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
Any plans for an Empirical Labs Eq?
Old 30th April 2003
  #1
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Any plans for an Empirical Labs Eq?

Anything in the works?
Old 1st May 2003
  #2
Lives for gear
 
faeflora's Avatar
 

Or pre?
Old 1st May 2003
  #3
Registered User
 
malice's Avatar
 

Or car ?

Would love to have my car working as good as a pair of distressor heh

Welcome dave



malice
Old 1st May 2003
  #4
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
or channel strip?
Old 1st May 2003
  #5
Lives for gear
 
davemc's Avatar
 

Or Plugin.

tutt Sorry had to ask...

Although if done right would be cool...
Old 1st May 2003
  #6
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
or Mic...
Old 1st May 2003
  #7
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

looks like the next gear is gonna be named

EMPIRICAL LABS O.R heh
Old 1st May 2003
  #8
BIG
Gear interested
 

My girlfriend is a DISTRESSOR


She has a NUKE function - but - no button to turn it off


BIG
Old 1st May 2003
  #9
Gear nut
 
madrigal's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by BIG
My girlfriend is a DISTRESSOR

She has a NUKE function - but - no button to turn it off
Nah, that's standard on most of those models nowadays, adn unlike a distressor, you can't get it modded.

Works the opposite way round too - the Distressor is the only piece of gear my girlfirend recognises (she still doesn't understand why I need more than one mic...) and she was pretty distressed when I said I was getting another
Old 1st May 2003
  #10
How about just a new comp?

The old Distressor has been around for a while and everyone has pretty much chosen their uses for it.
Old 1st May 2003
  #11
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Hooo Boy - lots of questions here. Let me eat some lunch, and then... I'm thinking it mite be fun for me to break up some of these issues into different more organized threads? Since I think non-linearly, it helps when everything else around me is linear and organized. lol

WOH! My pic just showed up on the left here. EEK! Is that too gweeby of a pic? Should i leave that pic or maybe put a Distressor over there instead? Gads I wish i looked more like Ben Afleck. Well I can take comfort that he doesnt understand logarithms or trigonometry, much less how to bias a transistor...

Be back soon
Old 1st May 2003
  #12
Riffer
 
lflier's Avatar
 

Dave, I think your pic is cute! And I'm one of the only females around here so you'll just have to take my word for it.

So what's a girl gotta to do get some free Distressors and FATSO's? heh
Old 2nd May 2003
  #13
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

EQ PLANS

EQ's - Yes Ive played with several EQ Designs but I think you really need to have something different these days to justify making one. They were all way to generic, I guess. I do hope we come up with something worth keeping tho, for sure. See the "Favorite EQ" thread for more thoughts.

You all are a friendly bunch! Thanks


and Lee Flier...?

Thanks for the encouragement about my scary pic! . However you are a bad bad girl, obviously, but.... what did you have in mind??


Thanks Lee
Old 2nd May 2003
  #14
Gear nut
 
plexi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by lflier
Dave, I think your pic is cute! And I'm one of the only females around here so you'll just have to take my word for it.

So what's a girl gotta to do get some free Distressors and FATSO's? heh
Somehow, the term Gearslut took on a whole new meaning to me.... heh
Old 2nd May 2003
  #15
Gear maniac
 

EL EQ...

it would be interesting to see an eq with with 2 or 3 distortion selections for each band.
Old 2nd May 2003
  #16
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

hrhrhr plexi heh
Old 3rd May 2003
  #17
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Somehow, the term Gearslut took on a whole new meaning to me.... heh
LOL~~Plexi.. this is a good one, I can't stop laughing, man~~


Welcome~~ Dave!

I've never tried any of your product. After reading the posts here, I'm definately getting one soon!!


Any plans on releasing new secret weapons soon? how about plugins?
Old 7th May 2003
  #18
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

JereG said:

Welcome~~ Dave!

I've never tried any of your product. After reading the posts here, I'm definately getting one soon!!
===============================

ONLY ONE?

<laughing!>

Thanks for your welcome and comments.
Old 7th May 2003
  #19
Gear addict
 
ExistanceMusic's Avatar
 

Anyone ever used one of the original Avalon semi-channel strips? The one with the Pre, comp and EQ and not much else?

EQ had 5 (I think....) bands, ranging from, get this 10hz (yes, TEN), with +-16dB, to 32Khz (yes, THIRTY TWO), with +-15dB, then in between had the standards, 400, 2.5K, 5K, all with a difference boost/cut setting.

Now there was an original EQ. Dave, I don;t think you have any worries about being original, just do something completely random (but random in a genius kinda way heh )

Haven't got a distressor yet, might hire one for a session in the next few weeks and have a look-see.
Old 8th May 2003
  #20
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Q or BANDWIDTH SELECTION

Ill ask a few questions about EQ's that are talked about on the "Favorite EQ" thread. This is probably a better place to ask tho since someone asked us about EQ plans.

On a high end parametric type EQ, what would be the minimum of well selected Bandwidths, (or Q's) on each band, that you live with? 3? 4? 8? etc??
Old 8th May 2003
  #21
Gear addict
 
ExistanceMusic's Avatar
 

ABSOLUTE minimum? Hi/Lo Shelving + Sweepable mids, but only if they all sound really nice. Plus a Q control on all the bands would be a welcome feature.
frequency selection on the shelving bands would be the tricky part, as well as maintaining phase alignment with crazy settings.
Old 8th May 2003
  #22
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Existence

I wasnt very clear in that question. It wasnt a question of how many midrange bands, but on HOW MANY different Q's (or bandwidths) of each band. That is, if the width of each frequency band wasnt infinitely variable, what would be the minimum number of bandwidth selections you could live with?

For example, just two selections might be "Narrow" and "Broad"?

Three bandwidth (or Q) selections might be "Narrow, Medium, Broad"

Does that clarify my question?
Old 8th May 2003
  #23
Gear maniac
 
Peter Simonsen's Avatar
 

Re: Q or BANDWIDTH SELECTION

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
Ill ask a few questions about EQ's that are talked about on the "Favorite EQ" thread. This is probably a better place to ask tho since someone asked us about EQ plans.

On a high end parametric type EQ, what would be the minimum of well selected Bandwidths, (or Q's) on each band, that you live with? 3? 4? 8? etc??
Hi Dave,

On a "high end" Eq..!!! Can I ask why make the Q selected..??
I like them to befully varible..

But since you ask if I had no choice min. would be approx. 8 steps

Kind regards

Peter
Old 8th May 2003
  #24
Gear addict
 
ExistanceMusic's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
Does that clarify my question?
thumbsup, ahh, I didn't read the question properly.

I'm tending to agree with axis, I'de be nervous with less than about 8, but then again, it comes back to the fact that sometimes having only a few very nice sounding, usefull settings can be better than a gazzillion "we-just-put-em-in-cos-we-can" settings.

Just out of interest, is there any particular reason, electronic or otherwise, that you wouldn't put in fully sweepable Qs?
The only reason I can think of is to create myths and rumours, IE "the xx.xx setting on such and such thingie is amazing, however did they think of THAT?".
Old 8th May 2003
  #25
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Theres a lot of reasons why I ask the Q question. Many of peoples favorite Vintage (and New) EQ's had fixed Q's. They couldnt mess things up with a too narrow "resonancy" Q (bandwidth). ALso, I cant remember specifically ever using a super super narrow Q and have a source sound natural or even good.

Conversely, I dont think I ever used a BW really really wide unless I was trying to achieve a shelving affect. SOooo Im wondering what is really practical, and what makes the controls too touchy. I often think I could have lived with 3 or 4 well chosen Q settings. Eight isnt too bad tho.

Old 8th May 2003
  #26
Gear maniac
 
Peter Simonsen's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
Theres a lot of reasons why I ask the Q question. Many of peoples favorite Vintage (and New) EQ's had fixed Q's. They couldnt mess things up with a too narrow "resonancy" Q (bandwidth). ALso, I cant remember specifically ever using a super super narrow Q and have a source sound natural or even good.
Yo Dave,

I can follow you on that... , But take the NTP eq I like so much...I would surely use them more if they had more options...

Now I donĀ“t know what you have in mind regarding the "High end eq" isue, but I would think, that one could build a somehow digital controlled analog eq... with a "classic" sound and then add options to use it both in a "normal" mode, and in a kind of "expert" mode with more options, but keep the basic sound alive.. Now where did I get that one from...???...heh

Kind regards

Peter
Old 9th May 2003
  #27
Gear addict
 

I'm one of the advocates of simplicity in the other thread, by something a bit more tricked out than the basic units would be nice. Like I said there, I like my passive Siemens eq's, and the grab-and-go quality can be quite useful, but they are pretty limited in flexibility.

Is the digitatlly controlled eq idea a practical solution? Several different basic setups available in say a 4 band unit where each setup shifts the bandwidth ranges (maybe with a selection or two available in the mid bands), with selectable shelving for highest and lowest bands? I guess it would be conceptually like a hardware version of what something like the different modes that the Sony Oxford eq plug does. I think it could work in that you'd have to choose what kind of control you have before starting to tweak instead of just tweaking it to death because you have the knobs to do it.

Maybe the "overshoot" trick is something that could be selectable. But I have to imagine you would have better ideas on bringing this sort of voodoo into the box than I could suggest.

Damn, I already want it, wanton slut that I am.

Bear
Old 9th May 2003
  #28
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
Theres a lot of reasons why I ask the Q question. Many of peoples favorite Vintage (and New) EQ's had fixed Q's. They couldnt mess things up with a too narrow "resonancy" Q (bandwidth). ALso, I cant remember specifically ever using a super super narrow Q and have a source sound natural or even good.

Conversely, I dont think I ever used a BW really really wide unless I was trying to achieve a shelving affect. SOooo Im wondering what is really practical, and what makes the controls too touchy. I often think I could have lived with 3 or 4 well chosen Q settings. Eight isnt too bad tho.

Hey Dave,

If you are thinking about an EQ, make it totally variable(ala GML but with some kinda character of course).

I totally use a super narrow Q when "pinching" or fixing sounds.

If you can make it at least 5-6 bands.

And don't forget a Partridge in Pear tree!!
Old 9th May 2003
  #29
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
Conversely, I dont think I ever used a BW really really wide unless I was trying to achieve a shelving affect. SOooo Im wondering what is really practical, and what makes the controls too touchy. I often think I could have lived with 3 or 4 well chosen Q settings. Eight isnt too bad tho.
What about the plain old variable Q like the API 550? I gotta argee with Dave on this one, 3 or 4 Q settings should be enough, especially if it's a character EQ. When I use a full parametic the bandwith ends up in the same spots most of the time. I think 8 Q choices times 4 or 5 bands is too much, but I like simple things that sound good. If I need that much control I probably want something clean like a Sontec. I don't reach for character EQ's for control.

Is an EQ like Bear is talking about even possible? I mean, I know it is but at what cost? Wouldn't you have to have different cap networks and stuff for each basic character scheme? I'd imagine that the parts would get really expensive really fast, not to mention the labor to build it.
Old 10th May 2003
  #30
Registered User
 
malice's Avatar
 

Well,well, well ...

Slipperman came with some very Empirical labs ideas


hehe

love the names ...

malice

Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Exmun / High end
3
trses335 / High end
2
zboy2854 / So much gear, so little time!
1

Forum Jump