KVR Audio

Lesha · Post by **Lesha** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:52 am

Yes, it's CPU hungry.

solidtrax · Post by **solidtrax** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:50 am

poshook wrote:
asksol wrote:This is amazing! Does any other EQ let you set M/S for individual bands like this? I'm currently looking for a clean EQ but now that I have tried this I don't think I can live without this feature.
M/S per band? It is pretty common feature. Check Toneboosters EQ, Pro-Q, EQuick, Equality, EQuilibrium....

However, being able to have one band in M while another band is in R, that is not so common. I understand now that Equalize is not the first EQ to have this ability, but it's one of the few!

ImNotDedYet wrote:
asksol wrote:This is amazing! Does any other EQ let you set M/S for individual bands like this? I'm currently looking for a clean EQ but now that I have tried this I don't think I can live without this feature.
Pro-Q or Pro-Q2, and both are clean sounding.

I just tried in Pro-Q but I don't think this is possible, I can only set it globally to M/S or L/R, but not different between the bands. Perhaps I'm making a mistake, if so, please tell me what I do wrong.

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:10 am

solidtrax wrote:...

I just tried in Pro-Q but I don't think this is possible, I can only set it globally to M/S or L/R, but not different between the bands. Perhaps I'm making a mistake, if so, please tell me what I do wrong.

You could use two copies of Pro-Q in series (one in stereo and one in mid side mode) but maybe it's just handier to use Acon Digital Equalize.

stian · Post by **stian** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:56 am

Aloysius wrote:
solidtrax wrote:...

I just tried in Pro-Q but I don't think this is possible, I can only set it globally to M/S or L/R, but not different between the bands. Perhaps I'm making a mistake, if so, please tell me what I do wrong.
You could use two copies of Pro-Q in series (one in stereo and one in mid side mode) but maybe it's just handier to use Acon Digital Equalize.

Apart from the usability aspect, there's actually a difference when using linear phase. The latency remains constant in Equalize, whereas two EQ instances in series would double the latency.

Best,
Stian

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:11 am

stian wrote:...
Apart from the usability aspect, there's actually a difference when using linear phase. The latency remains constant in Equalize, whereas two EQ instances in series would double the latency.

Best,
Stian

Good. I'll give it a spin.

Update: Just had a quick Trial. Super flexible. Really intuative and somewhat innovative. I wasn't expecting much from yet another EQ but I'm very impressed with it. Excellent.

stian · Post by **stian** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:31 pm

Aloysius wrote:Good. I'll give it a spin.

Update: Just had a quick Trial. Super flexible. Really intuative and somewhat innovative. I wasn't expecting much from yet another EQ but I'm very impressed with it. Excellent.

Thanks, I'm very pleased to hear that!

Best,
Stian

stian · Post by **stian** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:44 pm

KingofBeers wrote:I was really looking forward to trying this EQ, while it does sound very good, the cpu hit is just to much even in zero latency mode, for what it does, hopefully in an update or two the cpu usage will be halved?

Thanks for trying Equalize! Equalize is implemented using FIR filters even in zero latency mode. That is why we can implement the unique control over the filter slopes which I personally consider extremely useful, especially for shelving and cuts. The CPU overhead is constant regardless of the number of bands, however, so it shouldn't be severe. Did you compare the CPU hit with other liner phase EQs? I just read a post on another forum from a user running 40 instances and he reported 12% CPU usage which seems quite consistent with my findings.

Best,
Stian

Lesha · Post by **Lesha** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:57 pm

Running 20 instances with 68% CPU hit measured inside Ableton Live (32bit on W8.1), using AMD FX 6300 with GUI closed.

I am having a lot of visual problems running 10 instances with GUI open.

Brother Charles · Post by **Brother Charles** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:06 pm

Yes, the CPU demands are definitely on the heavier side. *Gulp.

Very good EQ though.

Tapehead · Post by **Tapehead** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:16 pm

Do you plan to implement rendering/quality options like in Voxengo and some other plugins?...In which you can select a working mode/lower quality and a rendering mode/higher quality.

KingofBeers · Post by **KingofBeers** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:30 pm

stian wrote:
KingofBeers wrote:I was really looking forward to trying this EQ, while it does sound very good, the cpu hit is just to much even in zero latency mode, for what it does, hopefully in an update or two the cpu usage will be halved?
Thanks for trying Equalize! Equalize is implemented using FIR filters even in zero latency mode. That is why we can implement the unique control over the filter slopes which I personally consider extremely useful, especially for shelving and cuts. The CPU overhead is constant regardless of the number of bands, however, so it shouldn't be severe. Did you compare the CPU hit with other liner phase EQs? I just read a post on another forum from a user running 40 instances and he reported 12% CPU usage which seems quite consistent with my findings.

Best,
Stian

No doubt about it's usefulness Stian, it really is a great EQ, was just hoping ...with your coding Voodoo that somehow things can be optimized anymore for high track counts.

Pro Q2 also has those new sloped/db filters but is really really efficient, talking from an end user perspective it does the job in spades.

All the best.

KingofBeers.

asksol · Post by **asksol** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:58 pm

Stian, will you add the ability to select and operate multiple bands at the same time? equick can do this and makes it very easy to sweep and modify presets.

kuzami · Post by **kuzami** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:17 pm

Finally a good alternative to Pro-Q 2, this is just as good!

Lesha · Post by **Lesha** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:35 pm

kuzami wrote:Finally a good alternative to Pro-Q 2, this is just as good!

What is wrong with IIEQ Pro and TB Equalizer?

stian · Post by **stian** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:23 pm

KingofBeers wrote:No doubt about it's usefulness Stian, it really is a great EQ, was just hoping ...with your coding Voodoo that somehow things can be optimized anymore for high track counts.

Pro Q2 also has those new sloped/db filters but is really really efficient, talking from an end user perspective it does the job in spades.

All the best.

KingofBeers.

Thanks, glad to hear that. I'll think about different options. Currently, the load is constant regardless of the equalizer settings, but it would be possible to reduce the CPU usage when there are no steep filters in the low frequency area. I'm not sure how much gain to expect, though. I'll do some tests and keep you updated. The filter slopes in ProQ2 are set in 6 dB/octave steps and you cannot set the values in-between like in Equalize.

Best,
Stian