DIY 2 bus EQ?

Hi all,

Been on these boards for awhile now and have seen some very excellent EQ projects.

I was wondering which of the available EQ projects which would you use on the 2 bus.

Thanks,
CS

any of them will work on a stereo buss. One some projects you will have to build 2 as some project are mono eq's.... why does everybody want to compress and eq the 2 mix anyway? I never understood that.  leaves less for mastering.

pucho812 said:

any of them will work on a stereo buss. One some projects you will have to build 2 as some project are mono eq's.... why does everybody want to compress and eq the 2 mix anyway? I never understood that.  leaves less for mastering.

Click to expand...

Right that does make sense, but then again for certain styles of music it helps people to get to their vision of the mix a little faster and the faster out of the fog...usually the better.

....and hopefully its for the better!

Also the sontecs are good on the 2buss

Reason for the 2 bus eq is that I record and produce my tracks for network and cable tv primarily. I need to  to be a one man show for the most part which also includes wearing mixing and mastering hats.

Songguy said:

Reason for the 2 bus eq is that I record and produce my tracks for network and cable tv primarily. I need to  to be a one man show for the most part which also includes wearing mixing and mastering hats.

Click to expand...

o.k. that makes sense. If you ask my opinion, can't go wrong with the pultec eqp1a's and meq's makes it just awesome.

Pucho,

I'm kinda new to DIY. I have completed an 1176 that sounds amazing and functions as it should. With that level of skill in mind, which eq do you feel would be an "easier" build?

Chris

2 bus?



Are you location recording or something?

The Night EQ / 3D "AIR" EQ could make wonders on the far sides of the spectrum as well (SUB/AIR)

Project Thread: http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=19789.0

Well played kingston.

The Studer 169 is great for just lifting up the top and bottom. Plus it's switched so that makes recalling easier

plus one for studer 169 for top and bottom . . .


  much easier (and safer) than pultec type. Pultec sure sounds great too tho . .


  Sontec if you want lots of flexibility to *get in there*


  ANdyP

Because most of my mixes are ITB, I like to use my Sontec as an insert on the stereo bus in Pro Tools.

I find that by just using the Hi shelf on the Sontec, I use less eq on my plugins, and I end up with a nicer top end overall.
I hardly use the the other bands much, as I don't want to mess things up too much, and it seems to be the top end where plugins loose the race against the Sontec.

pucho812 said:

why does everybody want to compress and eq the 2 mix anyway? I never understood that.  leaves less for mastering.

Click to expand...

Why does anything need to be mastered these days - after all it is not as if the medium itself is a limitation like it was in the days of vinyl?

Cheers

Ian

Hi Ian,



  basically, because everyone else does . . . My boss cannot listen to anything unless it is a loud and as wide and as finished as a commercial release. Last year, my mixes werent cutting the mustard for him. The only difference between then and now is that I took an online course in Mastering at Berklee, and now have the skills(I am NOT comparing myself to a real Mastering Eng btw . . .) to deliver my mixes thus.


  Kindest regards,


    ANdyP

strangeandbouncy said:

Hi Ian,



   basically, because everyone else does . . .

Click to expand...

Yes, I know you are right but that was why I was careful to use the word 'need' in my question. It is not the music that needs mastering, its the marketing morons that need it loud, squashed, totally f.....d up.

My boss cannot listen to anything unless it is a loud and as wide and as finished as a commercial release. Last year, my mixes werent cutting the mustard for him. The only difference between then and now is that I took an online course in Mastering at Berklee, and now have the skills(I am NOT comparing myself to a real Mastering Eng btw . . .) to deliver my mixes thus.

Click to expand...

I understand - you have to earn a living - its just a crying shame what it does to the music. Soon the words dyamic and range will be erased from the dictionary (subtlety went ages ago).

Cheers

Ian

ruffrecords said:

Yes, I know you are right but that was why I was careful to use the word 'need' in my question. It is not the music that needs mastering, its the marketing morons that need it loud, squashed, totally f.....d up.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure there's any mileage left in this debate but it's not always the marketing guys, at least as often it's the musicians.  I'm working right now on a mix that's pushed way beyond what is reasonable, the artist loves it and there's no money men involved.  Can I blame them?  Not really. 

It's like trying convince an artist going into an exhibition that their painting doesn't need a frame, "But everyone else has one", "Yeah but your art speaks for itself without one", "But everyone else has one....." etc etc.

I should add that mastering does not just mean crush, there are still lots of great records being made and mastered well.

Cheers,
Ruairi

ruffrecords said:

Soon the words dyamic and range will be erased from the dictionary (subtlety went ages ago).

Click to expand...

and good riddance, the 'b' in subtlety had no business there in the first place

EDIT:
also, while I'm back off topic and on the subject of spelling... most all of the written references to mix groups/Busse's were written 'Buss' here in UK at least. whats the preference. its like the mike/micing debate

I've always known it as buss as well.


but potato potatoe right?

  No . . . . .YOU say potato, and we say . . .

puhtatoh