Mastering EQ, curves and matching

[bkkornaker]

ok, please dont start throwing tomatoes at me yet......

but i do use Izotops Ozone EQ to try to "EQ/Master" my home mixes. But what ive found out, is that the "matching eq" type drasticly changes>

for example.....Ill take a snapshot of SONG A, and match it to my mix, thus its telling me to add/subtract certain frequencies.

Ill then take another snapshot of a different song for reference, and match it to my mix, and its telling me to do something completely different that the first reference curve.

I guess what i trying to say is, isnt there a general curve we can use as a reference, instead of loading other songs an taking snapshots? I mean there SHOULD be a single curve somewhere that most mastering pros use as a guideline, right? I read somehwre that you can use PINK Noise as a reference curve, but i thought that was just for tuning your monitors?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I guess what i trying to say is, isnt there a general curve we can use as a reference, instead of loading other songs an taking snapshots? I mean there SHOULD be a single curve somewhere that most mastering pros use as a guideline, right?

Sorry, it's just not that simple.

Pink noise can be used as a reference only if pink noise is what you're trying to equalize. But, assuming your song sounds sounds at least a little different/better than just 3:24 of pink noise, than that "curve" is virtually useless.

And as far as using another song as a "curve" guideline, that *might* work if both songs were using the same make/model instruments played by the same performers in the same studio through the same mics and same EQs, played roughly the same way and with virtually identical song arrangements, relative mix levels and production design. Otherwise, I wouldn't bank on it.

It's cliche, I know - and not what you want to hear, probably bk - but this is why people keep saying you gotta mix with your ears and not with your eyes or by any numbers. because unless conditions are exactly right (which almost never happens) your eyes will tell you the wrong thing and the numbers will not tell you the whole right thing. And your ears will hate your for it.

G.

 

[Waffleness]

Pink noise can be used as a reference only if pink noise is what you're trying to equalize. But, assuming your song sounds sounds at least a little different/better than just 3:24 of pink noise, than that "curve" is virtually useless.

Well said

OP - Its important to remember you use different equipment to the pro's, so your mixes will sound different accordingly.

 

[RAMI]

Sorry, it's just not that simple.

Pink noise can be used as a reference only if pink noise is what you're trying to equalize. But, assuming your song sounds sounds at least a little different/better than just 3:24 of pink noise, than that "curve" is virtually useless.

And as far as using another song as a "curve" guideline, that *might* work if both songs were using the same make/model instruments played by the same performers in the same studio through the same mics and same EQs, played roughly the same way and with virtually identical song arrangements, relative mix levels and production design. Otherwise, I wouldn't bank on it.

It's cliche, I know - and not what you want to hear, probably bk - but this is why people keep saying you gotta mix with your ears and not with your eyes or by any numbers. because unless conditions are exactly right (which almost never happens) your eyes will tell you the wrong thing and the numbers will not tell you the whole right thing. And your ears will hate your for it.

G.

Your patience is astounding. I'm on the verge of Hari frickin' Kari.

 

[bkkornaker]

i understand........

i am using my ears, cause both curves ive A/B'd against are both telling me it still doesnt sound right......

is this EQ matching tool just worthless junk then?

I try to use it more of a learning application, so i can listen and see the changes so i know what to listen for in the future (and hopefully wont need to use EQ matching)

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

is this EQ matching tool just worthless junk then?

Not to the people who sell it . Unfortunately, it's one of those gimmicks that sounds plausible and useful on the surface, but - as you have already discovered on your own - one does not have to dig very deep to find out that it's really not that simple. Kind of like life.

I try to use it more of a learning application, so i can listen and see the changes so i know what to listen for in the future (and hopefully wont need to use EQ matching)

As good of a path to the goal as any, I guess. It's not a path I'd normally recommend, personally; I think it can be awfully easy to become dependent upon it, but if it works for you - and you seem to have your ears and your head on straight - that's all that matters .

Your patience is astounding. I'm on the verge of Hari frickin' Kari.

All in a days work for Bicycle Repair Man!

Nah, I have my bad swings too. The misinformation just doesn't stop coming and it wears us all down from time to time. And the folks at Isotope and HarBal and the like aren't helping any by promising that the easy life is just a mouse click away.

Deep breaths, Rami - in through the nose deep and out the mouth long.

G.

 

[RAMI]

Deep breaths, Rami - in through the nose deep and out the mouth long.

G.

Maybe I should have never quit smoking.

 

[Massive Master]

I mean there SHOULD be a single curve somewhere that most mastering pros use as a guideline, right?

Mastering pros don't use RTA's** or matching EQ's for much of anything. Much less a "guideline" of any kind.

The only guide is how it sounds, what potential it has, how to get it there.

But matching EQ's on the surface... RTA's... Sure, you can use a 1/f reference, but almost anything is going to have something close to it unless it's pretty darn screwed up - and at that point, trying to match the curve with something that actually sounds decent, well, it's much, much too late for that.


** I know a few guys that keep them on in the background just for the helluvit. But no one that actually relies on one. Just another light show for the most part and no substitute for the ears.

 

[mixmkr]

And the folks at Isotope and HarBal and the like aren't helping any by promising that the easy life is just a mouse click away.

G.

I don't think any of the folks at either place expect you to not use your ears.

For volume matching and ballpark EQ similarities, I've had great success with HarBal, matching prerecorded loops/backing tracks (in 16/44.1 .wav format) in my JamMan looper, run thru FOH, without causing the mix engineer to constantly twiddle on that channel. In my instance, ALL loops/backing tracks were recorded by me, at the same place, similar in style and instrument content. Since I have about 60 loops/backing tracks, it made the "matching" job that much easier and incredibly much faster. But, my ears CONFIRMED that I liked what I did and were the final judge. In this situation, I think the product excelled. I took some of my favorite sounding backing tracks, used them as reference, and went from there.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I don't think any of the folks at either place expect you to not use your ears.

For volume matching and ballpark EQ similarities, I've had great success with HarBal, matching prerecorded loops/backing tracks (in 16/44.1 .wav format) in my JamMan looper, run thru FOH, without causing the mix engineer to constantly twiddle on that channel. In my instance, ALL loops/backing tracks were recorded by me, at the same place, similar in style and instrument content. Since I have about 60 loops/backing tracks, it made the "matching" job that much easier and incredibly much faster. But, my ears CONFIRMED that I liked what I did and were the final judge. In this situation, I think the product excelled. I took some of my favorite sounding backing tracks, used them as reference, and went from there.

I'm glad it works for you and that you're happy with it . But how you're using it is not how it's marketed, not how 99% of the people who buy it intend to use it, and is a simple function that can be performed by far less complicated software than something like HarBal.

Volume balancing (via RMS normalization or perceived level mormalization) can be performed by apps such as Clive Backham's Volume Balancer, or by native plugs such as Sound Forge's Wave Hammer or Wavelab's MetaNormalizer, and require none of the curve shaping or harmonic balancing technology that are the main advertised features of HarBal or the "Matching EQ" function in Ozone that started this thread.

The main thrust behind these gizmos is that one can make their recording sound like "commercial recording X" by using EQ and and harmonic filtering to force fit the home recording to have a similar spectral response curve to the commercial recording. This is little more than snake oil.

It's the equivalent of saying that you can make me look like Tom Cruise by force fitting my body to conform to the exact body size proportions of Tom Cruise. One look at me or pictures of me and you'd know how laughable that is; I might be the exact size and shape as him at that point, but I'd look absolutely nothing like him.

G.

 

[ludovico5678]

I'm beginning to think mixing and mastering is a bit simpler than mix and mastering engineers would have us believe. It might just be one of those professions which can be replaced by technology. Match eq to pink noise, to a favorite recording, whatever. It's just a matter of taste. The future is not bright for engineers in general, except perhaps in the field of tutorials.

 

[Massive Master]

First post -- Waking up a five-year old thread with -- Well, with nonsense. Good job.

 

[heatmiser]

Hey massive...I was sorry to read that you're being replaced by machines. Didn't see that coming. My condolences.

 

[Paschalis I.]

ok, please dont start throwing tomatoes at me yet......

but i do use Izotops Ozone EQ to try to "EQ/Master" my home mixes. But what ive found out, is that the "matching eq" type drasticly changes>

for example.....Ill take a snapshot of SONG A, and match it to my mix, thus its telling me to add/subtract certain frequencies.

Ill then take another snapshot of a different song for reference, and match it to my mix, and its telling me to do something completely different that the first reference curve.

I guess what i trying to say is, isnt there a general curve we can use as a reference, instead of loading other songs an taking snapshots? I mean there SHOULD be a single curve somewhere that most mastering pros use as a guideline, right? I read somehwre that you can use PINK Noise as a reference curve, but i thought that was just for tuning your monitors?

The Matching EQ only works if the mix is already decent.

For example, when mixing your ear will/should automatically create a decent sounding song (as long as your ear has a little experience and it oughts to have cause it listens to music, if you know what I mean).
This decent sounding song would have a SIMILAR EQ curve like the commercial ones.

It will not be the same and it shouldn't be the same but it should follow some guidelines (like the Pink noise you mentioned which is lows and mids louder and then slow reducing the volume of the higher ones).


The trick of Ozone's matching EQ is to use the "Smooth" knob at around 50% to keep it gentle.
Also around 40 to 60% in the Amount Knob will sound correct only if you have a proper mix.

If you haven't spent time to build a nice mix then you should not depend on the Matching EQ cause it will try to mimic the commercial using a bad mix and that will only lead to an even worse sound.

And of course, if the matching eq doesnt improve the final sound then just don't use it.
You are not obliged to use it. All the mixing tools have the same rule: Keep them only if they sound good.

Good luck

 

[jimmys69]

I'm beginning to think mixing and mastering is a bit simpler than mix and mastering engineers would have us believe. It might just be one of those professions which can be replaced by technology. Match eq to pink noise, to a favorite recording, whatever. It's just a matter of taste. The future is not bright for engineers in general, except perhaps in the field of tutorials.

Hooplah and complete BS. Have you ever compared your wonderful recordings to those done by professional engineers or ME's that know what they are doing?

I need not say anything else...


1st post on a 5 year old thread, might be a bot anyway. Still...

 

[Paschalis I.]

Hooplah and complete BS. Have you ever compared your wonderful recordings to those done by professional engineers or ME's that know what they are doing?

I need not say anything else...


1st post on a 5 year old thread, might be a bot anyway. Still...

Hehe you are so right jimmy.

I don't think it's a bot, bots usually have more "general" thoughts, so I guess he is not a bot but a troll.

It would be sad if he actually believes what he says..

 

[soe95]

very informative

 

[TeyshaBlue]

lol Using Harbal or similar EQ matching schemes is like using a hammer backwards.