Professional Analog Mastering.
Professional Analog Mastering.
226K+ subscribers
Graphic EQs aren’t super common anymore, but I still notice some them being used for mastering.
They’re not inherently wrong to use during mastering, but there is one issue I’ve noticed.
In short, Graphic EQs with more than 8 bands, or 1 band per octave, easily create unnatural sounds.
For example, if we look at this EQuivocate plugin and set it to the maximum 26 bands, notice how each filter creates an unnatural curve due to its fixed Q value. This problem becomes worse when neighboring filters are used.
So, say I want a gradual boost around 2kHz - it makes sense to create that curve with the EQ’s bands in the shape I want.
But if we observe the changes, we’ll notice they’re not combining into a smooth curve but stacking into a strange spiked bump.
This doesn’t pertain to just EQuivocate - Voxengos Marvel GEQ does the same thing, albeit with slightly smoother curves. Meanwhile, some plugins with a graphic EQ interface, like this stock logic plugin, are using more gradual filters behind the scenes - but again, this may be due to each filter affecting a larger bandwidth since we’re dealing with fewer filters.
At the end of the day, do what sounds best, but I wanted to illustrate how some graphic EQs are creating more aggressive changes than what’s typically desired for mastering.
Let’s listen to a smooth boost applied around 2kHz using a parametric EQ that introduces Butterworth filters - then, the same area boosted with a graphic EQ that utilizes multiple filters with fixed Q values.
Watch the video to learn more >
Dan Worrall illustrated this idea about a year ago or so, but instead of coding an M/S matrix, I thought I’d show you how to do it with a plugin.
In short, when a level-dependent plugin, such as a saturator or a compressor, is switched to mid-side mode, we instantly alter the processor’s behavior since the input no longer has similar amplitudes.
When I feed the left and right signals into a saturator, especially when it’s a mix, they should be very similar in amplitude with some mild fluctuation throughout.
However, if I fed the saturator the mid and side images by switching its processing to M/S, the mid image would likely have a higher amplitude than the side; subsequently, more saturation would occur to the mid image than the side, since, again, the plugin’s processing depends on the amplitude of the incoming signal.
If you want to use mid-side level-dependent processing, here are a couple of solutions.
First, we could insert the free plugin MSED before the compressor or saturator and boost the side image’s gain until its amplitude is identical or nearly identical to the mid image’s.
Then, we could use our mid-side processor.
Following the mid-side processor, we could use another instance of MSED and compensate for the original boost by attenuating by the same amount. This is an emphasis/de-emphasis technique but with the side image instead of a particular frequency.
Alternatively, you could duplicate your mix and use MSED on both. With it, you could mute the side image on one track and mute the mid image on the other, in turn achieving separate mid and side tracks.
Then, we could boost the side image’s gain with the plugin until it matches the amplitude of the mid image and introduce our processors.
Then, we could reduce the level of the side-image tracks channel fader to compensate for the increase in the side images' gain.
It’s a bit more convoluted, but it gives you more control.
Let’s listen to M/S saturation introduced without increasing the side-image’s gain beforehand. Notice how there’s more distortion in the center image or on the mid image.
Then, we’ll use the first method I described and notice how the saturation is introduced uniformly to both images.
Watch the video to learn more >
There’s a lot of debate about even and odd-order harmonics. Saturators that introduce odd-order harmonics are much more common since they’re created by symmetrical saturation.
In other words, the waveshaping to the wave’s peak occurs to its trough in equal measure and with identical behavior.
To achieve even-order harmonics, asymmetrical saturation is needed—or waveshaping in which either the peak or trough is affected differently than the other.
Because symmetrical saturation results in only odd harmonics, the overall amount of distortion is lower than if both even and odd harmonics were present - so, if I wanted to, I could push this symmetrical saturator higher and more aggressively before the harmonics begin to become too noticeable or unpleasant.
However, even order harmonics are more closely related to a track's musical intention since they’re often the same note as the fundamental.
For example, if my fundamental is A1 at 55Hz, the second-order harmonic is A2 at 110Hz, the next even-order harmonic, or the fourth order, is A3 at 220Hz, then A4 at 440Hz, with the sixth-order harmonic being 330Hz or E4—the first harmonic not to be the same note as the fundamental.
Alternatively, odd-order harmonics synthesized from 55Hz would consist of 165Hz or E3, 275Hz for the fifth-order harmonic, which is almost C#4, and so on. It’s just not as musical in most cases.
Now, I’m not saying one is better than the other, just that if you want to achieve more musical saturation with the risk of potentially too much distortion, try subtle asymmetrical waveshaping. There are pros and cons to both, but hopefully, now you have a better understanding of the difference.
Let’s listen to symmetrical vs asymmetrical waveshaping or saturation, and let me know if one sounds better to you in the comments.
Watch the video to learn more >
Achieving smooth but present highs in a master is difficult if it wasn’t achieved during the mixing stage.
The processors available typically include exciters and EQs or a hybrid of the 2. However, the harmonics introduced by exciters can sound harsh, and the amplification from EQs will likely make the region's peaks, such as sibilance, more noticeable.
A good alternative is parallel compressed highs with a compressor that introduces little to no harmonics.
I’ve shown this before, but to do this, set up a send from the channel, and on the aux track, use a linear phase EQ to isolate the highest frequencies.
If you have it, use FabFilter’s Pro C2 and set it to its mastering algorithm before introducing significant compression.
This algorithm introduces nearly no harmonic distortion. Use a quick attack, a long release, and some look-ahead to fully capture the peaks and smooth out the range.
Then, blend the aux track’s level with the original track.
This is the only way I’ve found to create dense highs that don’t make a master sound harsh or unbalanced.
Let’s take a listen to the before and after of the effect.