The evils of EQ plugins......the frequency graph

[nlc201]

something that has been on my mind for awhile

A funny anecdote to start with:

I was working with a client a while back doing a mix in Pro Tools. This particular person did have some "engineering" experience and was insistent on being hands on in the process. Great. As the mix progessed, we proceeded to EQ a track with a Waves REQ. After messing with it for a few minutes, I settled on a rather generous boost/cut setting that I thought made the track (I'm prett sure it was an acoustic guitar) sit really nicely in the track without drawing too much attention to itself. As I closed the plugin window to move on, the client instantly stopped me and actually said, "Wait! You're gonna leave the EQ like that?!!" My response was to reopen the plug and listen to the track a bit, reevaluating the sound. I still liked it so I told him, "OK. This is what I hear going on with this. Tell me what you don't like about the sound and what you hear in your mind for what you want and we'll work on it." Diplomatic right? He was the client after all. The response was stunning. "Well just look at that EQ curve!!" I looked it at. After a few seconds of looking at the frequency graph, my only conclusion was that it was indeed a visual representation of what the EQ was doing. "What about it?" I asked. "It looks so funky! Why are you EQing the sound like that?!" Puzzled, I asked him what he didn't like about the sound. "In my experience, when you make the graph look like that it always sounds weird!" OK... After some argument and realizing the time constraints of this mix, we decided to move on. I told him I would readdress it later and he agreed. Thankfully, he had to leave before the mix was finished but insisted on me sending a ref copy for him to hear. I of course did not change the EQ on the track and he of course called me up the next day thanking me for going back to change that EQ curve because it sounded much better now.




As plugin use becomes rampant and unchecked, it seems that the new "look" of EQs has become almost as important the sound of these faux units. Witness Digi's recent release of their EQIII. A colrful melange of big virtual knobs and a frequency graph right out of a college calculus text book. Manufacturers are also jonesing to get you to check out their "photo-realistic" representations of real vintage gear that the plug is supposed to model. What once was a very aural experience of listening to an unchanging piece of brown tape has turned into staring at virtual waveforms. A visual repesentation of how sound might look.

In the EQ department, it has been commonplace to include a frequency graph on virtually every plug to show the user what the EQ is doing. But no matter how accurate they are, are they really showing us anything relevant? My misinformed friend was so used to "seeing" everything that he forgot how to listen. It was difficult for him to disassociate the graph from the sound.

Now, think about a typical analog console for a second. The EQ section (as well as dynamics) is simply a vertical series of knobs. An engineer familiar with the layout will typically not really need to look at the EQ section as they can just navigate to it by rote. The engineer will most likely be able to sit back somewhat and keep his/her head closer to the sweet spot. They'll just grab the knob they need and turn it until it sounds good. In many cases, even the markings on the knobs (frequency, boost cut amount, Q value) can be effectively ignored by the experienced engineer. Equalization is accomplished by listening to and evaluating the changes made by turning the knobs.

Jump back to a plugin EQ. Everything is condensed to be right there, in your face. In terms of markings, you can't help but see them. Boost/Cut in big digital numbers staring back at you, accurate to 1/10th of a dB. You can't help but look at it. Many plugin windows for an expansive EQ fill almost the entire screen! Then there's the audio antichrist itself, the frequency graph. Big and colorful with a very pliable line covered in dots for stretching and manipulation. Any change done on an EQ setting is instantly registered as a visual change on the graph. It's all suddenly become an interactive video game for audio engineers. The power to change the sound and the visual medium at the same time? Oh man.....this is better than XBOX!! The trusty, dedicated knobs of ages past are replaced by their virtual counterparts with tactile control provided by a computer mouse.

In this information age, manufacturers' strategy is to bombard the user with information. And since DAWs are a VISUAL medium, they condense all the variables and data analysis/interpretation (IE the grpah) onto a plugin window. It's become the ultimate form of visual data compression. The forest of knobs on a console replaced by a single, colorful window jampacked with nearly the same amount of information, all updated with visual interpretations in realtime.

Digi's EQIII is a step forward from its predecessor I undoubtedly agree. But there's something about the outgoing digirack EQ that I miss. It was one of the few plugins that was downright UGLY. It didn't have the glitz of it's high end counterparts, just a few sliders on a grey background. Wait, was it grey? I don't remember....but that's the point. The no-frills approach was similar to the console EQs of yesteryear. Sure, it may have sounded like turd on a stick, but at least it made you listen.

URS recently released their suite of EQ plugs and I was very happy to see that frequency graphs were noticably absent on ALL of them. Sure they still look snazzy, fair enough. I found that after getting used to being without the dreaded graph (which had so dominated my EQ experience in the box), EQ got easier, more dare I say.....analog. You twisted the virtual knobs until it souned good. Same thing happened with Valvetone 62 and even the BF pultec. Simple. Turn a knob, listen to what it does. The Massenburg plug, while it sounds great, has got graphing-itis. Same with the Sony Oxford. There has been plenty of research done on the effect of "masking" in the audio world. Now, to add to the challenge, "visual" masking has come into play.

Could I be so bold as to propose a simple toggle switch on a plugin that simply turns off the graph. Or maybe even a mod that simply turns the plug into simple sliders (dare I say, digirack-esque?!). Labeling could be even be limited to slider labels with even values not being represented anymore. Keep it a ferrari under the hood, just make it a Datsun on the outside. Remember that the end listener of the MUSIC you are making won't be able to see how awesome your EQ curve looks. Perhaps a little less distraction might make us better engineers.....

[alphajerk]

im all for getting rid of the frequency graphs as well on plugins, it is WAY too encroaching on your ears, or at least the ability to close that section of it or hide it somehow.

[joeq]

nic201-

great story- it almost belongs in the "Stupidest things" thread.

our species is programmed to place the visual above the auditory. I think it requires recording engineers to be constantly vigilant about resisting judging things visually. Not just with EQ curves. This has been a problem since the first moving fader- maybe since the first VU meter. I sometimes catch myself redrawing a fade curve without even listening to the first one because I don't like the way it looks.

a "Digirack" style skin for each plug-in seems like a good idea to help keep you honest, but you know the plug-in manufacturers would never go for it. Any more than hardware manufacturers are going to all offer their gear in basic black without any blue lights.

you have inspired me to do some more blind testing with my plug-ins.

[papawhitehead]

My family is in Radio, so I grew up surrounded by knobs and faders. I agree that a lot of plug-ins especially EQ ones try to cram a lot of useless (to me) information in the little box. I've been slowly moving back toward the Analog world, partially because of this, but mostly because I miss real knobs and faders. Turning a virtual knob with a mouse, controller or worst of all (for me) a track pad, seems well... sterile and fake. Yeah I know that there are plugs that are amazing and probably sound as good or maybe even better than any Analog gear I could afford, but I guess I'm just nostalgic. Thanks for lettin me rant.

[Robert Randolph]

Does this even need to be said?

There are some instances where frequency graphs are invaluable, but they are rare....

*shrug* I dont see why this isnt just common sense? Other than perhaps the same reason tons of people do all sorts of weird thigns for incredibly strange reasons.

[Hysteria]

Could I be so bold as to propose a simple toggle switch on a plugin that simply turns off the graph

Ooh don't let the audiophiles get wind of this idea, they'll think they thought of it first by having displays that you could turn off on their high-end gear. They'll maintain that they have always done this to improve the sound and the professional world is only just catching on

Actually it is even more funny when you think that, in this case the client thought it sounded worse because the EQ graph provided certain objective feedback (which he believed over his ears) which looked wrong whereas an audiophile would swear that something sounded different even the objective information showed it to be the same.

Sorry to diverge from the topic, couldn't resist.

[Riad]

I actually like to adjust the EQ via my Control |24, no graph just knobs that show the values :D

Rob

[DrDeltaM]

The absense of an EQ graph on the URS is indeed a big plus for them imo. In the past I looked too much to the graph as well, with these i just dial in the sound i like thumbsup

It's one of my few griefs about that TriTone Digital HydraTone EQ. While it sounds good, i find the graph distracting somehow... And that makes it harder to dial in the right sound for me.

[jaye b]

good point, as much as i don't want to i find sometimes my hearing is "blurred" by what happens on the screen too, so when mixing i turn the DAW monitors off from time to time, to reevaluate what's happening, thats the moment i really hate mixing with a mouse..

[jho]

That's what's great about Icon (and soon to be the new "Icon JR"). Knobs to twist for everything EQ etc. Don't even need the plug windows for anything.

[BrianBrian]

Great story! It's pretty amusing how people see EQ plots or graphic EQ settings and for whatever reason want them to look a certain way. I have really bitched out a number of my friends for their EQ settings in their cars. We will be listening to a CD, and I will try and tune the graphic EQ to make things sound more natural or to combat any funky resonances/dips present in the car. I get remarks like "that doesn't look right, its all uneven, shouldn't it be more like a smooth smiley shape?"

Anway about the frequency graphs: a lot of plugins I use have 'em, but a lot of them don't as well. I'd like to think that I base all my EQ decisions on what I am hearing, but I suspect that a graphic display might somehow influence my settings at times. One thing I like doing is setting up my MIDI knob controller to be linked to a few EQs, then turn off my monitor or not look at it while adjusting the knobs (my controller also does not display anything by the knobs). Sometimes I am surprised by what the settings look like when I refer to the monitor again, but I certainly don't change them because of this.

In defense of frequency graphs, I find graphical plots with draggable handles to be awesome when working with a mouse. Most of my EQs with draggable plots can be adjusted by dragging the mouse up/down for gain, left/right for frequencies, and either using the mouse wheel (great!) or holding CTRL to adjust the Q/bandwidth. When restricted to using a mouse, I find this to be a very effective and speedy way to adjust EQs. Being able to simultaneously adjust the gain and Q lets me tune filters much quicker than having to use the mouse to adjust two seperate knobs.

So overall I don't think frequency graphs are inherently evil, but I think it is paramount to condition yourself to not care what they looks like, and to never make adjustments based on what you see, or what kind of curves you may have seen in the past. To someone who does not understand this, then yes the frequency graphs can be truly evil! I agree that having display on/off switches would be great on all plugin EQs.

[syra]

Great thread.

I partially agree.

The issue with the visuals IMHO starts from the moment you sit in front of a monitor. I mix ITB so I spent most of my time using both my vision and my hearing...that means I don't allocate as many resources as I could in my hearing...every now and then I entertain myself by closing my eyes for a minute or two...OMG! ...Wouldn't it be great if I could mix by just using my ears??!! ...this is what we were supposed to do or used to...

As for the graph I find it helpful. It helps me relate more to my monitors/listening environment. It allows me to see in the audio spectrum which frequencies I am boosting and what effect it has in my room...have you boosted 100 Hz on an EQP-1A? ...That thing boosts everything below 1K...its good to be able to see that...

[jabney]

The simplest solution to the captured-by-the-display problem for a software EQ would probably be a variable scale of some sort (e.g. display +/- 15 dB or display +/- 95 dB).

Until such a device is programmed, there's always selecting the slider with the mouse, closing your eyes, then turning the mouse-wheel until things sounds good at that frequency.

People do seem to like displays. If sound quality were all that mattered, the price of used White Instrument 1/3 octave EQs (with rotary pots) would probably be higher and certain other brands of used graphic EQs (with slide faders) might sell for less than the premium they now command.

[Curve Dominant]

Digi's EQIII is a step forward from its predecessor I undoubtedly agree. But there's something about the outgoing digirack EQ that I miss. It was one of the few plugins that was downright UGLY. It didn't have the glitz of it's high end counterparts, just a few sliders on a grey background. Wait, was it grey? I don't remember....but that's the point. The no-frills approach was similar to the console EQs of yesteryear. Sure, it may have sounded like turd on a stick, but at least it made you listen.

Yes, the old Digirack EQs are grey. I know, because I still use them, and I like their utilitarian interface. That's why I still like using them, especially the 1-band EQ. The audiences for my music are not golden-eared audio snobs, and I want to dial in a frequency and be done with it.

I have "better sounding" EQ plugs, but the EQ graphs on them just drive me friggin' nuts. They are not only useless, but counter-productively distracting for me, drawing these stupid lines that have little relation to the audio.

To me the difference is between having plugs that "sound better," and having plugs that help you get a better sound (quickly please), and the GUI is the key to that difference.

[nlc201]

I like watching other engineers mix for their body language. But with everyone staring at a screen it has become suddenly less dynamic. There's a lot less "eyes closed" action going on. I remember assisting on a session where the engineer was mixing on a large console. Like many control rooms, this particular studio had the glass right in front of the console so it was very easy to see the live room from the mix position. I was wrapping some mic cables or something like that in the live room and I looked towards the control room to see the engineer staring intently at me. I did one of those double takes and looked behind me to see if I was missing something. He didn't flinch. He just stared. I waved. He stared. I got a little nervous that I had screwed something up. I ducked my head into the control room through the side door to see him still sitting there staring into oblivion just listening. He had essentially shut his eyes off and was listening and mixing. 2" through a console. Not nearly as much eye candy as the DAW. Much more ear candy though.....!

Thanks for your responses. I'm glad other people out there like ugly plugs. I think good control surfaces with proper implementation for plugin control are a good step forward. I got into this for awhile on the Pro Control. Maybe I should revisit it. Hell! Maybe I'll see about mixing with the CPU monitor off. Probably a challenge as you're definitely going to need it for certain assignments. As for the icon, very cool that it has dedicated pots on each channel, but for that price, I'll just buy an SSL..... It has dedicated pots too. Until that day, here's to ending our reliance on a computer monitor!! thumbsup

[Renie]

Originally Posted by DrDeltaM

The absense of an EQ graph on the URS is indeed a big plus for them imo. In the past I looked too much to the graph as well, with these i just dial in the sound i like thumbsup

An EQ graph on a plug like the URS N or API is an amusing thought..

[Lagerfeldt]

Great thread!

I sometimes find myself looking at EQ curves rather than listening, it's so annoying.

It's a bit like when a TV is on in a room, your eyes automatically wander to the TV even when you're having an interesting conversation.

[jbuntz]

Originally Posted by DrDeltaM

The absense of an EQ graph on the URS is indeed a big plus for them imo. In the past I looked too much to the graph as well, with these i just dial in the sound i like thumbsup

It's one of my few griefs about that TriTone Digital HydraTone EQ. While it sounds good, i find the graph distracting somehow... And that makes it harder to dial in the right sound for me.

A lot of times when you are using hardware, you don't even look at where the knobs are pointing. Even memorizing what frequencies you think you like on an instrument can be misleading because each instrument, each recording, each song and maybe each section is different.

[h4nc0]

One of the most important things that I learned to get better sound is trying to ignore what I see, and listen instead.

And it still helps alot to turn off all the lights and monitor in front of me, when I am listening.

[beechstudio]

What a great thread!!! You're absolutely right!!!

Wonderful story by the way!

[C.Lambrechts]

Now can you understand why I keep saying that using a controller like the D control with a dedicated EQ edit section and possibility to eq from the channel strips does make a difference ? People say it doesn't have a sound and uhm ... no actually it doesn't but at the same time MOST DEFINATELY it HAS a sound. The sound of you turning the knobs of that eq without staring at the screen graph and while actually listening to what your doing.

[Jack Ruston]

There's nothing like the 'look' of a curve to distract you from what it really sounds like. I cant count the number of times I've dialed in a boost until I thought it was good, and then had to resist the urge to pull it back a bit when I saw a huge mountain in the graphic display.

I always used to work with the displays on the meter bridge but over the past couple of years I've moved them off to one side. I think it makes a very real difference to your ability to hear...It's almost as if vision colours your hearing...which I suppose is why people close their eyes or stare into space when listening very hard. Equally your sense of smell has a profound affect on taste so it stands to reason that what you see can affect what you hear.

I prefer to have a space between my monitors in which to try to visualise the music rather than a PT window.

J

[Curve Dominant]

Originally Posted by C.Lambrechts

Now can you understand why I keep saying that using a controller like the D control with a dedicated EQ edit section and possibility to eq from the channel strips does make a difference ? People say it doesn't have a sound and uhm ... no actually it doesn't but at the same time MOST DEFINATELY it HAS a sound. The sound of you turning the knobs of that eq without staring at the screen graph and while actually listening to what your doing.

I AM HEARING YOU CHRIS!!!

[StuartMac]

Slightly O/T, but this is also why I find people being put off the Crane Song Ibis due to its "note names" labelling so absurd. Just LISTEN to it!

[DrDeltaM]

I actually like the fact it has note labeling. Even easier to find a certain frequency for me.

[deft_bonz]

I often close my eyes just not to be distracted from graphs, visuals, graphics, colors, bars, etc...

That helps me a lot. This way I listen closely.

Deft:::

[Ruairi]

I'd like to add my voice to those complaining about the graphs, I've never found them to be of any use except for the fact that clients seem to get a kick out of them.

Slightly OT - I mix in the box on PT HD and use a 20" and a 17" Apple monitor for a dual secreen setup. I used to try and close my eyes when I wanted to listen without distraction with limited results but lately I came up with a slightly more elegant solution. I made up a black screensaver in Photoshop and inserted it into my screensaver folder. I then set my screensaver to be triggered by moving my mouse into the top left corner of the screen - voila, instant distraction free listening,

cheers,
Ruairi

[Darius van H]

I partially agree also.........visual aids can be great for learning about sound.........hi-powered FFT displays, accurate level meters....looking at the waveform in a DAW, x/y osciloscopes (spelling?) etc.....all useful.....this stuff has the potential to take you further then the great engineers of the past......if you can realize that you need to make a conscious effort to unlink the visual part of your brain from the audio part..........i sincerely believe this is a skill we can work on and develop...

....by this i mean you can have a major visual suggestion and overide it by what you're actually hearing......ever had the experience of tweaking a bit of gear (hard or soft), hearing it change, then realizing the gear is in bypass?.....i have, many times, but not in recent years....'cause i've learnt to overide the visual suggestion.......still working om it but it's better then it was. .....

[deft_bonz]

I have my screens away from the sweetspot. Only the essential things for sound are there. An during mixdown I use anyway only my Motormix. There I don't need any screens. So during intensive listening I look into a boring wall

[dave-G]

Sorry, gang... I just don't completely buy this.

Those people who would see an extreme-looking EQ curve plotted on a screen and think it was "too much" regardless of how it sounds are the SAME ones who would see the knobs on the EQ cranked to +12dB and think the same thing.

Knobs are also a graphic representation of how much EQ is being applied.

If they're listening, they're listening.

And if a client sees the knobs looking severely twisted, you'll still be dealing with the same "trust me and trust your ears" answers..

IMO, the frequency plot as a defacto standard in EQ plugins is decently useful for identifying what's what with multiple inserts -- for taking a quick look at what's happening when you peek at a variety of different EQ plugins whose GUI's are different .. ie: "ah yeah, that's the Filterbank I'm using to boost the highs", or "oh, that's the MDW I'm using to clean up the LF grunge"...

Clearly, YMMV.

-dave