Assuming EQ on the master.

[the dub lemon]

Often in the process of making a tune I decide to bounce it down to give it a listen, often for this purpose I'll stick and eq and limiter on the master to get it sounding a bit nicer and louder to compare with other tracks. Often a tiny bit of subtle eq on th master makes all the difference so what I'm wander is when I should at the point turn the eq off then go and try and eq and adjust the mix of the various elements to try and get it closer to the sound which I like with the eq on the master or is it standard practice to think that if that sound can be achieved with some eq on the master I'll leave that to the end of the mixdown/the mastering engineer?

I know that generally the mixdown should be as good as possible with out master processing but at the same time I'm thinking that eqing the whole sound together gives it that little but more cohesion by adjusting the sound as one rather than individual parts.

So what are your feelings on this, eq the master and listen to it then turn the eq off and try and recreate or if it can be eqed to sound nice then leave that to some master eqing at the end?

[nowaysj]

I've never made it that far in a toon, so discount my advice, but yes, no and both, in no particular order. Master level eq is one of the things that can bring ALL the elements together a bit, but I don't see that it is harmful to learn a bit from that eq curve about what needs to happen just volume wise, and eq wise in the subcomponents of your mix.

[infrasound]

I always try and get the tune sounding as good as possible without any master EQ. I find constantly referencing other really well mixed tunes helps a lot in seeing what frequencies might be lacking / overpowering. Then at the end once everything is mixed I'll come back to the tune later and find that the mix still isn't perfect (often lacking in the low-mids). This is when I start EQing / using izotope ozone's multiband exciter in an attempt to rectify any problems. It's not ideal but sometime's it's so hard to get a perfect sounding mix, during the mixing stage if you know what i mean!?

I guess what you're saying about just testing a master EQ during the mix might be a good idea yeah just to see whether it does sound better a little brighter or whatever but I'd definitely never mix with the EQ constantly on...

[paradigm_x]

I always use a master eq and a compressor doing 1-2dB of gelling compression.

The reason for the EQ is two fold. You can use your nicest/cpu intensive one on everything, and (i) boost the tops and the bass, classic smile EQ. I use UAD helios fwiw.

You then find you prob dont need to boost the highs/bass on ten other channels, saving CPU and reducing phasing artefacts. Obv use eq on channels as and when required.

I got this tip from a pro studio chappy on teh UAD forums, a kind of mixing obackwards idea. He uses an analogue GML eq but the principle remains. Master EQ, then group EQ, then finally individual channel EQ if necessary. Works wonders IMO.

[Depone]

I always try and get the tune sounding as good as possible without any master EQ.

I do this, but also see paradigm x's point too

[nowaysj]

This is fucking counterintuitive like a motherfuck. But interesting, very very interesting (evil laugh, stroke cat).

These counterintuitive little tricks take a lifetime to learn in isolation. Or a couple of minutes on the interwebz. Keep these gems a flowin.

[Sirius]

i wouldn't EQ on the master channel, but I do EQ the fuckery out of each individual track!
I just love messing with everything. Lately I have been exporting the finished tracks from logic to protools & then remixing & affecting them there. It adds a little something more to the sound quality imo!! Then after that, I import the complete track in logic & try mastering the fucker. Just training ma ears more, ya know!!chea

[the dub lemon]

I always use a master eq and a compressor doing 1-2dB of gelling compression.

The reason for the EQ is two fold. You can use your nicest/cpu intensive one on everything, and (i) boost the tops and the bass, classic smile EQ. I use UAD helios fwiw.

You then find you prob dont need to boost the highs/bass on ten other channels, saving CPU and reducing phasing artefacts. Obv use eq on channels as and when required.

I got this tip from a pro studio chappy on teh UAD forums, a kind of mixing obackwards idea. He uses an analogue GML eq but the principle remains. Master EQ, then group EQ, then finally individual channel EQ if necessary. Works wonders IMO.

This is most interesting!

One question though, if you're sending a copy of the tune to be mastered do you leave that eq on the master or do you strip it off and leave that for the engineer? Actually same question for the compressor too.

[paradigm_x]

leave it on, as long as youre happy with it, and critically, the eq and compressor were on from the start!

If you mix into the eq and compressor, then the mix will fall apart if you remove them. If you slap a compressor/EQ on at the end, then the mix will fall apart, as all the relative levels change. My master bus is always

Nebula Preamp for colour
UAD dBU compressor for a bit of GR
Helios EQ on smile (3dB bass (60hz), 4dB 10khz.
Nebula Preamp (i love this thing)

Ive started adding the UAD fatso after the helios for a smidge more compression/saturation and its lush 'warmth' effect (sort of high frequency compressor) and adding another 2dB high on the helios into it.

This method was one of my 'breakthroughs' you get from time to time.

Near the end of a mix i tweak the compressor so its still only doing 1-2dB GR, as the levels fluctuate, but again this highlights the need for good gain structure.

The dBU compressor actually hasn't got any attack or release controls which makes life easier, but if you use one with, then a very fast attack and reasonable release (30-50ms) is a good starting point. To tweak it before starting you can use a kick drum as good mix of transients and LF energy.

As long as you mix into the compressor from the outset you cant go wrong, just dont add it at the end, youll be forever chasing your tail.

Heres the post that first inspired me;

Group EQ:ing is great! There are no more disadvantages than what Rich states about single problematic tracks. A lot of engineers like to go this route of general EQ > specific EQ.

First EQ your stereo mix bus,
Then EQ your group busses,
Then resort to individual EQ for single tracks...

Well, of course you don't need to do that as if someone had a gun to your head... but it's actually a very sane way to go about it if you give it some thought, and engineers have done it a looooong time.

Say that you as a mixer find that 9 times out of ten you need to add high-end to all elements in a mix. Well, why not strap an EQ to your mix bus and add 4db of high-end to the whole mix before starting, and if something becomes too bright, then just cut some high-end on that specific element instead? This can sound better since you don't get as much phase shift in a mix, if that's not what you like to get that is.

Then you have your groups...
Say that you have some backing vocals that you need to highpass and despite the high-end boost at the mixbus, you need to add some more at a different frequency. Problem is, you have 16 channels of backing vocals. Group them to a bus and highpass and EQ them all together instead. Drum busses can also benefit a great deal from some overall EQ and that will lessen the need for EQ on individual channels also.

Then your single channels...
If EQing your groups just isn't enough and you need to process individual channels to get what you want... then go ahead.

But in actually reversing the process you save yourself a lot of work, time and DSP. But to be successful doing it like this you really need to have quite a bit of experience and to screw it up a few times first.

Do you work like this with compressors as well?

I guess the answer is yes in a way, but dynamics processing for me is a lot more focused on idividual tracks. That being said... I like to start off a mix with a couple db of mixbus compression. I like to smash the hell out of a vocal group or drum subgroup. I like to smash the hell out of everything if I can!

If it was along the lines of 'too bunched up low mids' (a 'typical scenario), I'd be thinking 'who's doing what down there', and head to the track level first (bus maybe?). Would that be a good example -or too 'surgical'?

Yeah, well it depends on what elements you have going I guess. If the thing that's clogging up the low-mids concist of 20 tracks grouped to a stereo bus, it might be of no use hunting down individual tracks and just go straight for the bus. Depends on the nature of the bus and elements at hand.

The thing with that master bus processing thing, EQ or dynamics... is that if you've done 50 mixes, and you notice that you more often than not tend to do certain things. Make that happen from the start!! If you 9 times out of 10 need to take out lower mids on everything you do, take something like the Precision EQ and cut that area from the get-go. Make a mixbus preset for yourself and finetune it everytime you make a mix. Have fun with it, play around!

[Mad_EP]

Hey Ben -

I had always been 100% against EQ on the master... but you raise a good point, and beyond that - your tunes sound amazing... so you are doing more than one thing right. Certainly worth giving it some experimentation.

To be fair, I still am not happy enough with my current EQs to slap on the master, but I got my eyes on a couple that I think would be decent.



Good thread.

[Sharmaji]

not 100% against mixing with anything that sounds good on the master bus-- but i know im gonna want as much separation as possible at the top of the spectrum, as I do in other regions. boosting everything at 10k is fine, it brightens up the mix and certainly in mastering, sometimes that's all that's called for. but in the mix, i want certain things to live at 8k, at 10, maybe add some 12k to brighten up vox post-de-essing and some 14k to get some air out of heavily-compressed drums, etc....

it's definitely something i used to do a few years back because everything sounded brighter and more exciting, but as time went on, i found myself wanting for more clarity in the top-- and thus, specific eq's.

i DO, however, almost always mix into a compressor on the 2buss and i have zero problem getting it to pump. if it's hitting 4db of GR at 10:1, that's cool by me-- can dial it off if need be, but in general, i want some pump and release in a mix. The level of excitement that a few dB of gain reduction adds to a mix can fool you into thinking that it's actually brighter than it is, because you're hearing more dynamic info-- which your ear often thinks of as transients, living at the higher end of the spectrum.

oh and the fatso is the goddamn balls, at every segment of the recording-- works great in tracking to make acoustic instruments sound big and 'recorded,' for lack of a better term. definitely destroys an elements of thinness and replaces it with a nice silky sheen. what it can do to hihats... wow...

[nowaysj]

but you raise a good point, and beyond that - your tunes sound amazing

That's the rub. I would discount this advice, but his tracks sound very good.

I've gotten off the habit of comp or limiter on the master. I've been trying to do everything at track/buss level, with a muted comp/limiter on the master that I just flick on to check every now and again.

Can one of you fatso guys post up some A/B with a few different sources. I'd really like to hear the effect that thing is having. Are we speaking of uad's fatso, or the hardware unit?

[alex_l]

I usually end up with a linear phase EQ doing a 'loudness' curve on my master bus, and I also usually mix into a limiter while tracking. Later I do a proper mixdown and I find I can remove a lot of the EQ / compression / bus FX I have added while I have been writing the tune, and it usually sounds fatter with less stuff fighting in the mix. Through this mix I usually a/b with the master chain on and off.

[abZ]

I am kinda anti-rules in general I mean whatever gets you the best result is the way to go even if someone tells you not to do it. That said I never put anything except a freq analyzer on the master. Now that we are talking about it I would like to put some things on the master just to confirm or deny the reason why I never do it lol

[mks]

Yeah, to be honest, I've never really put anything on the master channel because I would try to do all of that on the individual channels or busses. I thought I would usually leave some of that stuff for the mastering process and usually wanted to keep the main bus clean because of that. I can see both sides though, and I should experiment too.

EZ

[grooki]

i DO, however, almost always mix into a compressor on the 2buss and i have zero problem getting it to pump. if it's hitting 4db of GR at 10:1, that's cool by me-- can dial it off if need be, but in general, i want some pump and release in a mix. The level of excitement that a few dB of gain reduction adds to a mix can fool you into thinking that it's actually brighter than it is, because you're hearing more dynamic info-- which your ear often thinks of as transients, living at the higher end of the spectrum.

This sounds interesting. I don't quite get what you are saying though - compressor on the master bus that causes some volume dynamics because of the attack and release settings?

[nowaysj]

Maybe more of a dance oriented technique, with appropriate attack and release speeds, the track will pump or breath with the beat, just another level or element that is reinforcing the drive of the beat.

[macc]

I tend to mix as Paradigm X says, though not with any compression on the output (just my taste, it tends to rob space). I like having a 'character' plug in the output but usually set flat, maybe just a hint of top and bottom. Group channels are god.

Anyway, the point of this post was to say that do anything you like, but keep it consistent. Chopping and changing - between tunes as well as when making a single tune - is the most dangerous thing. Keep it consistent and you'll learn to get the most out of it, keep moving the goalposts and you'll shaft yourself.

[grooki]

I tend to mix as Paradigm X says, though not with any compression on the output (just my taste, it tends to rob space). I like having a 'character' plug in the output but usually set flat, maybe just a hint of top and bottom. Group channels are god.

Anyway, the point of this post was to say that do anything you like, but keep it consistent. Chopping and changing - between tunes as well as when making a single tune - is the most dangerous thing. Keep it consistent and you'll learn to get the most out of it, keep moving the goalposts and you'll shaft yourself.

this is interesting as some publications I have read tend to emphasize getting each individual channel right in order to reduce the amount of master bus processing. So I have always avoided using an eq on the master, thinking that I should have sorted out whatever I thought was lacking earlier on in the process. I guess each to their own?

[macc]

You're not trying to fix all the individual problems at the master stage; you're just providing an overall character that you like your sound to have, giving yourself something to 'work into'. It *can* provide more 'homgeneous' mixes.

If the hi hat needs a cut at 7kHz then you naturally still do that on the channel and not the master. You just might not need to apply a high shelf too as that is already taken care of, in the ssame way as everything else in the track.

It's not mastering or anything like that, just... how can you put it.... character building. Or something