EQ: plugs vs. hw question for the pros

[chk23]

Originally Posted by RubbaDub

You have to use your intelligence to sort out differing opinions. One guy says expensive high-end converters aren't any better than $100 converters. The other guy has used the specific prosumer converters you're talking about and says they leave something to be desired. Pretty obviously, I'd go with the latter opinion.

You pretty obviously should read what the first guy wrote before totally messing up what he said and distorting his message. I never said that and you better stop make such false allegations.

[Enlightened Hand]

The thing that continues to confound me is how folks always end up with an "I know my outboard works for me, so it's better for you too" implication. That's all in the mind of the driver.

If you drive "x" race car and I drive "y" then so be it. They can be totally different. It's how you drive the thing and how it works for you that should be what decides what you use.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by RubbaDub

You have to use your intelligence to sort out differing opinions. One guy says expensive high-end converters aren't any better than $100 converters. The other guy has used the specific prosumer converters you're talking about and says they leave something to be desired. Pretty obviously, I'd go with the latter opinion.

To counterbalance that, I've ALSO used RME converters (ADI-8) with hardware inserts. I found there was still a worthwhile advantage to using the outboard, and I didn't find the RME conversion to be a problem. I noticed an improvement (subtle, but an improvement) over the 003 it was paired with.

RME are a long way from "prosumer".

[shortstory]

Originally Posted by wcb123

People need to believe hardware is better to justify their investment. I personally feel I can produce just as good a mix entirely itb as an otb mix.



Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

So when you have mixed on an SSL desk with a GML 8200 and some pultec EQs after some nice tube compression thru say a Fearn or 670 you still feel your in the box mix is just as good?

I'm impressed! I'd love to know which plugs are making it so you don't need all that pain in the butt hardware anymore.

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by shortstory

So when you have mixed on an SSL desk with a GML 8200 and some pultec EQs after some nice tube compression thru say a Fearn or 670 you still feel your in the box mix is just as good?

I'm impressed! I'd love to know which plugs are making it so you don't need all that pain in the butt hardware anymore.

I love how those that can't like to tell everybody else that it can't be done, or done as well.

This guy might disagree with your argument (I know I do):

Originally Posted by Tim Latham

I’ve heard from many mix engineers of varying skill that “you can’t mix in the box or shouldn’t”. And my response it that I can “mix in the box” only because I’ve retrained myself to do so. It’s an ongoing debate with valid points made on both sides. Mixing in pro tools is certainly not the same as mixing on a big console. Having spent almost 2 decades in the analog world, I have a different point of view then those who’ve started their careers in the pro tools world. In the early versions of pro tools, doing anything in it sounded like crap. When digidesign got the HD together, I was sold. Not just on recording in it. It was a great digital recorder that replaced reel to reel machines forever. But it also was a great editor. It changed the way in which records were made forever.
But it was a few years before “mixing in the box” became an issue. Technically, you should be able to do a much better job mixing pro tools files through an SSL or a NEVE in a big name recording studio. And at fist that’s exactly what I did. And then the budgets started shrinking, fast. I saw the budget tsunami on the horizon and built my own HD mixing studio with a ton of plugins as well as my analog gear. I spent a lot of time tuning my room and it’s pretty damn flat. Then I had to re-learn how to mix. This was a challenge, but I had my analog experience to draw from. One of the first projects completed in my new room won Best New Artist on the MTV awards, The Gym Class Heroes. There have been many since, including a Grammy Award for the Broadway cast album for “In The Heights”. So yes, it can be done without compromising quality. I would never work in a manner that would give my clients anything but the best that I could possibly give them. And I have successfully made the change to mixing in the box. For those who tell you that it can’t be done, I say that it cannot be done by them.

That was originally posted on Latham's blog: Mixing in the box | Tim Latham

As I've said many times, it's the driver, not the vehicle. If you can't get it to sound right in-the-box then it's YOU, not "the box". And in the end all that means is that there are different strokes for different folks.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by shortstory

So when you have mixed on an SSL desk with a GML 8200 and some pultec EQs after some nice tube compression thru say a Fearn or 670 you still feel your in the box mix is just as good?

I'm impressed! I'd love to know which plugs are making it so you don't need all that pain in the butt hardware anymore.

Depends on the mix. I've BEEN through the heartache that is listening back to a mix I did on my Neve and then reworking it ITB. I've had great/shite mixes ITB and OTB. It's down to what you do and what you're mixing.....


BUT - I love the hardware - it's far more fun. But I also love the automation cheats you can do ITB.

[mattyc]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

I love how those that can't like to tell everybody else that it can't be done, or done as well.

This guy might disagree with your argument (I know I do):
That was originally posted on Latham's blog: Mixing in the box | Tim Latham

As I've said many times, it's the driver, not the vehicle. If you can't get it to sound right in-the-box then it's YOU, not "the box". And in the end all that means is that there are different strokes for different folks.

in that quote he says he still uses analog gear though

[ejsongs]

To further that point I know very few people who don't mix on hybrid systems. I think that the context in which you are quoting is more about the debate of in the box vs using a console.

Ej

[Daniel Comport]

When working OTB I don't have to work to have dimension and space around instruments ...it's just there

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by mattyc

in that quote he says he still uses analog gear though

Yes, he does. And that's not the point. The point is that he can use whatever he wants, but he chooses to use plug-ins in circumstances where he doesn't have to, because he feels he can mix in the box. I myself am very similar. I use plug-ins mainly, but I also use a few hardware pieces, because I like working with them. But there have been many times where it was all plug-ins and the sound isn't hurt by that. I could easily go in the studio and use the console and rack if I thought it was impossible to get the sound I want without that stuff. But to date, I haven't had that problem. "It can't be done, or done well that way", when it comes to mixing in or out of the box, is all in the mind and the habits of the user.

I completely understand how someone coming from the exclusively console and rack days would find plug-ins tedious and silly, especially if they used them 10-15 years ago (or further back) as an introduction to the medium. Plug-ins are different. They usually sound subtly, to not-so-subtly, different. They are controlled differently. They don't react to gain structure the way hardware does. They don't always have that extra sonic fingerprint, simply by running a signal through them. They are not physically in one's hands, and thus, don't give a user the feeling that something substantial is in their possession or at their control. It's a totally artificial interaction between the signal processor and the user, when plug-ins are the medium. And that can have a tremendously deleterious effect on the comfort and confidence of the user in their ability to connect with the project at hand. Ultimately, it can lead to users coming to the conclusion that plug-ins suck, and can't hold a candle to the "real thing". I get how that works. I've felt that way myself, many times.

What changed for me, was the evolution I allowed to happen in my mind. That, along with the use of some good hardware controllers, and the idea that I was there to work with the sound, not the tools, let me set aside my bias against software, and simply work to understand how to get the sound there with whatever was at hand, without constantly trying to find fault at what isn't how it "should" be or whatever. Eventually, I came to a point where I got it. Coincidentally, that was at the same time I realized that I was too attached to the physical tools for their own sake anyway. It was a change in my perspective about mixing and sonic manipulation altogether.

Now, I'm relatively young for an audio professional at 30. So I grew up during the transition phase of signal processing anyway, and plug-ins have always existed in my concept of how this stuff is done. Perhaps that allows me to be more open minded. But the post I quoted is from a person that came up during the console and rack days, and yet shifted to plug-ins, by choice. So my point is that it CAN be done, if you want to allow yourself to accept that it can be; Successful engineers are already doing it on the highest levels of commercial employment. All of this talk about plug-in inferiority is out of place at this point; That's just a distraction from the main issue, which is to use whatever works for you, and don't bother complaining about this or that medium, because they all can work if you want them to.

[Audio X]

EQ: plugs vs. hw question for the pros?

Both/Either or whichever sounds better for the purpose.

[salomonander]

personally i think that hardware eqs are far superior to software eqs when it comes to broad musical boosts/cuts. i have never found a software eq that did not sound like software. try a pultec and you'll know. hell - every single eq on my desk sounds far better than any software i tried (and i tried lots).
i totally prefer software for surgical cuts though. actually i love it for that. no hardware can compete to that remotely :-)

so i think its about combining the two. i would never even think about using a software eq to boost anything ( i immediately hear a cloudy weired thing going on that i can't even explain - but its not musical at all - and its the same on ANY software eq i ever tried). just as i would never think about using some vintage eq to clean up a messy track. they all have their place.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by salomonander

personally i think that hardware eqs are far superior to software eqs when it comes to broad musical boosts/cuts. i have never found a software eq that did not sound like software. try a pultec and you'll know. hell - every single eq on my desk sounds far better than any software i tried (and i tried lots).
i totally prefer software for surgical cuts though. actually i love it for that. no hardware can compete to that remotely :-)

so i think its about combining the two. i would never even think about using a software eq to boost anything ( i immediately hear a cloudy weired thing going on that i can't even explain - but its not musical at all - and its the same on ANY software eq i ever tried). just as i would never think about using some vintage eq to clean up a messy track. they all have their place.

This is also my experience - I was a "nonebeliever" too, before my outboard rack grew and I got some nice hardware EQs. But I was never able to reproduce the things my vintage channel EQs do to the sound when I start boosting more than just a bit. When I crank the presence knob on my D&R 8000 channel strips, the sun starts rising, like the engineer I got them from used to say - with software EQs it's like you said: above a certain level it's just a "cloudy, weird thing" going on.

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by salomonander

personally i think that hardware eqs are far superior to software eqs when it comes to broad musical boosts/cuts. i have never found a software eq that did not sound like software. try a pultec and you'll know. hell - every single eq on my desk sounds far better than any software i tried (and i tried lots).
i totally prefer software for surgical cuts though. actually i love it for that. no hardware can compete to that remotely :-)

so i think its about combining the two. i would never even think about using a software eq to boost anything ( i immediately hear a cloudy weired thing going on that i can't even explain - but its not musical at all - and its the same on ANY software eq i ever tried). just as i would never think about using some vintage eq to clean up a messy track. they all have their place.

I agree that they all have their place.

But I suspect anyone with the opinion of "I would never..." will not be able to hear things outside of their bias. What does software sound like exactly?

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. I know one thing, I can't listen to a random record and know whether the EQ used on it was hardware or software.

[sage691]

It's not "confirmation bias", and if you were working 24/7 in a studio with a plethora of both and still insisted you could get the same results with software EQ then you must simply have hearing deficiencies. Indeed, the difference between any software EQ you can mention and the Trident EQ on my 80b for BOOSTING is not subtle, and even the the total novice can hear it consistently and clearly every single time the comparison is done. And hey, we're not even talking Neve or Pultec here !!!

But yes, software EQs have their place and are infinitely superior to any hardware EQ ever made for the task of surgical cutting. But you don't need some fancy expensive software EQ for that; heck, even the lowly old free-of-charge Digi EQ will do just fine. Also, for hi and lo pass duties the plugin EQs are also king.

If anything you were saying was even remotely true then the current market prices for vintage hardware EQs would have rapidly hit the bottom, yet that has not happened !

[chk23]

Originally Posted by sage691

It's not "confirmation bias", and if you were working 24/7 in a studio with a plethora of both and still insisted you could get the same results with software EQ then you must simply have hearing deficiencies. Indeed, the difference between any software EQ you can mention and the Trident EQ on my 80b for BOOSTING is not subtle, and even the the total novice can hear it consistently and clearly every single time the comparison is done. And hey, we're not even talking Neve or Pultec here !!!

But yes, software EQs have their place and are infinitely superior to any hardware EQ ever made for the task of surgical cutting. But you don't need some fancy expensive software EQ for that; heck, even the lowly old free-of-charge Digi EQ will do just fine. Also, for hi and lo pass duties the plugin EQs are also king.

exactly - I used the stock cubase EQ for a long time for that task - until it was replaced by Meldas (free!) MEqualizer.

[Sir Chris]

Hmmm I'm still u decided on the software / hardware EQ thing. I recently decided to compare my Vintech X73 to the Waves V Series 3 EQ plugin. I wanted to see since I'm using a Neeve clone pre, I thought it would be a good opportunity to compare the EQ since the 3 EQ plugin is modeled the same as the X73. In a blind test I couldn't really tell the difference.

This was of course one track. I suspect once you start to layer the tracks on top each other, the differences will become more apparent. I need to really dwell into this further.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

[kiopo]

I like the limitations that hardware EQs give you. It's these limitations that I think, mostly, make hardware EQ emulation plugins different from one another, not the 'sound' as such. Graphic software EQs are only useful to me when there's a definite, specific frequency problem to correct. Otherwise I just want to be turning knobs and working fast and not looking at a screen. Recall is always an issue of course.

At the end of the day, it is a proven certainty that you can get incredible mixes and masters using either method. If your impression when using an analog EQ is that you'd rather spend time on an ITB EQ getting a similar result, then it's just not suited to how you work and you should be happy that you got a clear impression!

[chk23]

Originally Posted by kiopo

I like the limitations that hardware EQs give you. It's these limitations that I think, mostly, make hardware EQ emulation plugins different from one another, not the 'sound' as such. Graphic software EQs are only useful to me when there's a definite, specific frequency problem to correct. Otherwise I just want to be turning knobs and working fast and not looking at a screen. Recall is always an issue of course.

At the end of the day, it is a proven certainty that you can get incredible mixes and masters using either method. If your impression when using an analog EQ is that you'd rather spend time on an ITB EQ getting a similar result, then it's just not suited to how you work and you should be happy that you got a clear impression!

Word. I wouldn't claim that it's absolutely impossible to get the same results with Plugins than with hardware. My experience is still, while I can spend hours on tuning settings on plugin EQs without getting a result I'm really satisfied with, I just have to turn the knobs on my HW EQs for a few seconds to get exactly what I want. And being a software developer, I'm no "oldschool" engineer who is just not accustomed to using a mouse to get what he wants. Maybe it's the haptic, intuitive thing a hardware EQ gives us. Plus the fact, that you (at least as a project studio owner) don't have dozens of different models to chose from.
Maybe the motivation to get acquainted to a real device you can touch and feel and to really learn in depth how it reacts, what it does and where the advantages and disadvantages lie is much higher than with just another arbitrary window on your DAW screen out of your ever growing plug collection...

[wcb123]

Originally Posted by sage691

It's not "confirmation bias", and if you were working 24/7 in a studio with a plethora of both and still insisted you could get the same results with software EQ then you must simply have hearing deficiencies.

So it turns to insults, pulling out the hearing deficiencies card? Sounds like an angry man in denial.

Perhaps you personally can't achieve similar groundwork with plugins. Nothing wrong with that. Its more than doable though, and a hell of alot cheaper. No need for the insults.

FWIW folks should look up the term "Skimming the market" . High price doesn't make things better but it sure as hell makes you believe it.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by wcb123

So it turns to insults, pulling out the hearing deficiencies card? Sounds like an angry man in denial.

Perhaps you personally can't achieve similar groundwork with plugins. Nothing wrong with that. Its more than doable though, and a hell of alot cheaper. No need for the insults.

FWIW folks should look up the term "Skimming the market" . High price doesn't make things better but it sure as hell makes you believe it.

Well I won't claim that it's absolutely impossible to achieve the same result with plugins as with HW EQs. But just out of interest: Do you own/did you mix with some "character" hardware EQs before?

[redrue]

Is software or plug-in EQ leading in the race for
equality in Hardware vs Plug?

Do you think we will one day reach a 'so close
it doesn't matter' point with all plugins vs HW?

Very few (if any) seem to have cracked the compressor
plug-in as effectively as they have the EQ.

Years ago it was announced that GML was working
on a compressor plug... did he give up? Canary in
a coal mine?

hoppy brew, cold glass... discuss.

namaste

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by wcb123

So it turns to insults, pulling out the hearing deficiencies card? Sounds like an angry man in denial.

Perhaps you personally can't achieve similar groundwork with plugins. Nothing wrong with that. Its more than doable though, and a hell of alot cheaper. No need for the insults.

FWIW folks should look up the term "Skimming the market" . High price doesn't make things better but it sure as hell makes you believe it.

What hardware EQs do you own?

[nickelironsteel]

yes go ahead enlighten us

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by sage691

It's not "confirmation bias", and if you were working 24/7 in a studio with a plethora of both and still insisted you could get the same results with software EQ then you must simply have hearing deficiencies.

I disagree. I hear fine. I work with both. I work more often than the average poster on this site. And I can get similar results with either, though the approach will be different.

...Indeed, the difference between any software EQ you can mention and the Trident EQ on my 80b for BOOSTING is not subtle, and even the the total novice can hear it consistently and clearly every single time the comparison is done. And hey, we're not even talking Neve or Pultec here !!!

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Because you and the "total novices" you know have heard every possible software EQ, used in every possible way, with every possible source. Again, anecdotal rubbish.

...If anything you were saying was even remotely true then the current market prices for vintage hardware EQs would have rapidly hit the bottom, yet that has not happened !

I see you like to argue in hasty and unfounded conclusions. What you're saying isn't necessarily true. I, for example, STILL like certain hardware EQ, because I just do. It's not an issue of superiority. It's a personal appreciation I have for the devices themselves. So I am still a buyer of hardware. But I have no qualms whatsoever using software entirely. For me it's totally NOT about this versus that. It's about using whatever is at hand. And I can actually use my ears to dial in what I need to hear with whatever quality tools, be they software or hardware. So maybe the problem isn't your software, but YOUR ears. Though it's most likely your mind not allowing yourself to think outside of your paradigm.

No worries, you fit right in.

[nickelironsteel]

Hands down, I wasnt enlightened

[chk23]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

I disagree. I hear fine. I work with both. I work more often than the average poster on this site. And I can get similar results with either, though the approach will be different. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Because you and the "total novices" you know have heard every possible software EQ, used in every possible way, with every possible source. Again, anecdotal rubbish.
I see you like to argue in hasty and unfounded conclusions. What you're saying isn't necessarily true. I, for example, STILL like certain hardware EQ, because I just do. It's not an issue of superiority. It's a personal appreciation I have for the devices themselves. So I am still a buyer of hardware. But I have no qualms whatsoever using software entirely. For me it's totally NOT about this versus that. It's about using whatever is at hand. And I can actually use my ears to dial in what I need to hear with whatever quality tools, be they software or hardware. So maybe the problem isn't your software, but YOUR ears. Though it's most likely your mind not allowing yourself to think outside of your paradigm.

No worries, you fit right in.

Well, although I agree with many of your points, the arrogance and ignorance towards people that just have a different opinion and preferred workflow turns this into a very hard job...

[FLYINGJAY]

I'm getting good ITB character when needed.I don't need character all the time,I don't use eq all the time.

I might use a uad precision khz or maxx bass,with process frequencies like eq,but get me there.

Ae tracking bands may need hardware,but most edm engineers are using samples that are processed.

Some people can't grab that concept.

If a a kick or a snare have already been mastered to hit hard ass hell,placing it in the mix(in most cases) is all that need to be don't.

If your working with live instruments,I think this is where the big disparities are.

Mixing/eq'ing is based on skills not tools.if a plugin only get u(for the sake of argument)80% of what you need.then there are work arounds to make things happen.

I believe good Plugins are at least 95% true to hardware.one reason is because the only time there is a big difference is when we compare some the BEST HW eqs vs Plugins.

A lot of people dont have THE BEST hardware.so what about those people?are all their mixes crappy?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Flying_Dutchman]

analog can make sounds...think helios on guitars for example
digital works at small boosts / cuts
i depends how you work and which material you got for mixing imo
but...analog makes fun and sounds..pita to recall but i love it
each to his/her own
peace

[sage691]

Hey Liz,

No worries. I came from an all ITB background -- been there, done that. I still use plugs every day for things that hardware cannot do nearly as well. You need both today, so even with a large LFAC and a plethora of outboard we are still "hybrid" by definition. Novice ? Ah well, let's just say it's nice to remain anonymous on GS.

TBH, I primarily joined this site for the classified section as that is by far the best thing about it. From my experience you are just spreading absolute rubbish. If any of the software EQs or comps could really do what the hardware units they are attempting to emulate, then the hardware market would crash in a New York millisecond. Pultecs would be back in the dumpsters, or maybe you'd see an ebay auction for an EQP1a ending at $15, and a Blue Stripe 1176 for maybe $25.

It's really just as simple as that. The market doesn't lie.

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

I disagree. I hear fine. I work with both. I work more often than the average poster on this site. And I can get similar results with either, though the approach will be different. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Because you and the "total novices" you know have heard every possible software EQ, used in every possible way, with every possible source. Again, anecdotal rubbish.
I see you like to argue in hasty and unfounded conclusions. What you're saying isn't necessarily true. I, for example, STILL like certain hardware EQ, because I just do. It's not an issue of superiority. It's a personal appreciation I have for the devices themselves. So I am still a buyer of hardware. But I have no qualms whatsoever using software entirely. For me it's totally NOT about this versus that. It's about using whatever is at hand. And I can actually use my ears to dial in what I need to hear with whatever quality tools, be they software or hardware. So maybe the problem isn't your software, but YOUR ears. Though it's most likely your mind not allowing yourself to think outside of your paradigm.

No worries, you fit right in.