SSL X-EQ Native / Algorithmix Blue

[huejahfink]

I have seen many references online that the X-EQ is essentially based on the Algo Blue. I know from perusing the manual that Algorithmix were involved.
Now that the X-EQ is available natively at a really reasonable price, I'm wondering if anyone here has used both or can confirm that they are essentially the same thing.

I'm trying the BLUE at the moment and it is just as lovely (albeit different sounding) to the RED which I bought last year. The RED is fantastic but it's just too much of an ox to use as a track EQ ( I do get mixing jobs from time to time too) and plus LP filters are not always the best choice.

Just trying to work out whether it is really 800 euros better than the X-EQ or I should just snap up the X-EQ and be happy.

Before anyone suggests it - yes I'm going to try both demo side by side.

I'm just enquiring as to anyone with real experience of both can clue me into the genuine differences.

Thanks in advance.

[Fred_Abstract]

X-eq doesn' t have the upsampling setting . overall sound is great ,i don t remember much the algo blue eq but i think it should sound the same .

[huejahfink]

Thanks Fred. So the side effect of this being that the sound is very similar but with aliasing?

Anyone else care to chime in?

[timlloyd]

Algorithmix Blue operates up to 384kHz while X-EQ operates up to 96kHz; so the Blue can be used in DSD/DXD production while X-EQ cannot. Providing that feature would raise the cost, as the bit-depth of the whole process would have to be greater (ie 80-bit compared to the 40-bit of the X-EQ).

I would be shocked and confused if X-EQ aliases at all, as it specifically states that it is intended to be as clean as possible - ie no non-linearity. If X-EQ doesn't feature upsampling, then this is the difference:

Originally Posted by Algorithmix Website

"Very low-noise and low-distortion upsampling technique for getting analog-like filter characteristics when working with low sampling frequencies: 44.1 and 48 kHz"

All that means is that without the upsampling, high-frequency curve shapes will become distorted as they approach the Nyquist rate. Most digital EQs have this problem ... which is imo a large factor in the "digital sounds bad when boosting HF" opinion ...

So for use at low sample rates, Algorithmix Blue will potentially have less resonant frequency response when boosting high frequencies than X-EQ - it will sound how one would expect, rather than getting progressively "harsher" as cf and Q are increased ... one will be able to create Bax curves from bell boosts properly at low sample rates.

I saw no mention of upsampling or any other anti-curve-cramping methods in the X-EQ documentation, but that doesn't mean it necessarily has this issue. I can't be certain without someone testing it ... so, take my whole post with that in mind

[Marogru]

For me X-eq sound sometimes a little bit dry, but It can be a good swiss army knife.
I had a 30 track mix today and tried to use it about 6 times and finally it landed on 2 tracks.
I love the analyzer though.

[timlloyd]

Originally Posted by Marogru

For me X-eq sound sometimes a little bit dry

I have no idea what you might mean by that

[Creative]

As far as I understand X-EQ don't have a dual mono version as the Blue Algo's, so no M/S eq.
An M/S matrix could be a nice new feature

A difference also in the bit depth processing: 64 for SSL and 80 for Algorithmix (and up to 384KHz fs).

Stefano Cappelli
Creative Mastering

[Surbitone]

Originally Posted by huejahfink

Thanks Fred. So the side effect of this being that the sound is very similar but with aliasing?

Anyone else care to chime in?

I demo'd blue but preferred what Sonoris was doing Haven't heard the X-EQ though.

[huejahfink]

Cheers all, and especiailly thanks Tim for a detailed post.

DSD capability is not an issue for me. ALL my clients need either 41.1 or 48k outputs and supply no higher than a 96.

Also, L/R or M/S config also not a big issue. I can easily use the modular aspect of Energy XT to map two EQ's in parallel to use as dual mono when required.

As far as problems in the high end are concerned, I'm not sure that this is massive factor for me either. I think I can use the RED in the extreme tops (and often do anyway).
I'm looking more for a pristine sounding and flexible EQ for mid-range and for making more drastic alterations to the lows without pre-ring.

Interested of course to hear any more thoughts, but this has been helpful. I wonder if Algorithmix themselves would spill some beans?

[huejahfink]

OK. I've just tried the two plugins against eachother on two identical 88k sessions.
They do sound a bit different to me.....
Using identical settings for a 3db peak boost on a complete mix (classic sym, q=0.7, 2000hz centre)
It seemed to me at least that the blue sounded more gracious and more forgiving.

The X-EQ had a harder and more 'obvious' edge to it, much more reminiscent of other MP digital EQs I have tried in the past, like Epure or Sonnox. The rendered file had slightly larger transient peaks with the X-EQ that backs up what I was hearing. Whether or not this was down to significant differences in the processing itself, or differences in the 'classic sym' shapes between the two plugins... I could only hazard a guess at.

On this one simple test I have decided that the algorithms are not the same. And it kind of stands to reason that Algorithmix would not allow another manufacturer to sell their same EQ at a much lower price.

I have (before doing this test) written to Algorithmix support asking about the differences between the plugins. I'm sure Stefan will gladly tell me that their BLUE is the superior algorithm.

If anyone else can corroborate (or disagree) with what I have said here, I'd be interested to hear it.

[OMU]

Simply from the memory, they don't seem to sound the same to me. Or even in the same ballpark.

X-Eq has a more aggressive or edgy sound. I clearly remember that sensation of smoothness that Blue gave me; X-Eq does not inspire me the same thing.

I also suspect that the algorithms are different, or at least that the oversampling function does its thing better in Blue.

[huejahfink]

Thanks OMU that totally backs up what I thought.

I'm willing to put this 'X-EQ = BLUE' idea to bed now.

[OMU]

I know exactly what you mean. I was kinda hoping they would sound similar because I'm on mac.

[Fred_Abstract]

it really remind me the algorythmix eq, the oversampling setting is used to get decrampted curve,correct me if i m wrong but oversampling it not for aliasing on eq , it s a way to get analog like curve in the highs. it don t degrade the sound (and no sample rate convertion could sound better in this case ) the eq just feel different in the highs , it feel strange at first but i got used to it and it s not a problem anymore. these non decramped curves can lead to great results on some sounds.
clean eq all sound very close , i doubt you could hear the difference when matching them.
what make these eqs great is the different curves and filters .

one big avantage for x eq , you can choose the curve types for each band , i don't think it s possible on the blue eq.

[superwack]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but just because the same setting on one does not exactly sonically match the setting on the other (as in your 3 dB peak test) this does not preclude them from being based on the same algo - just that the algo may be implemented differently and/or react to the controls in a different manner.

I know I have done some comparisons between hardware/emulations and even 2 different emulations of the same piece of gear where, at identical settings they sound nothing alike but if they are set by ear/tweaked many of the differences disappear or are at least minimized.

I have not used BLUE but know that X-EQ has different, selectable curve types... could it be that with different tweaking of those and other parameters the X-EQ might sound closer? Just a thought.

[timlloyd]

Originally Posted by superwack

Please correct me if I am wrong, but just because the same setting on one does not exactly sonically match the setting on the other (as in your 3 dB peak test) this does not preclude them from being based on the same algo - just that the algo may be implemented differently and/or react to the controls in a different manner.

Nail on the head imo ... just the fact that they operate at different bit-depths might be enough to make a null impossible due to different levels of rounding error in the parameter values. It begs the question that should be asked of every failed null test ... what does the difference signal sound like?

But, it could very easily be more than that; they could be legitimately different in an important way - I don't own them to test that for myself.

[huejahfink]

Originally Posted by superwack

I have not used BLUE

Originally Posted by Fred_Abstract

i doubt you could hear the difference

I really wanted to believe I could get the BLUE eq for £179 rather than £1000.

Different response = different EQ.

Being "based on" and being identical are quite different in my opinion. If someone wants to prove otherwise, and you think I can genuinely get the smooth sound of the BLUE for less than two hundred quid, I'm very honestly "all ears" to you.

[MattGray]

Just found this thread & thought I'd comment..

I haven't heard or tried the Blue as I'm on OSX but I did get to try the X-EQ Native version in Pro Tools with the built in RTAS wrapper.

I'm not sure how the two compare but I was super impressed with how it sounded in "parallel" mode @ 96kHz. The midrange in particular was very nice.

I'll be checking it out more over the demo period but for that price I will probably just add it to the arsenal anyway. If it sounds good it is good right? Maybe it sounded smoother at 96kHz with the parallel mode. I also like how you can change the type of curve per band so you can roll your own EQ. I found it quite effective & different from anything else I have here.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by huejahfink

...It seemed to me at least that the blue sounded more gracious and more forgiving...

That's my impression too.

[superwack]

Bumping an old thread but I was reading the discussion on the Valhalla Room reverb where Sean Costello (of Valhalla) mentioned that he was hired to write the algorithm for the Audio Damage EOS reverb but it was Audio Damage who took that code and made it in to a "plugin"... I was wondering if this might shed some light on Algorithmix Blue v. X-EQ - perhaps SSL licensed the code for the Blue EQ but were then left to their own devices to make it in to a plugin? Obviously all speculation but I thought it was an interesting thought

[Bob Olhsson]

Algorithmix has developed many plug-ins for third parties.

XEQ has some features of blue but different filters. It doesn't sound the same although it's still an excellent equalizer that has lower latency and uses less DSP resources.