The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
How are you using the Weiss EQ1 MK2? Equalisers (HW)
Old 8th September 2007
  #31
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by livingstone View Post
interesting point Matt,

not to hi jack the thread but were do you chain your limiter then ?
When I am mastering it is being auditioned last at 96kHz, then depending on the source & style of music I either bypass the limiter when I print the master & apply the limiting post downsample SRC @ 44.1kHz or I print the limiter at 96kHz & reduce the output of the limiter to -0.4 & then apply SRC to 44.1kHz. In both cases the files are still 24bit, I leave them at 24bit until I've done the sequencing & fades, then I apply dither as the final step before burning the disc.

The way I use the Weiss is like a digital insert within Pro Tools HD, this is usually after any analog processing & from that point it's all digital right up to final delivery.

Matt
Old 8th September 2007
  #32
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosrite View Post
But I presume things get a little more complicated if I go back into the 002 ,as opposed to the Tascam, from the Weiss. You have to choose whether to clock the 002 either internally or externally (Internally if playing out and externally if recording in). And as there is no wordclock functionality it must pickup clock from the SPDIF signal. So does this not create a conflict as I will be recording back in from the Weiss (ideally clocking externally to the Weiss's AES signal) and sending out from the 002 (ideally clocking internally from the 002).

Ideas please!
There is only one 'clock' per chain. You can record and play and do whatever you want to do but you need to simply decide what's the master and what is slaved to it. So you can have the 002 on Internal clock, and loop to the Weiss, and that works. You can be Internal on the 002 and go the Weiss eq and the Tascam. You can also slave the 002 to an external source while recording with the 002. You seem to not get the basics of clocking, it's not what you're doing (play, record, etc), it's about who is keeping time.
Old 8th September 2007
  #33
Lives for gear
 
mosrite's Avatar
 

Thanks Matt, that clears things up a bit thumbsup
Old 8th September 2007
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
[The way I use the Weiss] ... [usually after any analog processing & from that point it's all digital right up to final delivery.]

Matt
So when you do analog processing, you're having the DA/AD chain do the up-sampling right?
I mean, with a 44.1/48 source, you don't have to bother upsamplng your files first since the DAC won't perform better on hi-res if it's just an upsampled 44k1/48 stream.

You'll have the neatest and quickest up-sampler in trade for having to do surgical eq after analog sweetening. Correct ?

Cheers,
Peter
Old 8th September 2007
  #35
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by finetuner View Post
So when you do analog processing, you're having the DA/AD chain do the up-sampling right?
I mean, with a 44.1/48 source, you don't have to bother upsamplng your files first since the DAC won't perform better on hi-res if it's just an upsampled 44k1/48 stream.

You'll have the neatest and quickest up-sampler in trade for having to do surgical eq after analog sweetening. Correct ?

Cheers,
Peter
The way you mention makes sense & ideally would be the way to go, however I do all my processing in Pro Tools HD & it only allows the use of one sample rate per session. So I usually upsample to 96kHz with SampleManager (iZotope 64bit SRC) then load into Tools & hit my analog chain at 96kHz so I can capture back into Pro Tools HD at 96kHz.

The other reason I have to work this way at present is that I use a Cranesong HEDD for my analog loop conversion & the HD 192 digital I/O is clocked from the HEDD at 96kHz (the converters sound better at this SR I've found too).

For me to playback @ 44.1 or 48kHz I would need another digital sound card with another great D/A that works best at 44.1kHz for this to beat my current workflow. So at the moment it's just not practical to do the way you suggest even though it makes sense. I usually find the upsample to 96kHz extremely transparent, it's usually the downsample that is slightly more audible. But iZotope's SRC is very, very clean.

Matt
Old 8th September 2007
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
..Pro Tools HD .. only allows the use of one sample rate per session.
Ah, of cause!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
it's usually the downsample that is slightly more audible.
true

Then it's a matter of taste to use the Weiss after analog instead of before ?

Many ways lead to Rome ;-)
Peter
Old 8th September 2007
  #37
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
The way you mention makes sense & ideally would be the way to go, however I do all my processing in Pro Tools HD & it only allows the use of one sample rate per session.
Very few of us own a single DAW that allows more than one sample rate. But if you start at 44.1, using two external SRCs, one to up, one to down-sample, you can return the 44.1K signal back to the originating DAW. Or, use two DAWs at once, which is another option that I use quite frequently. If my source is at 48K, I may upsample it to 96, and at the end of the chain capture in another DAW at 44.1.

Sometimes the Analog portion of the chain (D/A/D) may do part of the up or downsampling, substitute for one of the SRCs.

BK
Old 8th September 2007
  #38
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Very few of us own a single DAW that allows more than one sample rate. But if you start at 44.1, using two external SRCs, one to up, one to down-sample, you can return the 44.1K signal back to the originating DAW. Or, use two DAWs at once, which is another option that I use quite frequently. If my source is at 48K, I may upsample it to 96, and at the end of the chain capture in another DAW at 44.1.

Sometimes the Analog portion of the chain (D/A/D) may do part of the up or downsampling, substitute for one of the SRCs.

BK
Yes this is a way to do the SRC in realtime & keep your DAW's sample rate at the delivery rate (in most cases 44.1kHz). However it doesn't avoid a up/down SRC, it just makes it more convenient. I think Peter was talking more about avoiding the upsample conversion by playing out at 44.1 into the analog loop & then capturing back into the DAW at 96kHz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finetuner View Post
Then it's a matter of taste to use the Weiss after analog instead of before ?
Sure, I usually prefer to get the overall balance of the track right with the Sontec & it's first cab off the rank in analog land. Any smaller things that bug me can be pulled out in digital land with the precision of the Weiss in M/S mode. Works for me most times, there is occasions where I may clean up some bottom mud a little prior to going analog, but then I may use the MDW EQ v2 to deal with that sort of stuff.
Old 8th September 2007
  #39
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
Yes this is a way to do the SRC in realtime & keep your DAW's sample rate at the delivery rate (in most cases 44.1kHz). However it doesn't avoid a up/down SRC, it just makes it more convenient. I think Peter was talking more about avoiding the upsample conversion by playing out at 44.1 into the analog loop & then capturing back into the DAW at 96kHz.
Bob,

Though convenience and speed has its advantages, aren't there advantages in upsampling the source before loading into the DAW? You have more choices as far as SRC conversion, the source is at the highest rate from the very first process, etc. Also if you're running sources with multiple sample rates to a converter from a single DAW and then upsampling aren't you performing another stage of SRC before upsampling to tracks that aren't at the rate the converter is clocking to? Or do you reset the sample rate in the converter during this pass?

Another advantage/convenience in performing SRC before loading is then saving the the processed file at a high rate. Changes can be made to the processed high rate file if there are requests to do so after the inital processing, and then downsampled, rather than doing this real time and working from a final 44.1K version or having to recreate the inital chain.

I've been using Matt's approach for the past couple of months now. It's been working out quite well for most projects. Izotope's (Sample Manager) SRC is quite good. Thanx for the suggestion Matt!
Old 8th September 2007
  #40
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masteringhouse View Post
Bob,

Though convenience and speed has its advantages, aren't there advantages in upsampling the source before loading into the DAW?
Hi, Tom. It's a totally valid approach. However, I feel you're wrong that there's a technocal advantage taking a 44.1 source and upsampling it OFFLINE as opposed in real time. There is no advantage to offline if you use a real-time upsampler with the quality of a Weiss or DCS. In both cases, the source is at the highest rate from the "start".

Regarding you other comment below about changes can be made to the processed high rate file... I agree with you that IF some of the processes that are availalbe to me are only available in an offline process, it would be necessary to upsample offline first. However, if I can perform all the processes I wish to in real time at 96K in external processors (either analog or digital) then it's not necessary to SRC off line in non-real time.

Likewise, if I am using any plugins on the lower sample rate source before I feed it out to the upsampler, there is question whether they might perform better at 96K. I haven't done any heavy shootouts, but I find that a purist equalizer like the Algorithmix Red really does very nicely at 44.1K. But if I were to do any digital compression BEFORE upsampling it would be a compromise to my experience. But generally I don't, I wait to upsample before doing any digital dynamics processing.

BK

Quote:

Another advantage/convenience in performing SRC before loading is then saving the the processed file at a high rate. Changes can be made to the processed high rate file if there are requests to do so after the inital processing, and then downsampled, rather than doing this real time and working from a final 44.1K version or having to recreate the inital chain.

I've been using Matt's approach for the past couple of months now. It's been working out quite well for most projects. Izotope's (Sample Manager) SRC is quite good. Thanx for the suggestion Matt!
Old 8th September 2007
  #41
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Hi, Tom. It's a totally valid approach. However, I feel you're wrong that there's a technocal advantage taking a 44.1 source and upsampling it OFFLINE as opposed in real time. There is no advantage to offline if you use a real-time upsampler with the quality of a Weiss or DCS. In both cases, the source is at the highest rate from the "start".
Thanks Bob, I didn't mean to imply that offline was better at real-time on that reason alone. Just that there were more options as far as choices on what type of SRC to use by taking this approach in a workflow. One could also SRC with a real-time converter, save to a file and then import.

By from "the start" I meant at the start of the mastering chain, before ANY processing was done including volume changes, plugs, etc. as in your Algorithmix example. It just seems to me that by doing SRC at the start, you have more options available during your processing decisions.

As an example, what if after using the Algorithmix plug at 44.1 you decided a de-esser was necessary. It would be nice to be able to insert this before the EQ, say using the DS-1. If you subscribe to the concept that Weiss gear has a slight "glaze" when using it's internal upsampling your hands are tied.
Old 8th September 2007
  #42
Lives for gear
 
inlinenl's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Bob ( Mr. Katz ) is back from exile and back on then forum ?????
Old 8th September 2007
  #43
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masteringhouse View Post
Thanks Bob, I didn't mean to imply that offline was better at real-time on that reason alone. Just that there were more options as far as choices on what type of SRC to use by taking this approach in a workflow. One could also SRC with a real-time converter, save to a file and then import.

By from "the start" I meant at the start of the mastering chain, before ANY processing was done including volume changes, plugs, etc. as in your Algorithmix example. It just seems to me that by doing SRC at the start, you have more options available during your processing decisions.

As an example, what if after using the Algorithmix plug at 44.1 you decided a de-esser was necessary. It would be nice to be able to insert this before the EQ, say using the DS-1. If you subscribe to the concept that Weiss gear has a slight "glaze" when using it's internal upsampling your hands are tied.
Well, in my setup I would try to avoid (as a general rule) any other plugins than the Algorithmix. So it would go out of the Alg at 44.1, into external standalone SRC, then I could add the DS1 or whatever at 96 K after that. I don't know if that answers your question/comment or not...

BK
Old 8th September 2007
  #44
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Well, in my setup I would try to avoid (as a general rule) any other plugins than the Algorithmix. So it would go out of the Alg at 44.1, into external standalone SRC, then I could add the DS1 or whatever at 96 K after that. I don't know if that answers your question/comment or not...

BK
I don't want to belabor this, but just to be clear about the point I was trying to make. If one took the approach above, and decided that an EQ change had to be made after setting up the DS-1, or if you were automating the Algorithmix to change within the track, you may need to re-adjust the parameters of the DS-1 with each change. In these cases it would be better to setup the de-esser first in the chain.

Assuming that you want to put the de-esser first, if SRC is done real-time you would need to upsample to the DS-1, bring the audio back to the plug in the DAW at a higher sample rate (not possible in many DAWs), and then send the output of the plug to the D/A chain.

If you perform SRC first, just insert anything in any order you wish without any issues.

Hope this makes sense.

BTW nice to have you back!
Old 8th September 2007
  #45
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Doesn't the Algorithmix EQ's also upsample 44.1 or 48k signals?
Old 9th September 2007
  #46
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masteringhouse View Post
I don't want to belabor this, but just to be clear about the point I was trying to make.
Glad to be back, guys!

Not to belabor my response either :-). I just want to point out that in any complex chain, of course the order of the patching is either going to make life simple, or complicated. I generally also like to put de-esser's first, for reasons Tom pointed out, but I would not be the least bit concerned over putting a basic program EQ in front of a deesser if I had to patch it in that order. I'm adaptable and can live with that.

With the exception of course if I'm doing some kind of extreme high frequency boost in the equalizer that might aggravate or "confuse" the deesser. Regardless, the potential "compromises" of eq'ing before compression or deessing usually amount to the need to tweak a threshold a little if you change the EQ. Which is so intuitive to me anyway that I never think twice about it :-).

As for the Algorithmix upsampling, I'm not sure if it does it, but one thing I am sure of it is an extremely high resolution equalizer that even at 44.1K it sounds superb. I need to do the shootout, try upsampling first, but it would be real hard to compare apples to apples... would have to do a certain EQ, then upsample, then capture a 96, then do it in a different order and A/B compare the two files that result. I wager they will be VERY difficult to distinguish if the Algorithmix were the equalizer. But I could be wrong!

BK
Old 9th September 2007
  #47
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Only the blue and orange have an upsampling option. Sometimes it sounds better with it turned off if the high end is ratty.
Old 9th September 2007
  #48
Lives for gear
 
mosrite's Avatar
 

So Bob, how does the Algorithmix Red compare to the Weiss (non-LP version)?
Old 9th September 2007
  #49
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mosrite View Post
So Bob, how does the Algorithmix Red compare to the Weiss (non-LP version)?
When you are looking for purity of tone, warmth (with clarity), punch and lack of phase shift (none of that artificial fake "depth") the Red blows the non-LP version of the Weiss out of the water. However, there are many records that want a more aggressive yet still somewhat "pure" sound and for that you need MP (minimum phase). In that case, the Algorithmix Blue or the Weiss in MP mode qualify.

In my book, second edition, I get into more detail about the differences and if you read between the lines you will figure out my real preferences.

BK
Old 9th September 2007
  #50
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosrite View Post
So Bob, how does the Algorithmix Red compare to the Weiss (non-LP version)?
I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare a MP EQ with a LP as they really are different beasts, both sound good but in different ways. I've heard a number of ME's say that even with the Weiss LP they often prefer the Algorithmix Red especially for it's transparency in the lows with filtering. It's just a shame they haven't ported these to OSX.

Matt
Old 9th September 2007
  #51
Yet ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
It's just a shame they haven't ported these to OSX.

Matt
This week i mailed Algorithmix with just that request !
(I mentioned that they already have the Renovator for OSX)

Reported back that they will consider looking into it.
That's at least better than a definitive 'no'

I suggest all interested should send a request just to let them know.

Peter
Old 9th September 2007
  #52
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
If you send a 44.1khz or 48kHz signal through the Weiss, then it is upsampling internally to 96kHz then downsampling after the EQ DSP back to the input sample rate. So this is an up/down SRC which you have no say over unless your input rate is 88.2 or 96khz.
It was my understanding that the EQ1-MkII upsamples to 88.2k if receiving a 44.1k input not 96k as it is a 2x/EQ/.5x process.

As far as any smearing effect, I can't say that this is anything I've noticed before. I have owned my EQ1 since the MkI days when it would only do 48k (on the old AT&T processors - pre SHARC). The upsampling option that was introduced in the MkII/SHARC boards noticeably opened up the top end and tightened up the low end so it's never anything that I've desired to turn off.

As I've gone more analog over the years, my EQ1-LP has become more of a problem fixer and M/S EQ box but it is still an amazingly flexible and excellent sounding box.
Old 9th September 2007
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
I've had a Weiss EQ MK 1 DYN/LP for a few years and I don't hear any obvious difference at different sample rates so I have come to the conclusion that I need to go back to school for smear training!
Old 9th September 2007
  #54
jdg
Lives for gear
 
jdg's Avatar
 

Verified Member
easiest to hear smear with drum only tracks IME...
(never had a weiss in my studio tho, so i cannot comment on its smear...)
Old 9th September 2007
  #55
Lives for gear
 
mosrite's Avatar
 

Thanks for all your responses so far.

I guess it comes back to the usual thing of there not being one tool for every job.

That's why the different Algorithmix bundles are pretty attractive. Problem (for me) is they are not Pro Tools compatible.

I am also attracted to the ergonomics of the Weiss. And I guess I can always upgrade it to the LP version at some point when finances become available.

Almost forgot, none mentioned the onboard dither. Does it rate?
Old 10th September 2007
  #56
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mosrite View Post
Thanks for all your responses so far.

I guess it comes back to the usual thing of there not being one tool for every job.

That's why the different Algorithmix bundles are pretty attractive. Problem (for me) is they are not Pro Tools compatible.

I am also attracted to the ergonomics of the Weiss. And I guess I can always upgrade it to the LP version at some point when finances become available.

Almost forgot, none mentioned the onboard dither. Does it rate?
Weiss went to pwr dither a while back. I certainly think that among pwr 1, 2 or 3 at 16 bit you will find somethng you like, most of the time. Even fans of flat dither admit that pwr 1 sounds very very "smooth".

BK
Old 10th September 2007
  #57
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
I've heard a number of ME's say that even with the Weiss LP they often prefer the Algorithmix Red especially for it's transparency in the lows with filtering. It's just a shame they haven't ported these to OSX.
Algo Red oversamples as well. I don't care for it.
Old 10th September 2007
  #58
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Boyd View Post
It was my understanding that the EQ1-MkII upsamples to 88.2k if receiving a 44.1k input not 96k as it is a 2x/EQ/.5x process.
Yes Bob you are absolutely correct, a check of the manual helped clear things up (Pun intended).
Old 2nd December 2011
  #59
Here for the gear
 

I am looking at the Weiss EQ1 MKII as well. I cannot afford right now to buy multiple eq's and compressors for my mastering and mix setup, but I want to buy the gear that will get me through most projects first and then I can add on. I want to go with the Shadow Hills mastering compressor, the Weiss EQ, the Mytek 8x192 AD/DA, the Black Lion AGB compressor and AMCHA1 eq. I will be coming out of my summing rig and I would like to be able to patch the Weiss before or after the SHMC or the AGB. The Mytek will essentially be the return to the DAW but it will also give me the analog ins and outs to the Weiss to allow me to patch it any way I like and for any future digital gear, and I can still use the Weis in the digital domain when I want. I was glad that the non LP version sounds great and this forum cleared that up for me. I can also use some LP plugings if I have to.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
JohnMcD / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
phild / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump