Digital EQ Fact & Myth.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by piano

So someone convince me otherwise because the differences seem subtle.

Subtle? it's like comparing a hooker to a rubber-doll.

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

ps - btw Michael Brauer said in an interview that no analog eq in his opinions can boost the highs as "airy" as the Eiosys AirEQ. If someone without a big name would claim such a thing on GS then he´d be called an incompetent deaf troll 15 times within a day.

Wow, I'm really glad I didn't bring this up before I got titled a big name, because being called an incompetent deaf troll once in a day is bad enough but 15 times would totally bum me out.

there might be some great eq's that do the same thing but the Air Eq sounds very much like an aphex aural exciter.

michael

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Subtle? it's like comparing a hooker to a rubber-doll.

and this is based on personal experience?

[princeplanet]

Nice "subtle" jibe re my "experience" spleen vent?

If so - touche! thumbsup

[WunderBro Flo]

Whoa! Michael, great to have you here, thanks for chiming in!
It is so helpful when famous guys voice "unpopular" opinions, places like these can get a little too dogmatic otherwise! Very much appreciated!

Best,
Pat

[WunderBro Flo]

Originally Posted by MHB850

and this is based on personal experience?

well that´s what happens when you sell your analog eqs to pay the hooker. you end up with plugins AND the doll sooner or later...

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

well that´s what happens when you sell your analog eqs to pay the hooker. you end up with plugins AND the doll sooner or later...

haha, well I hope the plugins will lead you back to at least the hooker and who knows maybe someday even somebody who cares about you and your plugins M.

[Clonkified]

This thread has been very interesting to read through. So if somebody was looking to buy a digital EQ, buying one that had the most intuitive design/workflow (for that person) and offered a number of different filter curves at the right price would seem like the best choice? For example, the Sonnox EQ seems to have 4 curve types that emulate some of the eqs found on SSL and Neve consoles. Of course, other PEQs could get the same sound as the Sonnox one, but maybe would require much more time to emulate the same curves. Is that the right way of thinking about this?

If so, any recommendations for EQs?

One final question, anybody seen this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2390194755604? Freemasons talking about EQ smearing. Sounds like the Logic EQ was making undesirable changes to the waveform.

Thanks!
C

[Paul Frindle]

Originally Posted by Clonkified

This thread has been very interesting to read through. So if somebody was looking to buy a digital EQ, buying one that had the most intuitive design/workflow (for that person) and offered a number of different filter curves at the right price would seem like the best choice? For example, the Sonnox EQ seems to have 4 curve types that emulate some of the eqs found on SSL and Neve consoles. Of course, other PEQs could get the same sound as the Sonnox one, but maybe would require much more time to emulate the same curves. Is that the right way of thinking about this?

If so, any recommendations for EQs?

One final question, anybody seen this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2390194755604? Freemasons talking about EQ smearing. Sounds like the Logic EQ was making undesirable changes to the waveform.

Thanks!
C

This is a perfect example of people not understanding what a change in the freq response does to the waveform.

Anything that changes the freq response of a signal must by the laws of physics and mathematics have a time domain element.

What he is seeing there is the effect of this time domain element on the abrupt ending of this edited drum sound. The time domain element makes the EQ response carry on after the end, despite the fact that the signal has ended - it cannot do otherwise.

This is completely normal and will happen with any EQ, made by any method. It would happen if the freq response change was made by a natural physical process such as acoustics etc..

[jdtrbn]

Originally Posted by Clonkified

This thread has been very interesting to read through. So if somebody was looking to buy a digital EQ, buying one that had the most intuitive design/workflow (for that person) and offered a number of different filter curves at the right price would seem like the best choice? For example, the Sonnox EQ seems to have 4 curve types that emulate some of the eqs found on SSL and Neve consoles. Of course, other PEQs could get the same sound as the Sonnox one, but maybe would require much more time to emulate the same curves. Is that the right way of thinking about this?

Yes, although there are a lot of EQs that offer those proportional Q filters. I hope this thread doesn't turn into a "which EQ is the best" -debate, but for the sheer amount of filters ElectriQ is hard to beat. Then again, you could argue that intuitive workflow and offered amount of possibilities are contradicting goals.

[LPK]

Originally Posted by Clonkified

For example, the Sonnox EQ seems to have 4 curve types that emulate some of the eqs found on SSL and Neve consoles. Of course, other PEQs could get the same sound as the Sonnox one, but maybe would require much more time to emulate the same curves. Is that the right way of thinking about this?

Generally yes.
Though as far as I remember, the Sonnox EQ wasn't emulating any Neve/SSL stuff and I think the curves were always the same, just the behaviour/handling changed (relative Q, different boost-/cut-behaviour).

One final question, anybody seen this: In The Studio with The Freemasons - EQ Smearing Freemasons talking about EQ smearing. Sounds like the Logic EQ was making undesirable changes to the waveform.

Well, this guy seems to have no clue, what he's talking about.
He said, the Sony one wouldn't smear like the Logic EQ, but that's just wrong. If both are minimum phase, so both have exactly the same ringing-behaviour.

He most likely just does different EQing with the Sony one without being aware of it.

[mstar2215]

I have to say (even though these posts are a couple days old, that the AirEQ is the first I reach for in the "software locker" when I need to make things a bit more crisp on the upper mids to highs. I have tested and/or own some other fine Eqs (IMHO) (PEQblue, Neon HR, PLPAR etc...) yet the Eiosys dials in quick, especially on acoustic guitars (for me). The "Air" knob doesn't grab me as anything special per say, but the 2 bands before it work magic quickly. So I have to say, it is a good and unique tool as far as eqs go these days. Some of the linear phase ones mentioned give headaches on the delay compensation. On the cheaper side, the Apulsoft ApEQ also did good stuff for me when I demo'd it. The problem with that plug (here) for whatever reason, is it crashes if I am using more than 1 instance. So I need to wait until that works with N4 better... or my system changes if something on my side is in conflict. I am just pleased that finally good eqs are available as plugs that don't screw up the rest of the surrounding bands, I am not even working on.

[WunderBro Flo]

Anyone looking for a digital "air" eq that sounds fabulous check out the liquid mix model of the Avalon 747 (I think it is called "US hybrid 3"). The highest band is stellar for that purpose. Would love to try the Eiosis one day...

Rock on!
Pat

[mstar2215]

Thanks WildCowboys! Have not seen/heard it yet. I will check it out

[zmix]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

Anyone looking for a digital "air" eq that sounds fabulous check out the liquid mix model of the Avalon 747 (I think it is called "US hybrid 3"). The highest band is stellar for that purpose. Pat

I'd like to point out that the Focusrite Liquid Mix is completely different than standard mathematically modeled digital EQ because it's based on impulse responses of actual hardware. It's quite likely that the response of the Liquid Mix could NOT be duplicated with a digital EQ to the point of null...

[eugd]

Not wanting to believe, I duped some noise and tried to null the Duende channel high shelf EQ, which I've always thought was doing something magical that sounded unlike any other EQ. Electri-Q was quickly able to get the difference down to -65db. But only in eco mode.

shocked.

comparing the two EQs then on some strings, acoustic guitars, and hats, I don't think i can tell the difference. Although I really want to... after buying a Duende and all the plugins. What sold me initially on the Duende was the EQ.

The small players like Electri-Q, and even DAWs should totally advertise their products with a list of expensive digital EQs that they can null. I'm surprised they haven't yet.

No wonder my mixes don't sound much better!

[joeq]

Originally Posted by zmix

I'd like to point out that the Focusrite Liquid Mix is completely different than standard mathematically modeled digital EQ because it's based on impulse responses of actual hardware. It's quite likely that the response of the Liquid Mix could NOT be duplicated with a digital EQ to the point of null...

Now I wonder if it could be nulled by a competing convolution plug using the same IR?

[jdtrbn]

Originally Posted by joeq

Now I wonder if it could be nulled by a competing convolution plug using the same IR?

Dynamic convolution is patented so no competing convolution plug exists. Just to make it clear, dynamic convolution uses different IRs for different volume levels, unlike traditional convolution that uses only one.

[LPK]

Originally Posted by eugd

Not wanting to believe, I duped some noise and tried to null the Duende channel high shelf EQ, which I've always thought was doing something magical that sounded unlike any other EQ. Electri-Q was quickly able to get the difference down to -65db. But only in eco mode.

shocked.

This means, that the Duende introduces curve-warping near the nyquist-frequency, which is even more shocking, if it has no option to avoid it.

[eugd]

And give them to each other. If we can null all the bands, should be easy to hide the implementation of the lookup tables behind a nice UI in Reaktor. and voila. think WAVES et al. will sue us?

[mossie23]

as an eq is just a bunch of filters, wouldn't it be possible to null any 2 digital low pass filters?

i suspect the answer is no as resonance complicates things and, if i remember correctly, there are different topologies to choose from with lpf's. anybody an expert view on this?

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by mossie23

wouldn't it be possible to null any 2 digital low pass filters?

Sure, but only if they have the same slope (dB per octave).

--Ethan

[jdtrbn]

Originally Posted by mossie23

as an eq is just a bunch of filters, wouldn't it be possible to null any 2 digital low pass filters?

i suspect the answer is no as resonance complicates things and, if i remember correctly, there are different topologies to choose from with lpf's. anybody an expert view on this?

As far as I know, there's only one way to add what we call resonance. I'm not sure what different topologies mean in this case, but it's probably about different ways to achieve the same thing.

Just don't try to null e.g. a moog lp filter emulation, they can misbehave

[mossie23]

Originally Posted by jdtrbn

As far as I know, there's only one way to add what we call resonance. I'm not sure what different topologies mean in this case, but it's probably about different ways to achieve the same thing.

Just don't try to null e.g. a moog lp filter emulation, they can misbehave

with topology i mean something like biquad, which seems to be the standard choice when designing a minimum phase digital eq.

i'm not an expert, but i remember there were a few ways to characterize a digital filter: fir, iir, variable state, ladder, parallel, etc. and resonance is feedback somewhere in the system, but the designer has many options where to put it. but i might be all wrong on that.

i'm just asking because with resonant lowpass filters in softsynths, it's usually quite easy to hear differences. so i thought it wouldn't normally be possible to null any 2 of them.

i managed to null some of the low and highpass filters in eq's, but those are probably all biquads then.

[jdtrbn]

Originally Posted by mossie23

i'm not an expert, but i remember there were a few ways to characterize a digital filter: fir, iir, variable state, ladder, parallel, etc. and resonance is feedback somewhere in the system, but the designer has many options where to put it. but i might be all wrong on that.

i'm just asking because with resonant lowpass filters in softsynths, it's usually quite easy to hear differences. so i thought it wouldn't normally be possible to null any 2 of them.

i managed to null some of the low and highpass filters in eq's, but those are probably all biquads then.

Low pass filters aren't technically different from other types, but you may be right. Synths can have some designs that were never meant to be general-purpose. For example, MS20 low-pass adds distortion deliberately. At least Asynth has several low-pass emulations implemented. But these filters are hard to test without audio input.

[mdoelger]

I've been following the whole discussion about "All digital EQs are the same!" for a while now. Now I want to chime in for a second.

IMO there are digital EQs and digital EQs.

It may be true that every CLEAN minimum phase EQ can be dublicated with every other CLEAN minimum phase EQ. Actually it would seem very strange to me if this wasn't the case.

However, plugin developers aren't stupid. Most developers have at least one clean minimum phase EQ in their arsenal because (let's face it: we want them).
Then there are developers which want to dig deeper into EQs and others which don't do that and focus more on other plugs like comps and stuff.

The ones who dig deeper most of the time come out with stupid let's-mimic-some-analog-EQ plugins, which obviously cannot sound like the real deal 100% because of they just aren't analog. Waves and UAD seem to be top notch in this category but still not 100% there. (I don't own any of the stuff anymore - had UAD1, I just summarise what I read here on the forum).

What I heard is that lets say URS' API "clone" only mimics the Q behaviour of the real unit but still is clean min phase. How stupid is that??? Have you seen the price tags of these plugs?

And then there are plenty of free EQs out there, which somehow often seem to have mojo. Have you tried bootsy's EQs, or voxengos overtone EQ? These have mojo and no ****ing i-sound-like-the-real-deal.

If you want the real deal, go buy it. Don't have the money? Lots of really good freeware EQs out there from clean to freaking mojo. LP EQs available also. If you must stay ITB for some reason (money?), go with freeware plugs. You'll get everything you need. If you want to get serious, buy hardware. BUYING software comps or EQs is just a waste of money to me. Just my 2 cents.

However, there are plugs which are extremely useful like drumagog or VocAlign or auto-tune (I'm sorry) or some great fx-suite. But after those...not much I see the need to pay for!


PS: I highly doubt the statement that its possible to duplicate the behaviour of Bootsy's EQ or voxengos or colortone or UAD Pultec or even waves SSL with just a clean minimum phase EQ and a saturation plug. Maybe you can get close, but if theirs 10% missing, thats exactly those 10% which count.
I mean we go and rage over the slight sound difference in pres and mics or even converters and then some half assed gearslut claims "every digital eq is the same". "Hey I can make them NULL. Not really, but I'm real close. Well, those must be the same..." BS

Cheers!

[WunderBro Flo]

Yup, it is important not to use the word "NULLING" for something that is close but in fact not really nulling. Nulling means the entire signal cancels out. If there is something that remains, that is the difference that did not null and it´s going to have it´s impact on the sound. If we define something like -60 or -70 dB as nulling then I have no problem nulling any analog EQ with a flexible software EQ. The differences between gear are often in the details, the last couple of precents.
On the other hand we must be aware that there is a threshold somewhere wround which differences still exist technically but are insignificant perceptionwise because the listeners cannot hear the difference anymore.
Rock on!
Pat

[mossie23]

Originally Posted by jdtrbn

Low pass filters aren't technically different from other types, but you may be right. Synths can have some designs that were never meant to be general-purpose. For example, MS20 low-pass adds distortion deliberately. At least Asynth has several low-pass emulations implemented. But these filters are hard to test without audio input.

i think with synth filters, there's more freedom. they're allowed to have tons of character. eq's are usually general purpose. i think an eq based on ms20-style filters (if possible at all), would probably puzzle everybody and not sell well.

but it seems some developers are now starting to take this road. airwindows and ddmf come to mind.

[virtualaudio]

A few notes based on:

1) Personal evaluation. (Though Not Bob Katz or G. Massenburg, I have been composing and engineering for many years).

2) The most reliable sources (Bob Katz, and many others - though I would like to point out that even with top flight engineers, opinions and tastes vary).

3) My (limited) knowledge of dsp coding (I don't code, but know just enough to make questionable assumptions).

Okay, fundamentals of dsp eq coding:

The two most useful types of digital eq are minimum phase and linear phase; there are others, but their functionality is not as common or useful. Maximum phase comes to mind (a filter that purposefully rings and distorts phase).
There a several ways to write an eq dsp code. According to apparently knowledgeable people in this forum, the most common fundamental method to produce the 'nuts and bolts' heart of a MP eq is a bi-quadratic equation (I hope I got that right; I'm in a hurry).

For minimum phase digital eq, there are a number of ways to arrange the filters (series, parallel, etc). These variations affect the gain/q dependency. They have nothing to do with harmonic distortion. (See the Algorithmix Blue description). I do not know if they affect the phase; if anyone can chime in here...

There are several 'corrective' or 'adjustable' methods for phase response (if a linear phase eq can be designed, then a minimum phase eq with a variant phase response should be possible? There are eq's that have different phase possibilities for each filter, so logically..) and hi frequency curve accuracy. (See the Eiosis Air Eq description). This is the part I am admittedly least knowledgeable on.

Many dsp coders 'emulate' 'analog models' by using the same basic equation (bi-quad for mp), restricting the filter points, controlling the gain/q dependency and putting a gui on it that looks like the hardware. A few add noise (of various kinds - see the TRacks noise rise at 300Hz, and the discussion on the Waves SSL series, where the 'Analog' button adds low level white noise (is it white?) and/or some harmonic content (again Waves, particularly API - thanks Fader8 for your informative webblog, and everyone else here that has taken the time to run tests on various eq's).

Some eq's upsample in an attempt to calculate more accurately. This procedure has it's own drawbacks (SRC is non trivial, and to do it right requires a big CPU hit - I saw a website with aliasing test results for sample rate converters, both hardware and software; if I can find the link, I will include it here). Of course, upsampling-downsampling with the same multiplier (48 - 192 - 48) is easier than with a different multiplier (48 - 44.1), but still, it can color the sound. On the other hand, it spreads the errors out over a larger range. If done very well, it can have advantages. Katz says that he is not sure it has any meaningful significance for eq, but can definitely improve dynamic behavior, like compressors, limiters, etc. On major factor in src is the filtering used to restrict the end product to the nyquist frequency to avoid aliasing. See Bob Katz' book for detailed information.

The bit-depth (wordlength) calculation also affects accuracy; a 24 bit calculation rounds enough errors off enough to potentially be perceptible, especially after repeated calculation. Floating point calculations have the added benefit of being able to handle digital overs. Of course a poorly implemented algorithm won't be helped by a 64 bit wordlength or upsampling. But, in eq's especially, 24 bit calculations are too limited to be accurate for high end work (I am not sure I can buy LPK's assertion that info lower than 144dB is meaningless; especially with cumulative calculations).

Okay, those seem to be the fundamentals for dsp eq coding, particularly minimum phase.

Now, my observations:

First,
The Sonnox and Sonalksis eq's sound better to me that my internal DAW eq (Cubase SX3) or the Waves Ren eq. I do not believe it is due to a different qain/q dependency. No way. What could it be then?

The Algorithmix Blue sounds better to me than any other minimum phase eq I have ever heard. (Perhaps this is due to high quality up-sampling and 80 bit floating point calculations); according to them, any well designed, properly implemented analytical digital peq can match any eq setup (I am guessing they mean any, including analog, minus harmonic artifacts that are generated by analog circuitry - thus 'analytical'). I had the opportunity to demo the Blue and I loved the way it sounded, but the cost and dsp hit are very high, too high for my budget. If they are using the cookbook bi-quad dsp, they are adding extra steps to minimize artifacts and maximize accuracy. They say they are using proprietary algorithms..

Which brings me to:
As a previous poster stated, there is a lot of competition in the dsp coding world, and the ROI is slim. From personal experience, DSP coders can be very secretive about their methods. A few people that have posted here have serious coding experience; how much are they willing to divulge? I am not calling the accuracy of their statements into question, but if all the points I have made are valid, then there are ways to make an eq that sounds much better than another eq with the same q/gain dependency, and one may wonder what extra steps are taken to acheive this result.. the manufacturers are generally less than willing to divulge hard earned coding methods. Yes, some marketing is snake oil; but how can we really know the 'extras' that are taking place in a dsp like, say, the UAD Neve 1073? I have also demoed that, and I have to say that it sounds very good; not quite like the hardware, but I don't think I could get my DAW eq to sound like it, and even with an eq like the Algo Blue, it would take a long time to dial in the same settings, and then one would have to add comparable harmonic generation to match their 'analog circuit' modeling (see Fader8's webBlog for the harmonic info on this and other eq's). Which leads to -
Workflow:
If a high quality eq emulation helps you because you are used to that particular piece of hardware, then I say use it. As a previous poster stated, they did the work to dial in the gain/q dependencies (and add some harmonics to help it sound analog); do you really want to go through the trouble, or do you want to be an efficient engineer? And yes, modeling still does not (and perhaps never will) sound exactly like the original, but if it is very close and costs 10 times less, then some of us can benefit from the ease of use due to familiarity..

The above points were focused on minimum phase eq's; linear phase is another matter:

I have also had the opportunity to demo the Algorithmix Red and Orange eq's, and compare them against the Waves LP and the Ozone 3 & 4 LP eq's; I now own the Red and use it frequently, and can say that it definitely sounds better than the Waves and Ozone. Furthermore, refer to Bob Katz' book regarding the exceptionally low pre-post echo of the Red as compared with the Orange, Weiss and other LP eq implementations. There is definitely something quantifiable going on here. (The Red is a 'frequency domain' eq - I think that means an FIR design that has somehow avoided the pitfalls of most FIR designs - see above about proprietary coding and the secretiveness of developers. The Orange is a 'time domain' eq; IIR, I believe - though someone said earlier in this thread that LP eq's were typically IIR followed by FIR, or at least that is one way to do it; I hope I am not misrepresenting). Bob and others call it 'the sweetest LP eq I have ever heard' and 'more analog than analog'.. but hey, maybe they are just hawking a product.. I love it.

Moving on:

If you can run the same source material through two different eq's, match the q/gain (match the eq curve exactly, not by knob readings, but by fft and/or another method like twiddling the settings until you get it right), flip the polarity of one and then sum them and get absolute silence, they are absolutely equivalent, at least at that setting. That is a null test. Period. If there is any residue left, they are not equivalent, which may or may not have major significance regarding the 'sound' of the eq. That is the rub. What low level (ambient) information is psychoacoustically significant? That is a whole debate in itself.. Waves seems to think a little white noise helps their SSL plugs sound 'analog'.. Hell, Katz makes several points about noise and masking, the perception of digital as being sterile, the addition of noise as not necessarily bad, etc. What works, what doesn't, where do we draw the line? (This is related to the analog summing controversy, and in a sense, to the whole debate about analog vs. digital, modeling, etc., yes?)
~~~
So, maybe 90% of minimum phase eq's use the same basic method, but there seem to be a few ways to modify this calculation and/or increase the accuracy (bit depth/sample rate) of it to produce results that are superior (or more aurally desirable) to other eq's. But yes, there are lines, fuzzy to be sure, but lines where annoootthhhher damned modeled eq plugin is a snake oil ripoff (depending on your POV and workflow needs, preferences and budget). But if it helps you get the sound you want..
I personally don't want to spend the time to dial in a 1073 curve, and would rather use the UAD, but that is my preference. Good curves, a little harmonics, and.. I don't know what else, and the developers aren't telling (and no, it is not nano-tubes on the card!). I don't think I could get the nice Voxengo Overtone Geq to sound like the UAD 1073, but they are different animals; maybe the HarmoniEQ.. I'll have to demo and try it.. I have not seen a defintive answer on the dynamic and program response of certain modeled eq's; is there a dynamic 'transformer reactivity' in, say, the UAD stuff that would increase saturation at higher levels? I can say that their 33609 compressor does this, but it is also a cpu hog.

If there are only a few ways to skin this cat, and all the dsp and modeling knowledge obtained by all the developers were combined, I guess an eq could be designed to do anything possible in the digital domain, including coming as close as mathematically possible to all the most desirable hardware, with a bunch of great presets (1073, Manley, Weiss, Pultec, etc), with great GUI functionality. I don't expect to see this any time soon, but would love to have it. Then I would be satisfied with one all purpose eq plugin!
Until then, with the subtle variations in coding, efforts at modeling and economic and mathematical limits of developers, I say Caveat Emptor, but get what sounds good to you and enhances your workflow; you don't need 100 plugin eq's, but I don't think the one in your DAW is enough unless it is really great (and I don't think the Cubase SX3 one is, at least; can't speak for other DAW's).

Sorry for the rambling and incomplete post; I don't have the time to write an organized dissertation. And I apologize if I misrepresented anyone's words, meanings or opinions; some of my post is subjective, and I may be wrong about a few technical point, and would be happy to be corrected by anyone more knowledgeable.

I forgot to mention one last gem from Bob Katz' book: Mastering Audio.
To paraphrase, each of the various methods we have to measure the performance of any audio signal processor only offers a specific 'window' to look into the inner workings; no one (or even two or three) measurements can tell us enough to have a comprehensive evaluation of the 'real-world' behavior of the signal processor; which is to say that for any processor with a sophisticated design (I say this to exclude simple mathematically predictable dsp coded algorithms), only one or two measurements is not enough to say what the psychoacoustic effect the processor may exhibit in any given real world application, or what anomaly might be 'important' and what is trivial.. (I say 'simple mathematically predictable dsp coded algorithms' to distinguish, say, a common 2nd order butterworth filter from the PSP Vintage Warmer; pick your analogy.. and to extend the idea, I am not even sure Sonnox knows exactly what their Inflator does in every application... or if they do, they don't specify in the manual; really, to use the words 'statistical' and 'probability' in the same sentence!)


George Piazza
.:O O:. G.C. N.O.
Tabula Rasa
~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.A.S.T. - Virtual Audio Studio Tech
Mastering, Mixing, Recording & Restoration
Soundtrack/Sound Design for Film / Video
MySpace.com - Tabula Rasa / V.A.S.T. / George Piazza - 45 - Male - New Orleans, Louisiana - www.myspace.com/georgepiazza

[space2012]

Originally Posted by rhythminmind

Digital parametric EQ's are near identical for the most part. The biggest difference is how much control you have over the EQ's parameters. The SSL X-EQ excels in this area. But sounds no better then the next. It can help you get to the sound that your after faster do to this. The X-EQ is a port of the Classic PEQ Blue Algorithmix Classic PEQ Blue -- 12-in-1. The most complete collection of classic equalizers ever in one DirectX/VST PlugIn: ten serial plus two parallel. Precise emulation of legendary analog equalizers, extended by progressive, new models: standard/
They are a great no nonsense company. Read that write up of the PEQ. It should answer all questions.
Being a Duende user myself save your money for the drumstrip & X-comp 1st. These and the channelstrip/bus comp are the real gems... Unlike EQ's, compressors & saturation are a different story.

PEQ Blue sounds like crap when tested vs. Izotope Ozone Analog.
but yes, the Red sounds a bit "better" than Ozone Digital, ozone digital sounds to much dynamic.
waves linear phase eq sounds less dynamic. Red sounds enough balanced "analog like" dynamics.
i think people should buy bigger loudsspeakers.

im so eager to buy sonictimeworks.com EQV1-LP
Sonic Timeworks Digital Audio Software , but crysonic eqs are nice bang for the $$$.