Optimal mastering EQ? Is a flat curve optimal?

[j20056]

I have either ****** near-field monitors (generic Yamaha's that came with a mini-stereo) which have absolutely no low end, or high-quality 4350 JBL's, which are too big to fit in my studio. I found that if I mixed and EQ'ed on the small speakers, I'm artificially boosting the bass by an enormous amount (as much as 18db) to make it sound OK on these speakers. If I burn a CD an play it on the JBL's, it is horrendous, I can't even hear the cymbals.
I started using the PAZ Analyzer from Waves, which shows the instantaneous and peak frequency spectrum volume charts in real time.
It showed very obviously my overall bass imbalance. However, I don't know what curve to shoot for. Should it be as flat as possible on a peak/instantaneous basis?
In order to analyze further, I played a couple of reference Pink Floyd CD's through the 001 and PAZ, and it shows that the frequency response is pretty flatish from 30Hz up to 16KHz, then drops sharply.
So is a flat response curve the "pro" way of EQ'ing a CD? I suppose an obvious answer is "use your ears, whatever sounds good". But I suspect that a flat curve will almost guarantee that the mix will not sound out of balance on most home/car/high-end stereos?
What do you guys think? How do you use PAZ?
So my question

[Ssaidvox1]

Had the same prob in my studio...treated the room with auralex...now my mixes are coming out closer to a flat curve...it translates better... Not saying this is the optimal way to go, and yea the obvious answer is "use your ears", But lately, things simply sound better around flat. dunno if this will help. unfortunately, new gear will be the best way to treat your prob.

[Calvin]

While the flat curve is nice to shoot for it really isn't that big of a deal that I think you are making it out to be. The Paz analyzer, while a wonderful tool, can also be a bit misleading. Although that curve may look relatively flat you may find that it is kinda hard to change. At least I did. You would think that you could just look off the analyzer, use it to pinpoint a certain frequency that needs boosting then just go in with a eq and boost it. However when I tried to do this I got less than satisfactory results. YMMV.

One thing to do that may help to show what I am talking about is as simple as listening to your music in winamp. I have noticed that winamp only seems to show about the top 3 db and even though their frequency spectrum is way off, it does manage to show you that some of the songs that you think sound great, really are not anywhere near a flat curve. However these results vary between songs but once again, just my observation that more seem to not have a flat curve than do.

I know that you don't want to hear "just use your ears", but that is really the only way to do the best job. I usually pick out a certain song in the genre that I think sounds good on most everything that I put it in, and I use it for a guide for eq. Put the tracks right next to each other and switch between them till you find the best eq. For me I find that I am usually putting in more of the mid range from about 300 hz to 1 or 5 khz than I would have first guessed. I believe that since most stereos usually have a pumped up low end and high end, that more mids seems to help balance it out and get it to travel better between systems.

These are my personal observations, you may have more luck than I with the paz. I still like it best for it's ability to show the stereo field more than its showing of the frequency responce.

[hurdy gurdy]

Please consider getting some quality studio monitors. All monitors must be "learned" but it's very difficult to hear un-wanted artifacts (and/or to get a proper mix) with something other than good reference monitors. Also, most studio monitors have a flat frequency response- compared to consumer (or related) monitors which usually do not have a flat response. This is to accomodate or to produce an acceptable sound in a particular stereo and/or audio equipment.
With quality studio monitors you can give each song individual attention- (which they all need when it comes to mixing and mastering)- This will help when it's time to apply compression, EQ, limiting, etc, to your mixes for adequate translation of your material to all systems and speaker set-ups.
I know this is costly, but monitors are the most important part of a studio when it comes to mixing and mastering sound- after all it is the final sum or result.
LB.

[arcarsenal]

i usually find that my mixes sound better when i take a few dbs of 300hz out of the master, and do a shelf of about -2 or -3dbs after 16hz, that way my mixes have alittle less treble, but are also not extremely bassy. and i take out at least 3 dbs of 3khz, you can hear things more, but it definately causes some ear fatigue.

ssaidvox, ive got a fairly big room, and i put on alot of auralex 2in. foam, covering about 20-20% of the room, and my mixes sound more defined, but also alot more bassy. in a bad way too--an uncontrolled bassy. i think i need some bass traps

also, calvin, i generally favor the winamp freq. spectrum, but only if i play an mp3, when you play a wav the spectrum is alot wider, but compacted to fit the same window, so its not as detailed.

but i think that you should take a few off the top but only if you have a nice defined low end, otherwise it sounds bad.

[marcusb]

I agree with Hurdy Gurdy .. good, reasonably accurate monitors are the single most important part of the chain [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Every single decision you make is based on the representation being presented by your monitors, so having something reasonably flat or more importantly having something that you really know well is a must if you are serious about recording/mixing/mastering.

Monitor choice is a totally personal preference and i'm of the school of thinking that most of the recent professional active monitors are all half decent. I reckon you can mix on any monitor that you know (provided it at least is half accurate), it's ESSENTIAL to listen to a lot of CD's in your monitoring environment to get a feel for how your monitors sound in the room.

With regard to a 'flat line' master. I don't get it, I don't really see WHY you would want to EQ your mix to have all frequencies peaking at the same level, I don't reckon there is any 'optimal' curve for a master it will vary widely based on the source. It will depend on the type of music, a hip-hop/dance master will look a lot different than a pop tune or a jazz tune, the instrumentation will have an affect, the dynamics of the music and the mix will have an affect. I reckon you should always use your ears as your primary reference. You can't master with your eyes just as you can't mix by numbers, and to think you can just shoot for a curve is a little delusional.

Mastering is a highly skilled profession and the skill comes from being able to listen and critically evaluate a mix and choose the appropriate processing to achieve the desired result.

Cheers,
Marcus