Outboard eq's Vs. plugin eq's

[Kinsolrecording]

Hi, I'm new to this forum and I'm really finding it useful! I am looking into buying a 4 channel preamp and I'm looking at either an api 3124 or the vintech 473. Right now I am using only plugin eq's and I was wondering if I would benefit from the added eq on the 473. And if what the benefits are with an outboard eq. Oh and the reason I am getting one of these as my first pre is because the studio that I volunteer in has an a john hardy and great river so I wanted to get something that would be different from those but still useable at my home studio.
Thanks

[NathanEldred]

The 473 is absolutely a smoking sounding preamp. The EQ's aren't extremely versatile (consider them a value added throw in), but they are practical points and good when you need a little rise in the mids or highs (3.2k, or 12k) or a little attenuation or thickening in the lows or low mids (60hz, 220hz). However, they can go a long way in turning the basic preamp into something quite different, it's especially nice in a tracking situation. And to answer your question directly, IMO there is absolutely no comparison between a plug in and a pro EQ (like on the 473). Not even close.

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
And to answer your question directly, IMO there is absolutely no comparison between a plug in and a pro EQ (like on the 473). Not even close.

well, I think it is quite save to say that these days, in the eq field there is good and bad in both worlds.

sony and massenburg eq's are high end eq's and can easily compete to lots of outboard. waves ren eq / mcdsp filterbanks are more then usable eq's.


as for outboard eq's ... most people just authomaticaly consider it to be good .... and most conqole eq's you find on mid / low / hell even some high end stuff can suck as bigtime as their plugin counterparts.

And while at it ... with the coming of sony dynamics .... that field's open for some interesting games in the future too.

[DanV]

The following companies all have all great computer based EQ's that you should look into:

PSP
Sonalksis
Elemental Audio
Voxengo

Card based - but great:
Uad-1
Tc Powercore

If you eq before you hit your converters and other things in your frontend path it can make a huge difference when compared to using the same eq settings once in the box. I prefer to do most of my eq post and only eq major problem areas pre - and usually then i will eq with a lot less authority just to be on the safer side. I think in this day and age it is pretty safe to leave most eq to the daw and just make sure you have your bass-rolloffs etc in place when appropriate. Another plus to having a good plugin eq is that you can run a lot of instances on the fly - which helps you avoid all of the conversion steps you would make when passing things back and forth to your outboard eq.

Am I missing anything here? What applications do my fellow slutz find outboard EQ's superior for?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by danv1983

Am I missing anything here? What applications do my fellow slutz find outboard EQ's superior for?

Vocals, bass, kicks, snares, perc and direct guitars.

Basically everything.

[DanV]

My last post was speaking from a DAW based - small budget perspective.
Considering the quality of the latest eq plugs; if you are DAW centered and only have a small bit to spend on eq - starting native seems to me to be the way to go.
I'd purchase for instance the PSP MasterQ($150) and the Elemental Audio Equium($170) or maybe that Voxengo number - way before buying 1 Speck ASC($550ish).

[salvator]

Hi folks,

Milleage seem to vary here.

For my part, I never really had succes with plugins.
I found most of them to be "both muddy and harsh at the same time" .
They miss too the "balls and magic" : flat in other word, no depth.

I will say a BIG ditto to what Thrill & Nathan say...

I can live with the GML digital EQ, a sony Dynamics, or the Sonalksis. I quite like the Sony OXFORD when used for freq bellow 200Hz. The UAD pultec & Waves LP may be useful in there own way too. And for sharp notch I still use the MD3 option of my TC6000.

But all of them have nothing to write home about.
In fact, to my ears, it always a PITA when doing an A/B with analog hardware...

Most freq I boost with those plugin EQ I feel the need to cut it !

If Kinsolrecording has an opportunity for the 473, then I suggest him to go for it. Any days.

Having say that, I too LOVE the functionnality of plugins (totall recall, multiple instances...).
I also very often rely on a plugin Equalizer that I've created myself (with the help of another ME).
It's quite simple : Bass & treble adjustement but do sound good ! (first time I use a plug wich has the balls & co).
I may build a demo version if there is enough interest for it...

Best,

Salvator

[Hans Hitmachine]

I've yet to hear a digital eq that doesn't suck. You just can't boost with them, it distords... There are many bad analogue eq's as well though. I love the eq on the MCI 400 boards. Extremely simpler, but wondeful sounding.

[volki]

Originally posted by salvator
I also very often rely on a plugin Equalizer that I've created myself (with the help of another ME).
It's quite simple : Bass & treble adjustement but do sound good ! (first time I use a plug wich has the balls & co).
I may build a demo version if there is enough interest for it...

interesting... sure, hit us with a demo please!
btw... what do you think does give your eq the "balls" in comparison to all those others?

otherwise, same here, i find some of the software eq's (renaissance, uad pultec, etc.) useable, but except for the pultec, i find myself avoiding boost. ok it's a good thing to cut more than you boost anyway, but for boosting i prefer my outboard neumann/cadac/siemens stuff. just so much smoother!

haven't really researched on the exact reasons for that... ok, you get different (nonlinear) sideeffects from different analog layouts, too, but probably the rounding errors, the resulting filter slope or other factors in digital calculation are much less pleasing to the ear, and can only be made up for by even more effort in additional calculation? correct me if i'm wrong there. anyway, i wonder if there's any articles about this on the web?

[Hans Hitmachine]

Funny, I prefer boosting over cutting. I seldom cut, I rather change mic placement.
Boosting can be wonderful, especially on guitars. Much more icing on the cake i.m.o.

[volki]

agreed, mic placement comes before eq'ing. if it's not an electronic signal in the first place, that is

[dave-G]

I'm definitely someone who uses outboard EQ a lot, but these days I also use a gaggle of plugin EQs. I'm not so vehement or religious about the issue anymore. I'd say that in a mix-setting, if you have a sound that you like already but want to enhance or carve a bit, most of the current crop of high-end plugin equalizers are more than up to the task (some more so than even the console EQ you might be feeding your mix out to!). If however, you're trying to EQ something to make a "sound", the character of good outboard is often a far preferable starting point.

-dave

[salvator]

interesting... sure, hit us with a demo please!
btw... what do you think does give your eq the "balls" in comparison to all those others?

In summary :

My previous plugin was a multiband phaseshift (ala IBP littlelab, demo already posted here on gearslutz), and I've learned a lot exploring this technology on some important aspect, like depth and naturalness.

So after knocking my head on sterile standard IIR coeficient, I've started to add the phase techology in my code.
HOURRA ! It definitively help to prevent the harshness and those "ring", especially in the Hi freq (it's upsampled too).
It has needed a lot of time to make the right interaction between the phase response variation and the IIR settings, but now it sound great. There also is another trick that I will keep secret.

Results are that I don't need to tweak a lot to make a track sound right. IT SIMPLY DOES'NT **** UP THE SOUND but do sound like a "real" EQ. And that's obvious when you push the self : you really have "something" under the knobs that is all but light, flat or linear.

I said the "balls" but "beef & excitement" would be a more accurate representation of what that thing do. Really.
The "smoking" mode, wich I can call "blessed broken code" sound totally gorgeous too. (my fav for thickening )

Unfortunately, it eat a lot of CPU.
I am currently implementing a swith for optimizeds coeficient allowing low or hi CPU operation. In HI CPU mode, 8-10 stereo instances max out my dual 1Ghz G4.
Now I'm in the lastest developpement steps of the 5 bands mastering EQ, using the same thechnology and I really urge to order a G5 !!!
I wil not say that it will replace all my hardware, but sure it's a big revolution for a plug.

Since my post start being OT, I will create a new thread for the subject and cook a demo version for those interested to ear the thing this week. (Mac only, RTAS-MAS-VST-AU supported)


Best,

Salvator

[peteri]

Count me in for the demo please!

Thank god for Logic's Freeze function!

Pete

[Renie]

I've heard that George Massenberg said he prefers his plug-in EQ to his own hardware unit. I don't know if it's true...

[ISedlacek]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
IMO there is absolutely no comparison between a plug in and a pro EQ (like on the 473). Not even close.

Yes. I tried most of the EQ plugs (Waves, Sony, URS etc.) but when I process the same things with the same settings through Millennia NSEQ, all these plugins suddenly change into dry grass ...

[salvator]

I've heard that George Massenberg said he prefers his plug-in EQ to his own hardware unit. I don't know if it's true...

I've read this too. That may be true that he prefer the digital EQ, but i am asking if it really do sound better...
If I remember well, he said (something like this) he prefer his digital EQ because of the recall, even if there is some little artifacts

Anybody unbiased with an 8200 to perform a direct AB for sound comparison ?


Salvator

PS : the demo will be up in 1-2 days.
I use DP4 but his freeze function doesn't perform in background...I guess Logic do so, and even faster than real time ?

[Kinsolrecording]

Thanks for all your replies! I think I will look into the 473. maybe the api will come later on. In your opinions,what outboard eq would start me off at a decent price. that is if i was to find an api on ebay for cheaper or something. Thanks

[e-cue]

Plug in's and other digital EQ's don't have capacitors, transformers, etc. so you don't have the phase shift mush associated with them. For example, I'd much prefer the Filterbank plug in on a bass for tight low end than an analog Pultec. It might not be a popular opinion, but it's all about what works or doesn't work for you. If I want to go for a richer, mushier, more spread out bass, I'd probably try out the Pultec. The new Filterbank Q's can get much tighter and surgical than any analog eq I've pitted it against so far. Being more on the SSL side of things, I love tight notchable stuff. It's definitely one of my fav eq's analog or not. Any competent engineer can pull off a great mix using either.

Different tools for different apps.

[salvator]

Hi,

That's what I've learned too for the bass freq.
I really dig the low end of the OXFORD. but above 150-200Hz, it's not what I'm looking for.

Sometimes, a little "controled" phaseshift can perfectly fit the track too; I like the low end of Neve 1073's. Less clean than digital but still very tight with that bit of magic...

I've found that the issue when designing plugins EQ, sit mostly in the hi freq. It's a challenge to code smooth hi without any harness but still very clear/airy

To my taste, It's where tube equipements rules.
In the studio, I often use solid state on the low, keeping valve equipement for smoothing higher freq.


Best,

Salvator


Peteri, Volki,

You can mail me : plugins@editions-ihs.com
the demo is ready

[Bob Olhsson]

The same numerical settings never translate between ANY two equalizers. In the case of plug-ins, there is usually way more range for each control and thus potential for bad sounding settings. in other words, I think analog eq. is a LOT more "idiot-proof." The quality of monitoring is way more critical using digital or for that matter any wide range parametric eq.

Clocking impacts monitoring digital eq settings but not analog. In practice this means a harsher sounding top end. The thing is that harshness due to jitter goes away when you play the final mix without any signal processing running. Monitoring with a better sounding clock helps and monitoring with a relatively jitter-proof D to A such as the Benchmark DAC-1 helps lots more.

[volki]

Originally posted by peteri
Count me in for the demo please!

Thank god for Logic's Freeze function!

Pete

darn mac users

[volki]

in other words, I think analog eq. is a LOT more "idiot-proof."

agreed, you can't even get lost in deciding between all those settings, because there aren't too many - esp. with rotary switches

The thing is that harshness due to jitter goes away when you play the final mix without any signal processing running.

er, i don't get it - we're talking about mixing in the box, right? but what actually goes on software-wise within a single program such as logic or pro-tools shouldn't have anything to do with how well a d/a does its work...?

[salvator]

Bob,

It's very true for the jitter impacting a lot the sound of EQ plugins.
But that phenomen is added to a existing harsh top end due to the EQ itself.

I don't own the DAC-1 but I use the converters of my TC6000 wich are jitter immune too, and I still don't like the digital hi.

Concerning the range of settings, there is something else that I found strange too.
When EQ'ing with mid level digital EQ, I need to cut everything. And the more I cut (or boost), the more I need to cut (or boost) somewhere else : There is always "something" wrong.
No matter what the settings are.

So, if mixing tracks with plug ins, I often need to EQ a lot.
And 4 bands are sometime not enough (!), whereas with a good sounding EQ I can live with 2 self (+ maybe a parametric medium)... and be WAY happier with the results.

Now for me the smile is back

Best,

Salvator

[TML]

Plugin's that Eq? Didn't know they did that....thought plugins just add jitter......LOL
I like to get bass to sound fat with a pultec style eq or 1073...then in the mix as others have stated....go with a digital eq for the bottom 2 octaves....it's surgical and you can level out all the notes in the song depending on the key. Just can't do that with the 60hz on the neve........then again....you can overshoot the q for I nice bump in the bottom with the plugs. I don't find the Q on the filterbank stuff to be as pointed as say...the waves...eq.........FWIW

[DanV]

Originally posted by volki
darn mac users

Look into FX freeze!

[volki]

It's very true for the jitter impacting a lot the sound of EQ plugins.

sorry, it seems i'm too dumb for this one could you please explain a bit?

Look into FX freeze!

of course! (*patt-on-forehead*)

[e-cue]

Originally posted by TML
I don't find the Q on the filterbank stuff to be as pointed as say...the waves...eq.........FWIW

There's an update for Filterbank with a much tighter Q that was annouced at NAMM several weeks back. That's what I was refering to when I said "new filterbank q's".

[Bob Olhsson]

Not ALL digital eq. is harsh!

[dave-G]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
Not ALL digital eq. is harsh!

word!