# Ok... I've always wanted to ask this!



## Dan Mott (Aug 2, 2010)

Ok so i hear people talking about what plugins they use. I will use an EQ plugin in this topic.

My question is.....


Does it really matter what EQ you have on your sounds?
Do different EQs sound different from one another?? How so?? I don't notice any difference from testing my self... except maybe the Waves SSLs.

So, is there such thing as a good EQ plugin and a bad one???


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Aug 2, 2010)

After many years I am also still struggling with this. I try to follow general guidelines, and use Cubase EQ for simple stuff, Waves Q series for detailed operations and Waves Ren plugs for stuff like guitar and vocals. And for mastering of course linear phase plugs. But to be honest, I still have to do A/B comparisons to train my ears further.

BTW, for my age I am very lucky I can still hear up to 17 Khz!


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 2, 2010)

Dan-Jay @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> Ok so i hear people talking about what plugins they use. I will use an EQ plugin in this topic.
> 
> My question is.....
> 
> ...



This is somewhat controversial subject. There are threads where it has been stated that all digital EQ plugins are essentially the same with different skins and workflow and that with time and understanding any one of them can produce exactly the same sound.

Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not, but pragmatist that I am, I do not care because when I reach for my UAD Neve 1073 emulation, I can quickly get a sound I cannot get out of my Logic EQs and when I reach for my UAD Pultec it also immediately has a different (to my ears) default sound than the Neve.

But the UAD Cambridge, which is justifiably praised for its excellent filters, always sounds harsh to me when I boost highs with it so for surgical EQ I will probably go to my Sonalksis SV-517.

So, it is a matter of both perception and opinion.


----------



## Dan Mott (Aug 2, 2010)

I feel lately that that i'm not getting what i want out of my standard digtal EQs. It's quite harsh and well..... (normal sounding)

I would like to ask for some EQ plugin suggestions. Maybe some people have experienced with? 

Also, i use drums alot, anyone have any nice EQs they use for their drums??

Just curios because i think there's EQs out there that can get a better less harsh sound than my standard hosts app.


----------



## bryla (Aug 2, 2010)

Jay you're almost right. There are TWO ways of building a software EQ. I'm not the engineer, so I can't explain, just my friends at TC that told me.

After that it's about saturation and distortion.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 2, 2010)

But there are differents when it comes to the sound result. 

Ok, if you use a 100-band eq, maybe you can get all the results what the others can, but do you know all the others? :-D 

As Jay said: If it works, it works.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2010)

Dan-Jay, take a sampled piano or strings and try to make them brighter (by boosting somewhere between maybe 1- 4k). The differences between EQ plug-ins when you do that are as subtle as a bite in the gonads.

Pay attention to how much better linear phase EQ sounds in that application. But regular EQs are better for things like snare drums - I'm only suggesting piano and strings because they're really complicated sounds that reveal the differences between EQs so easily.


----------



## bryla (Aug 2, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> bryla @ Mon Aug 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay you're almost right. There are TWO ways of building a software EQ. I'm not the engineer, so I can't explain, just my friends at TC that told me.
> ...


It's not 'TC' - I'm talking about two guys who personally have created and programmed software EQ's from the dawn of it - and by the way are behind some of the most succesful software reverbs (aside from the TC ones)


----------



## Hannes_F (Aug 2, 2010)

bryla: Oopsie ... :wink:
But greetings to your friends!


----------



## lee (Aug 2, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> bryla: Oopsie ... :wink:
> But greetings to your friends!



Ha ha  The edit-button is nice.


----------



## sevaels (Aug 2, 2010)

Best description of the atmosphere thus far is by Urs Heckmann in the Uhbik manual:

'So it is hardly surprising that EQ is a highly controversial topic in the audio world. Audible 
(or even measurable) differences are often more negligible than subtle, to put it mildly. For some, the most important factors concern “features” (e.g. the number of frequency bands), for others it is all about the ease of use, or the overall sound i.e. coloration (using terms like “transparency”, “warmth” etc.). Or simply the brand name. Opinions differ. To quote a literary Irish friend, “The altercation is so bitter because so little is at stake!”


----------



## wst3 (Aug 2, 2010)

prior to software implementations the differences between different equalizers was pretty remarkable. There were a lot of variables:
- whether or not they used inductors
- what class the make-up gain amplifier ran
- the tolerances of the components
- the filter passband shape
- the filter Q

With digital filters many of these variables are under the control of the software, but some are still, well, elusive.

Many software based filters try to remove some of the artifacts from analog filters, and some try to emulate them... who is right?

I find that the vast majority of the time I use one of a handful of plug-in equalizers, and the choice is based on the effect I am trying to achieve.

I do think that they sound different...


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2010)

I recently watched a PTools wizard align some stems for mastering and he used a different Filter or EQ for each track. He wasn't even providing a reason why he grabbed a certain HPF, BPF or Parametric. Just that they were different.
I thought nothing more and let him be in peace, but after these stems, which were realtime Control 24 recorded drums, Guitar tracks form Arizona, and other various vocals, etc., were treated with his peculiar methods we heard the Manley mastered 2 track and it sounded really nice.
Different Strokes, but whatever works is what counts.


----------



## kdm (Aug 3, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> But the UAD Cambridge, which is justifiably praised for its excellent filters, always sounds harsh to me when I boost highs with it



And it is, despite it's popularity, just a basic digital EQ - yes, it sounds harsh to me as well. EQs plugins likely start with a basic concept of how the filter algorithms can be designed - FIR, IIR, linear phase, maximum phase, what I would call "simple" (single pole filters, etc), and a few variations on these with analog "emulations".

To answer the original question - yes, it does matter which you use to some degree, but there is little difference between the "basic" EQs (i.e. if they use the same basic common EQ algorithm, they will likely cancel to null if set equivalently). But, not all EQs do sound the same due to the difference in algorithm they are based on, and a few other factors in the design. 

ME's might disagree for some applications, but if you are dealing with stereo samples or a final mix with a nice sound stage, linear phase EQ will usually give the most transparent results. But if you want to impaòûO   ß4öûO   ß4÷ûO   ß4øûO   ß4ùûO   ß4úûO   ß4ûûO   ß4üûO   ß4ýûO   ß4þûO   ß4ÿûO   ß5 ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5	ûO   ß5
ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5 ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5ûO   ß5 ûO   ß5!ûO   ß5"ûO   ß5#ûO   ß5$ûO   ß5%ûO   ß5&ûO   ß5'ûO   ß5(ûO   ß5)ûO   ß5*ûO   ß5+ûO   ß5,ûO   ß5-ûO   ß5.ûO   ß5/ûO   ß50ûO   ß51ûO   ß52ûO   ß53ûO   ß5


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 3, 2010)

Any suggestions for Linear Phase EQ plug ins to look at?


Thanks.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2010)

"Otherwise," kdm?


----------



## kdm (Aug 3, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Aug 03 said:


> "Otherwise," kdm?



lol - sorry Nick - poor choice of words. Should have left off the "Otherwise". 

Linear phase EQs: Fabfilter Pro-Q; DMG Equality; DDMF LP10; Aixcoustic ElectriQ.
Sonar PE even comes with a nice linear phase EQ and multiband comp, though the latency makes it hard to adjust during playback.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 3, 2010)

Dan-Jay @ 2010-08-02 said:


> Does it really matter what EQ you have on your sounds?
> Do different EQs sound different from one another?? How so?? I don't notice any difference from testing my self... except maybe the Waves SSLs.
> 
> So, is there such thing as a good EQ plugin and a bad one???


It's a matter of handling. There are in fact no bad-sounding software EQs ... there are no EQs, which _add_ a harsh highend.
It's all up to what the users does with it.

But there might be EQs with bad handling, and there are EQs with good handling, which get you faster (an more close) to what you want to do with an EQ.

So if you have an EQ, which is good to handle for you and does, what you want, there's not really a reason to use other ones. Still might be fun though. :wink:
(And some EQs introduce additional saturation, one might like.)

Oh .. and there are of course linear phase EQs and minimum phase EQs (and a very few, which let you adjust the phase). Sometimes one sounds better than another (especially in the lowend and with steeper filtering).


----------



## StrangeCat (Aug 3, 2010)

hmm I use Universal Audio Plugins.

and yes there are bad EQs. EQs that can't get that smooth sound, can't bring out the frequencies right, sound brittle, and so on. You'll start to notice that you don't use the same EQs for the same things. 

You will have an EQ you use for boosting certian frequencies, then you will have the one you use for cutting, notch filtering, High shelf , low shelf. 
One EQ is not ideal for everything.


----------



## RiffWraith (Aug 3, 2010)

Dan-Jay @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> Do different EQs sound different from one another?



Absolutely, òû­   ß?ïû­   ß?ðû­   ß?ñû­   ß?òû­   ß?óû­   ß?ôû­   ß?õû­   ß?öû­   ß?÷û­   ß?øû­   ß?ùû­   ß?úû­   ß?ûû­   ß?üû­   ß?ýû­   ß?þû­   ß?ÿû­   ß@ û­   ß@û­   ß@û­   ß@û­   ß@û­   ß@û­   ß@û­   ß@û­   ß@û­   ß@	û­   ß@
û­   ß@û­   ß@û­   ß@ û­   ß@û­   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@û®   ß@ û®   ß@!û®   ß@"û®   ß@#û®   ß@$û®   ß@%û®   ß@&û®   ß@'û®   ß@(û®   ß@)û®   ß@*û®   ß@+û®   ß@,û®   ß@-û®   ß@.û®   ß@/û®   ß@0û®   ß@1û®   ß@2û®   ß@3û®   ß@4û®   ß@5û®   ß@6û®   ß@7û®   ß@8û®   ß@9û®   ß@:û®   ß@;û®   ß@<û®   ß@=û®   ß@>û®   ß@?û®   ß@@û®   ß@Aû®   ß@Bû®   ß@Cû®   ß@Dû®   ß@Eû®   ß@Fû®   ß@Gû®   ß@Hû®   ß@Iû®   ß@Jû®   ß@Kû®   ß@Lû®   ß@Mû®   ß@Nû®   ß@Oû®   ß@Pû®   ß@Qû®   ß@Rû®   ß@Sû®   ß@Tû®   ß@Uû®   ß@Vû®   ß@Wû®   ß@Xû®   ß@Yû®   ß@Zû®   ß@[û¯   ß@\û¯   ß@]û¯   ß@^              òû¯   ß@`û¯   ß@aû¯   ß@bû¯   ß@cû¯   ß@dû¯   ß@eû¯   ß@fû¯   ß@gû¯   ß@hû¯   ß@iû¯   ß@jû¯   ß@kû¯   ß@lû¯   ß@mû¯   ß@nû¯   ß@oû¯   ß@pû¯   ß@qû¯   ß@rû¯   ß@sû¯   ß@tû¯   ß@uû¯   ß@vû¯   ß@wû¯   ß@xû¯   ß@yû¯   ß@zû¯   ß@{û¯   ß@|û¯   ß@}û¯   ß@~û¯   ß@û¯   ß@€û¯   ß@û¯   ß@‚û¯   ß@ƒû¯   ß@„û¯   ß@…û¯   ß@†û¯   ß@‡û¯   ß@ˆû¯   ß@‰û¯   ß@Šû¯   ß@‹û¯   ß@Œû¯   ß@û¯   ß@Žû¯   ß@û¯   ß@û¯   ß@‘û¯   ß@’û¯   ß@“û¯   ß@”û¯   ß@•û¯   ß@–û¯   ß@—û¯   ß@˜û¯   ß@™û¯   ß@šû¯   ß@›û°   ß@œû°   ß@û°   ß@žû°   ß@Ÿû°   ß@ û°   ß@¡û°   ß@¢û°   ß@£û°   ß@¤û°   ß@¥û°   ß@¦û°   ß@§û°   ß@¨û°   ß@©û°   ß@ªû°   ß@«û°   ß@¬û°   ß@­û°   ß@®û°   ß@¯û°   ß@°û°   ß@±û°   ß@²û°   ß@³û°   ß@´û°   ß@µû°   ß@¶û°   ß@·û°   ß@¸û°   ß@¹û°   ß@ºû°   ß@»û°   ß@¼û°   ß@½û°   ß@¾û°   ß@¿û°   ß@Àû°   ß@Áû°   ß@Âû°   ß@Ãû°   ß@Äû°   ß@Åû°   ß@Æû°   ß@Çû±   ß@Èû±   ß@Éû±   ß@Êû±   ß@Ëû±   ß@Ìû±   ß@Íû±   ß@Îû±   ß@Ï              òû±   ß@Ñû±   ß@Òû±   ß@Óû±   ß@Ôû±   ß@Õû²   ß@Öû²   ß@×û²   ß@Øû²   ß@Ùû²   ß@Úû²   ß@Ûû²   ß@Üû²   ß@Ýû²   ß@Þû²   ß@ßû²   ß@àû²   ß@áû²   ß@âû²   ß@ãû²   ß@äû²   ß@åû²   ß@æû²   ß@çû²   ß@èû²   ß@éû²   ß@êû²   ß@ëû²   ß@ìû²   ß@íû²   ß@îû²   ß@ïû²   ß@ðû²   ß@ñû²   ß@òû²   ß@óû²   ß@ôû²   ß@õû²   ß@öû²   ß@÷û²   ß@øû²   ß@ùû²   ß@úû²   ß@


----------



## dfhagai (Aug 3, 2010)

You may find this link interesting:
http://www.rhythminmind.net/presetblog/2009/03/digital-eq-fact-myth/

I personaly don't agree with his inital approach....
As a wise man once said:
"Naomi Campbell and rosen Bar share 99% the same genetics. 
God is indeed in the details"


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 4, 2010)

StrangeCat @ 2010-08-04 said:


> and yes there are bad EQs. EQs that can't get that smooth sound, can't bring out the frequencies right, sound brittle, and so on.


No sorry, that's wrong.
If you EQ something and it sounds "brittle" or unsmooth you have done the wrong EQing and/or the signal was "brittle or unsmooth before and the EQ boosted that.



StrangeCat @ 2010-08-04 said:


> One EQ is not ideal for everything.


If it offers enough control and you know how to use it, it totally is.


----------



## Dan Mott (Aug 4, 2010)

Hey.

Looks like it's all about personal preference from the comments on this thread.

I do agree and i suppose if it's right...... then it's right.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 4, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> StrangeCat @ 2010-08-04 said:
> 
> 
> > and yes there are bad EQs. EQs that can't get that smooth sound, can't bring out the frequencies right, sound brittle, and so on.
> ...



Sorry, but if I reach for the 10k band and raise it by typing in a higher number with one EQ and it sounds more airy but not more harsh and I type in the same number with another and to my ears it does sound harsh, that is enough for me to reach for one rather than the other.


----------



## StrangeCat (Aug 4, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> StrangeCat @ 2010-08-04 said:
> 
> 
> > and yes there are bad EQs. EQs that can't get that smooth sound, can't bring out the frequencies right, sound brittle, and so on.
> ...



Are you a professional audio engineer with over 10 years of experience under you Producing different styles of bands and music using Hard Ware and Plugins.


----------



## kdm (Aug 4, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> No sorry, that's wrong.
> If you EQ something and it sounds "brittle" or unsmooth you have done the wrong EQing and/or the signal was "brittle or unsmooth before and the EQ boosted that.



No, that is not correct (though emphasizing a poor recording or brittle sounding frequency range in a recording will of course sound worse). Low order filters (as used in basic EQ designs) will exhibit the most ripple around the cutoff frequency. That ripple is a higher frequency "artifact" and will emphasize some mid-higher frequencies, which is the "harshness" we hear. This is one reason why a high order filter sounds "warmer" and fatter (just try this with any synth that allows you to select 1st, 2nd, and 4th order filters).

You can even hear this on high pass filters set for relatively low frequencies if the filter is truly poor, and you will certainly hear this with a 10k boost of several db.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 4, 2010)

I don't really understand, what you are talking about, when you say "ripple".
You say "higher frequency artifact" ... like aliasing?
Every digital artefacts of any EQ I've ever checked are way below audibility. Some EQs introduce some kind of saturation/harmonics on purpose though. But this has nothing to do with the filter order.
The filter order just influences the curve-form.



Ashermusic @ 2010-08-04 said:


> Sorry, but if I reach for the 10k band and raise it by typing in a higher number with one EQ and it sounds more airy but not more harsh and I type in the same number with another and to my ears it does sound harsh, that is enough for me to reach for one rather than the other.


Of course! That's exactly what I meant with "handling".
Two different EQs might provide a different equalization-curve with the same values set.



StrangeCat @ 2010-08-04 said:


> Are you a professional audio engineer with over 10 years of experience under you Producing different styles of bands and music using Hard Ware and Plugins.


No, but I have a lot of experience with EQ-plugins.
I compared them by ear and analysed them (check out the http://www.savioursofsoul.de/Christian/programs/measurement-programs/ (VST Plugin Analyser)) years ago.
Not so long ago I also learned about about, how digital EQing works technically.

The mistake a lot of people make, when they compare EQ-plugins, is that they're comparing totally different curves, while it is actually possible to set up almost the same curves on most EQ-plugins (just different ways to get there --> handling).
When you compare two EQ-plugins, which are set up to actually do the same kind of equalization (providing similar curves), you'll see, that the differences will become very small and often totally vanish.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 4, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> Ashermusic @ 2010-08-04 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but if I reach for the 10k band and raise it by typing in a higher number with one EQ and it sounds more airy but not more harsh and I type in the same number with another and to my ears it does sound harsh, that is enough for me to reach for one rather than the other.
> ...



OK, then fundamentally we do not disagree. 

I frankly do not care why it is so in the implementation of the plugin, I only care to know that when I want a good sounding boost/cut A I reach for EQ plugin A and when I want a good sounding boost/cut B I reach for EQ plugin B. So i.e. when I need to boost from the 1-10k range I do not reach for the Cambridge but when I need a low pass filter, I frequently do.


----------



## StrangeCat (Aug 4, 2010)

StrangeCat @ 2010-08-04 said:


> Are you a professional audio engineer with over 10 years of experience under you Producing different styles of bands and music using Hard Ware and Plugins.


No, but I have a lot of experience with EQ-plugins.
I compared them by ear and analysed them (check out the http://www.savioursofsoul.de/Christian/programs/measurement-programs/ (VST Plugin Analyser)) years ago.
Not so long ago I also learned about about, how digital EQing works technically.
/quote]

I already knew the answer. I remember these kind of topics on gearslutz.com years ago 

have fun o-[][]-o


----------



## kdm (Aug 4, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> I don't really understand, what you are talking about, when you say "ripple".
> You say "higher frequency artifact" ... like aliasing?
> Every digital artefacts of any EQ I've ever checked are way below audibility. Some EQs introduce some kind of saturation/harmonics on purpose though. But this has nothing to do with the filter order.
> The filter order just influences the curve-form.



See here under Passband Ripple, and Ripple for a definition, as well as the differences in filter types that affect what that response is. 

Basic EQ designs use simpler, less complex filters partly for their lower cpu overhead, and many have a pass band that isn't as clean/smooth for certain implementations. In some cases there is also stop band ripple. It all adds up to harmonic "distortions" of some sort. 

For example, a steeper filter will have a greater ripple around the sides of the cut/boost curve. A filter that avoids that ripple will by nature have a less steep response as a tradeoff. That's why we balance Q with steepness of the filter in setting high and low-pass filters rather than just grabbing the 48db response and going with that, or just dragging Q to a minimum as a default setting.

(Emulations simply add similar distortions to sound like hardware, but to me, often simply sound dull, muddy, flat or overly obvious in the additional harmonic content as a result. )

This is all part of general DSP and filter theory - it might take a bit more research and study to understand what I'm talking about, but as others have commented here, ears tell the rest of the story.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 4, 2010)

StrangeCat @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> I already knew the answer. I remember these kind of topics on gearslutz.com years ago
> 
> have fun o-[][]-o



+1 o-[][]-o


----------



## Dan Mott (Aug 4, 2010)

Anyone used the Sonnox Oxford EQ?

Heard it was quite good.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 4, 2010)

Yes, I have it.

I agree entirely with EnTaroAdun by the way, where he says that one good EQ plug-in is perfectly capable of handling all our (corrective) EQ-needs. Particularly in the sample-based music domain, which is, by nature, sonically way too poor, lifeless and flat to be able to bring out (or benefit from) the differences between various (plug-in) EQ's.
HS, LASS, GPO, Symphobia, Vienna SE, Toontrack Superior or BFD through a WavesEQ, an UAD EQ or one from PSP: no musically significant difference whatsoever. Samples simply don't have enough organic richness to bring out the best in an EQ (or any other signal processor for that matter).
One decent, versatile EQ is, I feel, really all you need for mixing sample-based music.

Distantly related plugins which DO contribute something different and very useful though, are things like Noveltech's Character, Soundtoys' Decapitator or SPL's Vitalizer. Any of these is a MUCH better choice for processing sample-based audio (especially virtual drums) than a second, third or fourth EQ, in my opinion.

If I were starting out today, knowing what I know, and doing what I do, I'm sure I'd (buy and) install at least 50 plugins less than I currently have.

_


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 4, 2010)

re-peat @ Wed Aug 04 said:


> ...
> 
> Distantly related plugins which DO contribute something different and very useful though, are things like Noveltech's Character, Soundtoys' Decapitator or SPL's Vitalizer. Any of these is a MUCH better choice for processing sample-based audio (especially virtual drums) than a second, third or fourth EQ, in my opinion. ...



I agree with you, re-peat. Especially the SPL's Vitalizer is one (or, the one) of my favorite toys. o-[][]-o


----------



## JohnG (Aug 4, 2010)

re-peat @ 4th August 2010 said:


> If I were starting out today, knowing what I know, and doing what I do, I'm sure I'd (buy and) install at least 50 plugins less than I currently have.



This makes me feel so much better. I don't own any plug-ins that didn't come with my DAW. Had been feeling....inadequate...sniff, whimper...


----------



## bryla (Aug 4, 2010)

I have been very happy that I've kept a 'buy no plug-ins' since new year, and loosely since last summer. You can do a lot with not much!


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 4, 2010)

bryla @ Thu Aug 05 said:


> I have been very happy that I've kept a 'buy no plug-ins' since new year, and loosely since last summer. You can do a lot with not much!



A very cool sentence. For example, instead of to learn new plugin-settings you can compose..... . o-[][]-o


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 4, 2010)

kdm @ 2010-08-04 said:


> See here under Passband Ripple, and Ripple for a definition, as well as the differences in filter types that affect what that response isòü…   ß€Aü…   ß€Bü…   ß€Cü…   ß€Dü…   ß€Eü…   ß€Fü…   ß€Gü…   ß€Hü…   ß€Iü…   ß€Jü…   ß€Kü…   ß€Lü…   ß€Mü…   ß€Nü…   ß€Oü…   ß€Pü…   ß€Qü…   ß€Rü…   ß€Sü…   ß€Tü…   ß€Uü…   ß€Vü…   ß€Wü…   ß€Xü…   ß€Yü…   ß€Zü…   ß€[ü…   ß€\ü…   ß€]ü…   ß€^ü…   ß€_ü…   ß€`ü…   ß€aü…   ß€bü…   ß€cü…   ß€dü…   ß€eü…   ß€fü…   ß€gü…   ß€hü…   ß€iü…   ß€jü…   ß€kü…   ß€lü…   ß€mü…   ß€nü…   ß€oü…   ß€pü…   ß€qü…   ß€rü…   ß€sü…   ß€tü…   ß€uü…   ß€vü…   ß€wü…   ß€xü…   ß€yü…   ß€zü…   ß€{ü…   ß€|ü…   ß€}ü…   ß€~ü…   ß€ü…   ß€€ü…   ß€ü…   ß€žü…   ß€Ÿü…   ß€ ü…   ß€¡ü†   ß€,ü†   ß€-ü†   ß€.ü†   ß€/ü†   ß€‚ü†   ß€ƒü†   ß€„ü†   ß€…ü†   ß€†ü†   ß€‡ü†   ß€ˆü†   ß€‰ü†   ß€Šü†   ß€‹ü†   ß€Œü†   ß€ü†   ß€Žü†   ß€ü†   ß€ü†   ß€‘ü†   ß€’ü†   ß€“ü†   ß€”ü†   ß€•ü†   ß€–ü†   ß€—ü†   ß€˜ü†   ß€™ü†   ß€šü†   ß€›ü†   ß€œü†   ß€ü‡   ß€¢ü‡   ß€£ü‡   ß€¤ü‡   ß€¥ü‡   ß€¦ü‡


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 5, 2010)

I am not an expert on this and I am not sure if native cubase plug ins are better or expensive third party plug ins but in my little experience I found that plug ins like

SPL Vitalizer, Vienna Suite, PSP Audioware immediately give the sound a colour - which the native plug ins fail to add. 

I was particularly amazed by the PSP Eq's - they immediately added an openess to the sound - no matter which frequency I was altering. Specially the highs.

Similarly - the VSL Exciter does different things to the sound than the Vitalizer.

I can at least confirm that I feel there is a difference for sure. 

Also , for example the sonnox Compressor immediately gives better results than the Cubase native plug in.


So, in the end I guess it does matter what plug in you use - to me. I can hear the difference when I use them for sure. Now, I dont know if what we hear as humans is possible to fully analyse with analysers yet. Our ears are very complex. And everybodys Pinnae is different - so in the end the sound will always be somewhat different to most people. 

We may not have measurement devices with high enough resolution to analyse what we truly hear - I mean, I think it probably never will be - its like trying to replicate the Human Ear!


Just my thoughts.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 5, 2010)

vibrato @ 2010-08-05 said:


> SPL Vitalizer, Vienna Suite, PSP Audioware immediately give the sound a colour - which the native plug ins fail to add.
> 
> I was particularly amazed by the PSP Eq's - they immediately added an openess to the sound - no matter which frequency I was altering. Specially the highs.


I only analysed the Neon HR, and this one doesn't do anything special (but I really like the handling). Those newer vintage-style-ones might add some kind of "saturation" or similar mojo to the sound, or they might just offer more convenient curves (which is totally subjective and counts as handling).

Stuff like that can of course make an >EQ plugin< "better" for certain needs, but it's not really part of the actual >equalization<. Even the GUI can make an EQ plugin work better or worse, because EQing relies on the perception of the engineer, and the perception of the engineer is influenced by everything around him (and in front of him).
I don't want to do word-riding here ... if a plugin works better than another, it *is* better. But still, it's a subjective thing, and generally there are no bad/harsh-sounding digital EQs at all.
A plugin might not response in the way, you'd expect it, but that's a handling thing. Another person might get the perfect sound out of it immediatly, just because he's used to tune the knobs in a different way.



(Analysing has nothing to do with replicating the ear, and in fact we can do accurate analysing in the digital realm, which by far exceeds the resolution of human hearing.)


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 5, 2010)

You are talking about something else - GUI etc.


What I am trying to say is this - You boost 5dB on a Cubase native plug in with the same frequency and Q factor and then use something like Sonnox - there is a 'Clear' difference. 


Now whether thats because of Convinient Curves or Handling - It simply sounds better. So it solves the basic question for me - That yes, there are better Eq's than others.


I have not done full research on measurement systems but Philip Newell himself has said in his book after acknoqledging many measurements done in the past years at the ISVR etc. - For example the simple phenomena of everyone using the Yamaha NS10M in the 80's and 90's.

Even though they measured everything - met many engineers who used them and cross-referenced a lot - it was still stubjective in the end. 


But, I must withdraw myself from this discussion because I am not qualified to really talk about it. 

However, my personal answer to the basic question are there better Eq's is YES! 


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 5, 2010)

vibrato @ 2010-08-05 said:


> What I am trying to say is this - You boost 5dB on a Cubase native plug in with the same frequency and Q factor and then use something like Sonnox - there is a 'Clear' difference.


If there's a 'clear' difference, it is because the plugins are doing 'clearly' different things (aka curves).
But that doesn't mean, that you couldn't make them do the same things.
They are different, and one might work better than the other for you .. but still this doesn't make the other plugin "bad".



vibrato @ 2010-08-05 said:


> yes, there are better Eq's than others


That's what I wrote .. and that "better" is subjective.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 6, 2010)

So basically you are saying that whatever one can achieve with a UAD card worth $3000 is technically absolutely possible to do with Cubase native plug ins.

Because Cubase offers all the basic plugs - Compression, Eq, Gate, Delay etc.

So there is no such thing as a bad plug in in the Digital Domain? And why are third party plug ins so expensive and why do people use them if everything is technically possible with Native Plugs?

Just trying to understand.


Tanuj.


----------



## bryla (Aug 6, 2010)

vibrato @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> So basically you are saying that whatever one can achieve with a UAD card worth $3000 is technically absolutely possible to do with Cubase native plug ins.


To the point of 99% yes!

So why buy expensive plugins? Workflow!

When you know, you can bring up EQ X and just pull one button, that will save you a lot of time and effort, than if you'ld have to set up a chain of plug-ins and create all sorts of routing, just to get that ONE perfect SSL-type notch.

Also functionalities. Recently a well respected mastering engineer told me that Flux Epure sounded like Logic's up to 99,9%. The rest was functions like morphing.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 6, 2010)

If the EQ's are technically the same or can be used to do the same thing - I am not sure it should take that long to do it. Specially, if one can create presets and save them for later.


And I dont think it must be only for the GUI that people pay so much money. 


As it has been mentioned here - if the Native EQ's are good too - then they can be used for many things that probably the other EQ's dont do as well. 

Certainly, the native plugs will have some strength by this argument. 


I am not able to allign myself with this thing but I am open to ideas.


When I used plug ins like Aether - they definitely sound much better than Cubase verbs for example. 

And Aether has a lot of control and lot of options to tweak your reverb - clearly this is missing from Cubase native reverb.

But as per this argument - any preset from Aether can be matched exactly in the Cubase native Algo verb - even if those kind of controls and options are not available in the first place.

How has this been proven?

And finally - basically everything then comes down to Marketing. You are saying Sonnox as a company is just a brand name - because obviously you get good Eqs in Cubase - which is what $500 for the whole thing - and what do you get for $500 in Sonnox? Just two plug ins.


And all this for something you can already do in Cubase?


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 6, 2010)

bryla @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> To the point of 99% yes!


I think so too. It's been a very expensive lesson — but a highly illuminating and fascinating one nonetheless — but I too am totally convinced that, if your primary field of activity is sampled-based music (mock-ups and such), you can comfortably pick any one of todays DAW's, add a few dedicated libraries/virtual instruments of choice, and you're all set to go.
I'm not really familiar with the other DAW's, but certainly Logic offers everything in the way of production tools that allow you to produce music which should sound every bit as good (in as far as mock-ups can _ever_ sound good, that is) as it would if you had a fully loaded UAD-card, a Duende or a mouthwatering collection of so-called high-end plugins. Provided you know what you're (supposed to be) doing with all these tools of course.

Browsing through my collection, there are just a couple third-party plugins which I'd hate to miss:
- ProAudio's Dynamic Spectrum Mapper
- apulSoft's apEQ
- Noveltech's Character
- Sonalksis DQ1
- SPL's Vitalizer
- Soundtoys' EchoBoy and Decapitator
- TC's VSS3 and MD3
- UAD's EMT140 and EMT250
- Softube's new TiltEQ
- and maybe one or two AbbeyRoad plugins, like the RS124

But even without any of those, my music still wouldn't sound substantially different from how it sounds now. And if all my other third-party processing stuff stopped working tomorrow (and we're talking an embarrasingly sick lot of software here, I'm affraid), I don't think I would even blink an eye, let alone bother to make it work again.

_


----------



## bryla (Aug 6, 2010)

vibrato @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> When I used plug ins like Aether - they definitely sound much better than Cubase verbs for example.
> 
> An


Reverbs are a different beast. I would say: NO two are alike


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 6, 2010)

vibrato @ 2010-08-06 said:


> So basically you are saying that whatever one can achieve with a UAD card worth $3000 is technically absolutely possible to do with Cubase native plug ins.
> 
> Because Cubase offers all the basic plugs - Compression, Eq, Gate, Delay etc.
> 
> ...


Compressors, Saturation, Delays, Reverbs, Limiters, etc. are a totally different story. With EQ plugins there are very cheap plugins (or even the ones coming with your host), which give you *fullòýˆ   ßÃÿýˆ   ßÄ ýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄ	ýˆ   ßÄ
ýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄ ýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄýˆ   ßÄ ýˆ   ßÄ!ýˆ   ßÄ"ýˆ   ßÄ#ýˆ   ßÄ$ýˆ   ßÄ%ýˆ   ßÄ&ýˆ   ßÄ'ýˆ   ßÄ(ýˆ   ßÄ)ýˆ   ßÄ*ýˆ   ßÄ+ýˆ   ßÄ,ýˆ   ßÄ-ýˆ   ßÄ.ýˆ   ßÄ/ýˆ   ßÄ0ýˆ   ßÄ1ýˆ   ßÄ2ýˆ   ßÄ3ýˆ   ßÄ4ýˆ   ßÄ5ýˆ   ßÄ6ýˆ   ßÄ7ýˆ   ßÄ8ýˆ   ßÄ9ýˆ   ßÄ:ýˆ   ßÄ;ýˆ   ßÄ<ýˆ   ßÄ=ýˆ   ßÄ>ýˆ   ßÄ?ý‰   ßÄ@ý‰   ßÄAý‰   ßÄBý‰   ßÄCý‰   ßÄDý‰   ßÄEýŠ   ßÄFýŠ   ßÄGýŠ   ßÄHýŠ   ßÄIýŠ   ßÄJýŠ   ßÄKýŠ   ßÄLýŠ   ßÄMýŠ   ßÄNýŠ   ßÄOýŠ   ßÄPýŠ   ßÄQýŠ   ßÄRýŠ   ßÄSýŠ   ßÄTýŠ   ßÄUýŠ   ßÄVýŠ   ßÄWýŠ   ßÄXýŠ   ßÄYýŠ   ßÄZýŠ   ßÄ[ýŠ   ßÄ\ýŠ   ßÄ]ýŠ   ßÄ^ýŠ   ßÄ_ýŠ   ßÄ`ýŠ   ßÄaý‹   ßÄbý‹   ßÄcý‹   ßÄdý‹   ßÄeý‹   ßÄfý‹   ßÄgý‹   ßÄhý‹   ßÄiý‹   ßÄjý‹   ßÄký‹   ßÄlý‹   ßÄmý‹   ßÄn              òý‹   ßÄpý‹   ßÄqý‹   ßÄrý‹   ßÄsý‹   ßÄtý‹   ßÄuý‹   ßÄvý‹   ßÄwý‹   ßÄxý‹   ßÄyý‹   ßÄzý‹   ßÄ{ý‹   ßÄ|ý‹   ßÄ}ý‹   ßÄ~ý‹   ßÄý‹   ßÄ€ý‹   ßÄý‹   ßÄ‚ý‹   ßÄƒý‹   ßÄ„ý‹   ßÄ…ý‹   ßÄ†ý‹   ßÄ‡ý‹   ßÄˆý‹   ßÄ‰ý*


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 6, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> vibrato @ 2010-08-06 said:
> 
> 
> > With EQs, one plugin _can_ be enough for everything.



In theory, this is true. In practical reality, it simply is not. Every "in the box" mixing engineer I know has certain"go to" EQs but they will abandon them and grab another if they are not getting the desired sound quickly.

Every single modern-day automobile can take you from point A to point B at 0 miles per hour and arrive at the same destination in the same amount of time. But depending on the car, the ride will be vey different

My mixes began their evolution of improving when I got a UAD card and the EQs are part of that reason. I recommend it highly.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 6, 2010)

For a lot of professional engineers it actually is true in practical reality.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 6, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> For a lot of professional engineers it actually is true in practical reality.



Maybe it is different in Berlin but in LA I have not worked with a single high level engineer who only uses one EQ.


----------



## kdm (Aug 6, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> With EQs, one plugin can be enough for everything.



That is simply not true. There are a lot of "simple digital" EQs that are pretty much the same, but you have simply dismissed linear phase and many filter variations that in fact provide differences, esp. for mastering. I can hear a significant difference between a basic EQ and linear phase (perhaps you've never tried PLParEQ - probably the best on the market), and between various filter types on EQs such as Redline, Electri-Q, etc). 

One difference even in the basic digital variety of EQ that you didn't mention is curve/bell type - a gentler bell shap can be problematic with high frequency boosts, so not all basic digital/PEQs are the same there.

Your tests with frequency response won't tell you anything either. You are only testing the pass through of the plugin. With EQs you need to look at phase distortion, and in/out discrepencies (see Sonnox' article on this, and general commentary from Flux and Algorithmix on EQ design) to get a picture of what is happening around the basic filter curve. 

Most basic digital EQs now are similar in general algorithm, but vary in noise floor handling. Previously, there were significant differences in the quality of even the basic algorithm (I'll refrain from listing those EQs for since most are older plugins).


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 6, 2010)

re-peat @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri Aug 06 said:
> 
> 
> > EnTaroAdun @ Fri Aug 06 said:
> ...



You are possibly correct, but to me it is irrelevant. We want to get done what we want to get done as quickly and effectively as possible and having several different EQs facilitates that.

And I totally disagree that good samples do not sound significantly different with the same boost/cuts in one EQ than another for all the reasons that others have listed. I do it here all the time and I hear the difference.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 6, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> We want to get done what we want to get done as quickly and effectively as possible and having several different EQs facilitates that.


You're obviously quite right and I agree completely.



Ashermusic @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> And I totally disagree that good samples do not sound significantly different with the same boost/cuts in one EQ than another for all the reasons that others have listed. I do it here all the time and I hear the difference.


This claim I have more difficulty with, as you might have expected. I've never heard it substantiated anyway, not by myself, not by anyone else. And like I said earlier, whatever difference various EQ's might generate, that difference is, in my opinion, always going to be completely inconsequential when confronted with the complete sonic picture.

_


----------



## wst3 (Aug 6, 2010)

yes, we can fool ourselves, but in my experience the closest thing to reality falls more along the lines of:
1) most cheap equalizers are interchangeable because they are all based on the same reference code.
2) once you start using equalizers that were (a) designed to a specific goal, and (b) don't use the same old reference code then there are real differences.

It's not unlike the difference between the Altec and Pultec passive equalizes. Both used inductors, resistors, and capacitors... they should sound the same... right?

They don't because the designer may have used a different filter topology, or he may have elected to use less R and more Reactance for the same cutoff point.

IF there was a digital equalizer that gave you access, either directly or indirectly, to every parameter of the filter then yes, that could mimic anything. But even something like passband ripple can differ from one implementation to another. Two Chebyshev filters may demonstrate the same amount of ripple, but it may be distributed differently.

Does any of this matter for a mockup? That's a question only the individual can answer.

From my perspective it used to be that an A&R person or music editor could listen to a melody plinked out on a piano and tell whether or not it would work for them. Now we are being driven to create ever more realistic mockups. And some folks are creating finished pieces for final production in the computer.

So yes, I think the differences are worth it even before you address issues like work-flow.

Then again, I could be all wet<G>!


----------



## bryla (Aug 6, 2010)

wst3 @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> 1) most cheap equalizers are interchangeable because they are all based on the same reference code.


As I wrote earlier: There are only 2 essential codes for equalizers - cheap or not.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 6, 2010)

kdm @ 2010-08-06 said:


> There are a lot of "simple digital" EQs that are pretty much the same, but you have simply dismissed linear phase and many filter variations that in fact provide differences, esp. for mastering.


No I haven't dissmissed it. I mentioned linear phase EQs here:
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... 191#229191
And filter variations are just different curve-forms.



kdm @ 2010-08-06 said:


> I can hear a significant difference between a basic EQ and linear phase (perhaps you've never tried PLParEQ - probably the best on the market), and between various filter types on EQs such as Redline, Electri-Q, etc).


I know PLParEQ, and I know the difference between linear phase EQing and "normal" filters.
Also it's no wonder, that different filter-forms sound different. The thing is, with a full parametric EQ you can "build" whatever curve-form you want.
Like I said numerous times now: It's a question of handling.
One EQ might provide curves, that work immediatly .. another one might need more bands to achieve the same results.



kdm @ 2010-08-06 said:


> One difference even in the basic digital variety of EQ that you didn't mention is curve/bell type - a gentler bell shap can be problematic with high frequency boosts, so not all basic digital/PEQs are the same there.


Again:
Curveform --> Handling



kdm @ 2010-08-06 said:


> Your tests with frequency response won't tell you anything either. You are only testing the pass through of the plugin.


Well .. it actually tells you the most important thing of an EQ.
And then, that's not the only thing you can analyse with the VST Plugin Analyser. It can also show phase-shift, noisefloor, harmonics, etc.



kdm @ 2010-08-06 said:


> With EQs you need to look at phase distortion, and in/out discrepencies (see Sonnox' article on this, and general commentary from Flux and Algorithmix on EQ design) to get a picture of what is happening around the basic filter curve.


For normal EQs the "phase distortion" (rather call it "frequency-dependend phase-shift") is totally dependent on the curve-form. For linear phase EQs there is no phase-shift.
I don't know, what "in/out discrepencies" should mean.
And I've read the text from Algorithmix and know what it means .. do _you_ know it?



kdm @ 2010-08-06 said:


> Most basic digital EQs now are similar in general algorithm, but vary in noise floor handling.


The noisefloor of all EQs I've ever tested was way below audibility.





Ashermusic @ 2010-08-06 said:


> We want to get done what we want to get done as quickly and effectively as possible and having several different EQs facilitates that.


Might be true for you and a lot of engineers. Isn't true for a lot of other engineers.

Since you seem to be interested in what "the pro engineers" do:
It's so often the case, that one big-name says "I always do it _that way_ .. it's a total must", and another big-name says "I never do it _that way_ .. it just doesn't work" (for example the discussion, if you should mix 'into' a compressor on the master or not).


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 6, 2010)

...


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 6, 2010)

...


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 6, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> Ashermusic @ 2010-08-06 said:
> 
> 
> > t;]We want to get done what we want to get done as quickly and effectively as possible and having several different EQs facilitates that.
> ...



That is true, but I trust the ones I work with more as I can see and hear the results. And as I am now frequently my own engineer, I know what is working for me.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 6, 2010)

Then you should work that way. Nothing to argue about it.


----------



## Udo (Aug 9, 2010)

One important aspect that hasn't been mentioned (I think) is the (at times counter-intuitive) impact of the combination of eq and compression, e.g. boost certain frequencies before compression and then reduce then again after compression - listen to the difference.

Also, I totally agree with Piet re-peat when he said: "Distantly related plugins which DO contribute something different and very useful though, are things like Noveltech's Character, Soundtoys' Decapitator or SPL's Vitalizer. Any of these is a MUCH better choice for processing sample-based audio (especially virtual drums) than a second, third or fourth EQ, in my opinion" 

BTW, Character is one of the free plugins included with TC Powercore.


----------



## no3no4 (Aug 13, 2010)

I deeply believe that different EQ have different sounds. So I always use more than two EQs in one project.


----------



## bryla (Aug 29, 2010)

Because of saturation mainly.....


----------



## bryla (Aug 29, 2010)

Because of saturation mainly.....


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 29, 2010)

Dan-Jay @ Sun Aug 29 said:


> I had to come back and mention something here.
> 
> I do not, and I repeat... DO NOT! understand why people ramble on about Parametric EQs sounding different from one another.
> 
> ...



I had a long talk with a very respected engineer about this.

According to him, it is simply a fact that any digital EQ, other than Linear Phase EQs, can in fact be made to sound identical given enough knowledge, skill, and familiarity with the behavior of the GUIs.

However, what is also a fact is that the GUIs may look the same (or different) but do different things. If you grab a handle on 2 different EQs at 8 k and boost it, you are assuming that all you are doing is boosting that frequency so the two EQs should not sound different but in fact there are slopes, shelving, and "modeling" features that are not making them behave identically so the end result does not sound the same.

So even though it is correct that they are essentially identical, IMHO what is very much non-identical is the user experience in working with them. So therefore if I can get the sound I am looking for more quickly and pleasantly as a working experience by reaching for a UAD Neve 1073 rather than Logic's Channel EQ, well, then I am happy to have that option.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Aug 29, 2010)

JohnG @ Sun Aug 29 said:


> I think Jay's point is a good one.
> 
> Analagously (I know, no such word), if one likes the old kick drum that's 16 bit, so what if it does what you want?



Actually John, fear not, 'Analogously' does exist


----------



## JohnG (Aug 29, 2010)

Ha! Spell check wrong AGAIN!


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 29, 2010)

http://www.synthschool.com/downloads/plug-ins/Filter-Explorer.zip (http://www.synthschool.com/downloads/pl ... plorer.zip)
http://www.synthschool.com/free-filter-seminar.html

At the end of the day EQ's are basically Filters.
Understanding the concept of LP/BP & HP is very beneficial.


----------

