Mix bus EQ/processing best practices

[mervv]

I have a question for any mastering engineers or other wise sages

I was looking at the TDR SlickEQ Mastering edition and was considering picking it up because I use a few other TDR plugins and like them a lot, and this one has some nice features.

Here's the manual for reference

But then I got to thinking about whether applying some of the processing it can do (especially stuff like the per-band stereo control) at the mixing stage would be inconsiderate of the mastering engineer, like jumping the gun and doing something that they should be doing or might prefer just to communicate with me about and apply themselves.

Obviously I would want to apply it very carefully and subtly, and I realize it mostly comes down to whether the mixing decisions actually make it better or make a mess, but I'm interested more in the "best practices" in terms of professionalism and being a good client.

It's related to how I've lately been less afraid to do mix bus processing in the mixing stage, stepping out of my comfort zone since I feel I've recently made significant steps toward making mixes I'm happy with at the level of individual tracks and group buses. I'm now generally less afraid to do some saturating, a more EQ, some Airwindows stuff like Channel 9, etc.

Would you be annoyed if you received a mix that had already been processed in this sort of way? Any particular things to avoid or watch out for? Besides the obvious things that have been repeated ad nauseam like excessively wonky stereo shit that kills translate-ability and so on

[Lost to the Void]

Whilst I generally think, providing you know what you are doing, adding stuff to the mastering bus is fine and even recommended it.

I don't advocate EQ on the master bus.
To me, its basically means you have failed to mix correctly, if you think you need EQ on your whole mix, then adjust the offending channel. It is always less destructive doing so.
Mastering engineers do the whole mix as we have no choice. Unless we get to do stem mastering.
As a mastering engineer is partly accepting the philosophy that all changes are destructive when acting on the whole mix. So you have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each decision.

I mean, sure, fine, EQ your master bus.
But to me, if you do so, you are just admitting failure.

[Merah]

I mean, sure, fine, EQ your master bus.
But to me, if you do so, you are just admitting failure.

Meh, I have had some great results from fairly heavy carving of the master bus eq.

[mindstuff]

I mean, sure, fine, EQ your master bus.
But to me, if you do so, you are just admitting failure.

Then what's a Pultec for? IMO, EQ wherever you want. I prefer EQ'ing on individual tracks first (in the context of the entire mix), then busses, then on the 2buss but the moves become much smaller. And to some extent I do agree that if you can't fix it on a buss or 2buss then go back to the individual tracks and fix it there. But wtf do I know .

[terryfalafel]

Pultec is a channel eq. It is mono! To find two vintage pultec eqs which would match adequately for master bus processing would be nigh on impossible.

Or have I missed your point?

[mindstuff]

Pultec is a channel eq. It is mono! To find two vintage pultec eqs which would match adequately for master bus processing would be nigh on impossible.

Or have I missed your point?

https://www.manley.com/pro/speq
My point is there are lots of hardware eqs used to change the tone of (or even color) an entire mix. No matter what you do to the mix you won't get the same results.

[Lost to the Void]

Pultec is a channel eq. It is mono! To find two vintage pultec eqs which would match adequately for master bus processing would be nigh on impossible.

Or have I missed your point?

https://www.manley.com/pro/speq
My point is there are lots of hardware eqs used to change the tone of (or even color) an entire mix. No matter what you do to the mix you won't get the same results.

Like I said, sure, fine, EQ your master buss.
There is a difference between tone and shaping, of course.

I would also say that a common return to sender issue I have with mixes in the mastering room, is phase issues, transient smearing, resonance and harshness, and pre ringing, usually as a result of EQ on the master buss, as even the smallest change to a full mix can have all kinds of implications. It's generally why, in mastering, you usually want to do the minimal amount of distortion/processing you can (when considering all changes to a full mix as distortion), to achieve a balanced mix.
I tend to approach most mixing problems from a mastering mindset.

Be aware of the problems you are introducing.
If you understand them and how to compensate and avoid (or make use of) then yeah, go ahead. I mean you can literally just apply that as a blanket philosophy for any part of the mix process.

I generally prefer to teach best practice.
If most people saw my mixbus chain they would probably call me a fuckwit, as I do some ludicrous things.
Though even then, I never EQ, but I mix in to my processing from the beginning, so it generally doesn't need EQ on the master buss to get it balanced....
Well, that's not strictly true, once I take it into the mastering room it generally needs a little cleanup, but perfect mixes are rare.

[Lost to the Void]

I have a question for any mastering engineers or other wise sages

I was looking at the TDR SlickEQ Mastering edition and was considering picking it up because I use a few other TDR plugins and like them a lot, and this one has some nice features.

Here's the manual for reference

But then I got to thinking about whether applying some of the processing it can do (especially stuff like the per-band stereo control) at the mixing stage would be inconsiderate of the mastering engineer, like jumping the gun and doing something that they should be doing or might prefer just to communicate with me about and apply themselves.

Obviously I would want to apply it very carefully and subtly, and I realize it mostly comes down to whether the mixing decisions actually make it better or make a mess, but I'm interested more in the "best practices" in terms of professionalism and being a good client.

It's related to how I've lately been less afraid to do mix bus processing in the mixing stage, stepping out of my comfort zone since I feel I've recently made significant steps toward making mixes I'm happy with at the level of individual tracks and group buses. I'm now generally less afraid to do some saturating, a more EQ, some Airwindows stuff like Channel 9, etc.

Would you be annoyed if you received a mix that had already been processed in this sort of way? Any particular things to avoid or watch out for? Besides the obvious things that have been repeated ad nauseam like excessively wonky stereo shit that kills translate-ability and so on

I just realised you were talking about this from a receiving from a mastering engineer perspective.

So in my job, my only real concern is the quality of the mix.
Does the mix need balancing?
How are the dynamics?
Does it meet the technical requirements appropriate to its final format ie vinyl, cassette etc.
Most mixes will require some kind of balancing, mix balancing is the most meat and potatoes common work I am doing.
So then my next concern is how much work do I need to do to get that mix balanced. And that will be the main deciding factor between me doing the job or sending the work back with productions notes to address the problem.
I base this assessment on how much destructive work I am doing.
All work in mastering is some kind of change to the original mix. And as it is only on the stereo mix, all change is essentially destructive, you can't isolate a problem to a fine level as there will always be crossover between elements. So fixing a resonant high-hat issue, for example, may negatively effect the upper detail in a vocal part.
If I can't find an acceptable compromise between the fix and the destructive element, then I will talk to the artist or mix engineer to discuss where to go next. Either a mix fix or accepting some level of "damage".

So that being said, I don't really care how you get to a good mix if you give me a good mix. If it sounds great, and there are no issues, or none that can't be fixed without causing unacceptable problems, then all is fine.
However if there are problems, and they are problems caused by a mix buss process, then usually those are the hardest to correct, and they can result in a return to sender issue. And that means you will have to pay twice to get the tune Mastered.
The two most common mix bus issues are generally EQ or dynamics related. EQ problems will usually be phase issues, transient smearing, pre-ringing or resonance, or just generally bad balancing that can't be fixed with further mastering EQ without exacerbating the problem further.
Phase issues can be problematic when dealing with vinyl in particular. And frequency specific phase rotation is pretty tricky to get right.
Transient issues can be fixed, but again sometimes, as we are on the 2 bus, fixing those transients may futz others, and frequency specific transient work cna be hit and miss on the stereo mix.
Pre ringing can't really be fixed, sometimes it can be masked. But trying to remove it means futzing with everything that occupies that frequency.
Resonance issues are generally easier to deal with these days.

So the simple answer is, if you are making great mixes, however you get there is however you get there.

If you are going to process your master buss, in my opinion the best practice is to mix into your mix buss chain from the get go. Or during the formative part of producing that track. As you mix will be self adjusting to all the stuff you have on the master. Obviously you can't premix into an EQ (unless you are specifically using the sound of an EQ for tone), as generally when waking EQ on the mix bus, it is to correct a mix problem or change mix bias.

[Oktagon]

Interesting discussion.

I must admit I'm pretty bad for applying generous eq to the master and have always felt like I'm doing something 'wrong'. The reason it happens is that typically my rough mixes are tuned together during the initial phase, so everything is relatively balanced.

Then when I start comparing to reference tracks, I realise there are broad issues (typically I end up applying a smile eq) that can be applied without breaking the mix. So if I was to apply this fix to individual tracks, I'd effectively be copying and pasting the same eq to each track.

On the other hand, I can see value in the discipline of trying to minimise the amount of work being done on the master.

Also if I was going to send something for professional mastering, I assume the engineer would prefer only the 'creative' mix bus processing applied. But then I feel like I'm giving the engineer too much work to do if my mix bus radically changes the sound. I'm probably overthinking it to be honest.

[Lost to the Void]

Then when I start comparing to reference tracks, I realise there are broad issues (typically I end up applying a smile eq) that can be applied without breaking the mix. So if I was to apply this fix to individual tracks, I'd effectively be copying and pasting the same eq to each track.

No you wouldn`t. Why would every sound need a smile curve?
It could be as simple as taking the channel level down on the sounds that have a mid range bias.
It could also be a problem with frequency masking, that would be addressed by having *Different and complimentary EQ* on the offending channels, so they fit together more effectively.

I guess this goes back to my original point. If you reach to your master bus EQ to fix the mix, you have failed to make a good mix.
It`s a very broad and hyperbolic statement I know. But in the long run it will lead to better, more cohesive mixes, because ALL mix problems start at the channel level.

Once you monitor with consistency (monitor calibration is something I talk about a lot, and it is essential in good mixing) you will make better mix decisions. As you make better mix decisions then you end up with less masking, less phase issues, less dynamic issues, and the whole final mix ends up being more cohesive. Sounds sit where they are supposed to sit, everything is clear, nothing is fighting unintentionally.

Now if you mix at the end of that process requires only a broad EQ bias change (and you know how to identify it) such as, a broad and slight mid boost, or a little 10k shelf boost for sparkle etc, that`s fine, if every sound above 10k can do with a sparkle boost, then that`s all good, but as mentioned above, if you are boosting 10k because your hats are dull, but a lead synth in that area sounds fine, that 10k boost fixes the hats and fucks the synth.
If you are hard carving your EQ on the stereo buss, that`s generally a sign your mix is sub par.
Broad EQ changes, whilst I still think in the long run, are bad habits, are the least bad option.

[Oktagon]

Yeah totally, I guess I mean when working on something in isolation you can end up have a mix that has an overall bias that's only revealed when you check against reference. So as a mix it's working in terms of the relationships between the tracks, it's just the overall frequency balance of the mix is off because your ears have adjusted to it and are compensating.

Anyway, I'll try and avoid any master eq next time out and see how I get on.

[Lost to the Void]

Yeah totally, I guess I mean when working on something in isolation you can end up have a mix that has an overall bias that's only revealed when you check against reference. So as a mix it's working in terms of the relationships between the tracks, it's just the overall frequency balance of the mix is off because your ears have adjusted to it and are compensating.

Anyway, I'll try and avoid any master eq next time out and see how I get on.

Well, when I get sent work and the mix is, let`s say, tilted towards the lows, or the highs, and it is consistent against all the mixes that artist has sent, then I know they are working consistently, which is a good sign. And a little rebalancing is a simple and easy solution. Correcting overall mix biases is essentially all my job would be if people were all working well. As it means they are either working correctly according the the sound bias of their room and/or monitoring.

When you get sent work by an artist, and every track has a different mix balance issue to every other track, then the artist is working inconsistently. It`s usually a good initial clue that there will be other problems.

But again, when you are working well, and have calibrated your monitoring, and work to consistent levels, then you don`t really need to reference other mixes, you will have learned what good sound is, and a final bias is less likely.

[msl]

I don't advocate EQ on the master bus.
To me, its basically means you have failed to mix correctly,

Just to add my 2db to this, I disagree. BUT... obviously doing any kind of corrective EQ on the mix buss is a no no. However I have EQ on my mix buss chain that I mix into it, along with console and tape emulation, saturation, limter etc. I use the Maag EQ its quite nice for this, gentle settings 2-3 db air band and 1 db in the subs, generally it makes the everything sound nicer. Since I mix into it all my tracks have the same balance...

[Lost to the Void]

I don't advocate EQ on the master bus.
To me, its basically means you have failed to mix correctly,

Just to add my 2db to this, I disagree. BUT... obviously doing any kind of corrective EQ on the mix buss is a no no. However I have EQ on my mix buss chain that I mix into it, along with console and tape emulation, saturation, limter etc. I use the Maag EQ its quite nice for this, gentle settings 2-3 db air band and 1 db in the subs, generally it makes the everything sound nicer. Since I mix into it all my tracks have the same balance...

How do you mix into an EQ?
You set an EQ shape and mix into it?

[msl]

You set an EQ shape and mix into it?

Pretty much yeah, often its by "accident" as I forget to turn it off when I start a project... again we're not talking radical boosts. Maag EQ.

[Lost to the Void]

You set an EQ shape and mix into it?

Pretty much yeah, often its by "accident" as I forget to turn it off when I start a project... again we're not talking radical boosts. Maag EQ.

That`s such an odd thing to do.

[msl]

Not really, lots of people mix into a chain, EQ is usually part of that. In the end as you know, if it sounds good it is good. Everything else is secondary.

[subvers^v]

Then when I start comparing to reference tracks, I realise there are broad issues (typically I end up applying a smile eq) that can be applied without breaking the mix. So if I was to apply this fix to individual tracks, I'd effectively be copying and pasting the same eq to each track.

Why would every sound need a smile curve?.

Happy Hardcore maybe?

[Lost to the Void]

Not really, lots of people mix into a chain, EQ is usually part of that. In the end as you know, if it sounds good it is good. Everything else is secondary.

I don't know anyone who mixes in to preset EQ.
It's the equivalent of purposefully changing the sound of your speakers from flat to a smile curve.
I've literally never heard of anyone doing it, and I can't understand why you would.

[msl]

I've literally never heard of anyone doing it, and I can't understand why you would.

Ok. You realize that kinda makes me want to do it even more hahahahaha. Seriously though seems to work for me, probably my ears like the bumps there, personal thing, mix still sounds good with out it too.