The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
If you could really EQ a softsynth well...
Old 18th September 2011
  #1
Lives for gear
 

If you could really EQ a softsynth well...

Do you think that if you could EQ a softsynth really well you could basically make it sound as fat as hardware?
Old 18th September 2011
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
Dudley's Avatar
 

This is a bit of a silly question as :

a. you're assuming softsynths don't sound as 'fat' ( meaningless term) as hardware - this is a broad, sweeping statement, and isn't even true IMO.

B. Eq would not be the answer anyway.
Old 18th September 2011
  #3
Lives for gear
 
sftd's Avatar
 

If you fried a green bean in the same way you would fry okra do you think they would taste the same?



Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com App
Old 18th September 2011
  #4
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by StringBean
Do you think that if you could EQ a softsynth really well you could basically make it sound as fat as hardware?
The answer is yes*.

*EQ is not intended to be a turd polishing tool. If your input signal is pleasing, you can EQ it in a pleasing way. If it sounds bad before EQ, it will sound just as bad but EQed at the end .
Old 18th September 2011
  #5
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
EQ is not the answer because EQ is not the difference.

Fatness depends on the instrument, but also on the rest of the track; if the other elements are not making way for what you want to emphasize you'll end up with an unfocused mess, and then it doesn't matter what you used in the first place because you have an unfocused mess.

Not all hardware is automatically "fat" by the way, or even good because it's hardware.
Old 18th September 2011
  #6
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
If you could eq Justin bieber's voice really well.. Do you think you could make him sound like 50 cent?

'fat' sounds can be created from digital or analog. It depends on what kind of sounds you are trying to do and software will make you work a lot harder to get it in many cases. There are also a lot of sounds you're not going to get out of digital. Same for analog. If you need to make coffee you're better off using a coffee pot than a toaster. Choosing the right tools gives you a better chance at getting what you're after quicker or at all.
Old 18th September 2011
  #7
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Eq may not be the answer in general, but the other day I heard the Arturia Minimoog through an Ashly blueface SC-44 and it was VERY much more like a real one......more the whole tone of the box than the eq mind.

Sent from my GT-I5800 using Gearslutz.com App
Old 18th September 2011
  #8
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by StringBean View Post
Do you think that if you could EQ a softsynth really well you could basically make it sound as fat as hardware?
You need to go back to basics because you don't understand what EQ is or does. If you did you wouldn't be asking this.
Old 18th September 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Eric J's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringBean View Post
Do you think that if you could EQ a softsynth really well you could basically make it sound as fat as hardware?
That's a rookie question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
EQ is not the answer because EQ is not the difference.

Fatness depends on the instrument, but also on the rest of the track; if the other elements are not making way for what you want to emphasize you'll end up with an unfocused mess, and then it doesn't matter what you used in the first place because you have an unfocused mess.

Not all hardware is automatically "fat" by the way, or even good because it's hardware.
That's a pro answer.
Old 18th September 2011
  #10
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
If you could eq Justin bieber's voice really well.. Do you think you could make him sound like 50 cent?
First you have to define Michael Jackson as a series of Fourier transforms, then apply the inverse, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric J View Post
That's a pro answer.
Thank you!
Old 18th September 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric J View Post
That's a rookie question.
I'm sorry I asked it. I'll go back to my hole now!
Old 18th September 2011
  #12
Gear Head
 
J1mbaFr0sty's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric J View Post
That's a rookie question.



That's a pro answer.
thats a ****** bag reply
Old 18th September 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
sftd's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by J1mbaFr0sty View Post
thats a ****** bag reply
Why?

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com App
Old 19th September 2011
  #14
sometimes it's nice to send (a bunch of) clean softsynths into a filter or old smelly phaser that sounds like a total disaster. I think it's nice to have some choice. instead of replacing it, I'd suggest you try different combinations of hard and software. IMHO software synths plus software eq sounds great but different from many hardware synths, and there's no way to put the square shaped peg in the round hole. but you're welcome to try.

so, ehm yeah check it out
heh
Old 19th September 2011
  #15
Gear Nut
 
DeathDub's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by J1mbaFr0sty View Post
thats a ****** bag reply
Agreed.

StringBean - you have to ignore some of the posters in this forum. They're not here to answer questions or be helpful. It's all about being witty/condescending/sarcastic.

There is no shame in asking a rookie question if you're a rookie. Everyone has to start somewhere. There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Hopefully the thoughtful and informative reply by Yoozer answered your question.
Old 19th September 2011
  #16
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by J1mbaFr0sty View Post
thats a ****** bag reply
Only if you equate "rookie question" with "stupid question", which I don't think was the intent.

StringBean: don't feel bad that you asked this! I think a lot of people would be (secretly) immensely happy if they could use EQ in such a way, because it would mean that you wouldn't have to lug around precious antiques. It's also not a "how do I sound like X" or "what is the best X" topic heh.

On synthesizers, you have waveform going through a filter going through an envelope, and only then it comes out. After that point, you apply the EQ - and that means that EQ will only change the end result, not the way the filter or the waveform acts/looks. An EQ will not, for instance, change pitch or anything - and it will not change depending on which note you hit (filters for instance allow keytracking, which means a higher cutoff for higher notes; this allows you to play the filter's self-oscillation as if it were another oscillator).

Of course, if you have a synthesizer where you can re-route the signal so you can pre-EQ the waveform, then put it through the filter - that might help a bit. You could consider using a subharmonic synthesizer (Waves RBass) to generate extra bass notes so the sound gets more girth; or just add an extra sine or triangle wave two octaves lower in the synth plugin itself.

But in the end all patching-up methods mean a lot of work and effort, they take up parts of the synth structure that you could apply better otherwise, the same principles can not always be copied and pasted to the next patch to make it "fat" - so the question is whether you want to go through this kind of ordeal in the first place, while fixing the mix often yields better results faster - and the lessons learned there will improve your music in general.

Karloff70's suggestion yields some pretty good results too - start with a "sterile" source and don't just EQ but add a whole bunch of coloring. Plus, it's fun to try such a box and see what it does on any kind of instrument.

If there was a magic solution that solely consisted of EQ we'd probably be using it right now; but as you can see there's lots of (expensive) outboard that people use to warm/fatten things up.
Old 19th September 2011
  #17
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
Karloff70's suggestion yields some pretty good results too - start with a "sterile" source and don't just EQ but add a whole bunch of coloring. Plus, it's fun to try such a box and see what it does on any kind of instrument.
It was so much fun, I bought an Ashly SC-66A 4 band parametric with gain the same evening.....eagerly awaiting his landing. heh
Old 19th September 2011
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Dogboy73's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
If you could eq Justin bieber's voice really well.......
...... You could EQ him out of existence. Cool
Old 19th September 2011
  #19
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathdub View Post
agreed.

Stringbean - you have to ignore some of the posters in this forum. They're not here to answer questions or be helpful. It's all about being witty/condescending/sarcastic.

There is no shame in asking a rookie question if you're a rookie. Everyone has to start somewhere. There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Hopefully the thoughtful and informative reply by yoozer answered your question.
pitch perfect.
Old 19th September 2011
  #20
Lives for gear
 

with a well suited hardware eq it can help,you boost it enhance the sound and not just boost frequency like a digital eq so yess you can get a more otb sound and more phat sound with a eq. i pick a good analog eq and my softsynths over any hardware digital synth.. why ,cause it will make more difference in the tune overall sound eqs beeing the most used processor and software eq are not there yet for enhancing sound like some hardware does.

for electronic music production some analog eqs or maybe saturators can really help to add weight separation and depth to your sound, it make more difference than buying a virus or a nordlead but the best would be to use both.
Old 19th September 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Michael E's Avatar
Applying the right EQ, will make your soft synths sound closer, to sample packs, which was processed.

So you might start thinking that it's closer to hardware (which was used for production sample packs).

It's the same thing when people saying that compressors making sound "louder".
Old 19th September 2011
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Tarkovsky's Avatar
 

EQ? Hell no. Well maybe a bit of lpf is important, but that's not 'it'.
Try some overdrive to get closer. You can't simply EQ those thinner harmonics back in. Also EQ is an inherently static process... and what we're really after with good hardware is the dynamic shift in harmonics associated with overdrive.
Of course where this overdrive is present (and how it is done) in the signal chain makes a huge difference and obviously your not able to do this just by dropping plugins after a synth.

Sometimes I wish I could mix and match bits of soft synths and overdrive units into a software modular synth from different vendors at different points in the signal chain...
Old 19th September 2011
  #23
Deleted User #106149
Guest
Two Orange juice companies, one subtle difference in taste, if any... The consumers drinking it may notice, others won't and most won't even care.

What they do care about is the brand, packaging and it is that with a dose of nostalgia mixed in, that creates additional false perception..

And thus we have the HW ) SW saga.

:b





Sent from my HTC Desire using Gearslutz.com App
Old 19th September 2011
  #24
restpause
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by sftd View Post
If you fried a green bean in the same way you would fry okra do you think they would taste the same?
Does it matter if they're both burnt to a crisp? hahaha

you can get good results with both if you know what you're doing. or just focus on the one you do best with and you'll be alright too.
Old 19th September 2011
  #25
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkovsky View Post
EQ? Hell no. Well maybe a bit of lpf is important, but that's not 'it'.
Try some overdrive to get closer. You can't simply EQ those thinner harmonics back in. Also EQ is an inherently static process... and what we're really after with good hardware is the dynamic shift in harmonics associated with overdrive.
Of course where this overdrive is present (and how it is done) in the signal chain makes a huge difference and obviously your not able to do this just by dropping plugins after a synth.

Sometimes I wish I could mix and match bits of soft synths and overdrive units into a software modular synth from different vendors at different points in the signal chain...
That is why the Ashly worked so well. A combo of darkish tone a la 70's taking the unpleasant top off and beautiful drive/burn harmonics livening up the rest.........if I hadn't just bought one I'd shut up, not to push the price up....lol
Old 19th September 2011
  #26
Gear Addict
 

ugh why do these troll threads keep popping up all over!!!???
Old 19th September 2011
  #27
Gear Addict
since this thread is on equalising i won't make a new one. why is it that when i apply a low pass filter to a bass instrument, (e.g. at 150hz) the channel eq can still affect the sound when i cut off frequencies above 150Hz using it?
Old 19th September 2011
  #28
Gear Addict
as in the channel equaliser still appears to be cutting off very high frequencies
Old 19th September 2011
  #29
because the filters use a low q (are wide in the affected frequency range). then the little low that was left after the first treatment (filters can be steep or shallow) is pushed up again by the second treatment.


read up on filters (=equalisers)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nd-pass_filter
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Lowpass_filter
the B in this picture is the q (resonance)


some eqs automatically get more "pointy" (higher resonance) when you dail them in more: when more dB is applied, their Q is higher.

and some have seperate controls for that
Old 19th September 2011
  #30
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
because the filters use a low q (are wide in the affected frequency range). then the little low that was left after the first treatment (filters can be steep or shallow) is pushed up again by the second treatment.


read up on filters (=equalisers)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nd-pass_filter
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Lowpass_filter
the B in this picture is the q (resonance)


some eqs automatically get more "pointy" (higher resonance) when you dail them in more: when more dB is applied, their Q is higher.

and some have seperate controls for that
ok thats what i was thinking, i know when a low pass filter cuts off a frequency that it is not stopping all the frequencies instantly above the cut-off but slowly cutting them off. [IMG]://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Butterworth_response.svg[/IMG]
so you're saying that the 150hz is spread out over the channel equaliser once i have applied a low pass at this frequency? so I'm not actually cutting 20Khz frequencies for sure, which is the highest frequency marker on my channel equaliser, when i remove frequencies starting with the highest frequencies. so i am actually cutting off frequencies very close to the cuttoff point? and 20khz frequencies definitely don't exist?
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump