Which EQ Plugin for Classical?

[englishguitarist]

Ideally to work at 24/192
Perhaps you just have an overall favourite, but any experience with classical instruments (including grand piano, classical guitar, and orchestral instruments) would be great.

Parametric or graphic.

I don't think I will spend out £149 for one of the very top plugins until I've tried something less, for my limited purposes, but any suggestions will be gratefully received, thank you.

[ramil]

you probably need something that would support that high resolution and something that would sound as clean as possible. I've done some classical recording but on 96 and during mixing I'll probably end up using sonnox eq. for your resolution I would recommend mdw massenburg eq but its for PT only and cost abit more but trust me its worth those money!!!

[englishguitarist]

Ok, I should have said it will need to be VST.

Perhaps there is more around for 96. Maybe I should settle for that.

[Klotzi]

Algorthmix

Algorithmix - Advanced DSP Technologies- High-End Digital Audio Algorithms, Software and Hardware for Recording, Post-Production, Mastering, Restoration and Forensic.

[stinkyfingers]

EQuality...

[Marando]

Originally Posted by stinkyfingers

EQuality...

This, and/or EQuick (both from DMG Audio), you can't go wrong with this!

[Doc No]

SSL X-EQ, Algorithmix, EQuality

[nas]

+1 for DMG Equality in Linear phase mode - very clear and transparent.

[englishguitarist]

Thanks - I will at least try the demos of equality and equick. I can't see the sample rate spec on the DMG site. Will they (BOTH) work at 192?

Still...£74.99/£99...

Any cheaper plugins that get close? I don't want to get one of these and then see recommendations for a piece of freeware or a £20 gem!

[Everbeatz]

Sorry, it might sound harsh, but I don't get this type of threads on GS lately - 'what's the best eq for hiphop, what's the best eq for dance music' and now 'what eq for classical'..

I'm asking again - why would anyone thing there's dedicated eq for a certain genre? Who actually told you that and where you people got this idea from after all?

People mix and use what they have regardless of genre. It's always been that way.

Which platform/DAW do you use? Have you tried using stock eq's there? Most of DAWs have their eq's that 'work' just fine on any 'genre'.

[stinkyfingers]

Originally Posted by englishguitarist

...I can't see the sample rate spec on the DMG site. Will they (BOTH) work at 192?...

yes

...Any cheaper plugins that get close? I don't want to get one of these and then see recommendations for a piece of freeware or a £20 gem...

no

*the demos are 30 days so you have some time to decide...

[Tui]

I tried them all, pretty much... The most neutral, yet musical EQ I've found is the Voxengo HarmoniEQ. Certainly suitable to classical music, as it doesn't add fake distortion or overtones, provided you set "Dyn" to "Clean" and "Hrm" to "Off". There's a certain smoothness of the sound of HarmoniEQ I don't get from other EQs.

Then there's also the freeware, linear phase SplineEQ, which sounds astonishingly clean and "sparkly":

Photosounder SplineEQ - Spline-based linear phase equalizer

[nas]

Originally Posted by englishguitarist

Any cheaper plugins that get close? I don't want to get one of these and then see recommendations for a piece of freeware or a £20 gem!

Take a look at the DDMF LP-10 it is an excellent Linear Phase EQ at a VERY affordable price. The IIEQ Pro also by DDMF is also very good.

DDMF: VST plugins, AU plugins, audio software

[Bill@WelcomeHome]

I would hope that your mic choice and placement would make eq redundant.

Algorithmix and DMG are probably the best, Sonnox ain't bad, the included eqs in Samplitude are very nice, and Samplitude/Sequoia is often chosen as a classical editor, along with Pyramix and Sonoma. I can't say about 192, I use 96k when I can. Most classical producers with whom I have worked do not want to hear about eq or compression. But they think nothing of 200 edits in 12 minutes, which is what makes a 4 point editor like Sequoia a big time saver.

[VCrane]

If you want clean, go linear phase. DMG EQuality/EQuick are good choices.

[Timothy Lawler]

Originally Posted by nas

Take a look at the DDMF LP-10 it is an excellent Linear Phase EQ at a VERY affordable price. The IIEQ Pro also by DDMF is also very good.

DDMF: VST plugins, AU plugins, audio software

+1 on the LP10

PlPar EQ is very good in linear phase mode... made by Acudora, formerly Refined Audiometrics.

I'm trying out the Spline EQ (has a free version) but haven't used it enough yet to say. It's a linear phase EQ as well.

[englishguitarist]

Originally Posted by Everlast

Sorry, it might sound harsh, but I don't get this type of threads on GS lately - 'what's the best eq for hiphop, what's the best eq for dance music' and now 'what eq for classical'..

I'm asking again - why would anyone thing there's dedicated eq for a certain genre? Who actually told you that and where you people got this idea from after all?

People mix and use what they have regardless of genre. It's always been that way.

Which platform/DAW do you use? Have you tried using stock eq's there? Most of DAWs have their eq's that 'work' just fine on any 'genre'.

Thank you to all of you have give some great suggestions there - I will be having a look at those.

In answer to the above: In asking the question, I don't know all the parameters of the likely answers. If I already knew the answer to whether there is a 'dedicated EQ for a certain genre', then I probably wouldn't need to ask. It seems a proper, obvious use of a forum to ask for people's opinions, based on their own experience. A question may well seem unnecessary if you already think you know the answer! The alternative is that I would only ask questions to which I already have a pretty good idea of the answers, right? I think the other replies justify the question, and that it was not a 'Low End' question either. You could just state your answer as "I don't believe any particular EQ suits any particular genre more than others.", if that's what you think.

Mic placement and choice is paramount, of course, as some of you point out.

Points on this:

1. I'm still learning, and I can't move the mics afterwards, but I can add slight EQ.

2. Mic choice is limited by budget. The plugins suggested here are cheaper than any decent mic.

3. If a piano is overly bright, and it is impractical to hire a Steinway D, then I'm not sure you can totally rectify that with mic placement and mic choice. Perhaps a little, but it will be a while before my mic collection has enough options to cover all bases. Maybe you will tell me otherwise...

4. Is there a puritanical air about classical recordings? I am a classical musician and I know most recording artists are heavily edited, at least.

The only reason I can see for making the 'no EQ ever' case is if EQ could NEVER improve the raw sound of a classical recording, however ill-chosen and placed the mics were. But I think we can agree that it would be better to always get it right in the first place.

So the debate ranges from one suggestion that no particular EQ plugin is better for a specific genre than any other, to the idea that Classical Music is such a specific genre that you shouldn't use any at all!

[mljung]

Originally Posted by englishguitarist

Mic placement and choice is paramount, of course, as some of you point out.

Points on this:

1. I'm still learning, and I can't move the mics afterwards, but I can add slight EQ.

2. Mic choice is limited by budget. The plugins suggested here are cheaper than any decent mic.

3. If a piano is overly bright, and it is impractical to hire a Steinway D, then I'm not sure you can totally rectify that with mic placement and mic choice. Perhaps a little, but it will be a while before my mic collection has enough options to cover all bases. Maybe you will tell me otherwise...

4. Is there a puritanical air about classical recordings? I am a classical musician and I know most recording artists are heavily edited, at least.

All good points - there are so many factors that make the sound of a recording, and post-tone control is an obvious benefit to many recordings, I see no reason not to use it. What I do advice though is that all post-eq is done very carefully to assure that the recording actually benefits from it. Good monitoring is very important here!

Many fine eq's on the plug-in market these days from Voxengo, Melda and like tui I also quite like the new SplineEQ and the full version is very cheap. But there are off-course many others -Try demos and see what you like.

Dynamic EQ like Voxengos GlissEQ or Meldas MDynamicEQ can, used wisely, be very effective on problematic material once in a while. Since the dynamic behavior can be turned on and off, it can be used only when needed. Mid/Side is another fine feature to have, to be able to work differently on mono and stereo components of a recording [Voxengo EQ's have a very good implementation of this].

::
Mads

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by englishguitarist

Ok, I should have said it will need to be VST.

Perhaps there is more around for 96. Maybe I should settle for that.

Originally Posted by englishguitarist

Thanks - I will at least try the demos of equality and equick. I can't see the sample rate spec on the DMG site. Will they (BOTH) work at 192?

Still...£74.99/£99...

Any cheaper plugins that get close? I don't want to get one of these and then see recommendations for a piece of freeware or a £20 gem!

Originally Posted by englishguitarist

Thank you to all of you have give some great suggestions there - I will be having a look at those.

In answer to the above: In asking the question, I don't know all the parameters of the likely answers. If I already knew the answer to whether there is a 'dedicated EQ for a certain genre', then I probably wouldn't need to ask. It seems a proper, obvious use of a forum to ask for people's opinions, based on their own experience. A question may well seem unnecessary if you already think you know the answer! The alternative is that I would only ask questions to which I already have a pretty good idea of the answers, right? I think the other replies justify the question, and that it was not a 'Low End' question either. You could just state your answer as "I don't believe any particular EQ suits any particular genre more than others.", if that's what you think.

Mic placement and choice is paramount, of course, as some of you point out.

Points on this:

1. I'm still learning, and I can't move the mics afterwards, but I can add slight EQ.

2. Mic choice is limited by budget. The plugins suggested here are cheaper than any decent mic.

3. If a piano is overly bright, and it is impractical to hire a Steinway D, then I'm not sure you can totally rectify that with mic placement and mic choice. Perhaps a little, but it will be a while before my mic collection has enough options to cover all bases. Maybe you will tell me otherwise...

4. Is there a puritanical air about classical recordings? I am a classical musician and I know most recording artists are heavily edited, at least.

The only reason I can see for making the 'no EQ ever' case is if EQ could NEVER improve the raw sound of a classical recording, however ill-chosen and placed the mics were. But I think we can agree that it would be better to always get it right in the first place.

So the debate ranges from one suggestion that no particular EQ plugin is better for a specific genre than any other, to the idea that Classical Music is such a specific genre that you shouldn't use any at all!

There's lots of contradictions here if you ask me.

You want to record at 192k (which is higher than just about anyone working professionally, apart from possibly archiving, sound design (where slowing things down is useful to start from higher rates) and audiophile recordings with an audience of about 20). But you think £74 is expensive for a plugin. If you've got converters worthy of working at 192k, £74 is the cost of your speaker cable. It's very low in the overall setup.

First of all, lose the idea that "higher sample rates = better, so the highest is best". Some converters function better at lower rates. Budget converters almost certainly won't be worth running at super high rates - that's marketing for you. 96k might be worth it, but don't be ashamed to think you can't hear a difference - the rest of your chain (room, monitoring, input chain) may not justify it. Or it might. It definitely won't justify 192k.

FWIW I don't think there's any quality EQ that's freeware and transparent. Freeware stuff tends to be problem solvers, or "flavour" ideas. Quality transparent EQ is hard to program.

bx_digital is definitely worth a look. Were you on PT, I'd recommend The MDW EQ, but you're not. Anything linear phase is likely to be very transparent - IK multimedia, Waves, take your pick really.

[englishguitarist]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

There's lots of contradictions here if you ask me.

You want to record at 192k (which is higher than just about anyone working professionally, apart from possibly archiving, sound design (where slowing things down is useful to start from higher rates) and audiophile recordings with an audience of about 20). But you think £74 is expensive for a plugin. If you've got converters worthy of working at 192k, £74 is the cost of your speaker cable. It's very low in the overall setup.

First of all, lose the idea that "higher sample rates = better, so the highest is best". Some converters function better at lower rates. Budget converters almost certainly won't be worth running at super high rates - that's marketing for you. 96k might be worth it, but don't be ashamed to think you can't hear a difference - the rest of your chain (room, monitoring, input chain) may not justify it. Or it might. It definitely won't justify 192k.

Sounds like good advice, thanks. I had come to realise that 96k would be enough from what people said early on.

I will actually end up paying whatever is needed for a decent plugin, but not without trying out some mid-price demos first.

[nas]

Originally Posted by englishguitarist

Thank you to all of you have give some great suggestions there - I will be having a look at those.


Mic placement and choice is paramount, of course, as some of you point out.

Points on this:

1. I'm still learning, and I can't move the mics afterwards, but I can add slight EQ.

2. Mic choice is limited by budget. The plugins suggested here are cheaper than any decent mic.

3. If a piano is overly bright, and it is impractical to hire a Steinway D, then I'm not sure you can totally rectify that with mic placement and mic choice. Perhaps a little, but it will be a while before my mic collection has enough options to cover all bases. Maybe you will tell me otherwise...

4. Is there a puritanical air about classical recordings? I am a classical musician and I know most recording artists are heavily edited, at least.

The only reason I can see for making the 'no EQ ever' case is if EQ could NEVER improve the raw sound of a classical recording, however ill-chosen and placed the mics were. But I think we can agree that it would be better to always get it right in the first place.

So the debate ranges from one suggestion that no particular EQ plugin is better for a specific genre than any other, to the idea that Classical Music is such a specific genre that you shouldn't use any at all!

EQ has it's benefits but please do not make the mistake of thinking you can EQ out poor mic choice and mic placement - you can't. Even a slight shift of your mic placement (distance and angle) will have a much more noticeable effect on your sound than radical EQ settings... and if you really need to EQ something that radically, then you will start to introduce other artifacts from the EQ (phase distortion and transient smearing) that will hinder your sound quality - even from the most expensive EQ's... let alone a cheap freeware EQ plugin.

As you've stated yourself mic choice and placement are paramount and if you are going to use any EQ at all after the fact... I would advise you do as little as possible... at least in this genre of music.

[Bill@WelcomeHome]

Maybe you can't hire the finest piano in town. But you can do the leg work and find out where the finest piano is that you may be able to access. I recorded a fine classical pianist on the comeback road after a few years of retirement. Her producer found a fantastic Steinway in the recital hall of a local college, very well maintained. She got permission to use the hall during several unscheduled time periods over a few days. We took in my laptop, hardy pres, some Schoeps mics and my Fireface with Mytek converters. I tweaked the piano placement in the room, adjusted padding/diffusion for reflections, placed the mics, and turned the job over to my second. A few days later we had an entire recording ready for edits. No eq needed.

You have a bright piano, you use a darker mic. Walk the room and listen. Move the mic around listening on headphones.

I might use an eq as an artistic tool in the context of a mix. But an eq won't 'fix' a recording that sucks.

[Timothy Lawler]

Since we're discussing classical EQ in general... For what I do I use occasional EQ and minimally. Aside from a subtle spectrum balance change, I want it to be transparent. I test an EQ for transparency this way: 1) playback a classical guitar file with the EQ active but filters at 0 change. Many EQs cast a haze just with that. 2) playback same file with 2 dB cut, then boost, with (one at a time) a wide bell filter centered at various frequencies and gentle slope low and high shelf filters listening for clean EQ balance change without haze, smear, or anything artificial-feeling added to the sound.

[tonemaker]

Originally Posted by Everlast

Sorry, it might sound harsh, but I don't get this type of threads on GS lately - 'what's the best eq for hiphop, what's the best eq for dance music' and now 'what eq for classical'..

I'm asking again - why would anyone thing there's dedicated eq for a certain genre? Who actually told you that and where you people got this idea from after all?

People mix and use what they have regardless of genre. It's always been that way.

Which platform/DAW do you use? Have you tried using stock eq's there? Most of DAWs have their eq's that 'work' just fine on any 'genre'.

^^^I totally agree with Everlast who said it quite well.

Furthermore, as i understand it, the whole mix philosophy of Classical is quite different from other genres. They strive for Documentary of the performance, not for otherwise. They try to capture the performance as is and not try to enhance it. So they focus more on good mics and proper mic technique and of course hall/chamber acoustics.

I think if there is any EQ going on in Classical, it's strictly for surgical noise reduction and that shouldn't even be an issue if everything else was taken care of. They still leave most if not all audience noise in Classical recordings.

Maybe Classical in terms of film Soundtracks is different, but in that case I'd imagine they use any and all types of EQ that are needed for the mood of the scenes and transitions.

I could be wrong about this stuff and as all things in music, there are exceptions. So correct me if I'm wrong. But likewise, back me up if you know this to be true.

[Timothy Lawler]

Documentary? Hmmmm.

Anyone who listens seriously to much classical music no doubt has a sense of what sounds realistic/natural and what doesn't. And of course it's all opinion and personal taste. I prefer the engineering aesthetic oriented towards making the music sound the best it can, as long as it sounds realistic/natural to me. So, for me, purely documentary? No.

Edit: there's also the idea that the recording process always represents a performance in a colored or filtered (maybe not the perfect words) way no matter how sophisticated the approach. Every mic model and stereo configuration hears it differently!

[KdPyke]

I haven't seen anyone mention it, but FabFilter is my favorite EQ plugin.... A little pricey at $200USD, but check it out. There's a 30-day free trial.

[tacitus]

I hardly ever use any eq on classical recordings. As already mentioned, it won't fix a bad recording and you need to select mics and their placement carefully in the first place.

If you're having to record in a situation where that isn't possible, in a bad room or in stealth mode or to fit the conductors's idea of where he or she will let you put the mics, the likelihood is that any eq will serve and in fact you're more likely to be reaching for noise reduction tools than top-end eq. That's been my experience, anyway.