The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Weiss EQ1 is now a plugin
Old 3 weeks ago
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Hippocratic Mastering's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Zaccaria View Post
Hi everyone, long time no hear...
I compared the Weiss EQ1 with my MAAT EQorange for fun and to understand the sonic potentials.
I've used a mix from one of the most appreciated threads here on GS.
The settings used are the same from 'that' thread, which made it famous.
Bounced offline.
+1db 50hz shelving med slope
+1db 100hz bell med
+2db 8k bell med
+1db 10k shelving med slope
Let's hear the two..let me know what you think

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9gquhupa8...P5QCuVtOa?dl=0
Interesting comparison. The MAAT is definitely sharper up top. Was the Weiss in linear phase or minimum phase mode?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Giuseppe Zaccaria's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocratic Mastering View Post
Interesting comparison. The MAAT is definitely sharper up top. Was the Weiss in linear phase or minimum phase mode?
MAAT with extreme (default) setting, Weiss LP with no mods in settings
Old 3 weeks ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 
X-Pand Sound Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Very interesting things to read here guys

Yes the Weiss Dyn mod is really amazing, as on it's own the filters are so clean, you can rebalance a mix super transparently and even "not always" thanks to the Dynamic parameters. Very very cool (and usefull).
Honestly the more I use it the more I'm enjoying it, very close to purchase the thing now

If I do I'll certainly build myself a controller for this and the DS1, I need to think of a layout...

PS : I sent a feedback to Mattias at Softube, about the GUI sizes etc, and had a very fast and nice answer, saying that it will surely be passed along to the devellopers.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #34
Gear Maniac
 
Robb Robinson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocratic Mastering View Post
I'd definitely recommend trying this out if you're on the fence. I'm not 100% sure that I'll buy it yet but i'm leaning that way as the dynamic EQ element of the Weiss has been a big surprise to me: definitely one of the most natural-sounding dynamic EQs I've tried, especially in the low end.
That is exactly what I am thinking and why its frustrating that the interface is so clunky right now.

Sonnox, Nova and ProQ3 are worlds faster in use, but my brief EQ1 tests yesterday suggested that I will prefer the EQ1 low end filters more than Sonnox. I will try to compare them directly today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothTone View Post
The Sonnox is much quicker to dial in and tends to be more musical for the lows.
Indeed much quicker, but I think the Weiss has better transient response down low, while the Sonnox is more musically cohesive for lack of words. Will keep testing...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Zaccaria View Post
Hi everyone, long time no hear...
I compared the Weiss EQ1 with my MAAT EQorange for fun and to understand the sonic potentials.
I've used a mix from one of the most appreciated threads here on GS.
The settings used are the same from 'that' thread, which made it famous.
88.2 khz - Bounced offline
+1db 50hz shelving med slope
+1db 100hz bell med
+2db 8k bell med
+1db 10k shelving med slope
Let's hear the two..let me know what you think

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9gquhupa8...P5QCuVtOa?dl=0
why on earth would someone want to use the same settings on different tools only to find out that there is a difference? of course my jünger, sony, tc and weiss eq's yield different results! same with their dynamic processors...

i find these comparisons pretty much pointless and rather focus on what each tool does well - which still can vary depending on track!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Giuseppe Zaccaria's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=deedeeyeah;14719208 of course my jünger, sony, tc and weiss eq's yield different results!![/QUOTE]

Exactly! To hear what's the difference and how.
But, of course, should be self explanatory
Old 3 weeks ago
  #37
Gear Addict
 
mmarra's Avatar
We have the hardware in the studio I work out of and the plugin does have that sound that hardware has. I haven't done the exact shootout as I'm going by memory...and I have used the EQ1 hardware alot in my work.

One big thing, IMO, that the plugin is missing is the "Copy" button. I used this when I work in M/S on the EQ1 hardware. The plugin makes working in M/S pretty much impossible because once I get my curve going in ganged mode and I switch to M/S...in the side screen it goes blank and my ganged curve is now only applied to MID. This is the same in the hardware but I could copy the MID and paste it into SIDE...then work M/S unganged from there...the plugin I can't.

------Update-------
Just found the copy function under the settings menu. We are all saved now.... I still think I am going to wait to buy this EQ and see how MAAT Red sounds vs the EQ1. Plus PA's Amek 200 EQ is coming out soon and so far that sounds amazing from what I am hearing. What a great time to be ITB.

Last edited by mmarra; 3 weeks ago at 06:44 PM.. Reason: Found the Copy Button
Old 3 weeks ago
  #38
Here for the gear
 
OTRM's Avatar
Mike -
What would be really interesting since you have the hardware EQ1.......is to dial in the same settings on the plug and process a song twice - once with hardware and once with the plug - and see if they null.

If they do, hardware owners can forget the plug and be on their way and non-owners of the hardware can rejoice and grab their wallet. If not, it would be interesting to know how they differ.

Just a thought....
Old 3 weeks ago
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTRM View Post
Mike -
What would be really interesting since you have the hardware EQ1.......is to dial in the same settings on the plug and process a song twice - once with hardware and once with the plug - and see if they null
I did exactly that with my hardware EQ1 LP/DYN and the plugin. In MP non-dynamic mode I was able to get them to null down to dither, at least with the fairly basic setup I tested.

Unfortunately though the plugin had been very unstable for me. Sometime the bands just plain don’t work at all, or jump from full boost to full cut with no in-between setting possible. And saving presets does not work either.

So basically unusable at this point, in both Pyramix and Samplitude.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #40
Here for the gear
 
OTRM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLaPointe View Post
I did exactly that with my hardware EQ1 LP/DYN and the plugin. In MP non-dynamic mode I was able to get them to null down to dither, at least with the fairly basic setup I tested.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLaPointe View Post
So basically unusable at this point, in both Pyramix and Samplitude.
Hmmmm, working here in Samplitude (Pro X3 Suite) just fine...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 
X-Pand Sound Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLaPointe View Post
I did exactly that with my hardware EQ1 LP/DYN and the plugin. In MP non-dynamic mode I was able to get them to null down to dither, at least with the fairly basic setup I tested.

Unfortunately though the plugin had been very unstable for me. Sometime the bands just plain don’t work at all, or jump from full boost to full cut with no in-between setting possible. And saving presets does not work either.

So basically unusable at this point, in both Pyramix and Samplitude.
Damn...you should report this to the guys at Softube if not already

I'm in love with the Q factor on the low shelf on this thing, beeing able to give different "tone" to a mix down there, but in such a transparent way...Fantastic
This is something I love to do with my PQ as it sound so gorgeous, but this will be a great addition for transparency

Also I don't really understand why some of you found the interface "clunky" ? I mean yes it is small and the shadowing on the knobs is a bit much on the "Hardware" GUI, but once you switch to full screen this is pretty much like any digital EQ a la PRO Q etc ? And actually the mouse scroll adujst the Q aswell so you just have to drag and drop on the X/Y axis for GAIN/FREQ repectively and Mouse scrool fro the Q, pretty fast to me...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #42
Here for the gear
 
OTRM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Pand Sound Mastering View Post
once you switch to full screen this is pretty much like any digital EQ a la PRO Q etc ? And actually the mouse scroll adujst the Q aswell so you just have to drag and drop on the X/Y axis for GAIN/FREQ repectively and Mouse scrool fro the Q, pretty fast to me...
Exactly how I've found myself using it - even when using a band in Dyn mode. Right click on a handle and all the parameters are right there. Also, I think the Solo mode can be quite handy. Still wish the freq selections were just a bit finer....
Old 3 weeks ago
  #43
Lives for gear
Does it perform the same as the hardware and produce the same results as the hardware with the same settings? Can anyone tell the hardware and software apart in a blind test with the same settings?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #44
Gear Maniac
 

Verified Member
I'm demoing the Weiss eq and really like how it sounds. There is certain clarity and smoothness combined that I really like.
I just installed the Equilibrium too;
there's so much tweaking in the Equilibrium so it would be ace if someone could suggested some settings (FIR or IIR etc.) so the quality will be as good as possible.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Hippocratic Mastering's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by justjoo View Post
I'm demoing the Weiss eq and really like how it sounds. There is certain clarity and smoothness combined that I really like.
I just installed the Equilibrium too;
there's so much tweaking in the Equilibrium so it would be ace if someone could suggested some settings (FIR or IIR etc.) so the quality will be as good as possible.
Start with IIR at maximum (512). This will be fine for most applications. DMG filters will also be fine for most things.

For experimenting with FIR, I find impulse length set to 32k and padding to x2 is a good balance between quality and latency. If I use it in FIR mode I typically increase both those to maximum when printing.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #46
Lives for gear
 
X-Pand Sound Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldie wave View Post
Does it perform the same as the hardware and produce the same results as the hardware with the same settings? Can anyone tell the hardware and software apart in a blind test with the same settings?
Read the post by J.LaPointe just a few post before yours (Basically it's nulling down to dither)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #47
Gear Maniac
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocratic Mastering View Post
Start with IIR at maximum (512). This will be fine for most applications. DMG filters will also be fine for most things.

For experimenting with FIR, I find impulse length set to 32k and padding to x2 is a good balance between quality and latency. If I use it in FIR mode I typically increase both those to maximum when printing.
Thanks for the help!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocratic Mastering View Post
Start with IIR at maximum (512). This will be fine for most applications. DMG filters will also be fine for most things.

For experimenting with FIR, I find impulse length set to 32k and padding to x2 is a good balance between quality and latency. If I use it in FIR mode I typically increase both those to maximum when printing.
Slightly off topic, but have you ever had issues with DMG bounce vs in session settings? I'm too scared to do that myself in case there is a level change and I get overs I didn't hear in the session.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #49
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_caithness View Post
Slightly off topic, but have you ever had issues with DMG bounce vs in session settings? I'm too scared to do that myself in case there is a level change and I get overs I didn't hear in the session.
I think they fixed this kind of a while ago. Used to be a problem for me. I rarely use fir anymore though.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Hippocratic Mastering's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_caithness View Post
Slightly off topic, but have you ever had issues with DMG bounce vs in session settings? I'm too scared to do that myself in case there is a level change and I get overs I didn't hear in the session.
Never. Overs wouldn’t be an issue anyway, as the EQ is always before a limiter.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocratic Mastering View Post
Never. Overs wouldn’t be an issue anyway, as the EQ is always before a limiter.
Very good point.

And I'm the one always shouting GAIN STRUCTURE at everyone
Old 3 weeks ago
  #52
I’ve been looking at the other EQ1 thread and been reading here as well.

Some users are reporting some dramatic differences when comparing EQ1 to MAAT to Equilibrium.

I don’t use LP when mastering because it sounds kind of smeared with some MP3 qualities to me.

When comparing good modern IIR based EQ’s I can’t say I hear any difference between them except for different filters curves,

Am I missing something ?

Some users are using terms that I don’t really get in this regard like “smooth” or “punchy” or “deep” or color..
I do hear that in analog EQ’s or their plugin versions but the discussion about the differences between regular IIR filters I don’t really get.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Pand Sound Mastering View Post
Read the post by J.LaPointe just a few post before yours (Basically it's nulling down to dither)
Before this becomes gospel I’d like to stress that I only tested a very basic min phase non-dynamic setup. I cannot vouch for nulling with more bands active and / or dynamics active.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #54
Lives for gear
 
X-Pand Sound Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLaPointe View Post
Before this becomes gospel I’d like to stress that I only tested a very basic min phase non-dynamic setup. I cannot vouch for nulling with more bands active and / or dynamics active.
Yes indeed, but I was happy to read your post as it kind of "confirmed" the first thing Softube shows you on the teaser for the EQ1, that it nulls with the hardware, and I was very pleased to see this

Now even if it doesn't in MP or Dynamic mode, it's still an amazing sounding (or shall I say non sounding) plugin, and again, as an "ultra conservative analog old slutz", it says a lot coming from me lol.

@ TanTan , I cannot comment on audio digital coding, as that's really not my thing, but this is the most true to the source EQ plugin I ever tried as far as I'm concerned. I don't hear any "flavor" or anything, more like you are moving the elements of the mix almost as if you had some faders in front of you. Amazing to gently rebalance a mix. But for exemple I wouldn't use that eq to do a high shelf boost on a song to add something extra.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #55
Gear Maniac
 
Robb Robinson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TanTan View Post
When comparing good modern IIR based EQ’s I can’t say I hear any difference between them except for different filters curves,

Am I missing something ?

Some users are using terms that I don’t really get in this regard like “smooth” or “punchy” or “deep” or color..
I do hear that in analog EQ’s or their plugin versions but the discussion about the differences between regular IIR filters I don’t really get.
Are you suggesting that all IIR EQs sound the same as long as they were programmed with the correct math?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb Robinson View Post
Are you suggesting that all IIR EQs sound the same as long as they were programmed with the correct math?
Each EQ uses some different curves so the effect is not similar but the math is supposed to be the same, therefore comparing two IIR EQ’s and say one is “creamy yet detailed” and the other “open and punchy” is new to me, I’ve never heard a “creamy” IIR filter and why should I be surprised it doesn’t loose information ?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #57
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TanTan View Post
Each EQ uses some different curves so the effect is not similar but the math is supposed to be the same, therefore comparing two IIR EQ’s and say one is “creamy yet detailed” and the other “open and punchy” is new to me, I’ve never heard a “creamy” IIR filter and why should I be surprised it doesn’t loose information ?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #58
Not dissing the EQ1 at all, I’m a happy DS1 user,
Just trying to figure out what am I missing here
Old 3 weeks ago
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Hippocratic Mastering's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TanTan View Post
Not dissing the EQ1 at all, I’m a happy DS1 user,
Just trying to figure out what am I missing here
I think you're probably right that a lot of it is in the shape of the curves themselves and the proportionality of the Q, as well as how the user interperets these controls. In a field like mastering, though, where first impressions and making quick decisions are everything (assuming I'm not going to get someone loudly admonishing me for suggesting that), those things can make a huge difference.

I try to be objective in my listening, level-matching to 0.01db LUFS when doing comparisons between processors (and I know LUFS isn't perfect but it's very useful for these kinds of comparisonsa, IMO), but diving further into 'science' than that isn't always helpful to someone working directly with audio, IMO. Of course it's essential for those designing the processors, and I'm always happy to be corrected by those folk.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #60
Lives for gear
 
X-Pand Sound Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Of course the curves and shapes will greatly affect our perception. That's why I was never very excited about EQ plugins as I don't hear any added sweetness. They kind of sounded a bit all the same to me. (not speaking about analog "emulations" of course) Now, even when matching the curves by the numbers, this Eq is way more transparent a natural sounding to me than my good old APEQ for exemple. So would it be possible that the sound difference I hear actually comes from a "better" coding of those filters...Meaning am I actually hearing the loss of sound quality in my APEQ, making the Weiss sounds "better" to me ?

Is that possible ?
Topic:
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…
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump