Master EQ question for Michael Wagener

[audiomichael]

Hey Michael,

You've posted that you use the Massivo for your master EQ, and prefer using a one broad stroke of master EQ than an insert EQ on each track.

Going into a mix with this philosophy, do you have your Massivo already dialed in with the EQ when you start your mix? or do you hold out as long as possible before you patch it in?

Thanks

[mwagener]

Normally I get a basic mix up, without the MP or STC-8 in the chain, then I compare to other mixes or CDs for overall sound and set the MP accordingly. There will still be a mastering guy after me to fine tune the overall sound.

[WEAPON_X]

michael,
do you use the massivo's mastering version, or the "normal" version ?
and,out of interesst - if you use the "normal" version, what is your routine for setting the channels ? testtones , i assume - do you use 100, 1k an 10k then or is there any other trick i do not know yet?

thanks for yor time and effort !
mark

[Andreas G]

Hi Michael, that's an interesting technique! What would you say are the biggest advantages when useing your sum-eq so early?
Do you need less individual eqing (also less hardware-eqs)? Does it sound more musical/glued to you? Or is it just a faster way to work?

Thank you, Andreas

[mwagener]

Originally Posted by WEAPON_X

michael,
do you use the massivo's mastering version, or the "normal" version ?
and,out of interesst - if you use the "normal" version, what is your routine for setting the channels ? testtones , i assume - do you use 100, 1k an 10k then or is there any other trick i do not know yet?

thanks for yor time and effort !
mark

Normal version. I just listen, no scientific method or testtones.

[mwagener]

Originally Posted by Andreas G

Hi Michael, that's an interesting technique! What would you say are the biggest advantages when useing your sum-eq so early?
Do you need less individual eqing (also less hardware-eqs)? Does it sound more musical/glued to you? Or is it just a faster way to work?

Thank you, Andreas

Analog EQ introduces phase smear. I find that the least amount of EQ is the best amount. Of course, if it needs it, it gets it. So instead of equing every single track, I use mic choice, mic placement and mic pres to get the sound I want. Usually that means that the overall appearance is a bit dull, so that's where the Stereo bus EQ comes in. I used to EQ everything right away and tried to make every single instrument sound as "good" as possible and then sometimes have to deal with choices I might not like, come mixing time. Without EQ, or minimal eq on only a few tracks that need help, everything seems to be glued together a bit more. You'd be amazed what you can do with mic placement and different mic pres, if you have the time to mess with it.

[audiomichael]

Is this a technique that you've used before the invention of the MP? What'd you use back then?

Thanks

[Andreas G]

Originally Posted by mwagener

Analog EQ introduces phase smear. I find that the least amount of EQ is the best amount. Of course, if it needs it, it gets it. So instead of equing every single track, I use mic choice, mic placement and mic pres to get the sound I want. Usually that means that the overall appearance is a bit dull, so that's where the Stereo bus EQ comes in. I used to EQ everything right away and tried to make every single instrument sound as "good" as possible and then sometimes have to deal with choices I might not like, come mixing time. Without EQ, or minimal eq on only a few tracks that need help, everything seems to be glued together a bit more. You'd be amazed what you can do with mic placement and different mic pres, if you have the time to mess with it.

I like the idea of useing a Stereo bus EQ to avoid to much EQ artifacts. Whenever I used a special bus EQ it was more for a character, like very natural highs or an overall corrections. I also try to get as close as posible to the desired result when tracking but therefor I'm also using EQs. I'm curious to try your technique, though I'm not sure how it'll work. Anyway, thanks alot for sharing this!

Andreas

[squeegybug]

I didn't know this was a famous method. That's how I've been doing it for a while now -- rarely any EQ at all on individual tracks, only a set of Speck ASC-Ts on the stereo bus. Extremely easy, can almost always start from a basic template. A few simple twists usually gets the tone I want on the mix, those Specks are amazing.

Steve

[Jules]

On this subject - I use a plug in EQ on a drum buss I set up while tracking

I use a URS Neve N12 plug in - with some HF 'smile curve' boost to lift the top end - and a little 30hz sub boost for the low end..

I also runs some compression - Sony Dynamic's
& Cranesong Phoenix Dark Essence - tape sound / warming
on the same drum bus (Aux in PT)

So

Compressor plug in
HF & sub boost EQ plug in
tape sound/ warming plug in

Using all that (monitor only) on just the drums helps me keep my wreckless paws off my eq's and helps me to track 'flat'.

As Michael says above tracking flat with no eq can sound 'a bit dull' - I agree 100%

This is my way of cheering this situation up..

If you find you use a lot of HF boost eq on indevidual channels of a drum kit on the way into your DAW on drum kits - you might like to try this method as an alternative. You dont have to use the same plug ins if you dont have them - or aren't on PT - others would work fine I am sure.

[audiomichael]

Jules,
Do you find the graphic version of the Neve better than the 1073 style?