Is it worth buying pricer EQ than ReaEQ?

[CableChannel]

A well designed EQ such as Pro-Q is therefore much better for high frequency "air" boosts etc.

good to know, thanks.

+1

Maybe I should try some professional EQ

[b4serenity]

SNIP>>>
I was wondering about nyquist cramping myself.[/quote]

Yeah, my wife gets that sometime and it's a bitch ...for her and I!

[Quietinthedark]

ReaEQ is my basic goto EQ, I have it inserted automatically on each channel and mapped to my control-surface (which deals with any GUI-issues ). But I use it mainly as a channel-EQ, so purely to 'correct' things. I have/use several other EQs for 'dialing in some color' here and there. All free stuff like pushtec, bootsy's baxter, etc.

I'm in the same camp as Crimson.

If I'm JUST EQing, it has always been fine.

I used the Variety of Sound EQs for EQ + analog-esque coloration until the Sonimus EQs came out.

http://sonimus.com/products/

If I'm going to boost any highs, which I don't do often, I find these more fool proof.

but their drive circuitry simulation is the main feature that justifies the price.

I tried the COmputer Music versions of the DDMF ones and was impressed.

Admittedly, the Sonimus is easier for my pre-computer recording self to use quickly.

[iainduncan]

Thanks for the tips everyone. I'm all over that DDMF one for the multi track analysis tool, damn!

And I will try a shoot on the high end air of some of the pricier ones vs ReaEQ for comparison.

iain

[meloco_go]

I work @96k and cramping is not a problem.

[IIRs]

Indeed, cramping is pretty insignificant at 88.2 or 96KHz and gone completely at still higher rates. That's like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer though!

Cramping is not unique to ReaEQ btw. Many other DAW's built in EQ will do the same thing, along with a few "analogue modelled" payware plugs with fancy GUIs. My own IQ4 plug suffers from the same issue as, like many other people, I used the (otherwise excellent) Robert Bristow Johnson cookbook algos. I don't know if ReaEQ also uses the RBJ algos, but the cramping at the high end seems very similar.

[camsr]

I still use the Fruity Parametric EQ 1 in almost everything. I like it for the minimalist UI and low tuning range of 10hz, but I don't like the high tuning limit of 16000hz. It also allows every band to be any included filter type, a big plus. I will use ReaEQ for the allpasses and sometimes for the musical note hint, or if I need a ton of bands. But I just recently found MEqualizer and this thing is gorgeous! It's too easy to dial in harmonic bands and that saves a ton of time versus doing it manually.

So the list for basic clean EQ goes:
Fruity Parametric 1
ReaEQ
MEqualizer

Then, of course, the special freebies like BaxterEQ, TAL UltraSimpleEQ, Dust Equalizer, ColourEQ, Marvel GEQ, PTeq1-a, and KarmaFX EQ.

So there are lots of options before you even need to spend a dime. You might notice there isn't a fully parametric linear phase unit of the list, or a dynamic EQ, I am too picky with these. And these types of EQ have a way of varying in quality and usage, which is situational.

[Tricky-Loops]

Nice to see so much love for ReaEQ...

I think it's a great "clean" EQ for cuts and slight boosts but for extremer boosts and coloring there are better EQs.

Or does anyone use ReaEQ for coloring purposes?

The best thing you can do is to demo other EQs and if you like their sound, then buy them. There's no better judge than our own ears...

Price doesn't say much about quality. You can buy a $100 EQ and it sounds worse than ReaEQ, and you can spend the same amount of money for a different EQ that sounds great...

[meloco_go]

Indeed, cramping is pretty insignificant at 88.2 or 96KHz and gone completely at still higher rates. That's like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer though!

Not to me, plenty of the plugins I use sound nicer @96 too. And as far as sledgehammer goes -- on modern generation computer @96 is hardly a problem resource-wise.

[chokehold]

ReaEQ cramps up in the high frequencies, so as you get close to nyquist (anywhere above about 10k if you're working at 44.1) the shape of the cut or boost goes all skewed and departs quite significantly from the analogue model.

A well designed EQ such as Pro-Q is therefore much better for high frequency "air" boosts etc.

For low frequency or mid range work ReaEQ is fine, though I would hate to give up the ergonomics of the Fabfilter plug, or the MS stereo options. I do like the fact that you can show phase response in ReaEQ however, and I occasionally load it up for the Allpass filters.

This made me roll my eyes so bad... you believe in a running direction in cables and gold contacts as well, right?

Do the phase reversal test. If you can pinpoint a -80dB sound difference of an EQ on a single track in a full mix - respect.

[IIRs]

Fair enough, if you already use high sample rates for other reasons then de-cramped EQ curves can be considered an extra bonus. Purely as a method for decramping EQ curves however it is rather a brute force method, and I consider it overkill as there are better, more elegant solutions to the problem that don't require over sampling.

[IIRs]

ReaEQ cramps up in the high frequencies, so as you get close to nyquist (anywhere above about 10k if you're working at 44.1) the shape of the cut or boost goes all skewed and departs quite significantly from the analogue model.

A well designed EQ such as Pro-Q is therefore much better for high frequency "air" boosts etc.

For low frequency or mid range work ReaEQ is fine, though I would hate to give up the ergonomics of the Fabfilter plug, or the MS stereo options. I do like the fact that you can show phase response in ReaEQ however, and I occasionally load it up for the Allpass filters.

This made me roll my eyes so bad... you believe in a running direction in cables and gold contacts as well, right?

Do the phase reversal test. If you can pinpoint a -80dB sound difference of an EQ on a single track in a full mix - respect.

Running direction in cables: yes, because I prefer to use XLR plugs wherever possible.

It's not difficult to demonstrate the difference between a de-cramped EQ and a RBJ style algo. I'm sure someone must have made some graphs? This is not voodoo, it's a well known phenomenon, and it's only an issue once you get within about the final octave below nyquist.

[meloco_go]

Fair enough, if you already use high sample rates for other reasons then de-cramped EQ curves can be considered an extra bonus. Purely as a method for decramping EQ curves however it is rather a brute force method, and I consider it overkill as there are better, more elegant solutions to the problem that don't require over sampling.

Sure.
What's funny is that if I work @44.1 I don't often find cramping that much of a problem, I just have to trust my ears and dial in a setting which sound good even if EQ graph shows something weird. It's hard though to get same responce if you used to work one way or the other.

[IIRs]

I'm sure someone must have made some graphs?

Yes, I did as it happens. Here's some progressively higher boosts from Pro-Q:







And the cramped versions:

[camsr]

Indeed, cramping is pretty insignificant at 88.2 or 96KHz and gone completely at still higher rates. That's like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer though!

Not to me, plenty of the plugins I use sound nicer @96 too. And as far as sledgehammer goes -- on modern generation computer @96 is hardly a problem resource-wise.

Both of you are right, because it's also a matter of project size. Downgrading to 48/44.1 is justified as long as the quality isn't diminished too far. But I am wary of doing it because some plugin's oversampling methods are not neutral in every context.