Well, in audio engineering, I assumed there would be some kind of "sonic benefit" argument, but , hey, if it works it works.

Maybe just different, instead of "better".

I updated my post 'cos I felt I was a bit too hasty... there's some info now.

But really it's not very scientific in any sense, just "what I like".

No, that was really quite useful. Thanks, it's what I was looking for.

Reason being: I'm interested (without really wanting to delve into tech papers) in why different EQ's in the digital domain really do work differently, instead of the attitude you sometimes get that (and, yes, I have actually heard this stated in just this way on KVR) "all digital EQ's sound exactly the same".

I don't agree with that, based less on tech info and more on my ears, so it's interesting to begin to learn some of the reasons why they can sound different, even if superfically very similar..

I think some people get confused, if two digital eq are specced the same then they are the same and indeed will sound exactly the same.
It is extremely rare that a digital eq will have no other processes going on though unless they are bread n butter eq (for instance ddmf IIEQ pro set up the same as reaeq will null, this really means nothing though)

So much like 1+1 will always =2
A digital eq = any other digital eq
but 1+1 with a side order of 3÷5 does not =2
most plugins have that side order in some form of differing slopes or saturation

Yea, I know, but I'm also interested in knowing why different slopes are used, thus the reason for me probing mystran on this.

Obviously you could just say "because they sound different", but there must be some thought process whenever a developer chooses one slope over another (and some are variable like the bells here that change shape depending on gain).

A good example is ColourEQ by DDMF, which has a very unconventional "Type B" peaking filter, which I think may be based loosely on the infamous "Pultec trick", where the simultaneous boost and cut ends up making a peak with a divot in the middle.

I'm just interested in hearing developers talk about why they opt for one filter type over another, since EQ is sort of a neurotic fascination of mine.

Thank you for all your plugins, Mystran.

Me too, somewhat. Although I am rather more interested in EQs with parameters that are intuitive and 'harmonic'. That ColourEQ you brought up was quite nice when the type B filter was set to peak an octave apart, but tuning it there was a painstaking process for the lack of intuitive visual feedback. It made me think twice about purchasing it.

Has anyone tested if the 64-bit version actually works?

Did you know it's free now?

No I didn't actually. Thanks for that.

It worked all of yesterday with Reaper x64.

Yes, 64bit works here as well. Hope you can update all your other plugins for 64bit...Thank you

Just updated Sweep, Abstract Chamber and Tila to use the new GUI framework, and compiled 64-bit versions of them. Rest need a bit more rewriting.

mystran \o/
great description in your first post, i immediately grabbed this, altho i'm not amuzed by EQs too much..
loads up fine on my winXP + (integrated) Intel G33 video card

sounds great, the controls respond perfectly, everything seems to work like a charm
i'll definately use this thing ;]

btw, what gui toolkit are you using?
i recently made a standalone app using allegro5 which has no software mode (only opengl/dx)
Last edited by antto on Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:50 am; edited 2 times in total

Thank you for your plugins, Mystran, it's well appreciated