Master EQ

[den08]

Hello!
Just a small question. While checking final mix with Frequency Analyzer, what's gonna be the ideal (optimal) EQ-curve for that? Flat or something different?
Thanks for any help,
Denis

 

[P-E]

If the mix already sounds the way it should, flat.

However, if there's a particular frequency that annoys you that you can't really cancel out in the mix (IMO you always can - this is a good mindset to be in when mastering), cut it, and sometimes you might want to decrease a bit of the extreme lows too.

Whatever works.

EDIT : DAMN, I though you were talking about a master eq, not a spectrum analyser.

 

[crillemannen]

Don't use that... Use your ears...

 

[Dollarosa]

I love har bal for this, and yes use your ears. Har bal allows you to see where there may be problems when translating the mix to different systems.

 

[den08]

Thank you for reply, guys. I tried har bal and manually adusted EQ to make it flat. But unfortunately, it started to sound weird: bass dissapeared, there were a lot of highs... So, I rolled it back.
I'm doing an attachment - screen print of my project and what Analyzer shows. Can you correct it or tell me about any problems?
Thanks,
Denis
http://img262.imageshack.us/f/76692385.jpg

 

[jimwilbourne]

I mean. to be honest. first of all, the mix has to be balanced correctly.
so, I do 2 different EQs.
one on my mix and then one in my master.
the first to make sure everything is sitting correctly and to fix any ill freq.
and the second to add character and to draw my master together with the other songs being mastered with it.

don't trust the analyzer over your ears.
the analyzer is only a tool that can help you out. if something sounds wrong to your ears and on most systems, fix it.

also, using a couple of reference songs will help.

 

[derfbonker]

Your ears are your best friends in this case, but if you don't trust them how about you load up a good reference mix, and check that in the analyzer. My bet, it won't be even close to flat. . .

 

[LeSedna]

Im on my phone so i cannot see well the pictures but it seems to me there are too much highs. I cannot be too sure it may depend on the fft analyzer you used. Usually it decreases more. If actually this is the case, Amplitudes on high frequencies are less important than low frequency ones so dont try to make a fft actually flat to the highest frequencies.

Try comparing to a mix from a record you like ?

 

[den08]

Im on my phone so i cannot see well the pictures but it seems to me there are too much highs. I cannot be too sure it may depend on the fft analyzer you used. Usually it decreases more. If actually this is the case, Amplitudes on high frequencies are less important than low frequency ones so dont try to make a fft actually flat to the highest frequencies.

Try comparing to a mix from a record you like ?

Yes, I tried EQuing highs using 6db guide (slope down)

>>>Try comparing to a mix from a record you like ?

That's what I am doing, actually. Ozone4 has a EQ-matching function (when you got to do snapshots of the reference track and yours and then make an adjustment).

I would better upload the track, so there would be a possibility to say something specific, right?
http://www.fileshost.com/download.php?id=53FBEE5B1

 

[reg3n]

all eq curve tools are to be used slightly, abusing it makes the thing sound weird and shitty, my opinion is: let the plugin draw the curve, look at it, and if there's something obviously wrong, work on that, but don't go using the match function, it kind'a makes you think things sound good but you're always gonna get better results with your ears. Real results.

 

[waltz mastering]

Use your ears...

...

 

[pikachu69]

Thank you for reply, guys. I tried har bal and manually adusted EQ to make it flat. But unfortunately, it started to sound weird: bass dissapeared, there were a lot of highs... So, I rolled it back.
I'm doing an attachment - screen print of my project and what Analyzer shows. Can you correct it or tell me about any problems?
Thanks,
Denis
http://img262.imageshack.us/f/76692385.jpg

If you are using Har-Bal you must remember this is still just an EQ and making the spectrum 'look flat' is just going to be applying some EXTREME EQ if your track wasn't relatively flat to begin with. This WILL make it sound bad but its no fault of Har-Bal. What this tells you is you are not mixing flat.
If you mix down stems of your mix and look at each of those in Har-Bal you will find the instrument/s that are causing the problems. (put your track up behind as a reference track. you will see where instruments line up in the overall spectrum)
Some times big peaks in Har-Bal can also be a sign of an instrument being to loud in the mix, not an EQ problem.

Once you made it look flat, what instrument suffered the most?
By turning the eq on and off you can gauge what instrument is being effected the most by the EQ.
now go back to your mix, try to fix then re look in Har-Bal to see if it looks different/better.
Keep doing this until your mix is as flat as you can get it, then use Har-Bal as an EQ as your first step in mastering and you will have a mix that will translate well.

Can you post a Har-Bal screenshot?

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

The spectrum analyzer of your mix should definitely NOT be flat (be it logarithmic or linear).

 

[Force666]

Without vocals it should look pretty mid scooped, and have a lot of added mids during vocal sections.

That's making a long story, short.

 

[pikachu69]

Having a flat Har-Bal spectrum is not the same as having a flat spectrum analyzer response.
In fact the term FLAT may not be the best word to use as there will always be variances in the frequency plot, but what I mean by flat is there should not be any areas that 'stick out' more than others.
Let me post a few reference tracks from well known mixes to show what I mean. I tried to get a reasonable cross reference of bands from the last few years.

The band and track title can be found at the top left of each pic.

Some tracks (machine Head/As I lay dying for example) is my idea of 'almost flat' others have a few peaks and dips (Cavalera conspiracy/StoneSour) that need to be fixed.
other wise you can see a reasonable trend amongst the mixes.

Hope this helps.

 

[den08]

Thanks guys for your answers. I really appreciate your help.

Can you post a Har-Bal screenshot?

 

[pikachu69]

What resolution do you have Har-Bal set to?
I am talking about the settings in the bottom right hand corner.(1 3 6 12) Its best to be set to 12 for most cases.

 

[den08]

What resolution do you have Har-Bal set to?
I am talking about the settings in the bottom right hand corner.(1 3 6 12) Its best to be set to 12 for most cases.

Unfortunately, i can not choose resolution parameter. i got limiter gain reduction meter and then plots toggling. Is that because of v.2.0?

 

[pikachu69]

It could be, It been too long since I used version 2.0 sorry. Version 2.3 has been around for a while, free up grade for registered users.
Well worth it as it has some other great functions like the 'air' slider, basically an M/S controller that increases the S portion to give more width.