KVR Audio

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:33 pm

kvaca wrote:
bmanic wrote:Not sure what to think about this plugin. Like some others I do feel it's extremely "natural" sounding and very impressive when it comes to boosting some bass and highs. the shelves are lovely but trying to correct stuff in the mids is hard.
It really does sound quite different to my other EQ options. This is dues to the very strange curves. No other EQ produces these kinds of EQ curves so it'll be virtually impossible to duplicate the sound of this EQ with anything else.
nice report Bmanic
but now Im curious - can you make any "impossible to duplicate" example and post it?
and - why do you think this eq sounds more natural than others?

The shelves sound "natural".. it has something to do with the shape.

As for the impossible to duplicate, I don't need to give you any examples.. just try to duplicate it yourself. I tried both by ear and by looking and exactly matching the curves (well, "trying" would be more appropriate term here) by eye with the help of the VSTplugin Analyzer and the plugin ABX thing from Christian Budde.

Both tasks were virtually impossible because the curves are assymetrical and very, very weird. It's definitely not at all an ordinary EQ, that's for sure.

mkdr · Post by **mkdr** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:34 pm

kvaca wrote:
mkdr wrote: + added eq-F
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880 ... /eq-F.flac
Does this sound similar to eq-C?
no - it does sound completely different!...seems you have a big problem using any digital Eq to create similar results /=freq.curve/...your F file not only got different curve, but moreover it seems you now - unlike in your previous examples - are using oversampling with very crappy antialiasing filter which makes things even worse...why??

I couldnt resist to make example similar to your C file /on first LP-Eq I´ve found on my PC/ and it took me about 10 seconds to obtain much closer results...

Ok, another try. Is this better?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880 ... /eq-G.flac

Edit:
Yet another one.. getting the hang of this. Used a basic Linearphase FFT EQ (from 2003) without oversampling stuff(the earlier was by default and couldn't be disabled).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880 ... /eq-H.flac

Getting closer?

kvaca · Post by **kvaca** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:48 pm

mkdr wrote: Ok, another try. Is this better?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880 ... /eq-G.flac

Edit:
Yet another one.. getting the hang of this. Used a basic Linearphase FFT EQ (from 2003) without oversampling stuff(the earlier was by default and couldn't be disabled).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880 ... /eq-H.flac

Getting closer?

hard to tell...G is EXACTLY same as C while H has similar hi boost BUT completely different bass+loud artifact on the beginning of file...

kvaca · Post by **kvaca** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:19 pm

bmanic wrote: The shelves sound "natural".. it has something to do with the shape.

OK...so which hi-shelf from A-E examples above sound the most "natural" to you?

bmanic wrote: As for the impossible to duplicate, I don't need to give you any examples.. just try to duplicate it yourself.

thank you...but the last thing I need now is to see a blue screen...and the more Im reading others post the more I do think that its all about bat food or something...

dasdeck · Post by **dasdeck** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:19 pm

G & C are nulling, so is this the same EQ? if not, may i ask for their names please

. i like them

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:55 pm

Here is an example of a pretty big low frequency shelf boost (I think it was something like +9dB from around 64Hz). I tried to match the Equavescent curve with Equilibrium. I got it down to about -30dBFS difference so not very successful but perhaps it's enough to compare.

Both were set to linear phase, Equilibrium at a 16k IR length (got worse matching with higher quality IR lengths).

EQ _X_

EQ _Y_

original file

I'm not revealing which is which just yet though. At the moment the most interesting part is that can you guys hear a difference and can you describe that difference?

Cheers!
bManic

kvaca · Post by **kvaca** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:24 pm

bmanic wrote:Here is an example of a pretty big low frequency shelf boost (I think it was something like +9dB from around 64Hz). I tried to match the Equavescent curve with Equilibrium. I got it down to about -30dBFS difference so not very successful but perhaps it's enough to compare.

Both were set to linear phase, Equilibrium at a 16k IR length (got worse matching with higher quality IR lengths).

EQ _X_

EQ _Y_

original file

I'm not revealing which is which just yet though. At the moment the most interesting part is that can you guys hear a difference and can you describe that difference?

Cheers!
bManic

changed your mind? or not for me?...nevermind...didnt tested both eq´s but Im pretty sure which is which...also everything is as I have expected it

momalle3 · Post by **momalle3** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:41 pm

I'm away from my audio workspace. Listening on earbuds, "X" sounds a little "bigger" and slightly more open. It's a very small difference. I'll try it later on better gear.

In my experience it's often distortion that creates that kind of effect

dasdeck · Post by **dasdeck** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:34 pm

i prefer x....i hope its Equilibrium.

mkdr · Post by **mkdr** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:43 pm

kvaca wrote:
mkdr wrote: Ok, another try. Is this better?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880 ... /eq-G.flac

Edit:
Yet another one.. getting the hang of this. Used a basic Linearphase FFT EQ (from 2003) without oversampling stuff(the earlier was by default and couldn't be disabled).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880 ... /eq-H.flac

Getting closer?
hard to tell...G is EXACTLY same as C while H has similar hi boost BUT completely different bass+loud artifact on the beginning of file...

You have extremely accurately tuned hearing to have noticed the difference in the beginning of the file. I'm amazed how anyone could hear that. Or the very subtle differences in the audio. Or better yet the similarity of the G and C. Listening to mp3's has to hurt you?

Or are you perhaps not LISTENING to the LISTENING tests and maybe just staring at graphs or null tests? If i'd wanted to null this i'd just use convolution and be done with it. That wasn't the point.

momalle3 · Post by **momalle3** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:00 pm

It's perfectly reasonable to use other means to differentiate the files. I use the graphic display in my eq all the time.

I remember a similar thread to this at GS, where somebody posted a file processed in nebula. Dave Gamble was on the thread and commented on the really pronounced ringing in the nebula file, and people said they preferred. So Dave added a window shape to equilibrium to produce ringing.

I liked the nebula file in that example, but not enough to put up with crashes and the klutzy workflow and the CPU load that Nebula involves

kvaca · Post by **kvaca** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:30 pm

mkdr wrote: You have extremely accurately tuned hearing to have noticed the difference in the beginning of the file. I'm amazed how anyone could hear that. Or the very subtle differences in the audio. Or better yet the similarity of the G and C.

nope

ALWAYS when I work with any LP eq I´m used to listen to a delta file, too...thats maybe the biggest advantage of LP design over MP, so why not do it?

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:01 am

kvaca wrote:
bmanic wrote:Here is an example of a pretty big low frequency shelf boost (I think it was something like +9dB from around 64Hz). I tried to match the Equavescent curve with Equilibrium. I got it down to about -30dBFS difference so not very successful but perhaps it's enough to compare.

Both were set to linear phase, Equilibrium at a 16k IR length (got worse matching with higher quality IR lengths).

EQ _X_

EQ _Y_

original file

I'm not revealing which is which just yet though. At the moment the most interesting part is that can you guys hear a difference and can you describe that difference?

Cheers!
bManic
changed your mind? or not for me?...nevermind...didnt tested both eq´s but Im pretty sure which is which...also everything is as I have expected it

So which one is which? Don't be shy.

Seriously though, I've been trying to match the curves a bit more today and the more I do this the more I realize just how WEIRD the curves of Equavescent (what a horrible name) EQ is. They are like seriously bizarre!

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:13 am

This is how weird the bell is at 16dB/octave setting (whatever that means when it comes to bells? How steep the slope is?).

At 8db/octave, 40dB and 100dB the bell is much more symmetrical which makes me believe there might be something buggy going on with the 16dB/oct setting.

Also, the shelves shape changes slightly depending on if you set it in linear phase or normal minimum phase mode.

Indeed, this is one strange EQ.

kvaca · Post by **kvaca** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:02 pm

bmanic wrote: So which one is which? Don't be shy.
Seriously though, I've been trying to match the curves a bit more today and the more I do this the more I realize just how WEIRD the curves of Equavescent (what a horrible name) EQ is. They are like seriously bizarre!

X sounds like any common LP eq
Y sounds completely weird /or bizzare...using your wording/
and based on your detailed report above and your known affinity to obscure plugins Y must be Equavescent...

Equavescent equalizer release