dred2009 wrote:I want to EQ the sound before it is recorded. I know I could just record the sound and then eq it, and I know that probably this option is the best. However, I wanted to use an "eternal eq" that would be applied right after the sound being received by the input and before the DAW receive it. This doubt is in my mind because I thought this would be useful for podcasts and things like this.
This is how actually things were most often done before DAWs: mic,, preamp, EQ, compressor and then to output (for example a recorder).
The easiest way to do it is to use a "channel strip" - which is supposed to mimic a console channel and provides a preamp, on board EQ and sometimes compression or limiting. For example I have a wonderful (but hopelessly old) SafeSound P1 which does exactly that and it's a joy to use. Alternatively of course you can chain separate boxes - just like in old times.
The only cons are cost and space used - and of course that if you make a mistake with the settings, there's no way back.
As you say tough, nowadays most people record clean and apply effects afterwards (including EQ) and for a good reason: in almost all circumstances it doesn't make much difference at all, but it allows to recover from mistakes, takes no space and cost nothing or little. And with 24bit digital recording the technical reasons for EQing and compressing on the way in have disappeared.. if anything, any EQ boost could lead to converter overload, which isn't nice at all.
For a podcast, I really wouldn't imagine where the advantage would be. If you really want, you can always run the signal back into an hardware chain after recording. May you want to elaborate on why you think it could be useful?