Eq in Mixing v.s Eq in Mastering

[J1oNE]

Now just so you know where I stand, I really still don't understand mixing completely. I've done an SAE course and all but I'm still learning.

What I noticed from doing mixes and mastering for a project I'm on that eq'ing in mixing and mastering generally follow different trends specifically with the bandwidth settings.. I usually find myself, boosting with a wide Q (Usually for complex sounds like string sections, pads and such because narrow bandwidth Q GENERALLY doesn't sound very natural, mayaswell just filter right?)

and cutting with a small one and if I'm getting surgical obviously I'd cut and boost with a narrow Q... For mastering I noticed it's a little bit different.. I generally avoid boosting especially with a narrow Q when working in the high end mostly... Anyone have the same thoughts and can any expand on this somehow? I know I haven't narrowed it to a question but I'm just interested in hearing about it.

[SvenD]

EQ during mixing can take place on any one of the individual tracks, groups, aux, or master bus. EQ during mastering is just on your stereo track (usually WAV file) that you have bounced down. You are applying EQ to the entire project as a whole during mastering, not specific parts. EQ during the mastering stage is usually going to be very subtle due to the fact that you are applying EQ across the whole track. When you master the track in a different room with different gear and speakers you are going to hear the subtle differences and maybe a few things might pop out here or there. It is always a slight and precise touch during the mastering phase.

[J1oNE]

EQ during mixing can take place on any one of the individual tracks, groups, aux, or master bus. EQ during mastering is just on your stereo track (usually WAV file) that you have bounced down. You are applying EQ to the entire project as a whole during mastering, not specific parts. EQ during the mastering stage is usually going to be very subtle due to the fact that you are applying EQ across the whole track. When you master the track in a different room with different gear and speakers you are going to hear the subtle differences and maybe a few things might pop out here or there. It is always a slight and precise touch during the mastering phase.

I hear you lol but Im not clueless bruv.

[jrace]

When I'm mastering I tend to use more broader curves than a sharper Q, Boosting with a sharp Q in the high end generally doesn't sound too pretty so yes a lot of the time it will be a broader boost there (or a shelf) I tend to use sharper cuts for hi-hats that are a little too high in the mix. Also good for when there are specific resonances that are muddying things up in the low-mids. It's hard to use a sharp Q for boosting without it sounding unnatural. Better plugins / hardware manage to reduce this to a certain extent but it's never going to sound great when overdone.

Bit confused what to say really without a specific question. Those are my thoughts on EQ curves anyway.

[J1oNE]

I guess what I wanna know is, what are you looking for when using eq in mastering? I generally know my thing mixing wise.. but I mean in mastering it's usually such a basic process sometimes it' feels like I'm missing something. I usually don't work off habit but all I REALLY do is boost somewhere from 2k to 5k with a wide Q... That's almost all i do actually, sometimes if I feel it's muddy ill cut somewhere by 200hz to like 500/600hz maybe with a slightly narrow Q then I use to boost.. I never boost the Low end though, it's usually mixed well enough... But I mean that's generally it, am I missing something or am I just over thinking? Is eq in mastering really just as simply as boosting 4k with a wide Q and cutting a bit of mud?

[themixspace]

If you track is mixed well enough you may not even need EQ at the mastering stage. However, if your mastering in the same room that you mixed in, your not going to hear any problems because you would have fixed those in the mix. You should try booking an attended session with your local mastering engineer to hear how different your music sounds in their room and see what EQing they do to your track.

[jrace]

I guess what I wanna know is, what are you looking for when using eq in mastering? I generally know my thing mixing wise.. but I mean in mastering it's usually such a basic process sometimes it' feels like I'm missing something. I usually don't work off habit but all I REALLY do is boost somewhere from 2k to 5k with a wide Q... That's almost all i do actually, sometimes if I feel it's muddy ill cut somewhere by 200hz to like 500/600hz maybe with a slightly narrow Q then I use to boost.. I never boost the Low end though, it's usually mixed well enough... But I mean that's generally it, am I missing something or am I just over thinking? Is eq in mastering really just as simply as boosting 4k with a wide Q and cutting a bit of mud?

Honestly speaking when I first got into mastering it was pretty much that, boost the high-end (sounds clearer) cut low-mids (sounds clearer) and occasionally take the low-end down. Yes this will make your mix clearer and make it seem louder but it will be taking away a great deal from the sound and the weight of the track.

As I get more used to my monitors and room my adjustments keep getting subtler and subtler, it will be 3 db boost / cut at the most that I will apply when Eq'ing any particular area, I seem to be almost doing the opposite of when I first started with the high-end, trying to smooth it out rather than making it more in your face. adding more low end and shock horror even boosting the mids!

Whatever I do though I can count on one thing and that is no 2 sessions are the same, I will never have the same process twice, I may have favourite tools If I know what I'm looking for from a sound but I will not have a go-to mastering chain.

As mentioned as well if this is done in a room that isn't acoustically treated then you are less than likely going to be able to hear any subtle problems that need to be solved.

[J1oNE]

Ah I see..

I've always known to make subtle eq adjustments (if the mix is decent obviously). Learnt that from my lecturer so he saved me some time with that I guess..

Also another thing, it may tie in with what jrace is saying. How do you go around mixing/master for a mood also. Like right now actually I gotta track I'm making, and I mix from the beginning so I have to face obstacles from the beginning. The mood I'm trying to get is mellow, low key, smooth. Not too much high end, nothing harsh but how do you avoid making the mix muddy or can you make the mastering engineer work for his money a lil?

[epotts06]

To me I feel you are over thinking EQ. To get a mellow "mood" from a song you would want to start with tracking it that way. The beat and vox should be mellow before you mix it. You may not make certain instruments the "focal point" of the track but EQ is the same for each mix (not the same settings but the same process). As for mastering you will only really eq to add high end, take away mid - low end etc. EQ in generally is not a complex processor. The most common reasons to EQ would be....


To increase the separation between audio tracks by seeking to reduce
those frequencies that cause leakage.

To allow contrasting sounds from several mics/tracks to blend better
within a mix.

To alter a sound purely for musical/creative reasons

To overcome deficiencies in the frequency response of a microphone or
in the sound of an instrument.

To overcome deficiencies in the frequency response of a microphone or
in the sound of an instrument.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------

to avoid mud you need to keep frequencies in their own space....and cut lows if its not needed but 9 out of 10 the "mud will be around
200 hz - 600 hz the shelving filters can help you with mud also but you want high's on certain instruments such as hi hats

[J1oNE]

To me I feel you are over thinking EQ. To get a mellow "mood" from a song you would want to start with tracking it that way. The beat and vox should be mellow before you mix it. You may not make certain instruments the "focal point" of the track but EQ is the same for each mix (not the same settings but the same process). As for mastering you will only really eq to add high end, take away mid - low end etc. EQ in generally is not a complex processor. The most common reasons to EQ would be....


To increase the separation between audio tracks by seeking to reduce
those frequencies that cause leakage.

To allow contrasting sounds from several mics/tracks to blend better
within a mix.

To alter a sound purely for musical/creative reasons

To overcome deficiencies in the frequency response of a microphone or
in the sound of an instrument.

To overcome deficiencies in the frequency response of a microphone or
in the sound of an instrument.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------

to avoid mud you need to keep frequencies in their own space....and cut lows if its not needed but 9 out of 10 the "mud will be around
200 hz - 600 hz the shelving filters can help you with mud also but you want high's on certain instruments such as hi hats

Not really, like I said I start my mixing right from the beginning, so ye basically I track it like that at the beginning. When I said I'm mixing for a mellow mood, I mean I'd do things like roll of the highs on the snares and claps a bit, and I'd probably use quite a bit of reverb, probably wouldn't eq the 300hz region like I sometimes do to give more clarity.. more so than normal.. To give you background I like bright mixes, and my snares, claps, hats, strings will usually carry a lot of highs.. I think to say that you can't mix for different moods is almost like saying there're no two different styles of mixing.

Anyway thanks fellaz, I got a bit of what I was looking for, I understand I never really threw a question out there lol, I was just hoping to bring about a discussion, that was more likely to give me answer than a question.