Hi, what you think? Is it better to place a Q4 only in the master Channel for equalizing the sum audio output? Or is it better to place a Q4 in each Channel (Kick, HiHat. Clap, bass,…)?
both
So: On each channel plus on the Master.
what does the manual say? I’m not owning it but thinking about it… and I always thought that’s the strength of the plugin (to be interconnected with other instances of it – to compare / mix each channel / compare / adjust… etc.)
i’d say definitely both. really fine tuning on individual channels and then broad strokes on the master. ill even use 2 on an individual channel - one before long processing chains and another after to catch any peaks or bumps i don’t like.
really does wonders for me on a lows/bass group vs. ableton eq8 or similar
Definitely on each track because it has the view where you can see all the instances AND see potential frequency conflicts….
Thank you folks. I think the same what means both. On each channel and the Master.
What’s the use case? Is this production work, live shows, something else?
If it’s for mixing, check out videos on setting up a mixbus.
Generally speaking, you might find using something like a Pultec style EQ, or another “musical” EQ on the summed out a better option.
It’s not that you can’t use Pro-Q but it excels at precision, but your heavy lifting for precision cuts should already be done on the individual tracks, so the mixbus or your master would be minor adjustments only.
A musical EQ often introduce some additional harmonics, and the curves can help make quick choices. Pultec EQ (ignore the “trick” videos once you know it) help clear up mud while simultaneously boosts wanted low end. The fixed high can add sheen. There’s a mid to play around with for cuts or boost.
bthelick has a video comparing ableton stock eq 8 to fab filter pro q 3, he tests them with phase inversion and finds that below say 1k hz they perform identically but get into some problems in the higher ranges. perhaps if CPU is a concern for your project then you can use ableton stock or similar for lower end content and only reach for the more demanding plugin for the more sensitive high freq material. just a thought
More accurate to say that Pro Q can do what EQ8 can, but EQ8 can’t perform all the same cuts or slopes.
Nothing wrong with that. I still use EQ8 over Pro-Q for certain things and likewise, will use Channel EQ over both of those when it makes more sense.
You don’t use it.
Except, there’s a reason to use it, which could be on a track or on a submix bus or the master bus, …
Reminds me one something I clicked on the other day… the message they kept repeating: Don’t try to fix things that don’t need to be fixed.
It was in response to receiving mixes with crazy uses of Pro-Q4 everywhere. Multiple cuts, everything changed to dynamic, and sometimes multiple instances of Pro-Q just to add back what was cut in the earlier instance.
effing this
Hey, we gotta do something to fill our days.