best eq?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

zlatan wrote:I just bought the Maag Eq4 plug in after testing for about an hour and couldn't achieve the same result with any other plug in .
Was that just my mind trying to justify this purchase ?

:hihi:
just because it says 5khz on the knob, doesnt mean it actually is 5Khz
If your plugin is a Synth-edit/synth-maker creation, Say So.
If not Make a Mac version of your Plugins Please.

https://soundcloud.com/realmarco

...everyone is out to get me!!!!!!!

Post

realmarco wrote:
just because it says 5khz on the knob, doesnt mean it actually is 5Khz
Uhhh what ???

Did I say somewhere I was using my eyes to match the sound ?

Post

what works for me is EQ8 that is native to LIVE

very versitile
expert only on what it feels like to be me
https://soundcloud.com/mrnatural-1/tracks

Post

fruity eq
Has anybody ever really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Post

realmarco wrote:
Jafo wrote:ReaEQ -- very plain simple uncolored digital EQ, non-saturating, but it does the resonant low/high-pass Pultec kinda thing. ParisEQ for some grunge. Audiocation EQ for color and general use. Pultec clone (Leftover Lasagne's and Ignite's are my current faves) for Pultec color. ColorEQ and SplineEQ for neat color. Sonalksis EQ is superb, but it's only on other peoples' rigs, alas. Oh, and Electri-Q does some neat things as well. I tend to use ReaEQ the most, 'cause my source materials tend to be pretty cruddy -- err, grungy. Yeah, that's it.

Or just use some of Bootsy's new stuff for precision, color, and saturation. The best software is knowledge and practice, but damn, his stuff is like a talent injection. :hihi:

umm you should read this http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=361

Dave gamble is in that as well
Thanks man.
I've got the Sonitus:fx fro 19.99. That's all I need then.
BTW anyone knows if they work with JBridge? And it's OK to JBridge effects (extra CPU usage)?
MuLab-Reaper of course :D

Post

33tetragammon wrote:
DaveGamble wrote:
Anyway, I'm on thread. Any questions I can answer?

Dave.
Yeah....how's that new eq coming? Will it have dynamic eq options as well?....Will it be as diverse as Compassion is as a dynamic processor?
New EQ coming along nicely. Lots of things I think will excite.

It is indeed as diverse an EQ as Compassion is for dynamics.

Dynamic EQ options - no; I still think you'll get better (sounding) results from Compassion. Quick howto:
- Advanced->Main EQ-> Filter in the band that you want to EQ.
- Set up Compassion to make that band pop/dip as you want (the EQ->SC option allows you to trigger it from a completely different EQ of the input signal).
- Engage "LP Split" and mix the processed band back against everything else.

That'll get you the most transparent De-Esser I've been able to find; assuming, of course, you choose to set Compassion to be transparent... ;)

I do intend to build a dedicated dynamic EQ with an optimised workflow, but using Compassion in this way gives SO MUCH flexibility it's hard for me to look past it.
On a sidenote : Dave, using Compassion as a mastering limiter sounds godd$%n amazing (The 'big limit' preset)!!!!! I LOVE YOUR STUFF!!!!!!! Puts all other limiters to shame, even that very well-loved Dutch limiter.....IMVHO of course.
:D Thanks!!

Dave.
[ DMGAudio ] | [ DMGAudio Blog ] | dave AT dmgaudio DOT com

Post

antithesist wrote:Guys, ask Dave some more questions before he disappears into the mist again. I can't decide if I want to go with global warming, brane cosmology, or this Mayan end-of-the-world thing.

Signed, P-Brane
Global warming - no comment. Don't know enough to provide useful commentary.

Brane Cosmology - looks promising, and we do need some promise given that supersymmetry is not looking healthy.

The Mayan end-of-the-world thing is nonsense; time to print a new calendar, NOTHING more. Mayan experts are agreed on this. It's only a crackpot selling books that pushed the idea.

Dave.
[ DMGAudio ] | [ DMGAudio Blog ] | dave AT dmgaudio DOT com

Post

liquidsound wrote:Here is a question from someone learning mixing etc.
I was shopping for EQ and of course the Equick and Equality always come up from forums users among other great EQs
My question is: for tracks work is Equick a better choice than Equality? Is Equality geared mostly for Mastering?
:help:
For track work, EQuality and EQuick are sonically identical. The difference is one of workflow.

EQuick ditches the knobs/values for fast graph-based editing. EQuality is a lot more of a traditional interface to EQ.

It's very much the case that you need to play with them (hence the 30day unrestricted demo) and figure out what "clicks" for you.

They're both extremely competent for both mixing and mastering work. If you're starting out, you might find that one makes you faster than the other.

For instance, some people find it much easier to have a big graph, and correlate what they hear with what they see.
Other people find the graph a massive distraction, and just having a row of knobs and listening proves much easier.

EQuality is a best-of-both-worlds in terms of being able to pick, but EQuick goes further, and takes the idea of graph-only to the logical conclusion.

Dave.
[ DMGAudio ] | [ DMGAudio Blog ] | dave AT dmgaudio DOT com

Post

Dave, many thanks for your answers! I'll definitely check out that "dynamic eq" Compassion tip.

While i'm at it : how about some tutorials (videos or whatever) on the DMG site (or blog) regarding Compassion and that evil, nasty and fabulous plugin that bends/destroys time? Please, share with us mere mortals your Divine dynamics and time-traveling wisdom.....
Or pass it on to Dan Worrall for another one of his fabulous (no pun intended!) video tutorials.....
Last edited by 33tetragammon on Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

realmarco wrote: dunno if this has been already done but how about each bands has its own slight processing.

big eq boosting you could futz with the phase, like the more u dial the more slightly out of of the inputs phase for only certain bands

basically having each band have processing but subtly. Like boosting the low mid engages a subtle limiter


and a Hi-shelf band having some Aphex-like aural exciting

that would really make a difference in an EQ plugin trying to stand out from other EQs
As a rule of design, doing anything unexpected reduces the user's degree of control.

Doing something unexpected can provide character... but you'll find that the unexpected behaviour needs to be continuous, as a function of the user's control (so, the more you do X, the more you get unexpected Y).

Discontinuous unexpected behaviour is perceived as "brokenness". Because all of a sudden, something jumps, or acts funny.

Another rule is this: There is no process that sounds universally good for all source material.
If there was such a thing, we'd have the magical "turd polisher" of legend, and we'd crank it up to max on every channel.

Hence we need control over processes - so we can steer the process towards sounding good for the source material at hand.

The new EQ does provide extremely detailed phase control, from parallel bands to freely-adjustable phase.

Any dynamic processing (limiter/exciters) needs to depend on the input level, and so we need level calibration controls to add to the chain, plus controls for the dynamics, which will never sound good for /everything/.

The 'novelty' processing you describe would make an EQ plugin stand out... but not as an EQ plugin; rather a characterful processor, a novelty box of mangling weirdness. And sometimes it would make things sound good, and sometimes it would not.

I have to make this next EQ stand out by being well-engineered, well-designed, extremely versatile, processor efficient, and sounding unbelievably awesome.

Dave.
[ DMGAudio ] | [ DMGAudio Blog ] | dave AT dmgaudio DOT com

Post

33tetragammon wrote:Dave, many thanks for your answers! I'll definitely check out that "dynamic eq" Compassion tip.

While i'm at it : how about some tutorials (videos or whatever) on the DMG site (or blog) regarding Compassion and that evil, nasty and fabulous plugin that bends/destroys time? Please, share with us mere mortals your Divine dynamics and time-traveling wisdom.....
Hehe. There is actually a plan for this. Truth is, to make progress with DSP, I have to get my head down and concentrate as hard as I can, which is what I've been doing for a while now. And now I have some extremely fun DSP. Some really evil maths.

I'll chase up the video thing. And the preset exchange thing.

Dave.
[ DMGAudio ] | [ DMGAudio Blog ] | dave AT dmgaudio DOT com

Post

I understand completely Dave.. Just do your creative magic, please stay in that zone....

Regarding the tutorials.....there's this guy called Dan Worrall...he makes these fabulous tutorials about discovering your inner Alchemist and whatnot (no pun intended)...... :D

Post

DaveGamble wrote:
liquidsound wrote:Here is a question from someone learning mixing etc.
I was shopping for EQ and of course the Equick and Equality always come up from forums users among other great EQs
My question is: for tracks work is Equick a better choice than Equality? Is Equality geared mostly for Mastering?
:help:
For track work, EQuality and EQuick are sonically identical. The difference is one of workflow.

EQuick ditches the knobs/values for fast graph-based editing. EQuality is a lot more of a traditional interface to EQ.

It's very much the case that you need to play with them (hence the 30day unrestricted demo) and figure out what "clicks" for you.

They're both extremely competent for both mixing and mastering work. If you're starting out, you might find that one makes you faster than the other.

For instance, some people find it much easier to have a big graph, and correlate what they hear with what they see.
Other people find the graph a massive distraction, and just having a row of knobs and listening proves much easier.

EQuality is a best-of-both-worlds in terms of being able to pick, but EQuick goes further, and takes the idea of graph-only to the logical conclusion.

Dave.
I'm not a knob type. The EQuick then, so I can skip JBridge for the Sonitus.
Thanks a lot.
:D
MuLab-Reaper of course :D

Post

zlatan wrote:
realmarco wrote:
just because it says 5khz on the knob, doesnt mean it actually is 5Khz
Uhhh what ???

Did I say somewhere I was using my eyes to match the sound ?
some devs have been messing around with their buttons to make us believe their sound is different from other Eq plugins.

by tweaking the actual frequency numbers like knob one says 5kh but its actually 6 khz

the only way to detect it is to nul it with white(or pink) noise while looking at a spectrum analyzer
If your plugin is a Synth-edit/synth-maker creation, Say So.
If not Make a Mac version of your Plugins Please.

https://soundcloud.com/realmarco

...everyone is out to get me!!!!!!!

Post

DaveGamble wrote:
realmarco wrote: dunno if this has been already done but how about each bands has its own slight processing.

big eq boosting you could futz with the phase, like the more u dial the more slightly out of of the inputs phase for only certain bands

basically having each band have processing but subtly. Like boosting the low mid engages a subtle limiter


and a Hi-shelf band having some Aphex-like aural exciting

that would really make a difference in an EQ plugin trying to stand out from other EQs
As a rule of design, doing anything unexpected reduces the user's degree of control.

Doing something unexpected can provide character... but you'll find that the unexpected behaviour needs to be continuous, as a function of the user's control (so, the more you do X, the more you get unexpected Y).

Discontinuous unexpected behaviour is perceived as "brokenness". Because all of a sudden, something jumps, or acts funny.

Another rule is this: There is no process that sounds universally good for all source material.
If there was such a thing, we'd have the magical "turd polisher" of legend, and we'd crank it up to max on every channel.

Hence we need control over processes - so we can steer the process towards sounding good for the source material at hand.

The new EQ does provide extremely detailed phase control, from parallel bands to freely-adjustable phase.

Any dynamic processing (limiter/exciters) needs to depend on the input level, and so we need level calibration controls to add to the chain, plus controls for the dynamics, which will never sound good for /everything/.

The 'novelty' processing you describe would make an EQ plugin stand out... but not as an EQ plugin; rather a characterful processor, a novelty box of mangling weirdness. And sometimes it would make things sound good, and sometimes it would not.

I have to make this next EQ stand out by being well-engineered, well-designed, extremely versatile, processor efficient, and sounding unbelievably awesome.

Dave.
hmm.
...wait how about a cross-over plugin. like a multi-band.
with effects(eq,dynamics,adjustable phase,exciter,overdrive,distortion,fuzz etc) selectable on each band.

Also being able to route each band to its own DAW mixer channel
If your plugin is a Synth-edit/synth-maker creation, Say So.
If not Make a Mac version of your Plugins Please.

https://soundcloud.com/realmarco

...everyone is out to get me!!!!!!!

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”