You're a random anonymous new poster, things you type aren't going to be interpreted as facts without citations, especially when they're obviously wrong. This will be my last good faith response.Its not a matter of belief. I was simply pointing out a few things you stated as facts. Which they are not.
What I wrote in my post is what I was told at the recording session. There is no mistake and no misunderstanding. In fact I was surprised when they didn't seem to be touching the equipment or doing any EQ, so I asked about it. I was told that they don't typically do any EQ or make any changes to the setup during the recording session, unless something goes wrong, like mics not working properly(which happened on a few of the ~80 channels at the start and so they did need to fix that). That sort of digital EQ is what I was referring to, not anything else. That is generally what is understood by "EQ" on this forum.
That doesn't mean that their setup doesn't include some high-passed mics, nor that they don't do level-setting, etc. The very particular mics they use for different purposes are obviously a form of EQ, as is the microphone placement and angles, and the room itself, which is desired for its particular sound. That's why the vast majority of big budget film soundtracks are recorded there, after all. That stuff is all done beforehand, and they seemed rightfully proud of the fact that they have a lot of practice and don't need to change anything during sessions because everything is already set up perfectly.
If you still think this is wrong, as I said, a tiny bit of research shows that different recording studios and engineers have vastly differing practices, and amount of EQ varies widely. There are even engineers like Morten Lindberg who don't do digital EQ for mixing, handling everything by changing physical microphone placement at the recording venue.
Anyway, I'm done. YMMV. Believe what you want.
Last edited: