The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Looking for a universal go-to EQ plug in.
Old 5th July 2009
  #31
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoshimodular View Post
My EQ-to-go is ApEQ: you can sculpt your own EQ choosing the bands, realtime FFT, oversampling, clipping options, and it's very cheap!
[..]
+1 ApEQ is very versatile/flexible and ín addition to the things mentioned above also features stereo and M/S filtering.
Old 5th July 2009
  #32
Lives for gear
 

I like the looks of the ApEQ! I'll check that out later a little more.

And regarding the hardware EQ, sure, for the $1000 I could get a good EQ. But I wasn't asking for a good EQ to master with, I was asking for a better software EQ to use channel by channel should I want to for mixing. Software EQ's are much more versatile for this, since with a hardware EQ will only be capable of handling one input at a time, with all the limitations of that for mixing. This is why professional hardware consoles have channel EQ on them as well, having all outboard EQ is just not practical, since you would have to bus out individual tracks one by one.

So no, an outboard EQ isn't what I was looking at for a very good reason, is it? I don't see why I should be made to feel like some fool consumer for not wanting to know about hardware EQ's since they don't meet what I described as my needs.

It was also a little irritating last night to come home and see some post about my deficiencies as a consumer and a bunch of "you should get the thread of the year for this!" and "+1!"'s. Again, that added nothing to what I was asking about, I didn't really need the "zinger", and I don't need to be made to feel that I somehow represent a problem in the audio industry. Thanks, though, to everyone for piling on, but if the point was made in the original post, you can be sure it will be read, and no one needs your thread of the year nonsense if you have nothing else to add.

That being said, I would like to thank everyone for taking the time for responding, I feel that I've gained a lot from this thread here and others, and freely admit that I was perhaps a little off in what I described as my original needs here. For instance, while I've heard of pre-ringing, I don't know very much about it and will check into it later on today. I hadn't factored it in when looking into this so-called go-to EQ that I was looking for. And I am rethinking the concept of the "go-to" EQ, that may just not really exist, and I can probably benefit from just using more EQ's of different types, and understanding how those different types have their specific strengths and weaknesses. So thanks all, L
Old 5th July 2009
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Mal View Post
It was also a little irritating last night to come home and see some post about my deficiencies as a consumer and a bunch of "you should get the thread of the year for this!" and "+1!"'s.
Are you referring to me?

I said that James Lehmann should get the post of the year award. I wasn't saying anything about you or your thread, and I never ment to irritate you. The reason I replied is that there are so many threads about "I already have 20 EQs, what should be my next?" that I personally think some people should route their attention elsewhere. They keep searching for that perfect tool, which they won't find. I never called you one of those people, my reply to James Lehmann's statement was aimed at much more than this thread.

If you just want a software EQ, that's cool, to each his own. But that doesn't mean that other people can't suggest very valid and interesting alternatives in an ontopic fashion. For all they know, you could have replied with "hmm the hardware route doesn't sound that bad at all". It's still a forum I think.

Best.
Old 5th July 2009
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Arrow

The best... most analog, non tube, transparent & flexible EQ ive tested
is the SonicTimeWorks.com EQ

Sonic Timeworks Digital Audio Software
......
... only for DX and SonicCore
the only problems with STW EQ are that:
#1. the out gain is limited to +6dB verry annoing,
#2. the hipass filter is limited to 4Khz, "the lowpass is not limited, is fullbandwith"
#3. Novation Automap does not work with DX plugins.

Q shapes & gains are a bit strange at first, but when you understand them, sounds amazing.
Love the Bells and the Filters, but the Hi Shelf is not that great & Q is fixed, kjaerhusaudio GEQ7 Hi shelf sounds a bit more analog.

STW sounds as analog but more transparent than Izotope Ozone 4, exept the Hi Shelf that is a bit dissapointing.}
but If you click the Hi-Shelf icon, it becomes a Bell like the others.

Bells & Filters sound so good, im eager to buy the LinearPhase Version.

Sonic Timeworks Digital Audio Software
Old 5th July 2009
  #35
Lives for gear
 

All right Mr. Peters- I was irritated then, I'm not now, no offense intended or taken. Thanks for making the suggestion of a hardware EQ, and it is a good one, sometime in the future I'll be wanting some good hardware gear, although it'll likely be mic pre's and hardware compressors before EQ. Software compressors- even good emulations- just don't seem to be the same as their hardware brothers.

That's why I am so particular to the RNDigital D4, it far outperforms all the stock compressors that come with the DAW's I use (mainly Logic, but I also have the others listed above). I suppose I am thinking that a good third party EQ would give me the same satisfaction, and anyone who would suggest that it was somewhat of a placebo effect would be correct. It's not for unhappiness of the sound that I want new EQ's, I'll freely admit that except in extreme circumstances I really don't have ears sophisticated enough to tell the difference between most EQ's. But I am trying to get together a set of EQ's, and learn them well, so that I can develop that. I have already changed my focus from linear phase as being a priority, and will be learning more about that and EQ's in general. I am glad I put this thread up, it's given me a lot to think about regarding how various EQ's work and why there would be uses for some that I had been prematurely dismissive of. And now you want to throw hardware EQ's into the mix! As well you should though- you're right, and it's all valid. Thanks for the thoughts, sir, I appreciate them.

As far as pre- and post-ringing, I believe that I understand it is not be an issue with FIR type EQ's. This confuses me, although I've really only looked into it today a bit, since this is told to me to be an issue with linear phase EQ's, and the RNDigital FIREQ is a FIR equalizer with "linear phase characteristics". So I don't know what that means at the moment, if anyone wants to jump in on that it'll be great.

I've had a blast looking at all these different EQ's even if my original post was not so good at saying what it was I was looking for... I probably will try several of them out, again, not looking for a magic Nirvana one size fits all EQ, but just to have some good tools and learn them well, and learn more about mixing with EQ's in general. Which is probably what I should have just said in the first place. Thanks all, L
Old 5th July 2009
  #36
Lives for gear
 

I've seen the Timeworks EQ before, PC only though, so not for me. Looks great though.
Old 11th July 2009
  #37
Gear Maniac
 

Thumbs up

I really think the sonalksis eq is the way to go. After reading Lagerfeldt's article, I think it further reenforces the advantages of an eq like the sonalksis.

The plugin sounds great, and comes with a bunch of presets, but not presets that do any eq-ing per-say. The presets leave all of the gains set flat, but set the bell and shelf type as well as the default bell size. Of course all of the parameters are tweak-able from the user side, they just use the presets to characteristically emulate different styles and vintages of eq.

The sonalksis is also the best feeling eq to me because of the way the mouse functions. When you click a knob to make adjustments, your mouse cursor disappears, and you can drag the knob. When you release the mouse the cursor is right where you placed it when you first clicked. This allows you to trim a bit of gain off a little at a time without having to reposition the mouse every time. Also, by hiding the mouse, they can program any dynamics to the knobs versus speed of the mouse that they want. As such, my trackball feels like I am turning an expensive hardware knob.

I would really recommend trying the sonalksis. There's a 30 day demo. I'm absolutely floored by the flexibility, quality and sound of this plugin. Well worth the $250.
Old 12th July 2009
  #38
Lives for gear
 
DrSax's Avatar
If I could only use one plugin eq to mix with it would be UAD Cambridge... I love lots of other flavors but in the end If you need a flexible plugin eq that will work on anything , you can't go wrong with Cambridge ... Boosting or cutting... If you have any issues about the sound, It must be the source... Just my opinion though....
Old 12th July 2009
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt View Post
Are you able to reproduce his results? I can't. Just using the Digi EQIII
7 band, the SSL G-Channel and the Waves LinEQ, they did
not NULL out .. not even close. The most noticeable being the LinEQ
as compared to the EQIII on a stereo track.

jeff
Old 12th July 2009
  #40
You can't compare a minimum phase EQ and a linear phase EQ, the underlying technology is different. So they won't null.

When comparing minimum phase equalizers you need to offset the values, you can't always directly compare settings. Yes, I can reproduce the results with the equalizers I have (Sonalksis, Waves, Flux, Logic Pro).

In most cases you should be able to get a 100% or 99% match, at least with the parametrics and LP & HP. I think the biggest differences in digital EQs are to be found in the way you interact with the EQ or if it's a good linear phase one (which I only use for mastering purposes).

Quote:
Originally Posted by daverich View Post
remember that with linear phase eq and steep cuts/boosts you will get ringing from the filter,- a minimum phase filter is probably best for hi-pass.
You'll get ringing from a minimum phase filter too, though you won't get the pre-echo associated with the linear phase EQ.
Old 12th July 2009
  #41
Lives for gear
 

I'm a little skeptical of that article too. And I haven't done the null test or anything, but after all, there are:

1) tons of misspellings in the thing, from "I know your sitting there saying but hey my Waves..." to improperly phrased sentences as "If you use a fully variable PEQ like the one that comes native with your host & saturation plugins/tools. You will be able to recreate just about any classic console EQ you have heard." I'm not trying to be harsh, but it's a little hard to accept scientific evidence from native speakers of a language who can't write it properly, or who don't care to.

2) any number of makers of EQs that suggest they have a different sound, and back that up more or less with some evidence. Waves will tell you why their plug in EQs are different, and so will UAD, and so will Sonalksis. Either we're all to disbelieve what they tell us, and write it off as pure marketing hype- surely a stretch- or imagine that there may be some differences in sound with various EQs.

And again: I haven't made a serious test of this. But that article really didn't sway me much, I'll be thinking for myself still.
Old 12th July 2009
  #42
It's not just a question of "thinking for yourself", it's a question of "trying yourself" then.

If you don't understand the math then at least do yourself the favor of doing the practical comparisons. Just remember to offset values until you get a null, make sure you're comparing apples to apples (not minimum & linear phase EQs), and that latency compensation is done correctly. Also switch off "gimmicks", such as the Waves "analog" mode which doesn't do anything but add a white noise signal.

The difference in digital (minimum phase) eq comes down to interface and functionality, such as M/S or being able to make special shelving curves (Eiosis for instance). The underlying math and sound is the same.

So does it still make a difference what (minimum phase) EQ you choose? Yes, but rarely for the reasons many people think.

There's a bigger difference when it comes to linear phase EQ though, so I'm not going there ;-)
Old 12th July 2009
  #43
Gear Addict
 
Lackatee's Avatar
Lackatee

Depends on what im doing, but most of the time im using the apEQ apulSoft - apEQ If im doing filtering, i usually use the Sonalksis TBK Series for all my filtering needs.

If im looking for something with some pleasing Phase Distortion, id probably go with the Waves V-Series, URS S Series / S-MIX, Waves Q Series
Old 12th July 2009
  #44
Lives for gear
 
mac black's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt View Post
Wow,

That means that all EQ manufactures are liars and they all sell us the same crap.
Why on earth would you want to pay for sonnox or waves whan you can get the same result with a built in EQ ??
The smart manufacturer should create different skins to their EQ ... EQSkin (c) or SkinEQ (c)
We can all have "ssl"neve" blablabla on our system by just having one EQ.

This is just outrageous
Old 12th July 2009
  #45
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac black View Post

This is just outrageous
Well yes and no. The bottom line is that EQs are still different by the way they were put together. Good GUI design goes a long way to making you feel comfortable when mixing.

Also, I get a feeling not enough people make use of the demoing options. Try the stuff out, don't rely on other people's opinions. If it sounds good to you, use it, and be happy.

I haven't done any nulling tests myself (perhaps I will later on today), but I'm inclined to believe that some 90% of all EQs do sound the same - which is why I don't like 90% of all digital EQ. There is a certain graininess and harshness I just can't get used to.

Having said that, the URS Fulltec is somewhat different, at least to my ears, as I find it rather pleasant and "natural" sounding. I'm sure there must be others like it, but this is the one I use most frequently. Also, believe it or not, I really like the free Voxengo Overtone GEQ. This most definitely adds colour and subtle distortion to the sound, but in a nice way.
Old 12th July 2009
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Melgueil's Avatar
 

Technology aside, it's how you "get there". By that I mean, how quickly, intuitively can I get the sound I am looking for with a plug. As has been said a few times, it is also the GUI, interface, ergonomics. For instance - I know I can most likely use my Logic channel eq to get to the same place as say the Sonnox. That said, Sonnox was my favorite of the dig eq's I tried. There are so many options, combinations and the GUI is at least for me, very intuitive. Quickly, effortlessly - I got that sheen or carve out something. Less work. A great tool -and sounded great too.

Yeah - and sign me up for that camp of folks who never got why I needed 10 compressors, 15 eq's. In fact Logic has a nice eq right out of the box. Maybe I loved the "sound" of the Sonnox because I they made it easy for me to get it, if that makes sense.

Rgds
Old 12th July 2009
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Hey, Lagerfeldt- sorry I don't know of a more proper way to address you- I didn't mean any insult, and I wasn't even saying you or the article was wrong- just that I have suspicions about that article and haven't yet done the research.

I see you on these and other forums and understand you know your stuff, I wasn't saying otherwise. And I think there probably are a lot of similarities between mixing EQs. I also agree that the ergonomics of a plug in and the interface are important, as has been pointed out above. But that article leaves me suspicious of its veracity, is what I am saying.
Old 12th July 2009
  #48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt View Post
You can't compare a minimum phase EQ and a linear phase EQ, the underlying technology is different. So they won't null.
I agree .. but wasn't that part of his premise?

jeff
Old 12th July 2009
  #49
No, I believe he states that in the intro. You need to compare apple to apples.

I agree that the whole article should be much clearer and explained better, and he probably simplified things too much.

For instance, Algorithmix has a linear phase EQ that actually sounds different/better than other linear phase EQs. Naturally Algorithmix will not disclose how this is done.

But generally speaking all standard minimum phase equalizers will sound identical when offset, however incredible that sounds. Again, like I said above, that doesn't mean one EQ isn't better to work with than another in terms of workflow or functionality - such as the M/S, morph, and adaptive display of the Flux Epure II, or the flexible shelving curves of the Eiosis.
Old 12th July 2009
  #50
Gear Addict
 
Barbary Ape's Avatar
 

I agree that most minimum phase eqs sound the same when you start to match their curves which is the majority of the digital eqs being sold out there.

But curves alone don't account for the sound of an eq. The eqs harmonics and phase properties have a lot to do with it as well, particularly on well known emulated character eqs.

The eqs phase can be closely tied to to its curves. All minimum phase eqs sound the same because they all have the same phase properties so all you need to do is match the curves. But some of these character eqs have surprising phase properties that accounts for the most of it's sound that cannot be easily replicated by a standard minimum phase eq no matter how much you can replicate the curves.

Some eqs even have all pass filters that even without boosting but simply having them on will already change the sound not to mention eqs that produce harmonics those will change the sound as well just by having them on.

Also some eqs oversample those are also very hard to get to null because even if you have another eq that also oversample chances are they won't be using the same upsampling algorithm, some upsampling algorithms are very clean some are very phasey so it's unlikely that they will null.
Old 12th July 2009
  #51
Lives for gear
 
dark blue man's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPeters86 View Post
Great stuff, the power of placebo explained.
The volume knob on my amp goes to eleven. Most finish at ten but mine goes to eleven. I heard a company in Hamburg are producing one that goes to twelve using new German technology and fitted with power fuses.... but I think it's a hoax.

Well, If I paid for it then I can jolly well hear it...... tutt
Old 13th July 2009
  #52
Gear Addict
 

I love UAD effects, mainly because of the distortion they add. Sometimes, I find vocals sounding better when a UAD 33609 or 1176 is in the insert even parameterized not to compress at all.

For just EQing, I use NuGen SEQ1. Same function as SEQ2 but I like the GUI better. Good price for value.
Old 13th July 2009
  #53
Gear Nut
 

There is an awful lot of truth in this all EQs are the same theory. I couple of years ago, I told myself I would never buy another EQ plug but then I bought Waves studio classics (to be fair, all 3 compressors are very useful and very different from each other) and Abbey Road brilliance.

If I could only have one now, it would probably be the Sonnox.
Old 13th July 2009
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltermusik View Post
I love UAD effects, mainly because of the distortion they add. Sometimes, I find vocals sounding better when a UAD 33609 or 1176 is in the insert even parameterized not to compress at all.

For just EQing, I use NuGen SEQ1. Same function as SEQ2 but I like the GUI better. Good price for value.
Well, that's the whole deal for me. I like the Waves Studio Classic Series because
the EQ's and compressors are modeled after the non-linearity of the original
components. ...in the case of the V-series .. the harmonics of the
impedance-matching transformers.

The GML stuff is very surgical and non-coloring .. so i guess if i were a mastering
engineer i'd be into that .. but .. that's not what i'm trying to do...

jeff
Old 21st July 2009
  #55
Lives for gear
 
scoring4films's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPeters86 View Post
You should get the post of the year award for this.
Ouch, now that's a mean dose of reality...
Old 21st July 2009
  #56
Gear Maniac
 

Yeah, I think its a kind of blurry line. While the eq code and architecture may be very similar or even identical in principal, once people start emulating, they start adding code that adds "character". Distortion of various types is mostly responsible for the character in emulations of most classic eqs. That and the different sizes and shapes of bells and shelves. Bells and shelves can easily be tuned by the user, but emulating distortions is much more complicated, especially if you're claiming it to be an emulation.
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