EQ Matching

Go ahead and spring for Ozone. But not for the EQ matching feature, as you will probably never use it.

EQ matching is useful for very specialized applications, such as matching vocal takes on different days or background sounds in edited video scenes. What it is not useful for are all the things you think/hope it might be, such as offering an easy way to EQ your music.

you would be better off, learning how to eq starting at the mic...
then on mixdown, using pro mixes to train your ears to get to where you want.

eq matching, is really just a lazy way of not learning anything.

and besides, you want your mixes to sound ORIGINAL, so trust your ears.

Hi there backwoods (love that name)  It depends a bit too wether you are mixing multitrack sessions from those different sessions or are you just working with stereo masters. If its multitracks then you can apply similar chains etc over the same types of tracks. But even if you are mastering stereo tracks you will be surprised as to how consistent you can make them. Not ideal but better than you imagine.

The trick with mastering is once you have got all your stereo tracks then choose a reference track that you want them all to sound similar to. (not necessarily one of theirs either but a well produced and mastered track in a very similar genre) Then as you master each track one by one just having the reference present will make you use your mastering tools so that you will be trying to push each track towards that reference a bit more.

The fact that all the tracks have to go through the same mastering EQ and compressor will add some consistency in itself. I recently had to master some material for a client that came from many sources over many years. I was surprised in the end (and so was he) as to how consistent I was able to massage the tracks. Just getting all the levels consistent is a good start!

Don't despair, backwoods. What you're attempting really is possible, just difficult.

I have an album, a greatest-hits compilation of Fleetwood Mac, that is an impressive example of mastering for continuity. It includes songs covering a 30-year span, recorded in different studios by different engineers, some to tape and some to disk. A singer will sound different from one day to the next, but in this case we're hearing singers aging over 30 years! (It was mastered at Precision Mastering in Los Angeles by Stephen Marcussen, a fellow who has been doing it for a very long time.)

Now that I think about it, your specific circumstance might actually be one in which EQ matching could be very helpful. However, I'd use the match curve as a visual guide rather than letting software try to match it all up automatically.

Ozone is definitely up to that task. Another product that might be worth checking out is Har-Bal, but only if you're working with stereo tracks rather than the original multitrack recordings.

Thanks for the ideas everyone.

It's a philosophical question almost. It's said give the "client" what they want but this is basically a mix tape for a friend who treats technology as a sort of magic and expects perfection instantly. The bar is set so high that no matter what I do it's going to fall short so I might as well treat it as a fun learning exercise.

Anyway, it affords a good excuse to get "Ozone" which I have always been curious about.

Yeah, get Ozone4, use the matching EQ feature? Then also get Harbal, and import the reference track and use that against the .wav that you export from Sonar? Save the _eq file from harbal, then open with a program that renders .wav to .mp3, I like Sony's Soundforge, but lots of people like others like wavelabs. 

Then it's an iterative process? To go back to the source, after listening to the final mp3? Adjust this, EQ that? Widen the other? a different reverb? Then dance it all through the process above... Over and over... It's an ongoing process. And Ozone has a pretty good limiter (loudness maximizer) but I turn it off and use a 3rd party. And a plug on the mains for tape saturation? And on and on... It's a process, and if you really love it? You'll never be happy with your process, you will continue to evolve it. You will continue to try different things and A/B them in your mixes and learn what works best/sounds better "to you."

Good luck, it's a sickness...

backwoods


Thanks for the ideas everyone.

It's a philosophical question almost. It's said give the "client" what they want but this is basically a mix tape for a friend who treats technology as a sort of magic and expects perfection instantly. The bar is set so high that no matter what I do it's going to fall short so I might as well treat it as a fun learning exercise.

Anyway, it affords a good excuse to get "Ozone" which I have always been curious about.

I love a good rationalization!
 
(Hey, where's the location of Paul Bunyan and the blue ox in your avatar?  We have a Paul Bunyan statue in Portland Oregon (right across the street from a facility we've visted a few times), but no blue ox...)

bitflipper


Given your situation I'd be inclined to just match RMS levels and hand it over. Your friend probably won't know the difference anyway. 

 
That would be my thought on this as well. If it is a compilation of different songs with different bands, then you don't want to make them all sound the same, you just want it be even - with a common thread woven in the middle.
 
That common thread could just be the subtle color of a decent compressor or limiter, which is used to match up all the levels.  This can't be done with a set it and forget it approach, but I would stick with the same compressor/limiter through the project.