Multiple EQ's

andrushkiwt

Well-known member
During mastering, have you ever used multiple EQ plug-ins? Now, i'm sure that after some other plug-in is used (compressor, MBC) another EQ may be thrown in to play with the sound after being compressed again, but how many EQ's do you find yourself using for an entire mastering session? Is there/would there be any purpose to having multiple EQ's in a row, each working on different sections of the spectrum, or do you always use the single instance to make all EQ changes? (let's assume you are not using different brands for their respective effects/sound, and pretend its the exact same EQ.) Finally, where does the EQ usually lie in your mastering chain? any standard you stick by there?
 
"It depends" - but it's not at all unusual *especially* in digital when there isn't the typical additional noise to worry about.

Certain EQ plugs are just better at certain things than others. Some are great at narrow cuts, some broad, some sound better on the top or the bottom, some have completely different features or mid-side routing or what not.

Samplitude (I use Samplitude...) is an object-based editor, so there are about a million places to insert an EQ. It's not at all uncommon to use Samp's built-in EQ for broad-stroke correction (too much low end, lower mid, upper mid, high). Specific corrective functions might require another plug -- Could be a FFT filter for VDO whine, could be a notch because the guitarist still hasn't changed his tubes, could be a mid (as in mono) only to tame sibilance without taking the sizzle off the side (as in stereo). Note that "specific correction" would likely be placed pre-fade on an object or as the first EQ in the chain.

Then you might put one on the main buss globally. Once you've got everything "non-irritating" you might want to gently lift the top end on everything. Or if it's going to vinyl, you'd add an elliptic filter on the side info. Or maybe just a little overall low cut. Then you might go back and tweak the previous EQ's.

If you run outboard, I rarely disengage my dual Baxandall (running in mid-side mode almost exclusively). Fairly often, that's a global tweak. Not always, but not never.

Granted - You're likely going to tweak all these in *last* order to first. But that comes with experience. Same thing with where they are in the chain. It depends on what the EQ is doing. If it's corrective, it's almost always going to be early. If it's shaping, could be pre-dynamics or post.

That said - The obvious next post would be "Multiple Dynamics Processors" -
 
I do use more than 1 eq often. For the same reasons Massive said above. In fact I mix in the analog domain and I sometimes use more than one eq there as well.

Alan.
 
A lot of the time yes, multiple EQ's, for all of the reasons mentioned above.

Why would we assume that we are only using one type of EQ? I find some EQ's more suitable for some jobs than others so generally I use a few different plugs in different places. In most cases there isnt going to be a good reason to use the same EQ multiple times in one processing chain - I'd hazard a guess that if you are using this much EQ then the mix isnt right.

As a general rule compression should be done before EQ, other than that I cant think of any rule's I'd like to set myself.
 
Why would we assume that we are only using one type of EQ?

because i understand that multiple EQ's are used for their respective sounds - like i wrote in the original message. i wanted to see if there was some, any, reason for using the same EQ throughout the chain. Also, I only have access to a single EQ at this point. so, i am wondering where in the chain i should set it and if it is advisable to use it multiple times - one after compression, one after the slight widening, etc... or if i should just find one place where its most useful and stick it there for all changes.
 
When I master, which isn't often, I will use one eq on each song to get them all to sound like they belong together. Then I will use an eq on the master buss to eq the album as a whole.

Since most of my mastering is done on projects I mixed, I don't find the need to do a lot of eqing. Not because my mixes are that awesome, but because I don't have a different perspective to work from.
 
If I had only one EQ, I'd put it before the compressor. Why let signal that you are going to cut anyway trigger the compressor? If you are using multiple EQs or a plugin where you can run multiple copies, there's something to be said for: EQ cuts => Compression => EQ boosts.
 
EQ before compression changes how the compressor works. EQ after compression changes how the compressed signal sounds. My master chain almost always has at least two instances of ReaEQ. One before the compressor(s) and one after. Especially with the long RMS times I've been using lately, I find that dipping out a bit of low end up front and then bringing it back up after can get me the leving/glue that I'm looking for while maintaining a bit more of the impact and thump.

When mastering whole albums, I usually do something like what Farview said, too. An EQ for each song and then at least one more globally.
 
because i understand that multiple EQ's are used for their respective sounds - like i wrote in the original message.

Looks like I misunderstood your question there, apologies :)

There are a few good free eq plugins about if you've only got the one at the moment.
 
As a general rule compression should be done before EQ, other than that I cant think of any rule's I'd like to set myself.
See, now I come at it from the completely opposite angle. Anything I can do to get the signal closer to "right" before compression means the compressor isn't going to be messing with frequencies that might not even be there later. Too much thwumpy low end, mid growl, sibilance or cymbal wash (etc.) will affect how the compressor reacts. That said, you can always add an EQ to the side chain** but it's usually better to just have that signal closer to the way it's going to be from the start.

** It's pretty typical to have a LPF inserted in the side chain anyway, especially during the mastering phase, so the compressor ignores the thud from the kick or bass drops, etc. which would otherwise have the entire mix breathing along excessively.

But again, adding another EQ post-compressor to shape that signal -- fair game.
 
Interesting, I normally try and avoid EQ before compression because it will affect how to the compressor works. Depending how hard you're hitting the compressor, wouldn't boosting before compression be flattened out to some extent by the action of the compressor? IDK, more than one way to skin a cat.

edit: Thinking about it, it's probably highly situational as to wether compression would 'undo' some of the boosting.
 
Honestly, I think that's a bit of a misconception. If you boost something going into a compressor, that thing ends up pushing the other things out of the way, or more accurately down with it. That is, the compressor squishes down the full frequency range either way. Boosting bass into the compressor will cause the whole mix to breathe, but the compressor won't really undo the bass boost.

Pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is done in a lot of different contexts. It's very common in things like distortion pedals, but it's also an important part of the way analog tape machines do what they do, and it is a very handy technique any time you are deliberately adding non-linearity to the chain. If you've never tried it, you really should. Put an EQ on either side of a compressor and apply complimentary settings to each (boost before/cut after or cut before/boost after). Play with it. Opens all kinda of possibilities. Some of it could probably done with a side-chain, but it's not always the same thing.
 
That makes sense - it's the way I was taught to record over a few years, never though to question it seriously. I guess there is something to it in that the EQ will affect the compression, but it's a case of logic vs my preconceptions. Perhaps it's easier to teach people this way, walking before running and all.
I have a big mixing project coming up next month, it's on the list for things to try when I have a few hours spare :) Always learning.
 
Anything I can do to get the signal closer to "right" before compression means the compressor isn't going to be messing with frequencies that might not even be there later. Too much thwumpy low end, mid growl, sibilance or cymbal wash (etc.) will affect how the compressor reacts.

I do it similar with an eq almost always pre compression, and sometimes one following if needed . like a sandwich
Eq > Comp > Eq

For in the box, I only use one type/make/model and even on the rare mix or stems use that same one I've been using for a long time because I'm so used to the curves . so never really mix and match
 
Hi, I often use two Eqs before compression / limiting, one Eq for surgical cut / boosts and the other for broader slopes, it really helps me to better achieve the sound that I have in mind
 
thanks for the replies. lately, i've been using four or five total EQ's in the session. They are mostly before/after other plugs that modify the sound. the lack of "bands" to work with is a contributing factor. sometimes i'll make five tiny cuts between 100-250hz, then i'll need to open a new "Pro EQ" plug to have access to more.

again, i'm running through an interface that isn't the best for bass and heavy guitar (so i'm told), so better tracking is difficult for those instruments. i have to do lots of work in the low end to make things sit right. Using a few instances of EQ plugs have been working for me. (to my ears, anyway)
 
EQ before compression changes how the compressor works. EQ after compression changes how the compressed signal sounds. My master chain almost always has at least two instances of ReaEQ. One before the compressor(s) and one after. Especially with the long RMS times I've been using lately, I find that dipping out a bit of low end up front and then bringing it back up after can get me the leving/glue that I'm looking for while maintaining a bit more of the impact and thump.

When mastering whole albums, I usually do something like what Farview said, too. An EQ for each song and then at least one more globally.

This!!! I find cuts before comp and boosts after really helps get things straightened out. AFA gelling a mix together goes at least.
 
This!!! I find cuts before comp and boosts after really helps get things straightened out. AFA gelling a mix together goes at least.

So far, I've only found the need to boost when I want to add some "air" to the entire mix. i do this in the mastering suite. I've been using the area between 9.5-13khz for this. It's a little bit of a battle with the cymbals, however. Otherwise, since i'm using the same instruments all the time, and only the one microphone for vocals, I haven't found the need to boost anything, even in mixing. only cuts, beside the small bit for that roomy air sound.
 
Back
Top