Do software EQ's really boost poorly? Is this true or false.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by The MPCist

How so? Do I need to prove my opinions?

I'm not taking either side because really I don't know how to use EQ properly so I just don't.

However, yes, you need to provide supporting evidence for your opinion, especially if you are dissenting from someone else's opinion. Otherwise, why would you take the effort to type your opinion out?

If you offer an unsupported opinion, and someone asks you to rationalize it, and you refuse....opinion = nothing.

If you don't have time to back up opinions that require support, then don't opine.

[duvalle]

good point - but pls let me add a few words to your post:

Originally Posted by Robobaby

Ethan is a knowledgeable and respected member of these forums because he puts the effort in to explain the concepts properly and he gives evidence when it is asked. He does that on his own time when advertising his service on gs. As a courtesy the least you can do is reciprocate if you are even thinking of entertaining a pissing contest between the two of you.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by synthoid

when I next record a vocal and eq it through hardware, I'll note the settings and send it to you.

If you EQ on the way in there's no way to send me both the original and EQ'd version. So just find a track you already have and make a copy with EQ applied.

--Ethan

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

I'm not taking either side because really I don't know how to use EQ properly so I just don't.

However, yes, you need to provide supporting evidence for your opinion, especially if you are dissenting from someone else's opinion. Otherwise, why would you take the effort to type your opinion out?

If you offer an unsupported opinion, and someone asks you to rationalize it, and you refuse....opinion = nothing.

If you don't have time to back up opinions that require support, then don't opine.

To be fair you should not have to prove anything because 1 person has a differing view. If you take a position that flies in the face of commonly accepted knowledge, the laws of physics etc then yes, a little backup would be required

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by The MPCist

So Ethan, on one of the bogus posts, I was asking what kind of cello string you preferred. Care to comment on that? I'm always curious about this and ask every cellist I meet....

I'll be glad to help if you remove some of your offensive posts I've come across in various forum sections.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by The MPCist

I'm not a 'null = same' person.

That's a joke, right?

--Ethan

[The MPCist]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I'll be glad to help if you remove some of your offensive posts I've come across in various forum sections.

--Ethan

Sure, PM the links. EDIT: I just deleted that one post---but just to clarify, there weren't 'some' posts in 'various forum sections' -- just one post. My apologies if it offended you.

BTW, I think there are enough posts on this thread and you guys can continue without me. I hate to see pages of two people posting each other.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

If you take a position that flies in the face of commonly accepted knowledge, the laws of physics etc then yes, a little backup would be required

A perfect example is MPCist's statement, "I'm not a 'null = same' person."

How do you get through to someone like that? Is it even worth trying?

--Ethan

[rydan]

Ok. I actually have a proof that digital eq:s are indeed different. Question is, are they different enough to make any real difference, or is it just minor dithering/rounding differences? That's the "real" question.

Anyway, try this.

Take an audio file, place it on an audio channel in Live. Route that audio channel to two different channels. Invert one channel. Place a spectrometer at the master bus.

Silence, and no graph on the spectrogram.

Now, insert and enable a Live eq8 on one of the channels (entirely flat). Suddenly, you get a reading of -102dB or so, and a graph on the spectrogram. Remove the eq8 and instead place a sonalksis 517mk2 there, enabled but flat. Reading changes to about -130dB and the graph looks different. Of course, these aren't differences you would hear, but there are differences.

[rydan]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

A perfect example is MPCist's statement, "I'm not a 'null = same' person."

How do you get through to someone like that? Is it even worth trying?

--Ethan

No. If you're that kind of person, the HiFi voodoo snakeoil gang will make a fortune...

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

To be fair you should not have to prove anything because 1 person has a differing view. If you take a position that flies in the face of commonly accepted knowledge, the laws of physics etc then yes, a little backup would be required

Yes. This is why I wrote of opinions requiring support, i.e. lacking obvious evidence that is common knowledge or opinions that are otherwise self-evident. You can't just dissent and say, "I disagree!" when no-one has any idea why you disagree and why they should agree with your disagreement.

[Klauth]

Just use an out board EQ and save yourself the headache of the plugin madness. because, the plugins your using today probably wont be around for more than a few years at best. but, a hardware EQ will last half a lifetime, if taken care of, and it will always sound great ~klauth.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by rydan

Suddenly, you get a reading of -102dB or so ... Of course, these aren't differences you would hear, but there are differences.

Yes, of course, but differences that small are not audible which is all that matters.

--Ethan

[Tarkovsky]

Originally Posted by Klauth

Just use an out board EQ and save yourself the headache of the plugin madness. because, the plugins your using today probably wont be around for more than a few years at best. but, a hardware EQ will last half a lifetime, if taken care of, and it will always sound great ~klauth.

Um yeah except uhh hardware breaks and software lives on... There good are free EQs now, there will be good free eqs in 20 years. Once you've paid for that software you also have unlimited use across every itb channel. That to me makes software 10x the value and often at 1/3rd the price (or free).

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by The MPCist

I was asking what kind of cello string you preferred.

I use Thomastik Tungsten "Bold" for the low C and G, and Jargar "Forte" for the D and A. My particular cello is very loud and clear, and these particular strings bring that out the most.

--Ethan

[lord_bunny]

Fan of ITB mixing in general here. I added some 12k to a Jazz master yesterday with UAD pultec... an older plugin but it seemed to be cool. I find 90% of the time no matter what i'm working on i'm not adding high-end. If I want bright I use a bright mic, occasionally I'll use the ribbon on something that needs a little lift, but it never sounds bad by any stretch. I hear harsher sounds on a lot of my favourite records using tape and consoles. I've heard cold-brittle tape and I've heard rich and warm RADAR. Same goes for ITB, OTB.

It seems like the folks who argue that you have to work with HW are the same ones who insist the new mic's that replaced older models are all terrible and too bright. They also seemed convinced that AKG and Neumann can't make a decent microphone and in general have an exclusionary viewpoint.

I may buy a HW eq just to track with a little going in, same with a comp, but before that I could spend untold thousands on improving my room acoustics, adding to the mic locker, buying studio instruments... stuff that makes a lot more difference to the quality of a recording than HW vs. SW

I say what ever paint set works for you. Tempera, oil-based, water-color... whateves

[The MPCist]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I use Thomastik Tungsten "Bold" for the low C and G, and Jargar "Forte" for the D and A. My particular cello is very loud and clear, and these particular strings bring that out the most.

--Ethan

Cool. I use/like Jargar though I'm always searching for something different--easy to get bored with a set sound at times.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by rydan

Of course, these aren't differences you would hear, but there are differences.

Hmm...I heard a physicist a while ago glibly say, "differences that don't make a difference don't matter." Now I'm going to wrack my brain all day trying to remember who and where.

Or maybe I heard it on a tv show. I have a harder and harder time discerning real life from network programming.

[rydan]

Originally Posted by rydan

Ok. I actually have a proof that digital eq:s are indeed different. Question is, are they different enough to make any real difference, or is it just minor dithering/rounding differences? That's the "real" question.

Of course, these aren't differences you would hear, but there are differences.

Feel I need to clarify a bit. I already said you won't hear these differences, and that they are of little interest. However, it proves the "all digital eq:s are the same cookbook algorithms with fancy guis thrown on" statement wrong.

That being said, I fully agree that differences such as these will not make any real difference in use what so ever.

[synthoid]

Originally Posted by Tarkovsky

If you read his original post, to paraphrase Ethan 'digital eq does only what you ask of it'. The point is that people have been criticising digital EQs as inaccurate, adding distortion, or being harsh.

well, is that really what they are criticizing about digital eq? I hear them saying mostly that software eq's don't give the desired effect when doing certain kinds of boosts. It's no so much that the digital sound is 'bad' of itself, it's that it doesn't reach what the engineer is after.

I have a friend who has mixed a lot of really good CDs. He always uses an outboard eq for adding air to vocals. he uses ITB eqs for everything else. now, is he a dunce or a voodoo believer or something else? (There is a lot of name-calling on both sides of this discussion.) Someone, like him, who likes the effect that a high-end boost from a certain outboard eq unit gives, and can dial that sound in quickly on a range of voices, has something good going for him. Goodness knows that he is familiar with his ITB eqs: they are on every other track in his mixes! Either one is left to believe that he doesn't hear well, or that he has an equipment fetish and is deluding himself into hearing what's not there, or something of that kind. The obvious explanation, namely that he hears something that he doesn't hear when he's using the ITB eq, is dismissed as fantasy. Personally I'm not ready to dismiss his hearing so casually.

-synthoid

[The MPCist]

Originally Posted by synthoid

I have a friend who has mixed a lot of really good CDs. He always uses an outboard eq for adding air to vocals. he uses ITB eqs for everything else. now, is he a dunce or a voodoo believer or something else? (There is a lot of name-calling on both sides of this discussion.) Someone, like him, who likes the effect that a high-end boost from a certain outboard eq unit gives, and can dial that sound in quickly on a range of voices, has something good going for him. Goodness knows that he is familiar with his ITB eqs: they are on every other track in his mixes! Either one is left to believe that he doesn't hear well, or that he has an equipment fetish and is deluding himself into hearing what's not there, or something of that kind. The obvious explanation, namely that he hears something that he doesn't hear when he's using the ITB eq, is dismissed as fantasy. Personally I'm not ready to dismiss his hearing so casually.

-synthoid

Well, according to this thread, I'm a dunce and a voodoo believer for liking analog eq's over plugin eq's.....

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by The MPCist

Well, according to this thread, I'm a dunce and a voodoo believer for liking analog eq's over plugin eq's.....

Wouldn't worry about it. There are more of us

[rydan]

Originally Posted by The MPCist

Well, according to this thread, I'm a dunce and a voodoo believer for liking analog eq's over plugin eq's.....

Nopes, you are definitely allowed to like analogue eq:s. I know I do.

All I said was that, if two audio files null perfectly, they are the same. There is NO difference between them. None. Zero. Thinking that two processes that generate results that null somehow still can sound different is believing in voodoo.

Also, I have never claimed that you could get an analogue eq to null perfectly with a plugin, even though i think you can get pretty close, and I would like to know how close.

[Empora]

Wading into the S**t storm of a thread here

I was wondering what people think about the color and "imperfection"/saturation issues surrounding analogue eq's? Transformers, valves etc.

Surely the reason we don't all just use the same digital eq is that some character is added by certain analogue eq. This is what people have been trying to recreate with plugin emulations etc?

I can see both pints of view and of corse there is no arguing with physics. However if you null a digital eq with an analogue eq are you taking into account that the analogue (MAY) have a more saturated outcome and although technically nulled frequency wise it may "cut" more in the context of the mix due to this harmonic content/ saturation business?

Please bare in mind THESE ARE QUESTIONS Im no expert

[ripper]

Originally Posted by u b k

The better your source, the less offensive a plugin will be.

Analog eq, the good ones, they can really change the sound into something it's not, but it sounds like it always was.

But damn, analog eq can be so friggin' sweet, so tasty. Digital, at its best I'd call it functional, useful; nothin' wrong with that.


Gregory Scott - ubk

+1

[Tarkovsky]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

Wouldn't worry about it. There are more of us

Guess you've never read any Plato then.

[jdtrbn]

Originally Posted by The MPCist

Well, according to this thread, I'm a dunce and a voodoo believer for liking analog eq's over plugin eq's.....

There's nothing wrong with liking analog EQs more. What was actually written was "analog EQs can do something plug-ins can't". The problem is that when you use an analog EQ, you don't really know what it's doing.

As a simple example, some passive EQs have the "flaw" of a small HF boost/cut depending on what you do with filters that aren't even near the top end. So if you boost, say 1khz with two EQs, it may appear that plug-ins can't replicate that sound, when in fact they could if you just knew what the analog unit is doing and added the HF filter! Of course it may be better for workflow to have an unit that does that for you.

Also as Bob Olhsson mentioned, analog EQs generally have wider Q values, which may lead you to the right direction, whereas most plug-ins allow more misuse.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Tarkovsky

Guess you've never read any Plato then.

Careful with the guessing. This thread is pure physics.

[Tarkovsky]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

Careful with the guessing. This thread is pure physics.

Yeah, just like pretty much everything you depend on in life. Damn that science, if I don't understand something, it's got to be wrong!

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Tarkovsky

Yeah, just like pretty much everything you depend on in life. Damn that science, if I don't understand something, it's got to be wrong!