Which master eq for master buss or fader do you recommend?

P

psongman

New member
Hi, I just typed out this nice message and it got lost in cyberspace. You know this happens to me all the time. It said I wasn't logged in, then whammo, and I was. These forums need to stay on track, oh well.

Sorry for the rant, here is the extent of what I need assistance in deciding. I want to put a software eq on the master buss or fader as a plugin. I have been looking at and researching products, like Sonnox Oxford EQ, DDMF EQIIPro, Aplulsoft APeq, ReaEQ, and the Sonalksis stuff.

Now I have a basic understanding of their use on tracks or making songs ready for mastering as I usually record in Reaper, render, then open in Adobe Audition, where I do some eqing, comping, smoothing, and finally limiting with Waves stuff. Which one would be better to start it with, and get the hang of it while setting it while the tracks are playing back?

I know this might start a different stroke series of comments, but please try to respond with useful and versatile replies, OK< thanks in hopeful advance, psongman
 
I don't want to stir the EQ pot - But EQ's are picky little buggers. Especially plugs. I've not run across a solid "all around" EQ plug (not one that I like better than the stock EQ in Samplitude 10, anyway). Some are good at certain things and crap at others. I have one that I use specifically for cutting the 2-3kHz range in the middle information only, I have another that's great for cutting lows in the side information, another that's particularly nice at elliptic filtering of the low end in L/R, the Pultec types (specifically, UAD's version) are nice for certain boosts of program material, but there's a pretty good footprint there (as there is with hardware).

That said (and I hope I don't come off as a broken record) -- If you feel the need for EQ on the 2-buss, it might be best to find out why you feel the need and fix it there.
 
If your just adding a little corrective eq on your master buss, I would imagine your not augmenting to much.

I would just pick one eq that works for you and stick with it until you find something that suits you better.

Out of the ones mentioned, the Oxford or Sonalksis might be a good place to start.
 
I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't want to use a particular EQ on a master buss. Adding some "air", via some 12k boosting might be kinda tough on individual tracks and "getting it right"...just as an example.

After all, isn't that what most mastering engineers do to some extent?... run a stereo mix thru some EQ?

now...if you are sending out for mastering another story, but when you're goofing around on your own....hey..
This going back to the mix isn't wrong... for sure. But sometimes it just isn't practical.

Besides,...that isn't in my recording "rule book" :p
 
Unless you have an eq that is a "must have" that for whatever reason is not available when mastering, what's the advantage in eqing during mixing versus when you can eq all songs in the context of the album? This includes diy mastering and not just sending out.

Personally I like tube eqs over digital for "air". A sweeter top. Digital "air" is more like "gas" or "vapor".
 
masteringhouse said:
Unless you have an eq that is a "must have" that for whatever reason is not available when mastering, what's the advantage in eqing during mixing versus when you can eq all songs in the context of the album?
Click to expand...
It depends upon the purpose for the DIY EQing. Are they trying to fix or create the mix or are they trying to master it? If they're trying to fix it - and it seems like 99% of home recordists believe mastering actually is supposed to be about making the actual mix - then they should put the EQ down and step away slowly before someone gets hurt.

If the mix is actually finished, however, and the master bus EQ is indeed for the purpose of either homoginizing an album of songs or otherwise prepping the mix for the destination media, then by all means, have at it.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
If the mix is actually finished, however, and the master bus EQ is indeed for the purpose of either homoginizing an album of songs or otherwise prepping the mix for the destination media, then by all means, have at it.

G.
Click to expand...

G. that's exactly my point. How can one use an EQ for "homogenizing" an album of songs when you can't hear the song against all of the others on the album, and your main concentration is (or should be) on mixing?

Also what if you decide after hearing the album that you want to change the tonal character of a particular song. EQing a second time isn't optimal. It's like re-heating pizza (to carry over another thread).
 
HI, I asked for replies that would specifically relate to those who have used the aforementioned eq's on the master buss or have experience in that dimension, OK, thanks for complying, psongman
 
psongman said:
HI, I asked for replies that would specifically relate to those who have used the aforementioned eq's on the master buss or have experience in that dimension, OK, thanks for complying, psongman
Click to expand...

Does none of the above comply with the spirit of the thread? :)

I do use the Sonnox EQ when mastering but as more of a surgical EQ before going through the analog chain where I use more broad-stroke types of EQs that I would think would be better suited as an "overall" or tonal EQ. I don't really understand why one would use a surgical EQ (which this list seems to represent, some even calling themselves mastering EQs) when one could address the tracks specifically. Possibly a Pultec emulation would be a good choice over these.
 
I've been following a thread or two on Gearslutz about how digital EQ's are all essentially the same.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/330874-digital-eq-fact-myth.html

Some might be programmed to add harmonic distortion or something, that would be different - but in terms of just changing frequencies, different EQ's can be adjusted to make identical changes to the material. Some might have Q's and such that make it easier for you to dial in what you need at a particular moment, but essentially you can achieve the same result by other means.

I believe it. I always end up regretting the money I've spent on EQ plug-ins. Well, almost all plug-ins really.
 
Yeah, thanks for the last two replies. I know it would be best to do eqing for each track. I have found out in recording the past 4 years that the simpler the better technique works for most situations. I asked because I have read and researched that a lot of studioites do this, but am rethinking that premise.

Of course, I would change the eq on the master fader for each song, hope y'all realized that, as each track has its own timbre and the outputs would be rendered there to be "equalized". I guess what I was trying to find out, is, of the eq's I mentioned which one have some of the users had success with and why. OK, psongman
 
I really like the Sonic timeworks eq that came with my copy of Sonar 2. I don't use Sonar anymore but I still use the timeworks plugs. I don't use it on the master buss though. I don't put anything on the master buss.
 
masteringhouse said:
G. that's exactly my point. How can one use an EQ for "homogenizing" an album of songs when you can't hear the song against all of the others on the album, and your main concentration is (or should be) on mixing?

Also what if you decide after hearing the album that you want to change the tonal character of a particular song. EQing a second time isn't optimal. It's like re-heating pizza (to carry over another thread).
Click to expand...
For the first paragraph, my answer would of course be, you can't.

And to the second paragraph (first sentence), I'd say then that someone made a pretty huge mistake during mixing if that were the case.

As I see it, "homogenizing" does not mean make every song sound the same, it means taking what you have (assuming the mixing engineer was not a complete screw up) and nudging it or massaging it a bit to make it sound like it "fits" with the rest. "Fitting" and "sounding the same" are not necessarily synonymous in my book.

But at the same time, assuming you know you're mixing for an eventual album, someone has got to be wearing the producer's hat and guiding the "feel" of the production to some degree of artistic coherence. Every song has to have it's own character and be mixed to it's own demands, but usually when making an album you try for some thematic glue or even coherence of gear usage to make them sound like they at least belong together. Three brothers may not be identical twins but usually (not always) one can see a family resemblance even if they do not look the same.

Perhaps, just for example, track three sounds just a bit harsher in the ugly mids than the other ten tracks surrounding it, not because the EQ or the mix were "wrong", but simply because there is a couple of dB difference in overall effect exactly because the mix engineer can only work on one song at a time and is human. I would not find it unusual as part of the mastering procedure to throw a *gentile* curve on that track's 2mix in mastering just to slightly tame those mids overall by a couple of dB without having to go back and remix or make drastic changes to the internal character of the mix via surgical mastering.

G.

P.S. One should never re-heat pizza. Leave it cold and have the cold pizza for breakfast the next morning. :D
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
For the first paragraph, my answer would of course be, you can't.

And to the second paragraph (first sentence), I'd say then that someone made a pretty huge mistake during mixing if that were the case.

As I see it, "homogenizing" does not mean make every song sound the same, it means taking what you have (assuming the mixing engineer was not a complete screw up) and nudging it or massaging it a bit to make it sound like it "fits" with the rest. "Fitting" and "sounding the same" are not necessarily synonymous in my book.

But at the same time, assuming you know you're mixing for an eventual album, someone has got to be wearing the producer's hat and guiding the "feel" of the production to some degree of artistic coherence. Every song has to have it's own character and be mixed to it's own demands, but usually when making an album you try for some thematic glue or even coherence of gear usage to make them sound like they at least belong together. Three brothers may not be identical twins but usually (not always) one can see a family resemblance even if they do not look the same.

Perhaps, just for example, track three sounds just a bit harsher in the ugly mids than the other ten tracks surrounding it, not because the EQ or the mix were "wrong", but simply because there is a couple of dB difference in overall effect exactly because the mix engineer can only work on one song at a time and is human. I would not find it unusual as part of the mastering procedure to throw a *gentile* curve on that track's 2mix in mastering just to slightly tame those mids overall by a couple of dB without having to go back and remix or make drastic changes to the internal character of the mix via surgical mastering.

G.

P.S. One should never re-heat pizza. Leave it cold and have the cold pizza for breakfast the next morning. :D
Click to expand...

Dude I have to take serious issue with this. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about!
































Pizza reheated in the oven until it's nice and crispy is often better than fresh pizza.:D
 
Yonce N Mild said:
Pizza reheated in the oven until it's nice and crispy is often better than fresh pizza.:D
Click to expand...
LOL, nice, Yonce!

Well, there's nothing set in stone here, I suppose, but I have to ask: as good as that may be, how can you possibly deny yourself The Great American Breakfast? :eek: Hell, just knowing i get to wake up to that the next morning helps me sleep well that night :).

I suppose maybe if you had a party or something and there was like a whole 'za left over, you could have half of it for breakfast and the other half in the oven for lunch. Then you just have to order one more fresh one for dinner and your set! :D

G.
 
While I understand the sentiments of not putting the EQ on the master bus if it's not for mastering purposes ex. to match up a tune with the rest of the tunes on an album, there are times when I like to put the whole stereo mix through the UAD Pultec just to give a bit of high-end boost, just because the tune itself seems to want it overall, and it's not for any "corrective" purpose other than just adding the timbre of Pultec to the overall mix... Hell, there are times I put the entire stereo mix through a couple of very carefully matched Daddy-Os, just because that's what the tune asks for :D

I'd call it a Character Treatment rather than Mastering or Corrective processing.
 
Nicely put Noisewreck.

I'm in agreememt with the above as I mentioned on an earlier post. If the sound of a particular Eq imparts a quality that that you feel is essential to the overall sound of a mix, then go for it. Same for a compressor (SSL comps are often used for this purpose). Just not so into the idea that a more sterile sounding Eq is beneficial in this context over waiting until one sees the larger picture.
 
OK, has anyone on this mastering part of the forum, applied any of these eq's to the stereo master buss or fader or the rendered master track? Appreciate that input, thanks, psongman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top