That is a good well proven method.

 

It's all about your approach/workflow,
like giving Color to the Master Track vs Instruments..

On the Master Bus I prefer a proper DMG EQuilibrium, can't beat that for precision, quality/clarity..
then I may put a tiny bit of analogness with a proper Compresor like Elysia, or an Harmonics Exciter..

But then if the track/music style calls for it,
I would use more analog/Coloring stuff for the Instruments/tracks, like moody analog Comps and EQs..

So the Pultec could go in one of the Instruments, but Not on the Master..

 

Words of true wisdom

 

Not sure what's the point behind this thread, Pultec eqs are tools like any other hardware or plugin, if you need to affect the signal in a specific way and that way is only achievable by a pultec eq then yes it is the right tool in that specific situation otherwise no.

 

Pultec is when you want to keep it simple - when you receive the mix, it's on the bright side a little, or too much low end it can be useful. Other case would be you mixed it yourself and probably done everything needed yourself and only need 1-2db of tweak here and there when the mix changes tonal balance when you let it through you mastering chain - if that is your workflow.

IMO, it's only applicable when you are already deep in the industry and been collaborating with real professionals, real proper mixers. Like 100% of the tutorial mastering video out there which is useless and deceiving as fuck.

Shit is getting serious when the mix isn't really mixed at all (client said he mixed it, but sounds like it is not) or mixed in a really bad environment/room or done by some artist that has no awareness about mixing, balance, stereo image or whatnot, with tons of rumble on the Side of the image like what it is right now in the real world outside of that "professional million dollar industry". I can never let my ego get in the way and ask it to be mixed again because I understand they are poor artist like me. This is totally business and I gotta take the job and do what I was asked, master the song.

Thank god people invented pultec-on-steroid EQ with mid/side capability (Massive Passive, BAX, Bettermaker etc) with few other additional features. Since those still introduce unwanted phase changes and a lot of harmonics when tweaked hard, a digital clean mid/side EQ like the brainworx one (or WEISS) is 10x better than a Pultec for ITB mastering atleast in the world I live in.

That is for tonal balance only.

Probably will need a proper linear phase EQ for other surgical correction needed and 100% of the time proves to be more useful and I'll will pick that over a Pultec anyday if I can only pick one.

 

The reason i wrote this thread is simple.
I have plenty of tools for mastering, digital, hardware, clean, mojo, precision but sometimes even after spending a lot of time with all kinds of precision, clean tools, you come back to simple tools like the Pultec.
While it is simple in operation the result can be very natural and just right, just what the material needs.

 

If you're having these sort of issues, i think you need to focus more on your mixing.

 

What is your point?
Tell that to countless professionals using it in mastering.

Obviously, the EQP-1A was embraced by many of the top recording studios, especially in the USA, and it can be heard on literally thousands of recordings made over the past 60 years. Tamla Motown owned several units and used them for everything, from tracking individual instruments and voices to equalizing the final mix at the mastering stage. Motown engineers often employed the ‘low-end trick’ on backing tracks, carving out some midrange frequencies and creating space for the lead vocal to sit nicely in the mix.

But i guess you know more than people at the abbey road institue.
https://abbeyroadinstitute.nl/blog/demystifying-the-pultec/

 

My point is as simple as this, if you have issues with your mix, you should go back and fix it on the mixing phase, using a Pultec on a mastering stage is not recommended and should be avoided because the way pultec affects frequencies, it isn't the surgical type, while it can be it is still not precise enough for my taste, what you said isn't wrong, Pultec is widely used till this day, and it has a very musical natural way of doing things, i can't remember a mix i haven't had to resort to the Low-end Trick, in the past few years or so, but i only used it ONCE on a mastering stage on a mix i didn't do myself even then i had to use another EQ to balance off what the pultec had done...

Not sure how to react to this, but basically times change, and the way we use our existing tools also change, many digital goodies weren't available back in the analogue era, therefore mixing wasn't always as we know it today, big difference between in the box and out of the box mixing styles my friend.

 

What you call a flaw of they way it works is actually the recipe of why it works so well for mastering as well.
Modern or old, it makes no difference, a tool is a tool.

The way it doesnt mess with phase and enhances low end while removing mud and adding top end sparkle is remarkable and it can do it in a musical way.

It cant do it all obviously but sometimes the less is more approach works better.

 

Last edited: Nov 29, 2021

Where/when did i say flaw exactly?

let's agree to disagree then, but if it works for you? then sure go for it.

Wouldn't have replied to the thread if i did not, pultec EQs have a very specific way of handling things, and it should not be used lightly.

i still can't figure out what is your point?

With time, new tools gets developed to do better job than the old ones, more options gets released and more choice becomes available, do i spend the time learning the new tools to get better results, or should i stick to the old ways because i'm afraid to either change or put in the work to get better results?

for the last time, Pultec is good, has nice round sound, and has a very clean way of curving low mids and adding body to a source, it is best used on a per track/per source basis than on a master, because if you do it on a master you are affecting the WHOLE thing, some elements in your mix MIGHT benefic from a low bump, some will NOT, it might even cause some problems, Pultec is good mainly with low end, but i don't see how boosting everything's lows will make your mix sound better, only bass drum and Bass are low end elements, other elements do not need or require extra low end...

i mainly Mix metal, precision is needed, can't just slap a pultec on a master and call it a day.
i'll pm you a mix.

Please let's just agree to disagree and move on friend...

 

Yeah, i re-edited the message but you seem to have been faster with the reply.

Lol, i didnt say its a solution for everything but i can work on anything. It can means what it means, that sometimes it can work on any genre.

Usually if a mix is pretty good and needs some basic balancing, low end boost and mud removal, aka smiley curve, it works miracles.
The beauty of it is that it just solidifies the low and while making it bigger and rounder or tighter ( depends on which pultec you are using, tube or solid state or different model/clone etc ), it cleans up the mud and adds high end sweetness.

I have seen it used on metal mastering with success, by others.

To each his own.

 

The issue here is that if it is applied on a master level, many elements will suffer, Vocals, solos, snare, and rhythmic guitars will lose some of their presence, making your master not very true to the mix, and this is my main issue with the pultec, using lower Bandwidth may have less of an impact on those elements, but you're still losing a lot of low-mid mid information.

 

I would use it as the last eq in the chain, if that would be the case to use a pultec eq on a mixbus or mastering.
Not the first choice but when it works, it works well.

 

People down voting for no reason is the reason people are moving away from this forum to other friendlier forums.

 

I can't speak for everyone but the poll was flawed.

Your title asks "are they the easiest"

You could argue "preach brother" and "yes its amazing how it works" are identical responses.

"I prefer clean digital EQs" - What's that got to do with the question of ease? This is implying the question is now to do with the quality of the result rather than the ease.

"I prefer other tools" is a duplicate of above if in fact the other tool is a clean digital EQ.

However the reason for my response is...

I can't imagine anything easier that sticking Softubes Weiss MM-1 Mastering Maximiser at the end of your effects chain on the Master Channel and using the preset "Mastering for iTunes".

Again... your question was about ease, not sound quality.

 

I gave you the other tools option because it satisfies more people and disables endless debates on which answers should be added.

 

You know what is a direct entailment for that statement? That Pultec EQs are most useful to fools.
It's your most efficient EQ, you say?

 

Last edited: Nov 29, 2021

I just learned something. There are serious EDM producers.
As you were.

 

One day this will be over my Master Bus....when Bitcoin goes to 100K

https://www.terryaudio.com/ceq-product-page-v2