and monitoring are of > an appropriate quality. > D I have to say I disagree. I have heard the advice for years but there is a major flaw in its reasoning. The anal approach to mike placement works when you have a clear concept of how you want everything to sound from start to finish. There is implicit here a certain rigidity, which may work well for those engineers/producers who want to give recordings their unique but recognizable stamp to all they do. Jeff Lynne, anyone? David Hentshell (sp)? Roy Thomas Baker? I suppose you might use this approach to get you into a certain ballpark but you should not remain locked into it. Many Beatle-ey guitars sound anything but neutral but work well for the song and it is the song that matters, not purity of technique. In my not-so-humble opinion a good engineer should observe, respect and practice the technique of maximum placement/minimum EQ but not be trapped by it. One does not always know the sound a song will need when beginning an acoustic guitar part early one Monday morning and the placement may sound groovy in isolation but suck on the finished project. Bob Vandiver