![]() The API does a great job of staying clean, giving you a ton of control, while still being able to add some glue and sweetener in the lows and highs. I would look for something like an API Select SR24 if you only have one master EQ. While I love them for their color and glue abilities, I find them best suited in conjunction with a second, more precise and cleaner EQ. I don't always succeed in that.Ī Pultec is great for broad boosts, but terrible for the tiny cuts, which are far more useful. I try to stick to compression and reverb only on the master. EQ are explained this is a cut and paste from that. To me, it's a band-aid to fix a problem you don't want to address properly. So you write Mix Bus and tune that for GBF (Gain Before Feedback) Im. And when I do use one, I almost always use it extremely sparingly, and almost always for tiny cuts at problem frequencies, with an extremely rare broad boost somewhere. Sometimes it's just easier to fix issues that way. That being said, I do use them often on the master. It's better to make proper use of as few EQ's as you can. So limiting the number of EQ's you use is always a good idea, in my opinion. Plus anytime you add an EQ, you will get phase distortions. It's a sign that you've EQ'ed something else (or lots of things) wrong. In my opinion, you should never use EQ on the master. If you are considering analog and can only pick one, I recommend Bettermaker due to its insane flexibility. Plugins are great in the right hands, but the analog just works better for me. I've never been particularly happy with using plugins on the master buss, thus the investment all the analog gear. The reason is not to torture myself going back into the mix trying to perfect a track's EQ curve via individual track manipulations. FWIW, if I'm mixing and mastering, I will do only broad touches via the Gyraf to smooth out the EQ curve in the mix, and will save any notch filtering, high and low end treatment, or surgical work for the master. Using broad EQs on the master will typically smooth out the EQ curves of your tracks, IMO tends to be more pleasing to the end user. Like every other part of mixing, stick with small movements, especially on a mix bus. Or if your cymbals need a bit of shimmer, use a mix bus EQ. If a group of vocal tracks together create an overpowering feel, you can bus them to an EQ track and cut or boost. If you are producing your own final product, I would recommend taking a 2-stage approach. Mix bus EQing is helpful for making small tweaks to a group of tracks as a whole. ME's may have a different impression of your EQ needs for a track depending upon the original, their gear and room, the reference tracks they are using (best if you provide them), and their own biases. This is a case where you are comparing mixes to mastered tracks. in your OP, you mentioned comparing your mixes to commercial releases. On masters, I use either, any, or all of them depending on the cream. I have 3 analog EQs for mix/master duties:ġ) Gyraf G23-s - I use this as a broad pre-compression 'cleanup' EQĢ) Bettermaker Mastering Compressor - a post-compression surgical EQģ) Drawmer 1974 - this one comes after the Bettermaker and is mostly used for broad touches on the high and low end
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |