Looking for the most transparent multi-band EQ plugin

[Humner]

I would strongly recommend going back to the mastering engineer and ask him to do this for you, or even remix and then have it mastered again.

[Richard Salino]

Definitely go back to the mastering engineer. If you don't do that, why did you hire her or him in the first place?

A secondary question: Why does it need 7-10 bands if all you're doing is dialing back the bass? (Which, to reiterate, you should NOT be doing yourself.)

[sleepwalk]

Originally Posted by Humner

I would strongly recommend going back to the mastering engineer and ask him to do this for you, or even remix and then have it mastered again.

I understand your philosophy, but I'm not going to do this.

EQ ideas ?

[Humner]

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

I understand your philosophy, but I'm not going to do this.

EQ ideas ?

Is this a troll thread?

The mastering engineer has put his name to this work, please dont soil his name by running it through an EQ plugin...

[sleepwalk]

Originally Posted by Humner

Is this a troll thread?

The mastering engineer has put his name to this work, please dont soil his name by running it through an EQ plugin...

It's a minor adjustment.

I want more bands to focus in on certain frequencies (sub-bass, low bass, mid bass, etc).

Nobody's name is going to be mentioned here, and trust me, my minor tweak will be an improvement.

I appreciate your view and feedback.

Any EQ recommendations ?

[Richard Salino]

The thing is, an EQ adjustment might not be what the masters need. Maybe it's a compression adjustment. Maybe it's just about changing the order of the processors. Maybe it's something completely different.

The stock Digi EQ will do what you ask. What you ask is not what you need. You need to go back to the mastering engineer.

In reality, time may be all you need. It's amazing what a week or two will do for your perception.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Richard Salino

Definitely go back to the mastering engineer.

yeah, either that or NEVER go back to him ever again! WTF? You pay good money for mastering and then you have to second guess him with an EQ? At home?

That's like going to a plastic surgeon for a new nose, and then touching up his work yourself with power sander.

Why does it need 7-10 bands if all you're doing is dialing back the bass?

excellent point

Originally Posted by Humner

Is this a troll thread?

if only half of these were troll threads....

They say someone who does his own mastering has a fool for a Client. OP goes that one better, he will soon have a fool for a Mastering Engineer.

[sleepwalk]

Originally Posted by joeq

yeah, either that or NEVER go back to him ever again! WTF? You pay good money for mastering and then you have to second guess him with an EQ? At home?

This is my situation. I have more than a few reasons I won't go back that I don't want to get into explaining. I'm not going back. That's all.

I wish I had never brought up the mastering here. It seems to be a real road block. It would be of great help to me if you just said, "I advise against it, but if I had to recommend an EQ for this, I would suggest..."

I just want to know about clean, transparent EQs. Richard is the only one that has mentioned one. Thanks Richard.

I don't understand why I wouldn't want more bands. More bands equals more bass bands, equals more precise control. What is confusing about that ?

I have an extensive collection of vst EQs already. I'm just not sure which one is best for my task. Perhaps one of you will bring up one of the ones I have, or I'll find something new to acquire.

Thank you.

[joe_04_04]

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

This is my situation. I have more than a few reasons I won't go back that I don't want to get into explaining. I'm not going back. That's all.

I wish I had never brought up the mastering here. It seems to be a real road block. It would be of great help to me if you just said, "I advise against it, but if I had to recommend an EQ for this, I would suggest..."

I just want to know about clean, transparent EQs. Richard is the only one that has mentioned one. Thanks Richard.

I don't understand why I wouldn't want more bands. More bands equals more bass bands, equals more precise control. What is confusing about that ?

I have an extensive collection of vst EQs already. I'm just not sure which one is best for my task. Perhaps one of you will bring up one of the ones I have, or I'll find something new to acquire.

Thank you.

Richards EQ won't work for you, you mentioned vsts, and he mentioned the stock pro tools EQ... Which isn't in vst format and it never will be.

I'd say use one of your EQs from your extensive collection. Or try the C6.

[NYCruiser]

If I was going to do this, I would start by trying Waves LinEQ Lowband.


Linear Phase EQ - Equalizer Plugin | Waves

[sleepwalk]

Sorry, I forgot to say, either RTAS or VST, any plugin type, it doesn't matter. I have different DAWs I use, one of which is yes, Pro Tools.

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I will demo those. More suggestions welcome !

[sleepwalk]

Yeah, I've got all the Waves plugins, and the Digirack 4 band EQ II. The Linear Phase might work....

Not sure about the C6. Looks cool but I don't think I want to try to do any compression. Not confident with my compression ability.

Like I said, I like the sound of the master. The overall sound is consistent. It's just a little too bassy. The more transparent the EQ the better.

[szmola]

try with Ozone 5 EQ or Fab Filter Q.

[joe_04_04]

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

Yeah, I've got all the Waves plugins, and the Digirack 4 band EQ II. The Linear Phase might work....

Not sure about the C6. Looks cool but I don't think I want to try to do any compression. Not confident with my compression ability.

Like I said, I like the sound of the master. The overall sound is consistent. It's just a little too bassy. The more transparent the EQ the better.

Sorry, I thought the post read "multiband compressor."

Def fabfilters pro q. 24 bands of perfect EQ. Can be used as a normal EQ, or linear phase, built in freq analyzer, every band can be any type of filter (bell, shelf, etc). The plugin can be super surgical for mastering of super transparent for average use. You can eq left and right channels independently as well as MID/SIDE EQing. And you can solo each band so you can easily find certain frequencies. The frequency solo along with the analyzer makes this plugin dead simple yet highly professional. Go for it. No one will deny fab filters level of professional digital processors. Just go look at the new product forum for their new de esser.. It's loaded with praise, which is the same quality as their EQ.

[sleepwalk]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

Sorry, I thought the post read "multiband compressor."

Def fabfilters pro q. 24 bands of perfect EQ. Can be used as a normal EQ, or linear phase, built in freq analyzer, every band can be any type of filter (bell, shelf, etc). The plugin can be super surgical for mastering of super transparent for average use. You can eq left and right channels independently as well as MID/SIDE EQing. And you can solo each band so you can easily find certain frequencies. The frequency solo along with the analyzer makes this plugin dead simple yet highly professional. Go for it. No one will deny fab filters level of professional digital processors. Just go look at the new product forum for their new de esser.. It's loaded with praise, which is the same quality as their EQ.

Ok, I am demoing the Pro Q. It's pretty cool. Very easy to use and I like the pre and post analyzer. When I look at the pre, the bass frequencies are like 6 db higher than the mids. Even for hip hop, that is not normal, is it ? Though I don't want to get caught up in visuals. It's the sound that I'm after. I think what I need to do is a Low Shelf. Is this thing considered very transparent or does it color the sound ? I'm trying to keep the original master sound, but it's kind of hard to tell.....I guess that means it's transparent.....

I also played with the Digirack and the Waves. They both worked well also and sounded clean.

Thanks for the good suggestions folks.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

Ok, I am demoing the Pro Q. It's pretty cool. Very easy to use and I like the pre and post analyzer. When I look at the pre, the bass frequencies are like 6 db higher than the mids. Even for hip hop, that is not normal, is it ? Though I don't want to get caught up in visuals. It's the sound that I'm after. I think what I need to do is a Low Shelf. Is this thing considered very transparent or does it color the sound ? I'm trying to keep the original master sound, but it's kind of hard to tell.....I guess that means it's transparent.....

I also played with the Digirack and the Waves. They both worked well also and sounded clean.

Thanks for the good suggestions folks.

If the master has been clipped using the AD converters, anything you do digitally won't sound good. You will also need a limiter after the eq as even a high pass filter will clip the output. Once the master has been done trying to 'undo' anything later will invariably sound worse, unless the entire job was done ITB and you can use the original files. This is because the waveform may be clipped, and more processing will add distortion. Also, the final file has been dithered to 16bit and it's better to use the original 24bit.

Try using Ozone 5 on the master fader, a gentle HPF or shelf, then a limiter on intelligent III mode after the eq so it won't clip.

[joe_04_04]

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

Ok, I am demoing the Pro Q. It's pretty cool. Very easy to use and I like the pre and post analyzer. When I look at the pre, the bass frequencies are like 6 db higher than the mids. Even for hip hop, that is not normal, is it ? Though I don't want to get caught up in visuals. It's the sound that I'm after. I think what I need to do is a Low Shelf. Is this thing considered very transparent or does it color the sound ? I'm trying to keep the original master sound, but it's kind of hard to tell.....I guess that means it's transparent.....

I also played with the Digirack and the Waves. They both worked well also and sounded clean.

Thanks for the good suggestions folks.

I'd argue that it's super clean and super transparent.

[sswenk]

http://www.brainworx-music.de/en/plugins/bx_digital_v2

I use this EQ for my home mastering. It's great!

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[sleepwalk]

Originally Posted by Ben F

If the master has been clipped using the AD converters, anything you do digitally won't sound good. You will also need a limiter after the eq as even a high pass filter will clip the output. Once the master has been done trying to 'undo' anything later will invariably sound worse, unless the entire job was done ITB and you can use the original files. This is because the waveform may be clipped, and more processing will add distortion. Also, the final file has been dithered to 16bit and it's better to use the original 24bit.

Try using Ozone 5 on the master fader, a gentle HPF or shelf, then a limiter on intelligent III mode after the eq so it won't clip.

They are 24 bit masters. I will not be trying to entirely re-master from the final mixes. I'm not qualified to do that.

What do you mean exactly by "if the master has been clipped" ? Do you mean that the audio is peaking out above zero ? Or do you just mean that it has been hard limited ? It has been hard limited. The wavefile has that kind of "blocked off" peaks look...Is that what you mean ?

If I am just turning down bass frequencies, either individually, or with a Low Shelf, why would I have to apply additional limiting ? Shouldn't the highest peaks remain either the same or lower ? If they are lower I can just boost the overall level a bit, if necessary...

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

They are 24 bit masters. I will not be trying to entirely re-master from the final mixes. I'm not qualified to do that.

If they're 24bit, that's a problem right there. They should have been dithered to 16bit for CD.

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

What do you mean exactly by "if the master has been clipped" ? Do you mean that the audio is peaking out above zero ? Or do you just mean that it has been hard limited ? It has been hard limited. The wavefile has that kind of "blocked off" peaks look...Is that what you mean ?

It's not unheard of for a mastering engineer, when EQing in the analogue domain, to "clip" the converters by a very small amount when transferring the final mix back in. Because the level is now relatively consistent, it can be a more transparent way of peak limiting than using a digital limiter.

But both digital limiting and using clipping causes the "clipped peaks" waveform.

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

If I am just turning down bass frequencies, either individually, or with a Low Shelf, why would I have to apply additional limiting ? Shouldn't the highest peaks remain either the same or lower ? If they are lower I can just boost the overall level a bit, if necessary...

Because even an EQ cut causes a resonance peak just above/below the equaliser frequency. Hence you'll cause overs by EQing a limited file, even if you're only cutting.

What you're doing is really not recommended.

[sleepwalk]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

If they're 24bit, that's a problem right there. They should have been dithered to 16bit for CD.



It's not unheard of for a mastering engineer, when EQing in the analogue domain, to "clip" the converters by a very small amount when transferring the final mix back in. Because the level is now relatively consistent, it can be a more transparent way of peak limiting than using a digital limiter.

But both digital limiting and using clipping causes the "clipped peaks" waveform.



Because even an EQ cut causes a resonance peak just above/below the equaliser frequency. Hence you'll cause overs by EQing a limited file, even if you're only cutting.

What you're doing is really not recommended.

Ok psycho monkey, thanks for clarifying things for me. That makes sense now. Yeah I requested 24 bit. I'm doing the 16 bit myself, no big deal.

Yeah, what I'm doing is not ideal....but it's the best I can do, unless I want to have the whole thing done over. But I think it really is gonna be a pretty minor adjustment. I've been comparing with other cds and it's going to be about minus 2 db low shelf, something like that.

[gomfist]

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

It's a minor adjustment.

really adjusting the bass is not so minor as you may think - its maybe the most difficult range of audio anyway. so have fun destroying your mix..

Originally Posted by sleepwalk

I don't understand why I wouldn't want more bands. More bands equals more bass bands, equals more precise control. What is confusing about that ?

more bands more phasing and so more "colour" really dont do it.. there is much more to mastering.

i would recommend izotope Ozone as a mastering solution..

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/

but compared to a trained engineer in a normals studio.. really. wait a week as s.o. suggested. your ears might not be as trained as the engineers one..

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Because even an EQ cut causes a resonance peak just above/below the equaliser frequency. Hence you'll cause overs by EQing a limited file, even if you're only cutting.

What you're doing is really not recommended.

Actually the phase change will cause this, or the phase change is the larger of the two factors. I.e.if you raise the peak level by x dB by low cutting at e.g. 30 Hz with a 12 dB/Octave minimum phase EQ at least 3/4 of the additional peak is related directly to the phase change while 1/4 or less will be the filter resonance. Switching to linear phase will lower the peak by 80-100%. Since linear phase has the same post-filter ringing as minimum phase (and pre-filter ringing as well), this proves the change in peak level is related to the relative phase changes rather than the filter ringing.

This is why linear phase would make most sense for this job, for once. The pre-filter ringing of linear phase will probably be less of an issue compared to the extra limiting necessary if he uses a minimum phase cut or shelf.

So to answer the original question: use a linear phase EQ to lower the bottom. Still, watch your peak level and lower or limit if necessary, but it'll likely be in the 0.1 to 0.3 dB range, as long as you use linear phase. And find another mastering engineer and/or don't be afraid to tell him you're not happy.

[henge]

MeldaProduction MDynamicEq, the ultimate to-do parametric equalizer

DDMF: VST plugins, AU plugins, audio software

Both excellent eq's with lots of options.

[sleepwalk]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Actually the phase change will cause this, or the phase change is the larger of the two factors. I.e.if you raise the peak level by x dB by low cutting at e.g. 30 Hz with a 12 dB/Octave minimum phase EQ at least 3/4 of the additional peak is related directly to the phase change while 1/4 or less will be the filter resonance. Switching to linear phase will lower the peak by 80-100%. Since linear phase has the same post-filter ringing as minimum phase (and pre-filter ringing as well), this proves the change in peak level is related to the relative phase changes rather than the filter ringing.

This is why linear phase would make most sense for this job, for once. The pre-filter ringing of linear phase will probably be less of an issue compared to the extra limiting necessary if he uses a minimum phase cut or shelf.

So to answer the original question: use a linear phase EQ to lower the bottom. Still, watch your peak level and lower or limit if necessary, but it'll likely be in the 0.1 to 0.3 dB range, as long as you use linear phase. And find another mastering engineer and/or don't be afraid to tell him you're not happy.

Thanks for the excellent advice Lagerfeldt. What plugin would you recommend ? Right now I am using FabFilter Pro Q. Do you like that one ? In Zero Latency mode, which I guess means it is NOT linear phase processing....yes, I did get an increase in level....in the left channel by 0.26 and the right by 0.19 dB. I can work with that. But I am wondering what mode is the best to use - Medium, High, or Maximum Latency ?

The bass frequencies that appear to need cutting are from 20 Hz up to about 150 Hz, which I assume is typical, but mostly it's around 40 Hz, where the 808s and similar sounds are.

This is from Fabfilter, where they explain the different "modes":

To give you the best of both worlds, FabFilter Pro-Q provides both zero-latency and various linear-phase processing modes. Apart from the differences discussed above, the EQ has the same frequency response in both modes.

To change the processing mode, use the Processing seting in the bottom bar of the interface.

Zero latency mode is the default. While it introduces phase changes, it is CPU-efficient and doesn't result in any latency, so it is the best mode for e.g. live usage. Also, it's quite possible you might like the coloration introduced by the phase changes when mixing, for example.
Linear Phase - Low Latency provides linear-phase processing with a minimal latency. Use only with low Q settings, or when only changing the mid-high part of the spectrum. With a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, it results in a total latency of 3072 samples (about 70 ms).
Linear Phase - Medium Latency is a good compromise between low-frequency resolution and latency and we recommend to use this in general for linear-phase processing. The total latency is 6144 samples at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz (about 139 ms).
Linear Phase - High Latency gives very good low-frequency resolution. If you need to use high Q settings when changing the low end of the spectrum, use this mode. The total latency is 12288 samples at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz (about 279 ms).
Linear Phase - Maximum Latency results in even better low-frequency resolution at the expense of latency and possible pre-echo problems. The total latency here is 24576 samples at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz (about 557 ms).
To conclude, Pro-Q lets you freely choose between zero-latency and linear-phase processing as you go. If you use high Q settings combined with low-frequency filtering, you need to use a higher latency; if you only work on the mid-high frequencies, you can get by with a lower latency.

[Lagerfeldt]

Which of the linear modes you choose depends on a trade-off.

Latency is not an issue here, so it comes down to your resolution needs (how precisely you can adjust the EQ frequency-wise) and the audibility of the pre-filter ringing.

The answer must be: Try all 4 and see which one sounds the best.

[sleepwalk]

All right. Thanks for all the advice people. I appreciate it.

[joe_04_04]

Which EQ did you go with?

[sleepwalk]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

Which EQ did you go with?

I'm using the Pro Q. Thanks for the suggestion. I have some alternatives but so far it's the one I like best. Really easy to use, and to understand, and sounds clean.