Poll: Analog EQ emulations - should there be a limited number of choices for parameters?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion

So which do you prefer?

Full rage - say 200Hz to 8kHz
22
49%
Limited set of options - say 200Hz, 400Hz, 800Hz, 2kHz, 4kHz and 8kHz
23
51%
 
Total votes: 45

RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Hi folks,

right now designing the MTurboEQ, which should not precisely emulate, but be inspired from most of the existing analog EQs. Similarly to MTurboComp I want to standardize the GUI, so that each EQ has pretty much the same controls, to make it easy to use.

But I have a little dillema: in many cases the originals didn't have a "knob", but rather a switch between multiple options, for frequency typically. So there wasn't a range like 200Hz to 8kHz, but instead there was a limited set of options, say 200Hz, 400Hz, 800Hz, 2kHz, 4kHz and 8kHz. It's easily in my power to provide full range of values, hence a "knob" if you wish, that would be a close match at the original values, but you could still dial any value and see "how it would sound it say 150Hz was there".

BUT the limited choice is also partly appealing - I mean the less possibilities you have the easier the decision. I personally like full range, you know me, but I wonder what the crowd has to say :).
Vojtech
MeldaProduction MSoundFactory MDrummer MCompleteBundle The best plugins in the world :D

Post

For some of these hardware pieces, a big part of their sound lies in their limited capabilities.

It also helps when someone has designed an EQ product that specifically only allows targeting of bands that are commonly 'good sounding'. It makes for easy and quick adjustment.

Likewise, limited bands also give you a way of recognizing a specific 'sound' of an eq by memory. If EQ X has a band at 400hz and EQ Y has a band at 650hz... they will naturally have a specific sound just because of that difference.

So sure you could just have no limits, and give the tweakers a dream interface... but then you are losing a lot of what those EQs offer to someone in a fast-paced results-oriented workflow.
http://admiralbumblebee.com/
Audio Software Reviews, Woodworking, Programming and more...

Post

Personally this is one of my pet hates reagrding analog EQ's (limited options)

I find that when using an EQ with limited options, suddenly I will want to EQ a notch or something at a frequency right in the middle of two options and to do so I need to go and open another EQ plugin that actually lets me do it....
Major workflow killer in my opinion, and I really fail to understand why so mny digital EQs feel the need to restrict you. but then I didn't grow up using analog EQ's.

It might be impossible, bu Maybe there could be an advanced setting that allows switching between the two??
Hypnagog (Experimental Electronica) |
Terrafractyl (Psytrance) |Kinematic Records (Label)

Post

I'd say snap to the original discrete values in the active presets, but offer continuous parameters in the edit window... best of both worlds, and consistent with MTurboComp design-wise.
The mind boggles.

Post

I think it is better to snap to the values. Of course let people go to the edit area and enter values themselves if they want, but for the easy screen I think it would be better if they snap.

TBH I'm not a huge fan of the MTurboeq idea, but if you do it, IMO it should be close to how the hardware works and sounds. If not there is no point. I love MEqualizer and use it 90% of the time. The only reason to use vintage EQs is because to the lack of choices and ease of use.

Post

Chandlerhimself wrote:I think it is better to snap to the values. Of course let people go to the edit area and enter values themselves if they want, but for the easy screen I think it would be better if they snap.

TBH I'm not a huge fan of the MTurboeq idea, but if you do it, IMO it should be close to how the hardware works and sounds. If not there is no point. I love MEqualizer and use it 90% of the time. The only reason to use vintage EQs is because to the lack of choices and ease of use.
Agree..

Ease of use = IMO snap point of each freq of hardware eq has meaning and decided professionally..

Post

simple, you make something that looks like ableton eq8 or fruity eq, and you also put a drop down menu on each band with options to restrict it to a certain range and have a certain q profile to mimic hardware.

Post

Continuous is probably going to be best and I've voted that way - there is no guarantee that the writing on the front of an analogue EQ (or emulation of it) is dead on the frequency it claims to boost/cut at that point. It's no big deal on an EQ like this because you're setting it by ear pretty much anyway – but when emulating, it's going to make a difference if you can't put the peak in the right place.

Here's a magnitude transfer function of IK's Pultec narrow-bandwidth 8k boost. The '10k boost' is actually closer to 8kHz. Other points are closer to the rated frequency, particularly below 8k, so some bands can be accurate and others not.

The only way round this I can see without making the frequency dial entirely continuous is not only to have some way of programming detents into the dial but offsetting them individually so that a virtual Pultec 8k setting in fact has a peak just north of 7kHz.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post

Hmmm right now 7:7 :D. Here's the problem - there will NOT be an edit screen this time. So whatever we choose will be the one. Of course, there could be 2 editions, a restricted one and a fullrange one, but that seems like a little too much :).
Vojtech
MeldaProduction MSoundFactory MDrummer MCompleteBundle The best plugins in the world :D

Post

Why not allow both behaviours?

You could also allow stepped controls that adapt to the key your track is in. For example if in E Flat, you might want 39 hz, 78 hz...311 hz..etc.., but if in E, the stepped controls change to 41, 82...etc.

Allowing these options in the GUI could be very straightforward. A switch to select between stepped and continuous control, and a 12 step switch / knob or dropdown to select the root note you wish your stepped values to work from.

What about Q? Continuous, stepped or adaptive?! :)

Cheers

Scorb
I once thought I had mono for an entire year. It turned out I was just really bored...

Post

Hehe that's quite overcomplicated :D :D
Vojtech
MeldaProduction MSoundFactory MDrummer MCompleteBundle The best plugins in the world :D

Post

MeldaProduction wrote:Hmmm right now 7:7 :D. Here's the problem - there will NOT be an edit screen this time. So whatever we choose will be the one. Of course, there could be 2 editions, a restricted one and a fullrange one, but that seems like a little too much :).
You need to check Tokyo Dawn Labs Slick Eq. Not only can you decide between stepped AND continuous control, but you can edit an XML file that defines the stepped values to your own preference. You are not necessarily commited to equally spread steps either.

I didn't vote for either option as I think you can have both! The even split of votes would also suggest that choosing one option over the other rather than allowing both behaviours wold be seriously limiting potential sales.

Cheers

Scorb
I once thought I had mono for an entire year. It turned out I was just really bored...

Post

Hehe well, I still think it's overcomplicated :D. I want to make a simple plugin for once :D
Vojtech
MeldaProduction MSoundFactory MDrummer MCompleteBundle The best plugins in the world :D

Post

This is probably a PITA to program but how about this:

The edit page allows continuous behaviour, but you can set up stepped settings for the macro page, so it even looks a bit like a standard hardware EQ. Potentially, this would allow you to offset the frequency from reality to what the EQ says on the tin.

Personally, I'm for continuous anyway.

Post

That's hilarious you would say that as your plugins are generally way over complicated compared to the elegant and stripped back control set of TDR SlickEQ.

Slick EQ has a huge user base and the standard edition is free and has already done much to fullfil most users needs for the EQ you propose, so obviously, it might be worth your time having a little look at it. It could not be less complicated whilst still pleasing all 14 voters above ;)

Cheers

Scorb

Edit: Ah I see, you are going for less complexity for once! :)

Even so, I think you'll find that there isn't a call for yet another simple EQ. Slck Eq does everything you've outlined whilst having a great preset sharing system and the slick elegant GUI that Melda plugins sadly lack. Oh, and it's free!
Last edited by djscorb on Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
I once thought I had mono for an entire year. It turned out I was just really bored...

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”