In general, I use little, if any EQ - anywhere. But I fairly recently acquired
a Manley Massive Passive. You can hardly go wrong with this thing, but on the
main out I've discovered a problem: you can easily mess with the stereo image.
Any basic suggestions on eq-ing the main out?

In article ,
(Jim Kollens) wrote:

In general, I use little, if any EQ - anywhere. But I fairly recently
acquired
a Manley Massive Passive. You can hardly go wrong with this thing, but on
the
main out I've discovered a problem: you can easily mess with the stereo
image. Any basic suggestions on eq-ing the main out?

I think it's best to try to get your sound at the channels instead of
trying to make up for shortcomings of the mix with bus EQ. Sometimes
adding a little "air" is a benign thing to do, but I personally avoid
bus EQ when mixing. Then again, since my day gig is mastering, I do bus
EQ all the time, but that's a different gig... If you want to use it
and it makes your mix sound better, then go for it. The character of the
Massive Passive alone may be just what you want, but I'd still caution
you to be somewhat conservative and try to get most of what you want
EQ-wise at the channels.

For stereo mix bus EQ, in overly general terms, broad, gentle peaking
filters work well, and you should try to match the channels very
precisely or undesireable things could start to happen. This isn't to
say we don't occasionally EQ each channel differently in mastering if
necessary, but it's to address issues that would be easy to fix during a
mix, so I see no reason not to precisely match channels in a mix setting.
--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

In article ,
(Jim Kollens) wrote:

In general, I use little, if any EQ - anywhere. But I fairly recently
acquired
a Manley Massive Passive. You can hardly go wrong with this thing, but on
the
main out I've discovered a problem: you can easily mess with the stereo
image. Any basic suggestions on eq-ing the main out?

I think it's best to try to get your sound at the channels instead of
trying to make up for shortcomings of the mix with bus EQ. Sometimes
adding a little "air" is a benign thing to do, but I personally avoid
bus EQ when mixing. Then again, since my day gig is mastering, I do bus
EQ all the time, but that's a different gig... If you want to use it
and it makes your mix sound better, then go for it. The character of the
Massive Passive alone may be just what you want, but I'd still caution
you to be somewhat conservative and try to get most of what you want
EQ-wise at the channels.

For stereo mix bus EQ, in overly general terms, broad, gentle peaking
filters work well, and you should try to match the channels very
precisely or undesireable things could start to happen. This isn't to
say we don't occasionally EQ each channel differently in mastering if
necessary, but it's to address issues that would be easy to fix during a
mix, so I see no reason not to precisely match channels in a mix setting.
--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

In article ,
Jim Kollens wrote:
In general, I use little, if any EQ - anywhere. But I fairly recently acquired
a Manley Massive Passive. You can hardly go wrong with this thing, but on the
main out I've discovered a problem: you can easily mess with the stereo image.
Any basic suggestions on eq-ing the main out?

Well... the one suggestion is to trade the thing for the mastering model, which
has detents. So, you can at least mess predictably and repeatedly with the
stereo image.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
Jim Kollens wrote:
In general, I use little, if any EQ - anywhere. But I fairly recently acquired
a Manley Massive Passive. You can hardly go wrong with this thing, but on the
main out I've discovered a problem: you can easily mess with the stereo image.
Any basic suggestions on eq-ing the main out?

Well... the one suggestion is to trade the thing for the mastering model, which
has detents. So, you can at least mess predictably and repeatedly with the
stereo image.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey: Well... the one suggestion is to trade the thing for the
mastering model, which
has detents. So, you can at least mess predictably and repeatedly with the
stereo image

Hmmmm. Interesting that you say that because if you read the manual (I think
the article is on their website), they will do the detents but don't actually
recommend it. I like detents, myself.

Scott Dorsey: Well... the one suggestion is to trade the thing for the
mastering model, which
has detents. So, you can at least mess predictably and repeatedly with the
stereo image

Hmmmm. Interesting that you say that because if you read the manual (I think
the article is on their website), they will do the detents but don't actually
recommend it. I like detents, myself.

Jim Kollens wrote:
Scott Dorsey: Well... the one suggestion is to trade the thing for the
mastering model, which
has detents. So, you can at least mess predictably and repeatedly with the
stereo image

Hmmmm. Interesting that you say that because if you read the manual (I think
the article is on their website), they will do the detents but don't actually
recommend it. I like detents, myself.

Well, if you want the detents, you can't set it between positions. That's
irritating if you're trying to notch out a narrow band sweeping it back
and forth. It's wonderful if you're trying to make the same fairly wide
change to two or more channels and preserve imaging.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Jim Kollens wrote:
Scott Dorsey: Well... the one suggestion is to trade the thing for the
mastering model, which
has detents. So, you can at least mess predictably and repeatedly with the
stereo image

Hmmmm. Interesting that you say that because if you read the manual (I think
the article is on their website), they will do the detents but don't actually
recommend it. I like detents, myself.

Well, if you want the detents, you can't set it between positions. That's
irritating if you're trying to notch out a narrow band sweeping it back
and forth. It's wonderful if you're trying to make the same fairly wide
change to two or more channels and preserve imaging.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."