Fletcher: Good Evening...Tonight we're going to have the opportunity to ask this guy who's a college dropout a few questions. My name is Fletcher, and I'll be your guest moderator for this evening’s festivities. First, a couple rules. Sorry, but not all questions are going to make it - that's just the way it is, live with it.

Now back to the "introduction”. (Like one is needed.) As I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Massenburg seems to have felt that formal schooling wasn't entirely necessary to create Grammy winning records nor a library's worth of phenomenal sounding recordings.

Besides being one of the recording engineers that helped define the sound of a generation, he continues to help us define the standards of our industry... including, but certainly not limited to his recent work with the P&E Wing of NARAS on "Master Delivery Recommendations."

While in his spare time he became one of the founding fathers of "Parametric EQ", created the first moving fader automation system that didn't suck ass, and his most recent concoction is the "2020" - a "channel in a box" of sorts that takes the task of recording audio to new heights of ease and accomplishment. So, enough of my blabbering. Here's George Massenburg, college dropout.

Tom B: Do you feel "digital" has changed the sound of EQ, and is one better over the other?

George Massenburg: Jeez, I...uh...don't know what to say... Yes, the digital... environment has changed everything

Fletcher: Well think of something... this is live TV!!

George: Yes, there have been some digital EQ's that have been simply awful sounding, but I think that there are better TOPOLOGIES, at least, more so than manufacturers, per se. Wider words (i.e., 48bit) make better EQ - we're just beginning to figure our what we need for resolution in the data domain.

Harvey Gerst: George, how much does "your sound" depend on "esoteric" mics (Doug Sax, Stephen Paul, etc.) and state of the art equipment (GML brand, and other stuff)?

George: I'm using the expensive mics less and less, Harv. The last record I did could be an advertisement for Sanken - I used a CK-44X or something on EVERYTHING I recorded, and I mean EVERYTHING. But WAIT, it's an expensive microphone, I think. The point is, I'm trying to break out of the same old, same old. I still use my analog chain for reasons I'm sure you understand, but, I didn't use the Doug Sax microphone once this year (yet).

Dave D: I am primarily a live sound guy. I discovered parametric EQ (Ashly ) in 1981, and was sure it would take over the world soon. Why has it taken over 20 years to get to its present acceptance level?

George: Because people have been slow to learn how to use it, or lazy. It takes more work to go in with this sharp "scalpel" and to find the artifacts that cast long shadows over a sound and to just tweak them EXACTLY the right amount by ear. Not too many people have the patience for it, or the time. It wasn't particularly hard to come up with the topology, or the circuitry, but SELLING it to the great unwashed… now THAT was a chore.

Fletcher: There are also some people that should have their 'parametric EQ' licenses revoked. (MHO.)