sorry i don't agree with this one. good thought though with changing from club 2 club. i agree with each deck eq. but thats about it. not a master. think about it....once all your tracks are equed....99% of the time your main board is going to be flat. so if your @ club that needs tweaking just bump the eq on that board.....because ur really not going to be using it except for effects because all your tracks will be equed already. me personally my main board is always for the most part flat. but there are those couple of clubs that sound like shit, so u have to make adjustments to the dj board because u either can't get to the eq because of a lock/grill or they don't have one.

plus lets say u were spinnin on radio u couldn't use that master eq because it would send a crap signal to the station.

i see djs do that alot they crank the eqs on the board to fix the club but meanwhile they sound like ass on the air.

not good practice. but a good thought.

see, thats what its for. more then a couple times Ive had to adjust the channel EQs as if they were the master because there was no better option. then all night any adjustments I would always have to try and remember where flat is. now, in the case of the 'per file' adjustment in theory bringing all your files to flat in relation to each other, you could use the EQs as master. BUT what happens when you use the EQs to mix? you are right back where we started, trying to remember EQ positions. It has killed me several times.




right, well you wouldnt use it on the radio, or wherever there was a proper room with a proper system. the master would be for those cases where you dont have that option.

Im sure most of us have played spots where the HIs on our channel EQs are sitting at 3'oclock all night

Nice.


Nice.

I still say we need an eq for the master at the very least...I vote for graphic, but thats just me. I agree though that individual track EQ's would be a great option. What if you could save more than one profile in the song file? A default flat setting as well as a couple of adjusted ones... Again I just don't understand why we are allowing ourselves to be limited, when anything is possible.

Thats the point, there are limitations. This method is very conservitive, it does not add any more processing power, it simply directs the position of the EQs that we already have. And it will work like a master.

A master EQ on a mixer is actually a band aid fix for a situation that it shouldnt be solving anyway.

I really dont imagine ever needing a graphic EQ where you already have three bands. If we were going to add something that takes more power, I would say a sweepable EQ would make more sense in that case.

And if you add a graphic eq, you might as well add a limiter, expander, gate, compressor, exciter, and whatever other processors that usually sits in the rack.

Seriously... did you read anything I wrote? For a guy who produces and should well know the processing power of todays computers you are being closed minded, even to someone who is agreeing with you. If I can run logic with 32 stereo tracks all with 8 plugins per channel plus bus sends, we can surely have EQ's in Serato, both the ones you want and the ones I want. Rather than arguing s*&t like this we should all stay focused one the advancement of our favorite tool of the trade.

What did you guys think of saving multiple EQ's per track?

Akeim is talking about eqs on the 57 calculated by the DSP

Well, Im not disagreeing with you to be disagreeable, and Ive read what you have written.

Originally I thought a graphic EQ was a good idea, Ive said it several times, but I changed my mind.

I think being conservative with the processor is always a good idea especially when we are going to be adding video.

I am trying to think of a good idea for adding a graphic EQ, but I cant, master eq yes, but not a redundant compounded system.

Another problem that I think could come from a master EQ system would be different DJs playing. If you get on after a cat and your master eq profiles dont match, your sound will be off, especially if the house system was adjusted for the first DJ, its going to sound like shit for the second DJ. The only remedy would be noticing the profile of the first DJ, and trying to set up the same EQs for the second DJ. And you really couldnt do that with a graphic EQ, it would be hard enough if you had to do that with three bands.

Example: what would happen if the DJ before you gets on believing that setting up his graphic EQ is best looking like a 'smile'. Then the sound man compensates with his EQs to reverse compensate for the 'smile' on the first DJs graph. What happens when you get on, and there is no highs or lows, are you going to try and adjust your graphic EQ into 'frown' while the sound man is also making adjustments to uncompensate for the first guy, all while playing your first record? disaster.

there is a reason that there are locked grills, and plexiglass over the graphic EQs in the house system


I just dont think there would be enough situations where a graphic EQ would be helpful. There should already be graphic control in the house system, and it should be calibrated ONE time only to match the room. And it should be done with pink noise and a mic. And if the house system does not have a graphic EQ, I can guarantee that there will be more problems with the system then you could fix with a GEQ on your end. And the sound could probably be fixed well enough with three bands.

A graphic EQ is not even something that should be played with at the sound check, its meant to adjust the house system to the room.

Should SSL add a pink noise generator and a graphic analyzer to set the graphic eq up properly?

whats the soundman for?

again, Im not trying to shoot down the idea, I just dont see the reason for it, more harm then good.

The funny thing about of this is that we all use the system in different ways... I want the EQ options for when I'm doing shows that are mobile or in rooms that don't have sound. So I want the "option."

There wont be a time when I ever do video. I want options for the audio performance... Others want options for video... If any of us can't use these options due to system performance we will either upgrade or pick and choose what we want to push the most out of what we have.

I just want the option to use my processor power as it suits me.

Again, I ask what about having multiple EQ profile in the song file?

yes, Im open to looking at whatever scenario there might be out there. and that might be a wanted feature if there isnt an alternative. But wouldnt we need a scope and a noise generator too? And what about the other 5 or 7 types of outboard gear you might want in an empty room? Personally I would prefer 'analog modeler', or an exciter to a Geq.

Also I was talking about conserving the limited processing power of the TTM57. Yes you can get plenty of power for your computer, and even then adding master signal processing to SSL would be extremely inefficient because you will be separately processing two different stereo tracks, or four channels that are about to be merged into two stereo channels. It would be like having two identical sets of rack gear that you plug in between your turntables and mixer. It just does not make sense.

If you want to use more of your computers processor you could add a simple two channel usb in/out, and run whatever you want. And you would have TWICE the power as getting SSL to do it. Simply put, after the mixer, TWO processors, before the mixer FOUR.

Personally I would not want to be bothered with picking between several EQ profiles for each song I load. Maybe that would be good for some people to mess with.

And, assuming that the reason for a saved eq profile is to make sure songs matched when mixed, Im not sure why you would want different profiles, you would just want them all to come out 'flat'. Same as we dont need seperate 'gain' profiles.

I would assume that if you had several profiles per track that you would begin to organize them in several profile categories like (1) for 'more highs', (2) for 'less highs', (3) for 'more bass' etc. And if that were the case then you might as well have a master profile that changed the eq settings for all the tracks you play equally.

True, true, I completely agree.

i like this idea a lot - you would still need to tweak eq as you play, but this would reduce the headaches of mixing songs which were sourced from vinyl versus sourced from CD, versus sourced from Whitelable.net etc. Autogain was a great step for this, but now it should be extended to eq. You could perceive gain as an eq which boosts the entire frequency range in 1 go - since SSL has autogain, why not saving eq settings?

or u can do what i have been doin during long house mixes i start with gain at 12 bass at like plus 4 and everything else a like at lik 9 o'clock and adjust mid mix its annoying but i will always remember to eq myself...