How many EQ's do you typically use on a master?

I've experimented with trying to use just one EQ but I can never get exactly what I want from it. I'm usually adding a second for specific reasons like boxtone or type of shelf I like etc. Sometimes even a third if needed.

I know it's highly dependent on the audio you are working with but I just thought it would be fun to find out what people are mostly using.

Usually two: one for correction/surgical, the other for additive and creative purposes. However, the extent of which I use either varies from song to song. I've always followed a process of correcting and reducing the things I don't feel serve a positive purpose and being left with the good stuff that may benefit from some enhancement.

Just one these days - Kirchhoff.

Dynamic EQ though, yeah I often use one band of several - Ozone Stabilizer is great for controlling string and guitar harshness, TDR Limiter 6 is unbeatable for super hard fast square wavey peaks, Weiss de esser (is that an EQ? probably not), TDR Nova for high shelf clamping down on mostly weirdly compressed snares, occasionally Ozone Clarity for remastering.

I mostly use hardware for EQing. Most of mine also add other things like harmonics, saturation or boxtone. I typically have 4 to 6 engaged, each imparting it's character in addition to shaping frequencies.

The Oven for EQ/saturation/color
Michelangelo for EQ/harmonics/boxtone (and whatever you call what the Aggression knob does)
Drawmer 1961 for EQ/harmonics
Lang PEQ-2s for EQ/boxtone
Tube-Tech SMC-2B for "EQ" using the band gain pots and crossovers.
Dangerous BAX for just plain ol' EQ.

Yeah, I'm not one to seek transparency in my analog chain. I stay ITB when I want that.

mostly one, occsionally two ('cause the second eq has somewhat unusual/unique filters which the first eq does not offer) - weiss eq-1 and lake-lm44.

nothing really new: it used to be a pultec in addition to whatever 'standard' eq...

AA Ivory + Azure is usually a good combination for me (both for cuts and boosts and mostly without preamp engaged).

If the track needs more vibe, maybe the AA Magenta.

This, plus DDMF IIEQ PRO and/or TDR M EQ for small tweaks and HPF if needed.

For stems (not full mixes), I think the DDMF 6144 works very well.

Ciro

Usually one, but sometimes two. Usually one for tonal shift, and if there’s something off that needs a cut (eg, upper bass), I’ll use the second Eq. I don’t overthink it.

I use 2 or 3, but very subtle barely noticable, some Eq's are better at boosting than others, prefer hardware for that, I like my elysia xpressor 500 a lot.

It depends. Sometimes just Equilibrium. Sometimes it's that plus a Bax, Michelangelo and a Knif Soma or maybe Slick eq.

If we're counting dynamic eq/de-essers, then Essence, DSEQ, spitfish, once in a while good old brainworx dyn-eq.

So somewhere between 1 and 8.

Usually 1-2 (almost always MEA-2, usually Pro-Q3), sometimes a third of some kind. Plus the TDR filters when necessary (I just like them).

I made the decision yesterday to stop using EQ's in mastering my own mixes. And I mean full stop.

If I get all the equalization, levels, compression, resonance control, pans, effects, and automation right in mixes, I shouldn't have to apply EQ at the mastering stage at all. I have gotten pretty good at mixing, no need to do anything in mastering except make it competitively louder.

I do realize ME's don't always have multi-track sessions or stems to go back to..usually just a stereo WAV of the mix that someone else gave them and said "please master this".

What happens when you make two mixes that sound amazing on their own but one of them is on the darker side and one of them is on the brighter side of things? Sure, you could go back and completely rework one or both of the mixes, but a simple bit of mastering EQ would seem a much more efficient solution, to me.

3

First is the Flux Epure 3 for ITB surgical adjustments, and adjusting the audio Level to feed my Analog Chain, at about -20dBRMS.

Second is the analog NSEQ-FF for very slight low, mid, & high adjustments, the boxtone color is quite transparent

Third is the analog hardware Sontec 432 for adding a bit of HF sparkle, usually up at 25k on a broad shape. Lovely musical boxtone here.

These are All on the Pitching Side of the process, I rarely ( if ever) do any Post Capture EQ touchups,

get it Right the 1st pass, or just reprint the master a second time if needed, with an optional EQ flavor.

Spot EQ would be another ITB move, just treating a small section of the mix with an EQ cut.

Yesterday for instance I had a song with thick BG vocals on the choruses only, so I spot EQ’d those regions -1dB@200Hz w ITB Sontec 432.

I’ll also use the REQ (W*ves) to Spot EQ sometimes, as part of the Prep, before pitching thru the analog path.

Cheers, JT

p.s. I could just as easily have said 2 EQ’s as the answer to the OP, one for ITB surgery, another analog for sheen & boxtone

p.s.s. This is the very first time I’ve used the term boxtone, I guess it captured my imagination as almost a meme and is a nice alternative to the word colour.

I should clarify..when I'm really happy with a mix, I then put Sonible's Smart Limit on the master bus, have it "learn" the mix as I play it, then I make adjustments to the mix with Smart Limit engaged, as limiters generally do the following - knock snare drums back, bring cymbals too far forward, and bring up the bass, as well as emphasizing anything glaring, treble heavy, and shrill. So when I get the mix happening through the limiter, and it "sounds like a record", then I remove the limiter from the master bus and print the mix to a stereo track, and export that stereo track.

This way I have no surprises when I master the mix in my mastering app (DSP Quattro). And this way, I don't even bother with putting a mastering equalizer on my mastering chain, as I simply don't need it..I've already done all the corrective EQ and tonal shaping in the mix stage.

Nancy Matter of Moonlight Mastering (she is still in business, I think) once told me years ago, in regards to a live recording of a jazz quartet I had mixed, "wow, I don't have to do anything to this except make it louder and slightly compressed". It was because I had addressed the EQ issues in the mix.

It's of course a different story if you have to master someone else's stereo mix. Any ME can tell you, there are a lot of people mixing records who shouldn't be mixing. I was fortunate enough to have cut my teeth in analog recording studios starting in the late seventies, and learned from observing really great engineers who knew how to make it "sound like a record". Seems to be a lost art these days, everyone wants to have "A.I." plugins make the decisions for them, and get it done in fifteen minutes. Or five minutes, if you're using online mastering services.

Sounds great; I don’t understand how any of that addresses the issue of tonal discrepancies between tracks, though? There are incredible mixes that are incredibly bright and incredible mixes that are incredibly bassy; what if you have four of each?

I don't understand your question, unless you mean different mixes YOU get from clients.

I don't do different versions of mixes of my own songs or projects that are sent to me.

I'm not a ME, btw. I master for the same reason others do..budget limitations.

I am talking about an album/EP/whatever, with multiple tracks, not different versions of the same song.

Oh, ok. Thank you for clarifying.

If it's an album, I only make sure the mastered tracks are all fairly equal
in level, relative to each other, so the listener doesn't have to constantly reach for the volume knob.

I never put EQ on the master buss during mixing. Each element in a mix has its own requirements, if that is done correctly, there should be no need for equalizing the master bus, in my view. For example, a "bass-heavy" mix would mean the bass and kick are too loud or have too much sub-lows, and possibly that other elements were not high-passed enough to get them out of the way of the bass and kick.

Plus, let's say you have 60 tracks, all with their own EQ, and several group busses with their own EQ. It's insane to think putting yet ANOTHER equalizer, on the master buss, is going to do anything other than add noise.

So I can't answer your question, as the situation you describe isn't something I deal with.

It could, very rarely, be none... But that's 1% of what I get in 1 year. Otherwise I would say at least 3 :

1) The main hardware Eq (Spl PQ 2050 or Focusrite Blue 315) for the global "shape" I want to give the mix. Sometimes slight moves, sometimes bigger ones.

2) Coloring/enhancing Eqs (1951 ME, 1954 CE, others...)

3) ITB for correction, automation

Totally depends on the mixes and how they sound together. But usually 4, sometimes 5, on great mixes 1 to 3.

First Kirchhoff for corrective and dynamic eq (if needed) pre hardware. This is often bypassed on all but the most problematic mixes.

Second bettermaker mastering eq for broader changes from song to song.

Third dangerous bax in m/s for lows, occasionally highs. I try to keep a fairly similar setting between songs.

Fourth massive passive in m/s for mid frequency changes and color. Again, a fairly similar setting between songs.

Fifth, post capture, Weiss eq1 in LP for any small adjustments from song to song to increase cohesion. This is also often bypassed. If anything more than a db is needed I recapture.

The only unit I use on 9/10 projects is the massive passive, I just love it. All others are often enough in bypass, so the above would be for a mix that really needs help, with large tonal disparities between mixes.

Most of times, Kirchhoff and MH Sontec. A few bands total tops between the 2 plugins.
Regularly, TP Michelangelo as well. Advanced panel opened by default heh

And still drag racing?

Hah! You know, I'm not sure. I haven't spoken to her in years. She sold her house in Burbank and moved to Texas
around..2014, I think.

funnily enough PA finally updated my second favourite EQ of all time - Maag EQ4 making it waaaay more suitable for a mastering chain. So I've been using that again a little bit. It's more of a tone control with bonus Air Band and very different to other EQs but its absolutely great on acoustic music where you don't want to accidentally pull anything out of whack. And vocals.

That's what mastering is.

If you get multitracks, you're mixing, not mastering.

Hi Joe, do you mean primarily due to the added (vital) trim control?

The EQ2's input trim certainly does nothing from 0 to -0.5dB, and the other increments are not half dB steps. Of course, the EQ gains also aren't what's indicated, and overall signal gain is hugely variable depending on how many bands are switched in (adding +0.2dB just switching on the plugin, all bands flat, and several dB overall gain with the HF band). Presumably this matches the analogue unit's broad band, parallel design. Although, again: it's strength in simplicity, broad Q / low phase distortion, and EQ'ing by ear.

I do a lot of stem Mastering...and it's not mixing. But it's very important in "electro" EDM like music if you want to achieve competitive loudness that the customer usually wants

If we’re talking itb, it’s usually three: Equilibrium for surgery, something broadstrokes for macro adjustment (eg. Pulsar 8200 or SlickM), and TP Mich for colour and niceness.

Sure thing, they also added a much much larger GUI and black version which is easier on the eyes.