New T-RackS Master EQ 432 NOW AVAILABLE (full GUI pic inside)

[Agreed]

Oversampling is not an option on the T-RackS Master EQ 432. It is always enabled up to 192.

It follows this behaviour:

At 44.1 / 48 oversampling is set to 4X
At 96 oversampling is set to 2X
At 192 oversampling is set to OFF

FWIW, this works perfectly for me. I question whether it would be possible to have the sort of sheen this adds to the highs with less oversampling (and related filtering), and I don't think it was ever intended as a live tracking tool anyway, so I don't know what any issue with latency would amount to. Y'know?

[kylen]

Peter - have you guys has a chance to consider the FR from a few pages ago for toggling various bands on/off to better A/B changes? Just a workflow thing...

EDIT: What I'm asking for is a per band 'gain bypass' switch which effectively sets the band gain to 0. Someone earlier suggested that the ring around the gain knob would indicate whether it is in bypass mode or not. I have been working with TrinityEQ lately and the feature is implemented with an on/off switch but is actually a band gain bypass (audio in that band still passes but is unchanged by the gain setting, no gain is applied).

[Agreed]

I don't want to sound contrary, kylen, but I would ask for it to not be made a feature on the basis that the holistic sound of the EQ relies on every bit working together. This is not an EQ with a lot of unpredictable nonlinearities in the analog domain. In order for it to have its "sound," everything has to work together. The characteristic high end sheen that it imparts to a collection of tracks that helps give the impression of a finished whole - the "mastered" sound - relies on it actually doing something to the audio that you can't get with a standard parametric EQ, of which, of course, we have literally hundreds today.

Something really odd would have to be done - something not at all rooted in trying to accurately emulate the real unit's behavior - to still make it sound complete while defeating certain bands... So in the name of it being useful for more than just a weird, by-way-of-comparison-to-endless-digital-bands limited parametric EQ, I humbly request that not change from its current behavior.

As a tool it's really more of a thing where you need to know beforehand what you're using it for to get best results. There's a reason one of its most common uses gives +/-6dB of cut. I have some guitar pedals that feature EQs with +/-18dB of boost/cut. This is such a specialized piece of gear, and its sound relies on its elegance...

All that said, if you're looking for an EQ that you can do some neat experimental stuff to and solo/attenuate bands to get a better pictur eof what's going on, I could happily make some recommendations more along those lines?

[kylen]

@Agreed - that was part of the FR - if the topology of the EQ allowed and made sense for bands to be switched on and off to A/B them. If the feature does get implemented then you would just leave all your bands on, I would toggle them. The sound would remain the same for you. Seems simple enough or is there another issue?

EDIT: What I'm asking for is a per band 'bypass' switch which effectively sets the band gain to 0. Someone earlier suggested that the ring around the gain knob would indicate whether it is in bypass mode or not. I have been working with TrinityEQ lately and the feature is implemented with an on/off switch but is actually a band bypass.

[Agreed]

Ah, I misunderstood. Well, if it could be done somehow without affecting the sound - then of course, that would be handy - but I have to say that given the topology and the extreme care taken in constructing the circuit in question, I think losing any band is going to reduce the overall effect (which is already, by design, subtle - not big, overt, flashy, but precise... detectable the same way a really light seasoning is, in terms of the interactive behavior. A light but crucial seasoning. Heh.

The rest, well, I really do think you can look at many other parametric EQ options for modern parametric EQ, especially modern digital parametric EQ - once we hit the point that pretty much any parametric EQ can, with some notable exceptions, replicate the EQ curve behaviors of virtually any other parametric EQ, then it's more like...

... if you want what this product offers, you want the limitations as well as the features - because there are a hundred plugins for free or paid that give you all the power of a modern parametric EQ, and they are in any case where there are no non-linearities present, virtually interchangeable.

[dbender]

Oy, well now I find I must chime in, as an owner of this plugin.

I vote a big YES to be able to mute/solo each band.

I disagree with Agreed (love the irony, the ultimate truths in life usually are) ––

Of course it affects the sound to mute/solo the bands -- that's the point, when tweaking and adjusting. Of course one wouldn't do that in the mix itself.

And adding this mute/solo for each band I'm sure would not at all affect the plugin's sound when all are unmuted. I agree with Agreed that this is a special sheen eq and not a typical parametric, and is also to be used commensurately accordingly differently than one. But that is utterly irrelevant to whether or not we can be able to mute/solo each of the bands when tweaking/adjusting. Adding that ability cannot possibly affect the sound when all the bands are unmuted. Thinking otherwise confuses substance with form, a common fallacy. I'm sure being able to individually lock and unlock doors on a car won't affect its speed or handling when both doors are closed.

I rest my case and heartily vote YES for being able to mute/solo each band!

So Peter, bring it and make it so!!! I'm looking forward to that update of this great plug I love using.

'Nuf said, on to real life, and important things.

[kylen]

@Agreed - That was the question to Peter/IK...can a band be switched off temporarily for a second then switched back on to give the ear an idea of the difference the gain change on a band is making. I purchased a license for the 432 last month and enjoy the sound of it. There are times when after carefully tweaking (it only takes a few seconds, it's a fast very nice workflow/sound) I'd like to review the change I've made to the Bass band for example. Now I can do that by turning the gain back from wherever it is to zero, unfortunately the gain passes thru several values to get to zero which is different (for my ears anyway) than going instantly to zero (band off) and back again (band on). Also when tweaking knobs with a mouse I usually overshoot zero and that ruins my little experiment anyway. Thus the FR for the on/off A/B facility.

EDIT: What I'm asking for is a per band 'bypass' switch which effectively sets the band gain to 0.

[kylen]

@dbender - good for you, now there's [at least] 3 of us that would like a mute option...

EDIT: What I'm asking for is a per band 'bypass' switch which effectively sets the band gain to 0.

[dbender]

@dbender - good for you, now there's [at least] 3 of us that would like a mute option...

Thanks, dude, and, I concur in full with the your post just above this quoted one. Totally the same here.

I like you feel somewhat limited when tweaking this thing not being able to mute/solo the bands. It would be useful additional information to hear when tweaking -- first adjust as usual to taste, and then to really zero in on what your different changes on the bands are actually doing in isolation (or in conjunction with other selected bands I want to hear in tandem too) I always feel when using the 432 the urge to click something to solo the band(s) I'm interested in hearing just by itself/themselves. That would be the #0000 steel wool part of tweaking this thing just right.

And, the best way to achieve this is via a mute/solo for each band, rather than just an on/off for each band. That should be obvious why to anyone who thinks about it -- mute lets you turn each band off as you'd like thereby leaving the others on (or muted, as you may wish and want to hear), and solo turns off all the other bands with just one click leaving the solo'd track on. And the solo should let you click "solo" one more than one band too (which acts like an additional on button that turns off all other bands except those that are solo'd, like in my DAW).

432 owners of the world, unite for mute/(multi)solo per band (all of them -- the hi and low shelves and the three main bands)! You have nothing to lose but the time lost tweaking in the dark, like playing pin the tail on the master eq, donkey, without the benefit of actually hearing how your changes on one or more but less than all bands actually is affecting elements of your mix.

I'm sure this would be a super easy code tweak that would please existing customers, and lure some more too.

IK can thank us for this suggestion of ours ... by implementing it. We thank IK for coming out with this gem, it deserves this little bit of polish to shine as brightly as it should.

[kylen]

Peter - Any thoughts or feedback on the FR a couple of us have been discussing this week in the last few posts?

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

Peter - Any thoughts or feedback on the FR a couple of us have been discussing this week in the last few posts?

The request has been relayed, as always.

[J4R1O]

Just found this: http://streaky.com/hardware-sontec-432c ... eq-plugin/

Btw, just demoing 432 again (thanks, Peter!). Sounds nice, but that damn real thing sounds better! Yes, it's a small difference, but still...

I'm just about to buy this one, but: any alternative master eq plug-ins I could/should try?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Just found this: http://streaky.com/hardware-sontec-432c ... eq-plugin/

Btw, just demoing 432 again (thanks, Peter!). Sounds nice, but that damn real thing sounds better! Yes, it's a small difference, but still...

I'm just about to buy this one, but: any alternative master eq plug-ins I could/should try?

I think someone on Gearslutz did a comparison and found that the IK version was boosting the top end a little less than the hardware. By adding another 1db to the top, the two sounded extremely close.

Watching this, I think the two are already quite close. I could hear something changing, but I couldn't say I preferred one over the other in this test. If my eyes had been closed the whole time, or if someone mixed up the files for me, I'm not sure I'd have been able to consistently point out the hardware from the software.

If I had a wish, I'd like the same test done with more drastic settings just to see how it holds up at those settings, but then again, if you'd never do a 10db high shelf boost on the hardware, then I guess doing so in a test would be utterly pointless in any real world sense.

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

...but then again, if you'd never do a 10db high shelf boost on the hardware, then I guess doing so in a test would be utterly pointless in any real world sense.

Silly FET, why let something like that stop you??

[scalawag]

hmmmm. Not just the low end. I clearly ear a different and more pleasant tonality on the hardware...