EQ 73 and EQ 81 New T-RackS Custom Shop classic British EQ models released

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Slate is another example where many (if not most) presets actually increase the output gain, and inherently skew the sound.

Call it a pet peeve, but I find it slightly dishonest.

It's probably more laziness than dishonesty. Who wants to RMS match everything after an EQ change. That's probably why I frigging love the Autogain so much on SlickEQ. It solves the gain staging problem without me having to do extra work.

And at least these have input gain AND output trim knobs. Slate's VCC desperately needs an output trim knob.

[antithesist]

Comply fox need PSP... Amek and MCI there just for you.

Back on topic: these seem good in the little playing around I've done so far... though wondering about the gain thing, too.

Anyways... bought as stated on the previous page.

That's an AMS/Neve 88RS channel I was referring to, by the way:

http://ams-neve.com/products/music/88-rs

[MickGael]

In this instance the boost is so outrageous that yes: it probably is laziness or an oversight.

That said, when the gain is boosted in nearly all presets I am less sure. And especially when it has been noted by other users and it stays unchanged with each release.

I will say that IK is not the worst offender!

[Emmett_Brown]

The Neve 88RS channel... now that would be cool. I have the UAD 88RS channel, but the compressor is a bit too fussy, (it "stutters" when pushed beyond 5db of reduction) and none of the harmonics/non linearities of the 88RS were modeled. I would love to hear an IK model of this board, and include the preamp section! Also... if you make any more channel strips, make sure to spend extra time on the dynamics section, especially the compressor. I find that most channel strip models on the market have weak compressors. I do like the British and White channels, but I am still on the fence about the comps on those. By the way, kudos on the UI of the 73 and 81, they look great!

[Compyfox]

Comply fox need PSP... Amek and MCI there just for you.

You probably mean McQ. Tried that one once, used the Noble Q at a clients place.

Don't like the GUI/the handling, certain prices are off the roof. PSP is nothing special anymore. Especially compared to such excellent freeware like SlickEQ recently, or low other budget tools.

But I like the idea (even if it's a fixed concept), same with the RedlineEQ or the currently way too much out of my pricerange exisiting "EQulibrium" by Dave Gamble (which in turn is a logical evolution of concepts like AIXcoustic's ElectriQ). That is IMO forward thinking.


Though clones do have a right of existence. If it wouldn't be the same all over again.

[fese]

I'm not saying that this plugin is bad in any way - competition is good for business (though again, I'm used to Neve EQ bundles!). But I restate my comment from weeks ago from another thread (Sonimus Britson) and my last post in here:
Are there really no other modules out there to clone other than NEVE and SSL?

IKM already stabbed at the CALREC Console EQ with the classic plugins (T-Racks 1, the original!). Why not give them an overhaul? Why can Hornet Audio (Otari Soundworkshop 34b clone) or Sknote (several stabs towards ADT Audio) be risky and go that route, while other developers constantly want a slice of the same cake and play it save?

I just don't get it. Probably never will.

I think it is pretty easy to understand. The plugin market is pretty competitive nowadays and IKM is a relatively big company (in plugin world anyway) with lots of people on its payroll. So it is quite understandable that they focus on stuff that is likely to sell well, and that is usually the big names and vintage legends... Same with UAudio, Waves, NI and the likes, they have a responsibility to keep the company running and I don't think you can do that only by pleasing the nerds...
Indie developers like SKnote or HorNet can allow to take more risks because they usually don't have people to pay or have other sources of income.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Peter, honest question: why doesn't IK post shoot-outs between the hardware they've modeled and software? When a company is confident enough to do that, it's usually a sign that they nailed the model. I'd love to see some of that from IK, either via video or audio clips.

[sergiofrias]

Hello Peter,

How accurate is the harmonic distortion modeled?

comparing to Nebula (alexb eq73) using sine sweep from 20 hz to 20 khz tells me that the modeled distortion on t-racks is more linear compared to Nebula.Nebula seems to have more distortion at lower frequencies ,this explains some of the fat sound sound from the real unit.

here is a demonstration:

t-racks


Nebula

still waiting for a answer from Peter...

[sergiofrias]

Peter, honest question: why doesn't IK post shoot-outs between the hardware they've modeled and software? When a company is confident enough to do that, it's usually a sign that they nailed the model. I'd love to see some of that from IK, either via video or audio clips.

+1

Some plots would help too...
Or some test tones (sine sweep,white noise etc) of the actual hardware to see the difference,if anyone got the real unit please run a sine sweep and post the audio file here at KVR.

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

Peter, honest question: why doesn't IK post shoot-outs between the hardware they've modeled and software? When a company is confident enough to do that, it's usually a sign that they nailed the model. I'd love to see some of that from IK, either via video or audio clips.

We'd welcome anybody that has the real hardware to do so. Coming from us we'd get accused of it being biased. It has been discussed. We're confident that we've done a fantastic job and are quite confident that we nailed the model.

@sergiofrias - you asked a pretty simple question, which I thought may be rhetorical. The answer is "We modeled this as accurately as humanly possible" but if you have a request for an audience with the devs in some way about your sine wave sweep graphic, you can seed if support can arrange it or get some direct answers to any deep technical questions you may have here: http://www.ikmultimedia.com/support

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

We'd welcome anybody that has the real hardware to do so. Coming from us we'd get accused of it being biased. It has been discussed.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You'll get accused of not having accurate models if you don't do it. My vote is go for it. Someone would have to be completely paranoid to think that you were lying about which is which, or faking results. If it's close, or damn near exact, you have much more to gain than lose.

The other problem that we always run into is any time there is an audible difference in a user shoot-out, companies often use the excuse of "well your hardware sounds different than the one we modeled" which no one can ever disprove because we've never heard the specific hardware piece you modeled. Hence why I'm a big fan. Look at the TAL 101 demos posted by the developer.

I honestly couldn't hear a difference between the hardware synth and the software, and made a purchase decision off that alone and still believe it's one of the best software VA's I've ever heard.

[Kaboom75]

Slate Digital used to post hardware vs their software shootouts when hardware nuts asked for it. When they chose the software over the hardware they complained it was rigged in some way.

Best to let the community do that test.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Slate Digital used to post hardware vs their software shootouts when hardware nuts asked for it. When they chose the software over the hardware they complained it was rigged in some way.

Best to let the community do that test.

If companies didn't do things because people on the internet would complain, there wouldn't be any companies on the internet. People on the internet complaining, or going into super-know-it-all mode, shouldn't be a reason not to do something. Look, I'm a guy complaining that they DON'T do shootouts. There's people who will find something to complain about if they do. At that point, you might as well do it if you have a good model because there'll be complaining either way. You might as well look cocky about your work in the process.

If I put out a kick-ass model of a Neve that I felt was hyper-accurate, you better believe I'd go out on the line and post some A/B's. If people wanted to nitpick, that'd be their problem, but I think the overwhelming majority of people would be impressed. Look at Andy from Cytomic's Drop demos comparing the hardware filters and The Drop. No complaints in those threads, just positive responses.

[scintillator]

n/m

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

If I put out a kick-ass model of a Neve that I felt was hyper-accurate, you better believe I'd go out on the line and post some A/B's.

They don't feel, they explicitly claim these emus are accurate. That's the (only?) selling point for these plugins - that they're accurate emulations.

As with the EQ 73 model, IK Engineers made sure the preamp circuitry modeling was ultra-accurate and usable. It’s class A/B circuit design delivers another range of tonal coloration, and while the EQ section is so accurately modeled in the EQ 81, its interaction with the preamp stage is what really sets the module apart providing identical sonic hardware performance not found in other digital models. Countless hours were spent not only in making sure the EQ curves are dead-on accurate, but that the preamp response and overall module interaction was faithful to the original hardware unit.

But they don't mention Neve anywhere*, so I think this (legal/trademark issues) is the main reason they're not doing (or going to do) comparisons.

*So this raises the question - Accurate models of WHAT?

They don't have to mention Neve in the shootouts. Just "hey, here's our British EQ versus a hardware British EQ."