Waves q10 vs Waves REQ

[cooker]

the req. eq's have a more tight/stressed sound compared to the q series. Could be considered as the poor mans sll eq

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by cooker

the req. eq's have a more tight/stressed sound compared to the q series. Could be considered as the poor mans sll eq

Ren EQ sounds and feels nothing like the SSL EQs.

[fixitinthemix]

Is the software SSL better than the REQ? I'm trying to pick up on different sounds in eqs but sometimes it feels to subtle.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by fixitinthemix

Is the software SSL better than the REQ? I'm trying to pick up on different sounds in eqs but sometimes it feels to subtle.

"better"? it's better at sounding like an SSL console. It's better at some tasks.

not a "better" notch EQ...it's really a personal thing, demo both and find out which you like.

[roadsweeper]

The SSL eq's are a lot more 'in your face' and run hotter than most other eq's you have probably tried (though not as hot as the real thing.) If you want an EQ with a very unique sound, try the API's.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

The SSL eq's are a lot more 'in your face' and run hotter than most other eq's you have probably tried (though not as hot as the real thing.) If you want an EQ with a very unique sound, try the API's.

Much as I like the APIs, I find the SSLs at least as characterful. Hell, just get the entire studio collection while you're at it - the neves are great too!

[Mike Brown]

Originally Posted by cooker

the req. eq's have a more tight/stressed sound compared to the q series. Could be considered as the poor mans sll eq

Um... I dont think that they are similar AT ALL.

[bgrotto]

Heh, my smart-ass reply:

Ren EQ: sounds bad

Q10: sounds worse

[Sk106]

Compared to the Q series, I seem to sense that the RenEQ sounds a bit more soft, almost dull, woody and slightly hissy. But that's talking very small nuances indeed.

[Dog_Chao_Chao]

I use them everyday. Completly different.

Ssl, like already said, great for in you face, punchy sounds. I like it for snare, specially with the compressor on top. Not that good for cleaning up.

Ren, good for much more detailed dips and I like it also for smooth boosts in the mid and high freq area. For example, boost 8k/ 12k on vocals, or a more soft snare sound. Its a pretty smooth eq.

Q10, I find it a bit harsher than the ren. Not good for smooth boosts, but very very good for super detailed cuts ( the q factor on those plugs goes insanly narrow) and maybe boosting for roughness, say bass, or if you want to ruin something....

All good.

APIs very good too. Not detailed at all, mid to large paint brush. Killer on drums. Good presets, as starting points.

[fixitinthemix]

Okay so generally speaking ( I need to speak generally to get a grip of everything. Its as I stated before subtle to my ears)

q10 for narrow cuts, tends to sound harsh when boosting

REQ - sounds kinda soft. Too soft sometimes. I could boost highs with this one

What would you say the 7-band eq3 is good for? I'm on Pro Tools. Better than REQ on a lead vocals? (let's be general!)

The LinEQ sounds better? The delay on that one really makes it hard to work though.

Investing in Oxford eq is a good move for a poor ITB-producer?

Thanks again

[Sk106]

Originally Posted by Dog_Chao_Chao

Q10, I find it a bit harsher than the ren.

+1 on that. I too find it a bit hard, almost like ... dunno ... nasal.

And as for the post above mine .. if you're looking for a general usage EQ, tracking EQ, the difference between EQ isn't that dramatic. There was even a thread here not too long ago that claimed that you can emulate the effect of every EQ, with another EQ, most EQs in fact, no matter what price or pedigree. Regardless if it's true or not, it's still a very relevant point. The functionality, flexibility and how immediatly comfortable you find yourself with an EQ, is still just as important. I've tested myself many times, using different EQs and adjusting the same track with them. You'd be surprised to know how much the GUI controls how you tweak your EQ, and I tried very much to let my ears guide me. But my ajustments were different from EQ to EQ and I think most of that was because of how the GUI made me hear things I really didn't hear etc

[PRobb]

To me, the Q10 is for precision surgery and the Ren is for broader sound shaping.

[Never1]

The q10 is more surgical than the Ren series.... though in most cases I'll opt for the Digi Eq 3 over either of these for cuts and corrections. I find the Ren eq smears things quite a bit, depending on the source. I hate it on crunch guitars. Boosting with either of those is a nightmare to my ears, especially the treble regions.

[fixitinthemix]

Can you actually hear a direct difference when A/B-testing eqs? If they are doing the same boosts? If I posted something done with different eqs all settings the same. Would you hear which was which?

[Unclenny]

For me.......

Q10 for surgery.

RenEQ for mild boosts and HPF work.

EQ3 gets the most use.

[Bob Olhsson]

The REQ. was co-designed by Hutch of Manley at the same time the Massive Passive was being designed. I always thought they have a bit in common sound-wise. Great for some things and not so great for others.

REQ was the very first double precision EQ plug-in back when DSP economy was absolutely critical. The fact that lots of people still use it after more than a decade speaks volumes.

The Q-10 was the very first plug-in. I still use it from time to time at 96k which avoids the problems mentioned.