Sir Audio Tools - Standard EQ

[ObsoleteAcc99]

Oh also, is there auto gain? I reckon this is one of the most crucial features ever to good eq ing.. because often we are fooled by :"that sounds better" simply cause it's louder when boosting. Auto gain allows us to really fine tune the EQ whilst keeping the output at the same volume - it's a life save IMO.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

hmm this is a really comfortable easy to use EQ. I mean it's really good, i also love that there are different types of cut filters for example - really has the edge over pro Q2 there. I think this might be the one. I prefer the feel of it to most anything else (tried melda, dmg all, acon and many others) - and equal 1st with fabfilther there. The filter choices are very comprehensive and really the only things are a lack of a couple features I think are really needed so I decided i will list them here in to what I think would make this EQ completely perfect.

1) Solo mode
2) Dynamics option
3) Spectrum comparison - ie being able to have two instances (or a sidechain) to show spectrums of two signals against one another - like ddmf iieqpro and voxengo gliss EQ.
4) Auto gain
5) Something really cool would be to do a version also of fab filter's spectrum grab which is unique afaik

my 25% coupon is only good for a few days and this is where i face the dilemma cause I know that ultimately if at least 2 particular things, the solo and auto gain isn't added, i would have to go fab filter as those are essential to me.

The rest are just wishes (but really would make it the best EQ i reckon).

Think about it - a simple dynamics mode like gliss EQ which FF doesn't have, combined with the better filter choices vs fab filter on offer here with standard EQ, would actually make it a FF beater (as long as the auto gain and listen are added) - also you're M/S is much more flexible IMO as it's per band. Wouldn't you want your plugin being the best?

[audiotools]

Thanks for all these great suggestions! I put them on my list! Some of them are tricky to implement, for example auto gain. Because the perceived loudness depends on the frequency content. I think this can be solved using a mathematical model which measures the difference of the RMS-level between the original and the equalized-signal of a reference signal like pink nose and apply that as auto-gain value.

my 25% coupon is only good for a few days

Don't worry about that. This is just the minimum period of time where its guaranteed that the coupon is valid. This has technical reasons, usually it is longer valid. Furthermore i send a new coupon-code every month, inside the newsletter.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

Thanks for all these great suggestions! I put them on my list! Some of them are tricky to implement, for example auto gain. Because the perceived loudness depends on the frequency content. I think this can be solved using a mathematical model which measures the difference of the RMS-level between the original and the equalized-signal of a reference signal like pink nose and apply that as auto-gain value.

my 25% coupon is only good for a few days

Don't worry about that. This is just the minimum period of time where its guaranteed that the coupon is valid. This has technical reasons, usually it is longer valid. Furthermore i send a new coupon-code every month, inside the newsletter.

Thanks for being so open to the suggestions! i really REALLY love this eq and the way it feels to use.
I so hope it gets those few features I need. As far as autogain, perhaps you can test pro q2 and acon to see if we are talking about the same thing. What i mean is for the output level to stay the same after EQ as to pre EQ.

Solo and that are the main things i reckon.

Then if you add a dynamic mode and a spectrum match.. wow, for that money, you would literally have the best EQ on the market. 100 times easier to use than equilibrium imo and better filter choices than proq2!

The low cut thing is a biggie for me too, i reckon at some point I will buy it regardless just so I can have access to those various low cut filters - i simply find the pro Q one doesn't work on everything (equilibrium has this covered very well, but why spend 400 dollars for that feature when i can have it with yours for a quarter of the price? )

i really think this is one of the best EQ's on the market and I hope it gets a lot of support. Cheers!

[Synthetic Wav]

i like this eq cause it s not overcomplicated and sound good, if all these feature make it cpu heavy not sure its a good thing .

[ObsoleteAcc99]

i like this eq cause it s not overcomplicated and sound good, if all these feature make it cpu heavy not sure its a good thing .

optional features do not make something cpu heavy. don't even know what gives you that idea. Fab filter pro Q2 can get a thousand instances on my 5 year old machine - and it has those features.. a proper programmed feature only uses cpu when activated.

[satYatunes]

Solo mode will be great addition and is essential. Pro Q's fluidity in terms of workflow makes it to the top always.

[Synthetic Wav]

i like this eq cause it s not overcomplicated and sound good, if all these feature make it cpu heavy not sure its a good thing .

optional features do not make something cpu heavy. don't even know what gives you that idea. Fab filter pro Q2 can get a thousand instances on my 5 year old machine - and it has those features.. a proper programmed feature only uses cpu when activated.

nice, i m not familiar with pro Q

[ObsoleteAcc99]

Solo mode will be great addition and is essential. Pro Q's fluidity in terms of workflow makes it to the top always.

i am finding the acon one and this standard EQ even smoother to use TBH.

I find it a bit weird why Pro Q has pages and pages of topics all over the web and amazing products like that have relatively nothing except from a few users.

The ONLY thing fan filter does which acon doesn't is the matching - for someone who already has a match EQ that's not important really is it? Oh there's the spectrum grab so if that's really worth all that extra money to you then fair enough.

However acon has variable slope from 1-120 - not snapped to presets of 6.

Sir has more options for low cut filters.

I am still stuck between the two. But ProQ2 has sort of vanished off my list for now cause i expect more for that kind of money.

Anyway from reading this I am certain Sir will add solo and autogain at some point. Also, i think both acon and sir should look at spectrum grab, dynamic and matching... imagine having THE eq that does everything at 100$ price point (and acon is often seen for $69 on special in the past) - let's not forget sir's 25% coupons.

[satYatunes]

How do you find the CPU usage of Acon? People complained about its CPU usage when it was released, they might have fixed that in later updates. I have been using Pro Q since long hence am used to it, that's why I commented. I have been demoing this one since last few days and I like it so far. As far as popularity is concerned, this is new in comparison to Pro Q. Christian needs to do some aggressive marketing I guess. Also, the EQ market is quite saturated. There are many available in paid and free world.

I am also hopeful that Christian will implement the above features sooner or later.

Anyway, I love the fact that the UI is resizable and you can customize the colors. I have created this one so far. I am planning to create some more, which will probably be included in the product:

[ObsoleteAcc99]

acon isn't an issue cpu here but hey i will test it now on exact percentage using studio one, vs pro q2, and leet you know. I only have around 20 days of proq2 demo left so there is a limited time i will be able to do all these tests so might as well get them done.

Sir EQ is so smooth to resize, i love that too. I like making it nice and wide
One new feature i found i didn't like also, is the standard cut filter doesn't have slope steepness.


When you switch to standard low cut you only have Q.

But if you switch to the other styles you have very many steepness options, but no Q.

I need one with both, that is not optional. (FF and acon do have this). Especially for the "bass bump" trick i use, it has to have both.

So sir really has three things i need from it now, maybe it's asking too much.

Acon is probably the one, it has everything bar the matching ( i have logic, m auto eq, and ozone for this anyway, so no issue) or the spectrum grab (not sure i like that anyway but would be interested in other dev's takes on it).

will be back with cpu

[scintillator]

maybe it's asking too much.

Maybe you're right.


Maybe in version 2, after several years. Maybe never. Why do you assume that your FRs can be implemented? They could very well be incompatible with the internal design of the plugin - i.e. its structure, methods, etc. And coding is no easy thing. I got the impression that you need the perfect EQ now.

So maybe just ask SIR to implement every feature from every EQ out there, then add some more, and save yourself some typing effort.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

Ok the cpu of acon vs proQ2 is done - i did single instances in both minimum phase and mixed phase modes, and 10 instances stacked on one track, at 128 and 512 buffer, using S1's performance tool.

There is not much in it at *all*.

ten bands are active in my tests in all instances, so in the max tests, 100 bands.

Minimum Phase:
128 sample buffer:
ProQ2 single instance 10 bands - 1%
Acon flash between 1 and 2%
ProQ2 10 instances - flash between 10-12%
Acon 10 instances flash between 10-12%

512 buffer:
Acon: flash between zero and 1%
ProQ2 - 0%
10 instances - Acon 6%-8%
10 instance proQ2 6-7%

I mean sure, pro Q 2 is ever so slightly lower, this is on a near 5 year old hot running macbook. I can't imagine the acon poses any challenge to any reasonable machine. As instance counts increased, the gap shrunk.

Note, this is a test build I am currently working with.

In mixed phase mode, they both jumped 2% at 128 samples and 1% at 512 but it was reversed, the acon was always 1% better than the ProQ2, so the acon in mixed phase mode is actually MORE efficient than proQ2.

Next is linear mode tests, and of course, sir standard EQ cpu tests vs those two.

Cheers

[ObsoleteAcc99]

maybe it's asking too much.

Maybe you're right.


Maybe in version 2, after several years. Maybe never. Why do you assume that your FRs can be implemented? They could very well be incompatible with the internal design of the plugin - i.e. its structure, methods, etc. And coding is no easy thing. I got the impression that you need the perfect EQ now.

So maybe just ask SIR to implement every feature from every EQ out there, then add some more, and save yourself some typing effort.

i am almost certain a slope could be added to the sir's standard resonant low cut..

Ultimately, the all in one EQ for me is close but not even fab filter is perfect cause it is only static and there is no way to display 2 analyser form 2 sources - so there's always something...

I know in my head, the exact things each one is missing to make them perfect, and even if i sold a kidney and bought dmg's triple EQ bundle, it STILL wouldn't do everything.

Anyway i decided on acon as it is just too good and so editable - but sir is a very very good EQ.. and at some point i will probably get it anyway to have the low cut type option curves.

Put it this way, sir and acon together only cost half of *Just* equilibrium!

BTW, i tried fab filter match function today, that's the worst match EQ i ever used - might as well not be there.. where's the amount slider and negative, to make something sound opposite, i.e make space"? ProQ2 is an absolutely fabulous product though, just the match EQ is silly (imo). Logic's is much much better and also works with a sidechain.

[ere2learn]

Really like this,the note detection & peak focus are great.Tons of filter slopes to get the job done,M/S EQing,8 input channels,re-sizing GUI & an editable skin colour,

The only thing that I think could be improved is the buttons for choosing filter type,they take up a little too much real estate,maybe reduced by half the size