The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Who's doing mixbuss EQ?
Old 16th June 2005
  #1
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Who's doing mixbuss EQ?

tetness' poll on eq's got me thinking, how many people are using one across the mixbuss?

for better or worse that's still a taboo i've yet to explore. 2buss compression is a given, because it's so critical to the balances and overall vibe, but eq seems so much better left to the mastering guy, who's got the room and the objectivity to do what's right.

but as always, i'm open to having my thinking tweaked. so who's doing what, and why?


gregoire
del ubik
Old 16th June 2005
  #2
Lives for gear
 
paultools's Avatar
 

I usually do a "sketch" rather than full EQ portrait so that the ME has room to work.
The GML EQ is great for this, but now I use the Waves Linear Phase EQ.
Old 16th June 2005
  #3
84K
Lives for gear
 
84K's Avatar
Rock music lives in the midrange for me... so, sometimes I goose the lower-mids a bit to bring out the bass guitar's frequencies.
Old 16th June 2005
  #4
Lives for gear
 
RichT's Avatar
 

I like to strap the UAD Pultec plug-in over my mixes and give the top end some sparkle.

Plus I like what the Pultec plug does even when it's set to 'flat'.

Cheers,
Rich
Old 16th June 2005
  #5
Not for a while now...

I have an eye on the MiniMassive from Manley..

I want one of those...... (not out yet)

Always wanted (and still cant afford) a GML 8200
Old 17th June 2005
  #6
Gear Nut
 
dsteve's Avatar
 

massive passive for the past 6 months -

even if you run it flat, it still has that "thang"

Old 17th June 2005
  #7
Gear Nut
 

GML 99% of the time for me. Ususally lifting the high end with a shelf. Sometimes a little goose in the bottom. I've been dying to try the Massive Passive though.

-moze
Old 17th June 2005
  #8
Lives for gear
 
audioez's Avatar
 

more like, who's doing drugs in studios these days
Old 17th June 2005
  #9
GML 8200 here.

My Massive Passive lives on vocal tracks.
Old 17th June 2005
  #10
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by djui5
I have no rules and I'm not scared.

holy shiv, i needed that reminder more than i knew. my good man, you have my gratitude.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 17th June 2005
  #11
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84K
sometimes I goose the lower-mids a bit to bring out the bass guitar's frequencies.
what freq do you usually add gain to? i usually end up shaving a bit of 200 or 400 off to clean things up - maybe add a tad of 'air' to the high end, depending.

the closer the mix is, the bigger the apparent difference with ever so slight changes in EQ - same goes for compression. but like djui 5, i'm not scared to use it if it sounds good.
Old 17th June 2005
  #12
Gear Nut
 
vandertone's Avatar
 

Massive Passive to boost,
GML8200 to dip.
Old 17th June 2005
  #13
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Before I even put a fader up to mix, I put this EQ across the 2 buss.



I like to challenge myself.

Than I bypass it and decide which way sounds better.

Than I run the whole thing out of phase but inverted and put this EQ on again.

This time with just the left side inverted.

It tightens up the low end.
Old 17th June 2005
  #14
Gear Guru
 
rickrock305's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher
Before I even put a fader up to mix, I put this EQ across the 2 buss.



I like to challenge myself.

Than I bypass it and decide which way sounds better.

Than I run the whole thing out of phase but inverted and put this EQ on again.

This time with just the left side inverted.

It tightens up the low end.



dude, this trick has changed my life.
Old 17th June 2005
  #15
Gear Addict
 
edIT's Avatar
 

Massive Passive constantly strapped at mixdown.
Old 17th June 2005
  #16
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
I rarely EQ the 2-bus because I'd rather not add phase smear and leave it for the ME who has way better ears, monitors and EQ's then I own and he'll be able to make better decisions about the mix as a whole.

But OTOH, sometimes I do EQ the 2-bus before it goes to mastering. If that's the case I'm usually adding a little bit of top or bottom end. That's especially true if I'm not sure who's doing the mastering or it's an ultra-slick pop thing that needs a sheen and air I can't get from balancing and EQ'ing the tracks and effects in the mix. Since I mix to analog tape 90% of the time, getting the top up a bit before it hits tape and mastering (where additional top brings out hiss as much as opens it up) on projects is a necessity.
Old 17th June 2005
  #17
Lives for gear
 
DirkB's Avatar
I never use any processing on the two buss, but do have a feeling what needs to be done, which is what I explain to the mastering guy. Most of the time I end up a little dark since I don't like adding highs with digital eq's and explain that to the mastering guy.

Greetings,
Dirk
Old 18th June 2005
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Gravity8058's Avatar
 

2mix eq

I love my 2055 on the 2 mix, sometimes before my 384, sometimes after.
Old 18th June 2005
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Tetness's Avatar
I have been flirting with several choices for this.

1. Pultec EQP-1a's (matched pair)
2. D.W. Fearn VT-4's (matched pair)
3. Fairman TMEQ

Been having a hell of a time deciding. Any words of wisdom?
Old 18th June 2005
  #20
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

whatever it takes to make it sound done to me.
Old 18th June 2005
  #21
Gear Addict
 
Fenris's Avatar
 

I have a terrible phobia of boosting treble, and I tend to mix things pretty dark. But all the elements in the mix are CONSISTENTLY dark. I prefer to mix without a 2-bus EQ, and add the EQ later, and it works pretty well.
Old 18th June 2005
  #22
Lives for gear
 

I try to start with a rough dry mix of the tracks, and if overall it sounds dull, or has some overall probelm frequency I'll throw an 8200 in the PreVCA insert. I think the phase smeart of 48 channels all boosting/cutting the same frequencies can be worse than an overall EQ.
Old 18th June 2005
  #23
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetness
I have been flirting with several choices for this.

1. Pultec EQP-1a's (matched pair)
2. D.W. Fearn VT-4's (matched pair)
3. Fairman TMEQ

Been having a hell of a time deciding. Any words of wisdom?
IMHO the pultecs would be the best investment (most likely to hold their value or appreciate). soundwise, that's your call.
Old 18th June 2005
  #24
Mastering Moderator
 
Riccardo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetness
I have been flirting with several choices for this.

1. Pultec EQP-1a's (matched pair)
2. D.W. Fearn VT-4's (matched pair)
3. Fairman TMEQ

Been having a hell of a time deciding. Any words of wisdom?

boost 24k on the Fairman adn cut 28K on the Fearn!

heh
Old 18th June 2005
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by djui5
I use 2buss eq for some top end and also to cut a db or so at any freq's that are bothering me.

I use buss eq on every mix. I have no rules and I'm not scared.
Considering that EQ (unlike compression*) can be completely reversed if it needs to be, I say proceed bravely!

(* - I am not one of these guys that tells people to avoid buss compression, just noting that compression cannot be literally undone, while EQ can...)
Old 18th June 2005
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Tetness's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riccardo
boost 24k on the Fairman adn cut 28K on the Fearn!

heh
I'm hearing that people are using the Fearns to do just that: Cutting the 28K, which is where all the digital chatter lives. It's supposed to make things more anologue.
Old 18th June 2005
  #27
If you decide to use mix bus EQ, my advice would be:

Use a good one. The whole mix is going through it. This is a bad place for a "weak link."

Proceed cautiously. If you need more than a dB or two, you probably need to do some more mixing.

Don't use it as an excuse to do mediocre mixes. Get the mix as close as it can possibly be before strapping on a 2-mix EQ, and then have a specific thing you want to address, like adding a little air, or to tighten things up.

I don't personally use one, nor do most of the people I know. I occasionaly in the past have strapped one on for a touch of air, but not for years. I prefer to strive to get the mix right without global processing. But in the end, if it makes a great mix, and you're not just fooling yourself into thinking it's helping when it's not, then put whatever you need on there and go for it.
Old 18th June 2005
  #28
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Using broad strokes, overall eq. can sound better than trying to accomplish the same thing using channel eqs.. What you don't want to do is surgical stuff that might only be solving your monitoring problems rather than a mix problem.

I don't subscribe at all to "leave it for later." Just don't do anything that you think makes the mix sound worse strictly for volume purposes. If high frequency "air" is needed, you may find things sound much better if you can touch up a few offending channels that you would miss if "air" was left for mastering.
Old 19th June 2005
  #29
Gear Head
 

2 bus EQ

I've mixed using EQ across the mix bus for years. The mistakes I've made with that have certainly been no worse than mistakes I've made in other areas.

One thing that I find consistantly (Bob-ism # 37). If you (as many) work on the track first, then vocals, do your mix bus EQ BEFORE you put in the vox. I find that when I do otherwise, what I have to do to get the track bright enough makes the vocals take the enamel off my teeth (I know you know what I mean).

Another argument for running multiple busses to the mix (as many do for compression).
Old 19th June 2005
  #30
Gear Addict
 
wilcofan's Avatar
 

My approach is to monitor my mix through a little sweet high and low shelf while making all the mix decisions. I'll tweak the high or low shelf at the beginning to get a feel and then leave it alone.

When mix is committed I do not include the high and low shelf so it can be added in mastering.

My experience is the highs and lows need to be tweaked in mastering anyways and this avoids EQ'ing twice. It also allows for the high end to be one broad stroke instead of going for high end on all the individual tracks.

Of course the mastering engineer must have at least as good or better EQ than is available for monitoring!
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump