Making EQs sound like other EQs

[Dean Roddey]

So, some of the discussion on the URS CSP thread about how there's nothing special about the EQs other than they just change the 'Q Factor', lead me to play around a bit tonight.

I first put the Waves SSL EQ on an overhead drum track and got it sounding the way I wanted it. Then I put the Waves frequency analyzer on it and capture a specific short section. I then muted it, put RenEQ on the track and without even listening, I just adjusted until I got them exactly aligned. I've attached the two settings and the frequency capture. They are so close that you can barely tell them as two lines.

There seems to be two basic differences. One is that a very steep Q on the SSL EQ is enormously broad compared to RenEQ. The steepest Q in the SSL is about the same as the widest Q in RenEQ.

The other is that it has a slight rise starting around about 4K, which gives it a more agressive, crispy sound. That's all it took to 'model' the SSL EQ with RenEQ. Once I got the graphs looking the same, I listened to them. If there is any difference I can't hear it and it would have to be very subtle. And it should sound the same given the frequency response is so close to the same as not to be worth worrying about.

Of course some EQs have after ring, and an EQ like RenComp cannot emulate that, though something like FilterBank can with it's control over after ring. And some EQs have proportional Q, based on the level of cut or boost, but that's easily modellable. I didn't confirm whether the SSL's Q is proportional, but it would be easy to test by finding the equivalent response for a less steep cut. Note that the amount of reduction is exactly the same in both cases, only the Q had to change.

Maybe I shouldn'ta spent that $600 on the SSL package? Well, I guess it was worth it for the compressors, though it'd be interesting to see if that could be modelled as well using RenComp.

[Flying_Dutchman]

I share the opinion that most EQs sound the same.
Try the VST Plug-In Analyser, it´s free and you see what´s really going on when you set your VST EQ.
What helps me, is to do tests with noise and phase-changed noise. You can eq it against each other with 2 EQs of your choice, you can really get to the point where it´s totally quiet when comparing most eq´s.
Some EQs are not just EQs, they are EQs + X (let X be harmonic distortion or whatever). So you´ve got to take an EQ + a X plugin and you´ll come close.
Same with compressors. What´s printed on the front plate is often not what you get. So check it with the VST Plug-In Analyser....

[jdtrbn]

*high five*

My thread:
EQ plug-ins... I just don't hear it

Analog EQ character comes probably from transformers and tubes and other non-linear components and not from the actual processing. A lot of plug-in compressors have some character in my opinion though and should be harder to emulate.

[Dean Roddey]

You could of course also model those non-linear and analog characteristics, and some do claim to do that. If I had some hardware and their software equiv. I'd be doing some tests myself to see how close they can be. In the end, it's just a wave form. All that any box or plugin can do to it is affect the frequencies or the amount and type of harmonic content.

[Spyrow]

I wrote about this about a year ago
UAD-1 Helios Type 69......meh

Most of the people were raving about how good UAD-1 Helios is but they failed the test against a frequency matched Waves Q10.

After that I discovered linear phase EQ's, like PSP Neon. That's really a different thing. And Nebula dynamic convolution technology is worth to try too.

[Spyrow]

Oh, and oversampling is noticeable in the very high frequencies too.

[Flying_Dutchman]

Nebula is great! I got it since 1 month and like it. I haven´t got the time to play with the NAT sampler. Version 3 is out, which i have to get, too. I could sample some hardware units i got and make a blind test.
I would be very happy if the software would come very close and i would sell some hardware gear. I don´t really like working with hardware, too. It´s much more comfortable with software.

I don´t really like the UAD-1 Helios. There is a video in the net, where a hardware helios is compared to the UAD-1 version. The difference is huge. I realy apreciate most of the UAD plugs, but the helios is not really good, i think.
I got a freind with a helios eq and he will put it through NAT. I hope it works.

Mostely we are taling about EQs, but what about compressors?
I mean we should buy this and that and what do we get?
If you look at the units technically, the sound comes from the parameters you can choose and again some +X things going on.
So why not to work with a Compressor where you can set the all the things, like the kjaerhus golden one. I tried the demo some days ago and will get it.
You can set everything in there, mono operation, sidechain filter, slope, etc...
If you watch the other compressors with VST Plugin Analyser, it would be childs play to get this beahviours done with the kjearhus.
Some of the analog charme can be done with nebula, or nxtasy or vtape or whatever.

[CorkyTart]

I've found the same thing as the intial poster.

[Spyrow]

Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman

There is a video in the net, where a hardware helios is compared to the UAD-1 version. The difference is huge.

I saw that video. The difference is so huge I wonder how Universal Audio put that online, trying to sell the Helios plugin!

In compressors I don't agree, it's much more difficult to match ones with others. For me at least. But I agree with you, a flexible compressor is very useful. My favourite is the Sonalksis, you should give it a try. The crush parameter is really cool and very musical.

[Flying_Dutchman]

Originally Posted by Spyrow

I saw that video. The difference is so huge I wonder how Universal Audio put that online, trying to sell the Helios plugin!

In compressors I don't agree, it's much more difficult to match ones with others. For me at least. But I agree with you, a flexible compressor is very useful. My favourite is the Sonalksis, you should give it a try. The crush parameter is really cool and very musical.

I don´t understand this UA strategy, too...
Off course its harder to 100% match a compressors behavior than an EQ curve, but why does it need to be 100%? Maybe its slightly different, but maybe it´s even better. If you need a Fairchild style compressor, build a limiting style compresor with an extreme soft knee, if you need an api style drum buss compressor, do sth different... The mix won´t be good or bad by having a small sound difference....
I had and have some hardware compressors here and must say that many of them lost their magic for me.

[Dean Roddey]

If you look at the slight high frequency rise of the SSL EQ, you could add that to an EQ and many people would hear that and say, no way RenEQ is as good, it's so crisp and has this really airy sound. They wouldn't necessarily consider that it's just a simple high shelving effect they could get with any other EQ. The EQ could also have a small hump somewhere in the upper lows plus a little high shelf and it would immediately 'sound' better, because as soon as people engage it they'd hear that slight smiley face EQ and think, hey that sounds really nice.

So I guess one thing you should always do is just engage/disengage the EQ when it's flat and see if the sound changes. If so, then it's probably got some sort of built in curve before you start making changes. If it's not harmonic saturation type of changes, then it's probably nothing you couldn't get with another EQ.

[andre tchmil]

I matched my "ole" Metric halo Channelstrip to the Waves SSL once,
duplicated the tracks, and flipped phase, was dead quiet.

[narcoman]

your analysis tools are essentially measuring frequency response AND time domain. How about comparing the EQ d version to the UN-EQ'd version. Using an analyser they are not going to be as radical as you might assume.

Do that - it'd add weight to your argument - possibly.

[Dean Roddey]

your analysis tools are essentially measuring frequency response AND time domain. How about comparing the EQ d version to the UN-EQ'd version. Using an analyser they are not going to be as radical as you might assume.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

[jdtrbn]

Kjaerhus has a lot of parameters but to me it seemed to always have the same hard character. I was first impressed how it didn't pump even when hit hard but that doesn't alone make a good compressor... But it is quite a special tool.

The idea about EQs temporal effects is interesting, and I don't know how analog EQs respond to transients. Though they aren't designed to have effects on dynamics, they probably aren't 100% transparent/linear in that sense.

[CorkyTart]

[QUOTE=Flying_Dutchman;2535833Off course its harder to 100% match a compressors behavior than an EQ curve, but why does it need to be 100%? QUOTE]
I believe I may have your answer: People have been sold on (literally) the idea that vintage gear and hardware units are superior to newer digital gear and if you want that intangeable "thing", you need the real deal and must pay for it.

[Flying_Dutchman]

Originally Posted by jdtrbn

Kjaerhus has a lot of parameters but to me it seemed to always have the same hard character. I was first impressed how it didn't pump even when hit hard but that doesn't alone make a good compressor... But it is quite a special tool.

The idea about EQs temporal effects is interesting, and I don't know how analog EQs respond to transients. Though they aren't designed to have effects on dynamics, they probably aren't 100% transparent/linear in that sense.

Hitting compressors hard on 1 track isn´t a good idea for me.

Take some db in the channel, take some db in the buss, take some db on the master, when you need more pull parallel on one or all stages...
Never overdo compression.
This is a golden tip!

A compressor is a sound shaping tool, it changes the attack/release thing.
If you want to make sth loud, a common strategy is to limit it, better for this purpose than compressing.
Don´t do this.
Make a parallel bus. Bring down the attack, maybe filter, bring it in. Bring up the valleys, not terminate the attacks. This will lead to a loud but boring sounding record.

What do you mean with character?
You can set the kjaerhus to everything. You can do a fairchild, an api, a dbx, everything...

Eq´s and transients? Great...
Digital Eqs and transients? great
Smearing/bringing down the transients if often caused by slow elkos or whatever.
YOu can pimp most units by removing this crap and set in sth faster.
Most old units need to be recapped, too.
The problem in the digital domain maybe is, that things are too fast.
Decide yourself, take a transient designer and nail it...

Analog EQs arent linear. Don´t expect any analog eq to sound 100% like its brother with production number +1. People love them for this. But, its all a matter of thigs taht play together. Has the unit input/output transformers...oh ya?
I always heras "you can pass a signal too it, it sounds better" has it got a high shelf on zero or whatever? does it push 2nd harmonics? Wahtever, you can do it.
ITB, you got all. Its all in the mind...

[Flying_Dutchman]

[QUOTE=CorkyTart;2539151]

Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman;2535833Off course its harder to 100% match a compressors behavior than an EQ curve, but why does it need to be 100%? QUOTE

I believe I may have your answer: People have been sold on (literally) the idea that vintage gear and hardware units are superior to newer digital gear and if you want that intangeable "thing", you need the real deal and must pay for it.

Thanks for your answer.

This is all about getting that top sound. You hear things like "before i got the royer, i recorded guitars like this" pamm pamm pamm.. 10 mics on the cab
Now with the royer its fine with one mic....
lmao
better would be to put 1 royer at kit and say the same, so it would be more obvious...
don´t want to say that royer is bad or that the pople who like are, never, but just as an example
I mean we always hear, you need this and that and whatever... imean i bought so many gear over the years and sold it, cause it was hyped shxxt.
It´s gearslutz, right, so loving gear is great.
But don´t care. Use your ears.
Music is everything, performance is everything, the song is everything, gear is a tool...

[theblotted]

OP: i noticed you got the Analog switch "Off" on WavesSSL. if it's on, is it possible to null it using RenEQ?

i find that the GUI has something to do with it. as humans, we react diff to diff stimulus. i think some ppl just feel a certain way about seeing diff GUI, and hence you find that some things work better than others.

i guess eventually it boils down to workflow and which tools lets you get there the fastest.

[Dean Roddey]

It depends on what the analog button does. I think it mainly bumps up somewhere in the lows, and maybe it rolls off the highs a bit. If it adds harmonic distortion of some sort then, obviously no that wouldn't be emulatable. I generally keep the analog switch off if there will be more than one of the SSL plugs in the chain (and I often use the bus comp on the master bus), because they really add up and you can end up with a lot of low end boost.

the Dude abides.

Indeed he does.

[Tui]

Originally Posted by Spyrow

After that I discovered linear phase EQ's, like PSP Neon. That's really a different thing.

Yup. Most EQs sound unremarkable, interchangeable. It is good to point that out. However, the Neon HR is a totally different beast. A good test for an EQ is selecting one band, and sweeping it across the entire spectrum. Most EQs mess up the signal and turn into something brash and "digital" sounding. Perhaps some people like it like that. However, I don't.

[Mantik]

I compared sonnox eq, flux, hydratone, logic 8 pro eq and urs cs pro and finally bought the last one. it is possible to setup the logic bundle eqs in a way to cover everything you want with no noteable difference or very subtile difference.

but i have found out, that this is not the point. what counts for me is the workflow, with some eqs i just come to a very fine sounding solutions very fast (urs cs pro is my fav) and with others the same result would take me just longer or i would not find it that way even if it would technically possible. the workflow is the most important. tweak a button and say" yes "very fast without getting stuck with it. for example i prefer the logic eq for small cuts (it has a nice analyzer with helps finding this peaks) and the urs for colorfull shaping up.

[Spyrow]

Originally Posted by theblotted

i find that the GUI has something to do with it. as humans, we react diff to diff stimulus. i think some ppl just feel a certain way about seeing diff GUI, and hence you find that some things work better than others.

That's true. If you use the Waves SSL you are going to get an SSL'ish sound, not because of the great quality of the EQ's against other EQ's, but because the type of bells, HP and LP filters and the broadness of the Q's. The GUI leads you to use that classical parameters. With RenEQ for example you are not led to anywhere.

The only wrong thing is to tell: "I prefer this EQ over this other because it sounds SO MUCH BETTER".

[Spyrow]

And of course the Waves "Analog" button is doing something else. Some compression, saturation, harmonic distortion... but again, that's another thing. A digital EQ is a digital EQ.

[Volodia]

If you did the test with two analog EQ you could as well almost match them on that frequency analyser .

That test doesn't say anything exept that you can try and match a simple EQ with another EQ .

[mohthom]

Recommended reading would be the PDF/manual for PSP Neon. They give some idea of how these things work, and when you understand that, well . . . the rest seems to follow (why the differences are so small etc.)

MohThoM

[Alxi]

interesting thread

-Alxi-

[jeremynothman]

Originally Posted by theblotted

i guess eventually it boils down to workflow and which tools lets you get there the fastest.

exactly... a decent EQ makes things easy.
Plus, don't you find that a decent High shelf has some "sizzle" to it... like a little distortion/excitation?
Alot of EQs just sound a little boring to me, and you seem to have to work the knobs a little too much.. Like the PT and logic inbuilt EQs..
OTOH maybe if they didn't have graphic displays i wouldn't think twice..?

[theblotted]

Originally Posted by Spyrow

And of course the Waves "Analog" button is doing something else. Some compression, saturation, harmonic distortion... but again, that's another thing. A digital EQ is a digital EQ.

i went to a Eddie Kramer/Waves promotion event recently, and the representative from Waves mentioned that all Waves emulation plugins creates a certain type of harmonic distortion/limiting when the meter/source hits red... as opposed to creating clip distortions.

so having that extra algo's also makes the difference...

[JPZ]

Originally Posted by Mantik

I compared sonnox eq, flux, hydratone, logic 8 pro eq and urs cs pro and finally bought the last one. it is possible to setup the logic bundle eqs in a way to cover everything you want with no noteable difference or very subtile difference.

but i have found out, that this is not the point. what counts for me is the workflow, with some eqs i just come to a very fine sounding solutions very fast (urs cs pro is my fav) and with others the same result would take me just longer or i would not find it that way even if it would technically possible. the workflow is the most important. tweak a button and say" yes "very fast without getting stuck with it. for example i prefer the logic eq for small cuts (it has a nice analyzer with helps finding this peaks) and the urs for colorfull shaping up.

I think that the Logic eq's and comps (all Logic's plugins for that matter) are the best non 3rd party plugs out there. Simple, good sounding and easy on the eyes (I hate it when plugs try to look like the actual gear and thus sacrifice ease of use). I have no problems using them in place of Waves or URS etc...