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
Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate Equalizer Plugins
Old 26th August 2007
  #1
Here for the gear
 

Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate

I have been a long time Waves RenEQ user. I have been trying the Waves SSL Demo on some tracks that had the RenEQ on them.
I normally use the RenEQ to pull a little 500hz out of the Kick and add a little 2k on the snare. I thought was I was loosing my mind until I used Voxengo's Span to find out what was going on.
I generally dislike plug-ins where I can not see what is going on. I do not understand why such an expensive plug-in as the Waves SSL labels the Frequency knob at one frequency and gives you another.

Can any Duende users confirm if this is the same on the Duende?

The Waves SSL Channel Strip LMF band set to 500hz is actually 410hz.
The RenEQ set to 500hz is 500hz.
see the images below
Attached Thumbnails
Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate-waves_sslchan_lmf_500hz_12db.jpg   Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate-waves_reneq_500hz_15db.jpg  
Old 26th August 2007
  #2
Here for the gear
 

The Waves SSL HMF band is even more off.
Here is a image of teh Waves SSL Channel Strip at 7k compared to the RenEQ at 7k.
ote that the Waves SSL is more like 9k
Attached Thumbnails
Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate-waves_sslchan_hmf_7kz_12db.jpg   Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate-waves_reneq_7kz_15db.jpg  
Old 26th August 2007
  #3
Here for the gear
 

And Last here is the Waves SSL at 2k vs the RenEQ at 2k
Note that the Waves SSL Channel Strip is more like 2.8k
Attached Thumbnails
Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate-waves_sslchan_hmf_2kz_12db.jpg   Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate-waves_reneq_2khz15db.jpg  
Old 26th August 2007
  #4
Lives for gear
 
heathen's Avatar
 

Just another reason waves suck. The SSL channel sounds ok but....... if this is true then yes they waves truly suck.
Old 26th August 2007
  #5
Gear Maniac
 

Not to be all sticking-up guy for Waves, but didn't they model those from hardware? Like, maybe it's possible the hardware was off a tad...?
Old 27th August 2007
  #6
Gear Maniac
 

Are you mixing with your eyes ?
Why do you care if it's 7k or 9k ? Your ears tells you how it should sounds
Old 27th August 2007
  #7
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaTechMix View Post
And Last here is the Waves SSL at 2k vs the RenEQ at 2k
Note that the Waves SSL Channel Strip is more like 2.8k
Well, the whole goal of that series was to make it sound as close as possible to the original units, so In other words more than likely their analog counterparts also aren't accurate.

I think a lot of analog eqs aren't accurate. No one cared until digital graphing technology came along.

Fwiw, I feel the waves ssl bundle eq sounds a HELL of a lot better than ren eq.
Old 27th August 2007
  #8
Lives for gear
 
AlexLakis's Avatar
 

This has been discussed all ready. It's because the original gear is not accurate. If you don't like listening and prefer seeing, maybe consider becoming a graphic artist instead?
Old 27th August 2007
  #9
Here for the gear
 

Yes I mix with my ears and thats why I was hearing the difference and it was driving me crazy.

When I type in a desired frequency into a peaking equalizer plug-in like the RenEQ. I expect to get that exact frequency to do my work.

I am very familiar with Shelving EQ's that do not give you what you'd expect. It is almost common practice that Shelving EQ's start their slope at frequencies different than what is on the faceplate.

I have also worked on many SSL consoles and if you go down the line on ten modules they all will be different. It's a matter of where the manintence man tightened the knobs.

As we are now moving into the digital world it is no longer a world of total recall, it is a world of total reset.

I just checked the Waves SSL EQ only module and its Peak bands are accurate. Does that mean that G series consoles were acurate and E series consoles were not?

I would really like to know if the Duende's Peak bands are accurate.
Can some one that is using Duende please reply?

Also how about the Sony Oxford? Is 500hz really 500hz ?

How about the UAD Cambridge and Precision EQ's Peaking bands. Are they accurate?

What other plug-in EQ's do not have accurate Peak bands frequency centers?
Old 27th August 2007
  #10
Lives for gear
 

Too bad if you have a perfect frequency ear like perfect pitch. (kidding...)

When I mix, I always sweep the frequency and that'll do the job more effective. I don't care if 500Hz is really 500Hz, cause I just want to solve the problem (and I don't know if it's 500Hz either, I just know there's frequency causing the problem).

Just did the test with V-Series, they're quite accurate though. As for the SSL E-Channel, I've tested, not ALL bands are inaccurate, some of the bands are quite accurate (like LMF at 1kHz). May there're people who can't stand it, but for me, I don't care much.

PS: Perhaps that's why people are reporting that the URS CSP 1980 EQ doesn't sounds close to the Waves SSL E-Channel?
Old 27th August 2007
  #11
Lives for gear
 
macgee's Avatar
i think LaTechMix has a good point. i want to get to the point where i hear an issue in the signal and know what frequency it is and know how to deal with it in a second. it's called frequency training. basically this means that you need to unlearn things just to use this bundle if you want the flavour. i think they should've made it accurate or at least given the option to switch the mode of accuracy

you can't say that because you listen it doesn't make it important to be accurate. we need a correlation between what we see and hear and thats why they have frequency markers and values. to be the top of my game, i want to be able to point out the frequency there's an issue in a vocal out without needing to sweep it - especially if you know the vocalist and that they have an irritating reso at a specific freq

is this irregularity mentioned in the manual - i'm contemplating the SSL bundle at the moment
Old 27th August 2007
  #12
Lives for gear
 

I understand the important of knowing the frequency and can tell it right away when solving problems. I always do that too, by roughly knowing what's the frequency range, but I'm not that perfect which i can't pinpoint exactly the frequency, so it doesn't really bug me as I'll just sweep a little around the frequency that I'm hearing.

By the way macleordgrant if you don't need gate/expander and don't mind higher CPU usage, go for the CSP, much better for the value.
Old 27th August 2007
  #13
Lives for gear
 
macgee's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigcat View Post
I understand the important of knowing the frequency and can tell it right away when solving problems. I always do that too, by roughly knowing what's the frequency range, but I'm not that perfect which i can't pinpoint exactly the frequency, so it doesn't really bug me as I'll just sweep a little around the frequency that I'm hearing.

By the way macleordgrant if you don't need gate/expander and don't mind higher CPU usage, go for the CSP, much better for the value.
thanks pigcat, i am considering the CSP and have sent URS support a query about the fast attack & release and after that i may decide. i don't think i need the expander gate but i want the flavour, you reckon i can get that from CSP?

do you use both and which do you prefer?

is the expander in SSL bundle upward or downward?
Old 27th August 2007
  #14
Gear Addict
 
Gravity's Avatar
 

So what if it isn't exact? it's enough in the ball park that your ears should take you the rest of the way. If your ears are accurate enough to tell you that 500hz is EXACTLY where the problem lies, then your ears should be accurate enough to find the 500hz sweep point.

I would say here, that if you want surgical precision, use the Ren EQ... If you want the SSL in all it's inaccurate analog glory, use the SSL... They're both just tools to do the job.
Old 27th August 2007
  #15
Lives for gear
 
heathen's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
Well, the whole goal of that series was to make it sound as close as possible to the original units, so In other words more than likely their analog counterparts also aren't accurate.

I think a lot of analog eqs aren't accurate. No one cared until digital graphing technology came along.

Fwiw, I feel the waves ssl bundle eq sounds a HELL of a lot better than ren eq.
True
Old 27th August 2007
  #16
Lives for gear
 
s0nguy's Avatar
 

have you tried unclicking the "Analog" button? Does that help?

-s0nguy
Old 27th August 2007
  #17
Lives for gear
I'm still going to mix with the Waves SSL because they just sound great to me. And I have done a ton of mixes with the Ren Eq..nice EQ, but the Waves SSL just has more vibe to it.
Old 27th August 2007
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by macleodgrant View Post
thanks pigcat, i am considering the CSP and have sent URS support a query about the fast attack & release and after that i may decide. i don't think i need the expander gate but i want the flavour, you reckon i can get that from CSP?

do you use both and which do you prefer?

is the expander in SSL bundle upward or downward?
I'm not too keen on the expander, for my understanding expander should work "upward", no? I haven't got the need of it, but messing with the kick preset seems to make the kick track pump up smoothly.

However, the gate is awesome and has been highly praised in the past, and IMO better than many many digital gate even from the high end plugins. Probably the "must have" analog style gate plugins.

Since I got SSL and V-Series, I don't find the need for the CSP cause I'm going to add in the API which I think it's awesome. And for whatever reason it is, to my ear, the Waves vintage gear (EQs) seems to give more distortion than the CSP which is smooth and clean, and the reason I prefer the Waves over the CSP.

YMMV, as always.
Old 27th August 2007
  #19
Here for the gear
 

Pigcat see the images of the Waves SSL E-Channel EQ at 1k on the HMF and LMF bands. Note that both are not centered at 1k. More like 1250hz and 850hz
Attached Thumbnails
Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate-waves_sslchan_hmf_1kz_12db.jpg   Waves SSL LMF and HMF Peak bands Not Accurate-waves_sslchan_lmf_1kz_12db.jpg  
Old 27th August 2007
  #20
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaTechMix View Post
Pigcat see the images of the Waves SSL E-Channel EQ at 1k on the HMF and LMF bands. Note that both are not centered at 1k. More like 1250hz and 850hz
Hmm maybe I didn't do accurate frequency analyzing.

However I don't find I'm having problem using the E-Channel EQ at all, and never notice such thing until this thread appeared. It won't stop me from using it at all. thumbsup Maybe I sux at listening frequencies...heh
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