Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Equalizers on individual tracks(timbres) or on entire mix or both?
Which way do you use them on iOS?
Comments
I equalize my toilet paper before use. Just to be on the safe side.
Bwaha
Putting an eq on a mix is an interesting move, if it gets things sounding right. After any corrective eq, which is going to be specific to each instrument, eqing a song to taste, if, say each instrument needs the same eq, like, everything wants to be brighter, it seems like it can sound better doing a global eq on the mix. I asked a local recording engineer about this and he agreed, and thought it had something to do with introducing less cumulative phase shift, by lessening the number of eq processors the sound goes through. It also makes the eqing process more fluid, because you can try things faster, rather than having to go through a bunch of instruments and duplicate your eq you are auditioning.
At one point, losing my mind mixing, I'd tried duplicating the same eq, per instrument, vs. a global eq, same curve, and to me, it sounded noticeably better, sonically, with the global eq.
In the 50's, before eq's were used extensively, studios would use handmade boxes of filters, that would amount to amount to eq presets. They would say, how does it sound with box A? Is it better with box C?
@Processaurus very interesting. Thank you.
@Processaurus Positively. The Prof. at the recording program I went through rammed home to us that reductive EQ on the individual tracks & subtle boosts on the stereo bus was the way to go.
But then mix engineers like Chris Lord Alge will use huge EQ boosts on individual channels and he's the stereotypical "Pro Mix Engineer".
There are two things to remember. Mixing is absolutely material/song dependent. An acoustic ballad is going to be mixed differently than an EDM stomp track. Second, and it's a cliche' yes, but there are no "rules" to EQ & mixing. I always use my ears first over watching every curve & meter on a plug-in. It may theoretically be wrong to do 3 10db+ close Q surgical notches inside a couple hundred kilohertz but if it sounds good, do work.
Hope that helps man....
I think with EQ less is always more. EQ is invaluable when a fix is needed, but you should always resist the temptation of slathering it on every track.
I think you should always try and get the best possible tone at source, be it from your guitar or synth or whatever, so that you are happy with the sound going in. With some instruments this can be tricky obviously, for example recording acoustic guitars where mic placement can have a profound effect on the tone. But anything that starts in the box, like an amp sim or a soft synth, should already have the tone you're looking for when you record it, meaning there really should be no reason to EQ it afterwards unless there is an unforeseen problem.
Once you're mixing, then a little corrective EQ to make things fit together might be required, or if there is a lot of low-end mud then you might want to high-pass filter some of your tracks to clean things up. However I personally think that if you HPF every single track you end up with mixes that can sound clinical and boring. I also think if you EQ every track to try and improve the timbre you are likely to end up with something that sounds worse than what you started with, and will also waste a lot of time trying to second-guess your own decisions.
Also never ever EQ a soloed track, always EQ in context within the mix.
As for EQ on the Master Bus, maybe sometimes, but it's likely that you might be able to fix things with instrument levels, for example simply adjusting the fader on the bass instrument up or down, rather than an EQ on the Master.
All just IMO of course, YMMV.
From an untrained dabbler’s POV, I’m less concerned with the ‘right’ way to use EQ and technical issues, as opposed to what pleases my ears.
If an adjustment makes a mix sound better to me, all well and good, if it sounds rubbish, then either abandon that path and try something else. Dabbling some more, until judgement or serendipity gets a result.
if you use EQ right way in tracks, you basically don't need to use it over whole mix .. i'm trying to avoid to use any FX, expect of very subtle limiter, on master track - i solve 'problems' where they happen - on individual tracks and group..
proper mix should sound almost perfecly also without any mastering (eq, compression, etc on master track) ..
trying to fix sound using EQ on master channel is like trying to get nice looking house from outside but inside it is dirty and broken and eventually it will whole fall once
If you have multiple tracks fighting for the same frequencies and cannot (or don't want to) fix this by adjusting the source sounds, then EQ individual tracks is the only way, doing this on the master bus you remove those frequencies from all sounds rather than making space for them to cut through from a single sound and will make things worse.
If you are having to EQ the whole thing by a large amount then something is wrong in the mix or source sounds.
EQ on a whole track during mastering would be used to balance tracks of differing styles to fit together on an album.
Remember that most listeners will apply their own EQ when listening anyway