KVR :: Effects » Equality VS Pro-Q (final answer, Equality). [View Original Topic]
There are 236 posts in this topic. Page: 1 2 3

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:34 am

---

Hi same as when i did Elephant 3 or Pro-L

there IS no other option i am considering so no point having any other voting options.

It's come between these two for my go to everyday track and overall and even master eq.

Feedback appreciated, thanks!

p.s. i won't be voting, of course

---

DaveGamble - Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:48 am

---

Can I vote?

Dave.

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:53 am

---

of course

---

DaveGamble - Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:05 am

---

Btw, how are you getting on with the questions in my email?
I can't help but feel that that might be an even better solution to your dilemma.

Dave.

---

Dr.Gunjah - Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:35 am

---

I voted for Pro-Q because IMO it has the more ergonomic GUI.
I've tested EQuality for two(or three?) demo periods, but although it has some nice features it doesn't fit my workflow.
Got confused constantly when the coloured dots in the analyser didn't have the same order like the bands below.
I finally gave up when I tried to "emulate" a pultec in Equality and realised you can't have two low shelfs(though this might have changed meanwhile)
I found that EQuality can't replace all my "character" EQs so I would use it mainly as a "surgery" EQ but for this task the UI from Pro-Q is much more intuitive.
So IMO Pro-Q is straight forward digital EQing without magic, while EQuality has potential to provide some magic... but you have to get along with it's workflow (and you should probably have good eyes )

Cheers,
Doc

---

bezusheist - Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:11 am

---

having said that...EQuality

EDIT: man, don't those look soooo good right now?

---

DaveGamble - Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:31 am

---

What he said ^^ .

Dave.

---

3ee - Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:37 am

---

No apples and oranges please... I'll vote for EQuality because IMO it's obviously better in sound quality!

---

Kriminal - Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:43 am

---

pro-q, its got a better name

---

contrary - Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:48 am

---

Another factor is that if you have EQuality , you get a discount on COMPASSION.
If you have Pro-Q , you will get discounts twoards other marvelous FF products ........


THis is pretty much a choice between diamonds encrusteed with gold or gold encrusted with diamonds ..... hard to go wrong.

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:48 am

---

i don't agree with this apples oranges things they are both designed mainly as track eq's.

Regarding questions Dave i thought to leave it for a while whilst compassion was on the agenda, i didn;t really think about it to be honest so far, I have been trying to keep on top of everything else.

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:10 am

---

i can get pro q for 80 quid at present due to my fab filter account. After i buy it i will sell pro c and everything else besides pro-l which i will keep.

Unless i get equality. I am very torn. I can;t afford both. Logic's track eq is awful in comparison to both of them, but ok for gentle cuts if desperate

---

sonicpowa - Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:11 am

---

The sound quality is the most important at the end and EQuality wins that.

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:18 am

---

maybe for gentle boosts. I dunno. Juts a bit more versatility in the eq TYPES in equality for me which i liked, fab still sounds great but more limited slopes and eq types. i love them both.

---

DubLifeSD - Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:19 am

---

Another vote for Pro-q

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:24 am

---

actually TBh i think sound quality is high on both, it's whether i prefer more versatile filters and modes, or more bands basically (and much lower cpu with pro q)

i see equality is taking a decent lead, i was expecting that, it's very popular

---

bezusheist - Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:35 am

---

@ttoz....you're worse than my wife trying to pick out an outfit for a night out,,,geeez...

hmm...let's see,,,i like Equality because it really matches my eyes nicely, but Pro-Q, on the other hand, really brings out the blush on my cheeks...what to do, what to do?...

EDIT: sorry,...just bustin' bolls...

---

toine6 - Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:59 am

---

Haven't tested either one but I would think they are both more or less EQUALizers. Fabfilter makes quality products, but I would probably prefer Equalities interface slightly more. I'd test them both out and then decide what appealed to me more sound and interface wise.

---

Nielzie - Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:05 pm

---

That's a hard choice between those two Perhaps flip a coin?

(I would personally choose Pro-Q by the way, because.. it's FabFilter, masters of clean super high quality filters and algoritmes, low cpu optimized and I like their GUI's. But I must confess I do not know that much about EQuality other then Dave is an established developer who worked for big companies, so he must be good. )

---

Igro - Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:14 pm

---

too hard choise. Pro-q has unlimited bands. But Equaity has different eq modes.

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:56 pm

---

exactly. and of course @toine6 i am testing extensively, for 23 days now to be precise. The 30 day demos got activated on both same time.

---

bmanic - Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:12 pm

---

Eh? You got Pro-L after all? I thought you went with Elephant.

Anyhow, in my opinion, for bread and butter, everyday EQ tasks Pro-Q is hard to beat. The GUI is just so incredibly nice to use and it has all the features you could ever ask for. Especially the latest update that added Notch filters and the ability to solo each EQ band.

I do think Equality perhaps sounds a bit better than Pro-Q in some of it's more specialty modes but the differences are extremely subtle.

Cheers!
bManic

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:14 pm

---

yeah of course, i never bought elephant at all, last minute i realized i needed the simplicity of Pro-L, and also it was native 64 bit:) Elephant was too complex overall even though sounded fantastic. The way solo is implemented in Pro-Q is superb.

---

Mushy Mushy - Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:31 pm

---

ProQ every time.

---

Funkybot's Evil Twin - Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:33 pm

---

The first time I heard Equality I just fell in love with it's sound. For me, that became the only thing that matters.

---

vata44 - Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:47 pm

---

I am right there with Dr. Gunjah...

The Pro-Q is just point click and drag.... done. Smooth, fast and to the point. The extra 1-2 steps on any other EQ now only slow me down and annoy me.

Fab-Q = best purchase EVER.

---

4damind - Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:47 pm

---

Fabfilter makes the best GUIs. Never seen such good looking but also usable GUIs. But this isn't a painting contest and for the sound I prefer EQuality.

---

Orchidius - Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:48 pm

---

+1

Especially top end. Okay and GUI. And sympathy for the dev

Tested it for one demo period and have yet to scrape the money together, but then: Equality.

Edit: a shame that after the wedding the pound is falling again. Not unexpectedly though

---

Cooker - Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:52 pm

---

Tested both; if mastering can be a priority pro-q can be preferred. Equality has its benefits in mixing when compared but I find it subtle if I had to choose between them.

---

BASSDRIVE - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:11 pm

---

I like Pro-Q better. Its GUI helps me so much in terms of workflow. It's just clean as hell! If I could touch Pro-Q, I'd polish and wax that thing daily. Might even lick it. haha

---

D Midas - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:12 pm

---

Haven't tried equality. Tried Fab filter. Best EQ I've ever used. And seem like a great company to boot. Gave me an extension on my original trial period. All Fab Filter plus HIGHLY reccomended.

---

bmanic - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:13 pm

---

I would actually had said the exact opposite. For mixing I'd choose Pro-Q but for mastering I go for Equality every time. Partly because you do not need that many bands in mastering and mainly because of the sound quality.

Cheers!
bManic

---

koolkeys - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:16 pm

---

I think one thing that EQuality has going for it, besides better sound(apparently, though it's not exactly a large difference, is it?) and filter slope options, is that it's more configurable by a good amount. Pro-Q does have a larger graph and the better interface overall, but lacks a couple of things like K-metering(or really any metering besides the spectrum analyzer), multiple A/B settings(EQuality has 8, Pro-Q has two), auto-listen, etc.

Pro-Q's method of splitting bands for mid-side is SLICK, and is not to be missed. And of course, more bands.

Both devs are quality devs, great copy protection, always improving products, and honestly, you won't go wrong with either one. There are just enough differences that may decide what is best for you.

One thing is for sure, at least to me; these two EQ plugs are at the top of the EQ market. They may not do emulations of classic gear, but for tracking EQ, there really isn't anything better out there, is there(Redline does get honorable mention, and I own it from being a tester, but it's not as smooth as these two)?

Brent

---

BASSDRIVE - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:17 pm

---

+1 for FuckFilter

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:31 pm

---

maybe the whole point is, to actually have both in this case. I am starting to actually believe this.

OK, different way of putting it. Do you believe having both of these covers every possible eq task imaginable in the world of mixing?

---

koolkeys - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:35 pm

---

Yes.......except for dynamic EQ. You'll need COMPassion for that.

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:41 pm

---

or gliss eq but thats 32 bit. grrr.

---

4damind - Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:48 pm

---

I think Fabfilter is without much competitors with the Timeless and Volcano2.
But not for the Pro-C,Pro-Q and Pro-L....

---

Dr.Gunjah - Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:06 pm

---

IMO, no.

Like already said you don't have dynamic EQing and they both don't replace all those "character" EQs, that have so many different flavours.

Cheers,
Doc

---

milosh_ - Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:57 pm

---

I am sure you can do amazing mixes using either Pro-Q or EQuality.
It is a choice of everyones taste.
Thats why I am not voting
I use PRO-Q but just because I bought it.

---

A.M. Gold - Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:38 pm

---

They are different but apples and oranges may be a stretch. Does Pro-Q even have a linear phase mode?

I tend to like the open architecture approach of Pro-Q more than the knobs and graph approach of EQuality. I don't own Pro-Q but I'm perfectly happy with no knobs on IIEQ Pro and the fact that any of the ten bands can be any filter type.

---

A.M. Gold - Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:40 pm

---

I recall you saying that IIEQ Pro, which is $15, was every bit as good as EQuality.

Or is it the linear phase mode you need? Have you tried DDMF's LP EQ?

---

DaveGamble - Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:58 pm

---

He said that?

---

A.M. Gold - Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:01 pm

---

Yea, at one point he said EQuality definitely didn't have better sound quality than IIEQ Pro. Not too long ago, in fact, but he wasn't making a comparison about any other features or design aspects.

---

A.M. Gold - Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:03 pm

---

Dave, this is a little OT, but since phase-linear was brought up (by me ), I'm curious as to whether you ever demoed this.

I don't have the Cadillac 10-band version but I and some others were given the 3 band, which has identical sonics, as a sort of impromptu beta-testing gift.

---

Electrobop - Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:48 pm

---

Have COMPassion on your deepest desires.
Not all things are even close to EQual.
Buy the BUNDLE!



Electrobop

---

hibidy - Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:59 pm

---

I'm confused though because I thought someone was not impressed with "pro-q"



However, I really liked pro q, the only reason I sold it is I wanted a new guitar (that's what I spent the money on with all the stuff I sold) and since I used reaper 97.3% of the time, their q is good enough.

God, it's amazing how point I still am

Other than that MM eq that ttoz likes, I'm not super interested in q's. Besides, I also have mixcontrol which is a good eq. I've been fortunate financially though since I posted this so I'm open

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:16 pm

---

re DDMF, slow unresponsive visual analyzer (remember i am half deaf), the LINEAR PHASE LP10 minimum phase mode DOES sound as good as equality (KMO) but uses THREE times the CPU, iieq pro is great but limited HP LP slopes

I have been requesting more filterslopes for ages because they are not steep enough and that simple update just doesn't seem to be happening, i guess you get what you pay for?? and no 64 bit, and since i run logic 64 bit and only ONE 32 bit gui bridged plug in can be opened at once, imagine when you need an eq on every track how messy that could be, it' actually unworkable.

I also didn't see the value in pro q at the time either. But now i am at 64 bit so it has to be one of these two.

I hope that explains. I have given ddmf enough time but need to move on. Actually i thought it was ProQ i said ddmf sounded as good as, but anyway...

When i am working with loops there is nothing more important than being to able accurately highpass low frequencies so they can fit together with my kick drum. The logic high pass sounds awful.

sorry Dave don't cry yet LOL.

---

TheoM - Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:17 pm

---

I wasn't. The notch and solo update and reasons above changed alot. Fair enough?

remember i never didn't LIKE them, i couldnt' see the value at the TIME over ddmf. That's all. I have rechecked my posts and that's exactly what i said. Didn't say they sounded bad. sheesh!

Anyway this is so neck and neck i am just going to get both as it seems ultimately that's what i need, and use mellowmuse vintage eq for color or perhaps psp if they go 64 bit.

After i process like 15 license transfers today i will get to buying eqs.

---

hibidy - Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:24 pm

---

Of course!

just jokin' around

---

vata44 - Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:31 pm

---

As others have mentioned it all boils down to personal preference. For me the GUI and flow of Fab Q is just flawless... perfect for me in every respect. The one annoyance of Fab Q is the CPU usage so I end up replacing it with the IIEQPro (takes time, but when I need to start saving CPU its a life saver).

Each instance of my Fab Q eats about 3-6%

IIEQPro has not taken more than 2% on any occasion (I have turned everything on!)

If EQuality gets the user interface of Fab Q and the CPU efficiency of IIEQPro, I will convert. However, for now nothing comes close to how quick I can get what I need with Fab Q and nothing is as clean and low CPU as IIEQPro.

Sorry EQuality, cool name, but your just not equal.

---

Cooker - Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:54 pm

---

I understand what you mean. I had linear-phase modes in mind when comparing and also as someone mentioned emulating a pultec. Choice of sample rate (working itb here)also must be considered but all these are personal approaches.

I actually like voxengo harmonieq and (sometimes used) melda mfreeformeq the most

---

bezusheist - Sun May 01, 2011 1:09 am

---

...with EQuality in analog mode, i can get a spot on "emulation" of my Tascam PE40...
(the older guys are laughing at me, and the kids are googling "tascam pe40", then laughing at me...)
but seriously...you can get plenty of "character" out of EQuality...it's there, you just need to find it...
Pro-Q looks magical, but EQuality IS magical...

---

Krzysztof Oktalski - Sun May 01, 2011 2:00 am

---

I will say that in the next few months, you certainly won't need both. This is an issue that we are in the process of fixing.

Also, I can't believe you haven't factored Dave into your decision. When you started moaning about EQuality limitations the other day I'm pretty sure I recall him offering to make you a copy of EQuality that did exactly what you wanted? Have you ever seen that from any other pro-dsp dev? Dave is not going to let another EQ surpass EQuality, and he looks after his users.

---

Krzysztof Oktalski - Sun May 01, 2011 2:06 am

---

No, you pay your money, you take your chances. When people asked for steeper filter slopes, Dave obliged and updated within days. This is the real difference with EQuality.

---

AlienForce - Sun May 01, 2011 2:36 am

---

Then you'll love the HP filter of Duende SSL Channel.
In EQuality do this: HPF = 18 dB/oct and Q = 1.
It sounds exactly the same as SSL's HP filter

--
All the best,
Paul

---

Dr.Gunjah - Sun May 01, 2011 2:59 am

---

That's strange... I found it to be extremely lightweight.
Do you have a very old machine? or maybe a bug?

One instance with LP-Max Mode, 16 Bands and Analyzer activated uses not even 3% on my old core2duo 2.4ghz.
With only 4 bands and Zero Latency Mode it's <1%

Cheers,
Doc

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 4:46 am

---

@ttoz You know when I said this issue would get resolved for you in a few weeks time? Because there'd be a version of EQuality that outright replaces Pro-Q? And then I invited you to come help design it? I think you missed that.

I'm bored of this thread now. I need to actually be building the product. Krzysztof already has Photoshop open.
And it'll be a free upgrade for existing EQuality owners.

Enough of this; as much as I love hanging out chatting about these things (and I do), I +REALLY+ need to get code written

Dave.

---

rhythmtechnologies - Sun May 01, 2011 4:51 am

---

pro-q because i already bought it.

given the option now, after demoing e-quality, i dont think i could choose. both are a huge step forward in workflow and both are very well made plugins. i think i'd nearly be flipping a coin!

---

4damind - Sun May 01, 2011 5:07 am

---

Btw. the intelligent mute mode of the updated Pro-Q version is very interesting. It's a bit like Auto-Listen from Equality but will enabled directly inside the curve in the layered info window. IMO it's a good workflow design. This are some of this small points, why so many (we can say 95%) find the GUI of Fabfilter so very well designed.
Also Pro-Q now has a pre+post Analyzer view, so both curves are displayed together.

From the last Pro-Q update (April 2011):
- Added an intelligent solo mode for EQ bands. Click and hold the solo button (in the parameter value display) to enter solo mode for the current EQ band. Now, you don't hear the effect of the EQ band itself, but instead you will hear the part of the frequency spectrum that is being affected by that band. Of course, the frequency range depends on the frequency and Q settings, and is visualized in the display as well.

- Improved the built-in spectrum analyzer with smoother curves, a combined Pre+Post mode and customizable resolution and speed settings, accessible via the Analyzer drop-down menu in the bottom bar of the plug-in.

---

Guenon - Sun May 01, 2011 5:19 am

---

That feature (which was added this April) is one of those "why didn't anyone think of this sooner" ideas for sure. I absolutely love it. Also, the ability to split any point to L/R right there on the curve is very smooth indeed.

---

vata44 - Sun May 01, 2011 5:28 am

---

Knock it out of the park and I will be there to catch it. I am only loyal to Fab Q until something else truly kicks its ass on all levels.

---

keel - Sun May 01, 2011 5:44 am

---

Isn't all digital EQ's sounds same? People claim all the time "that EQ sounds so shit blaablaa". I'm using FL's own PEQ2, cause it is super super light on cpu, has really nice "analyzer". It get job done. I don't hear any difference on using PEQ2, equality or pro-q. Sure there is differences between linear phase and so on modes, but in digital, they all just sound same imo..

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 5:48 am

---

Try measuring frequency responses. EQuality is far beyond Pro-Q, or any other digital EQ for that matter, in Digital mode.

There was a thread on this on GS. Go find that. EQuality is the only EQ that passes every test for signal processing.

Dave.

TL;DR: Really, really, really no. Handling of top-end by Digital EQs is a minefield fraught with problems. EQuality actually solves the problem. If you find you need three bands in most EQs to get your top-end to sound good, you can probably do it in one with EQuality.

---

TheoM - Sun May 01, 2011 7:13 am

---

of course i factor dave into the decision. Geez LOL. I can;t believe i was even asked that. Dave's attitude has made him one of my favorite devs instantly even if i am not a customer yet. It would be my pleasure to support him.

I thought at some point i said i was thinking to get both.. did that get missed?

I don't see anything wrong with this poll at all. They are two popular products, and money is tight and pro-q is cheaper, so again, i am just thinking, thinking.

@Dave, regardless, i think i am choosing equality and if your new super eq really does replace Fab Filter in every way then you'll save me 80 quid there:) I would rather have an all in one at all times TBH. Yes i will help you design it not that i am an expert or something. I don't think this poll would have actually existed if i didn;t think in my mind equality sounded better, that's what made the choice difficult.

What exactly can i do to *help* ?

---

TheoM - Sun May 01, 2011 7:16 am

---

i might like it but it's codemeter and 32 bit only.

Equality and fab filter high pass both sound great to me with equality having more choices of steepness.

---

kelldammit - Sun May 01, 2011 7:26 am

---

What Dave said. The acid test is the top end, particularly when boosting it. EQuality shines for this.

Here's a simple test: Take a track of cymbals, and add a sharp hp filter at around 3k. On a low-quality eq, that's usually enough to wreck things all on its own. The cymbals will often start to sound a bit..."crispy" (as in "fried", not "crisp and clear"). To further aggravate things, start boosting at frequencies above the HP cutoff. On a "so-so" eq, the problems become immediately apparent.

So as much as all digital eq's are theoretically the same, in practice, they are most certainly not.

kell

---

TheoM - Sun May 01, 2011 7:32 am

---

see i already noticed and said ages ago equality is superior in boosting the top end. So even for a half deaf person i do get some things right

Yes i have decided on equality. Now it's just to decide whether the bundle or just equality.

So there you go, decision made.

---

poshook - Sun May 01, 2011 7:37 am

---

buy ddmf IIEQ Pro. it is much cheaper and sound quality is similar

---

TheoM - Sun May 01, 2011 7:45 am

---

have it. it crashes the au bridge, i no longer use 32 bit plugins.

---

keel - Sun May 01, 2011 7:57 am

---

Dave, i sent you video about equality cpu-usage. I forgot to say in email, that I have Q9550 processor.

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 8:17 am

---

Hopefully you have my reply.
We'll absolutely get to the bottom of this.

Dave.

---

manducator - Sun May 01, 2011 8:20 am

---

Did I miss something?

Equality = 99.99£
Pro-Q = 129£

Or do you have a discount coupon?

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 8:24 am

---

He has a discount coupon.

Can someone tell me to get off the internet and write some code please?
Otherwise I'll be emailing and forum posting all day.

Dave.

---

manducator - Sun May 01, 2011 8:26 am

---

Dave,

Get off the internet and write some code, please!

---

olepro - Sun May 01, 2011 8:28 am

---

Hmm... looks like the audience is split 50-50, maybe you should call a friend

---

pikadilly - Sun May 01, 2011 8:59 am

---

I had been using FL's peq2 for mixing sometimes. After buying eQuality, there is no way back really. I tested Equality among Redline eq and Pro-Q. Equality sounds most pleasant to my ears, even with steep cut or high q. Equality's interface is helpful to my workflow. The only thing I hope for Equality is it becoming more CPu efficient like PeQ2. But I guess that would be hard since Peq2 is FLS-native.

I could've also gotten Pro-Q too. But I found Pro-L is more interesting and suitable to my need. I might get Pro-Q in the future.

---

bmanic - Sun May 01, 2011 9:26 am

---

The problem with the "every digital EQ sounds the same argument" is people who refuse to READ the original threads properly and understand them.

Up until a few years ago, most plugin EQ's used identical algorithms. Usually the Orpfanidis, RBJ (as described in his famous "cook book") or any of those Russian geniuse's coefficients. Obviously there is MUCH more to digital filters than just these but the mentioned ones are simple, there is lots of data available and they work well enough for most cases. THIS is the reason a ton of plugins all sound and behave exactly the same (when you match the curves).

However, having said that, there are of course other techniques and ways of creating digital filters which means it is of course possible to create something unique, and not just differently shaped curves. Obviously Dave has some interesting way of doing things as by measuring the impulse response of the filters you get different results than from a typical digital EQ design.



Unfortunately our minds are too susceptible to the placebo effect to truly be able to trust our own opinions when it comes to these very subtle things. You really just have to measure them (quite easy when it comes to digital EQs) and try to understand what is going on.

There are tons of people who swore that Waves Q10 was a superior sounding EQ back in the day, when in fact they used the most basic of algorithms that you can get. Even after several people proved their point by completely nulling the Q10 native version (note: the PT TDM version is different, can't null it to the native version.. probably due to some internal rounding differences/dither) to some freeware EQ plugin.

Marketing + placebo is a very powerful combo. Don't fall for it.

Anyhow, I just wish for Equality with Pro-Q GUI. That'd be the ultimate digital EQ for me.

Cheers!
bManic

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 9:29 am

---

I'd like to now confirm that this is a go.

Dave.

---

bmanic - Sun May 01, 2011 9:32 am

---

.. and there we have it!!!

A W E S O M E!!

Cheers Dave!
bManic

---

Dr.Gunjah - Sun May 01, 2011 9:42 am

---

really?

looking forward to the new take on the gui

Cheers,
Doc

---

keel - Sun May 01, 2011 9:42 am

---

Thanks for this mate



THIS + PEQ2 cpu-usage

---

Exhile - Sun May 01, 2011 9:42 am

---

Oh you mean ..... Now what am i supposed to do with my fabfilter total bundle

And i thought i was sorted with Pro-C and Pro-Q

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 9:45 am

---

Yeah, investigating the CPU usage. After Compassion 1.02, that's my main outstanding task for EQuality 1.12.

Dave.

---

4damind - Sun May 01, 2011 9:55 am

---

---

docdued - Sun May 01, 2011 10:01 am

---

Hmmm... I can still remember you posting about this so it can't be THAT long ago Ceterum censeo: all digital EQs are 99.99% the same (soundwise, that is), although this has been repeated so many times people start to not believe it anymore...

---

TheoM - Sun May 01, 2011 10:39 am

---

anyway doc both iieq pro and LP10 crash logic's bit bridge eventually and also stop the spacebar from allowing to play (other plugins in the bit bridg don't have this problem)

Dave says equality sounds better than other digital eq's.

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 10:46 am

---

Actually it measures better. You definitely don't need to take my word for it. Get the analysers out.

Most people seem to find that after working with EQuality for a little while, they have a hard time getting the same top-end control with anything else.

Dave.

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 10:48 am

---

In linear phase modes, sure. Near enough. Windowing and IR length are big factors, of course.

As IIRs, not so. http://www.eiosis.com/images/amlt/EQCurveComparison.gif
As an EQ designer it's very important to understand what this table represents.

Dave.

---

Dr.Gunjah - Sun May 01, 2011 11:10 am

---

To me this looks like marketing... but well I'm not a EQ designer

Cheers,
Doc

---

4damind - Sun May 01, 2011 11:19 am

---

Have a good product and tell others that it's great
But Fabrice from Eiosis and SlateDigital is a good DSP developer and AirEQ is not the worst EQ

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 11:19 am

---

It's stuff you can measure yourself with a spectrum analyser
It's a checkbox list of whether you actually get what you ask for when you dial in a band of EQ.

Dave.

---

Dr.Gunjah - Sun May 01, 2011 12:10 pm

---

Hey Dave,

that it can be measured doesn't necessarily mean that it can actually be heard
When you're talking about EQuality providing better "sound quality", what does it actually mean?
Does it mean, that EQuality matches the filter curves more accurately?
Does it sound more "musical"? (I love this marketing word )
Less aliasing? (or any other kind of digital "error"? )

I wasn't able to tell a massive difference between Pro-Q and EQuality in digital mode. Also EQuality didn't have that "magic" for me that for example the softube PE 1C or the ik pultec provide. Most likely we all have a different opinion about what "magic" is

Now I'm looking on this sheet and it says things like "analog like curve"... but considering there are so many different analog EQs out there and all of them have different frequency responses... which "analog like curve" is it they are talking about?

No offence, I just want to understand it and generally I'm always interested in improving my knowledge about those things

Cheers,
Doc

---

DaveGamble - Sun May 01, 2011 12:44 pm

---

Sure, but with calibrated monitoring, this can be heard pretty easily.

The best way of measuring it I've found, is with a watch. With a good EQ, the mix comes together quite a lot faster, because there's less work to be done at the top end.



There is a set of equations, from physics, of the form H(s)=s^2 + G/Qs +1 / (s^2 +1/GQ s +1)
(that's a peaking EQ, for instance), and what's interesting is how well a Digital EQ can implement that shape.

That shape is symmetric (on the log scale) and consistent. Most Digital EQs, around Nyquist, are not.


You'll need to test with audio that has some high frequency content. I think someone suggested cymbals earlier in the thread, which will make it more obvious.
That said, if you're listening on uncalibrated monitors, you're going to have a hard time.
I'm a VERY strong advocate of borrowing a reference mic and tuning your monitors. It's the closest thing there is to a silver bullet for audio production.



The "magic" is pretty well established to be a combination of distortion (which EQuality doesn't do) and interaction (which EQuality does do, on a slider). Things like shelf Shift get you a long way towards the Pultec sound.


Actually, not so much.
There are certainly EQs which are exceptions; the Pultec which interacts so heavily, it's more like a guitar tone control than an EQ, or some parallel graphic equalisers, but, excepting how the term "Q" in that above equation is, or is not influenced by the value G (how gain and bandwidth interact), analogue EQs do the same job.

With analogue EQs, available range, noise floor, interaction, whether the pots crackle, etc, are the defining factors.



None taken. I hope my explanation isn't too hurried! I'm in a rush to head out and get some food.
One task left before Compassion 1.02

Dave.

---

Dr.Gunjah - Sun May 01, 2011 3:20 pm

---

Ok, think I'm getting the point now.

As you wrote about improving the GUI of EQuality it might be a good opportunity to check this again... when it's finally out then.
Of course only if you'll be so kind to grant me yet another demo period
(I'm really starting to get a guilty conscience about this )

Cheers,
Doc

---

bezusheist - Sun May 01, 2011 3:42 pm

---

will we still be able to have the current EQuality GUI because i love it the way it is and i think Pro-Q is insanely ugly and hard to work with,,,

---

keel - Sun May 01, 2011 4:34 pm

---

"You can still use old version" -gol

---

cosmosis - Sun May 01, 2011 6:03 pm

---

Well this is a shocking turn of events When can we see?

---

A.M. Gold - Sun May 01, 2011 8:14 pm

---

That's cool, good news. I think it makes sense to at least have an alternate GUI that is open and mostly graph-based. Maybe the old GUI or version can coexist with it for those who want that kind of structure.

---

TheoM - Sun May 01, 2011 8:16 pm

---

so basically according to those tests which equality is not featured, the izotope has analog curves in digital mode and warped ones in analog

---

There are 236 posts in this topic.
Page: 1 2 3