That's good advice. I've actually done this in the past, when I mixed Sievert's album to make sure the mix is consistent.
What's your view on mix EQ vs master EQ? It's a lot easier to EQ the master if you go for a specific spectrum, but I guess making sure the mix is already good is the better way.
Currently I use 3 band EQ on each channel, and a 16 band EQ on master. I have difficulties controlling the sound that way, especially when compression is involved. Any advice on this?
If you've got a compressor in your chain (or any gain altering device that would saturate the signal), I advise using at least two EQs on the track. One at the very end like Danimal said to control the overall sound, and one at the very beginning. Reason for this being, anything that isn't a sub-oriented instrument like a sub bass of subby kick does not need any frequency action from like 60-80hz and below. Obviously, you'd cut out all the lows from around around that and below with a high pass or something. Tracks that aren't subby will still energy in those low sub areas, so cut them all out. Over time and multiple tracks the energy in that area will build on your master channel and will attribute to a good portion of the muddiness that you might hear in your master channel. So, leave the sub frequencies to the sub instruments.
However, you should be doing this initial sculpting with an EQ that is the very first thing in your chain, not the last. Why? Devices like overdrive, saturation, and compressors (esp with makeup gain) will actually boost all those frequencies including the areas you don't want. Some people actually suggest using an EQ after every gain device to keep it under control, like so:
EQ (cut the sub) -> Compressor -> EQ (cut the sub area again because the compressor will boost it back up) -> Saturation -> Final EQ (cut the sub yet again, but also this is where you do any creative EQing for the overall track sound)
Last edited by an0va (May 1, 2012 1:15 am)