The Best EQ-Matching Equalizer VST

VST, AU, etc. plug-in Virtual Effects discussion
KVRer

Topic Starter

26 posts since 13 Oct, 2018

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:20 am

Johnny Blade wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:07 am
ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:53 am
It appears to be a parametric EQ, and I actually want a linear-phase one.
Master Match is LINEAR PHASE. And you can enable or disable its linear phase feature.

It's really the best I could test. Easy. Effective. Excellent.
Oh, I didn't see this, btw, is the range of the curve limited to +-20dB?

KVRer

Topic Starter

26 posts since 13 Oct, 2018

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:30 am

Cooker wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:10 am
ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:19 am
Cooker wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:56 am
If not Melda, the most detailed to know is the (offline) FFT in Samplitude but you'll need the DAW for that.
I actually tried it, the only problem with it is that its matching feature isn't precise enough.
Hmmm, just in case missed if you don't select the whole wave it will only analyze the first 30 seconds. My final suggestion would be to try har-bal.

I didn't exactly understand what you're after but also research for something that matches max-peak response (can't remember if melda can do that, voxengo can but the eq on it isn't detailed).
I actually did select the whole wave :);
I remember trying Har-Bal v2.3 but I actually found it somehow hard to use and I couldn't get how things work (like how to edit the EQ curve);
I've tried Voxengo Curve EQ and it was indeed not detailed enough.

KVRian
660 posts since 3 May, 2004

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:34 am

+1 for Equivocate!

KVRian
667 posts since 8 Apr, 2012

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:19 am

ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:31 am
Arrested Developer wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:44 am
ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:38 am
I think the problem with Equivocate is that it's limited to 26 bands.
That's rather a problem in theory.
In my experience Equivocate gives very convincing results.
I actually want more precision than that to have more control about the sound I'm trying to achieve.
I'm not sure if you are really talking about what you hear or what you see, but my guess is that you are not perfectly aware of the factors that come with the musical content.
At higher frequencies every single difference in the harmonic content in your music results in differences that can't be "matched", because this would mean that you have to change the corresponding notes in your music.
-> E.g. the difference between 3.3 kHz and 3.5 kHz is 1 halftone. If you want to perfectly match it, you'd need to use a different note...

KVRer

Topic Starter

26 posts since 13 Oct, 2018

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:30 am

Arrested Developer wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:19 am
ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:31 am
Arrested Developer wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:44 am
ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:38 am
I think the problem with Equivocate is that it's limited to 26 bands.
That's rather a problem in theory.
In my experience Equivocate gives very convincing results.
I actually want more precision than that to have more control about the sound I'm trying to achieve.
I'm not sure if you are really talking about what you hear or what you see, but my guess is that you are not perfectly aware of the factors that come with the musical content.
At higher frequencies every single difference in the harmonic content in your music results in differences that can't be "matched", because this would mean that you have to change the corresponding notes in your music.
-> E.g. the difference between 3.3 kHz and 3.5 kHz is 1 halftone. If you want to perfectly match it, you'd need to use a different note...
What I'm trying to do is to create my own samples from noise;
So, I want an equalizer with a precise and accurate EQ-Matching function to see what different sounds look like as EQ curves, so that when I think of a sound, I should be able to determine the shape of the EQ curve that when applied to noise gives a close enough sound, then I can edit it a bit to get the sound I want.

KVRian
667 posts since 8 Apr, 2012

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:40 am

ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:30 am
What I'm trying to do is to create my own samples from noise;
So, I want an equalizer with a precise and accurate EQ-Matching function to see what different sounds look like as EQ curves, so that when I think of a sound, I should be able to determine the shape of the EQ curve that when applied to noise gives a close enough sound, then I can edit it a bit to get the sound I want.
"Noise" consists of lots of stochastically occurring frequencies (usually with a specific weighting) which pop up for short moments.
For most sounds you'd need several continuous frequencies.

KVRer

Topic Starter

26 posts since 13 Oct, 2018

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:51 am

Arrested Developer wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:40 am
ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:30 am
What I'm trying to do is to create my own samples from noise;
So, I want an equalizer with a precise and accurate EQ-Matching function to see what different sounds look like as EQ curves, so that when I think of a sound, I should be able to determine the shape of the EQ curve that when applied to noise gives a close enough sound, then I can edit it a bit to get the sound I want.
"Noise" consists of lots of stochastically occurring frequencies (usually with a specific weighting) which pop up for short moments.
For most sounds you'd need several continuous frequencies.
I know that, I use noise for only a part of the sound, not all of it.

KVRian
667 posts since 8 Apr, 2012

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:56 am

@ahmedyaser100: ok, i see. That's really not the purpose of EQuivocate.

KVRer

Topic Starter

26 posts since 13 Oct, 2018

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:08 am

Arrested Developer wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:56 am
@ahmedyaser100: ok, i see. That's really not the purpose of EQuivocate.
That's what I thought, and I don't think that there is an EQ made for this purpose so far, I'm just trying to get as close as possible to what I want using what's available. :)

User avatar
KVRist
281 posts since 22 Nov, 2015

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:52 am

You tried a vocoder? With the matching EQ it will just be a static frequency response

KVRian
667 posts since 8 Apr, 2012

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:56 am

MSpectralDynamics is not exactly a MatchEQ, but you could try to use it for that purpose (it has quite a learning curve though).
You could use it like a Denoiser with a learning function that you reverse.

KVRer

Topic Starter

26 posts since 13 Oct, 2018

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:22 am

Havok wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:52 am
You tried a vocoder? With the matching EQ it will just be a static frequency response
I haven't actually, I will :)

KVRer

Topic Starter

26 posts since 13 Oct, 2018

Post Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:24 am

Arrested Developer wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:56 am
MSpectralDynamics is not exactly a MatchEQ, but you could try to use it for that purpose (it has quite a learning curve though).
You could use it like a Denoiser with a learning function that you reverse.
I actually tried it, I'll try again and see if I can get better results :)

KVRAF
1886 posts since 2 Jul, 2010

Post Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:56 am

woggle wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:53 am
ahmedyaser100 wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:38 am
imrae wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:18 am
What are you using EQ matching for that requires so many bands? Hard to edit the output at that point.
I'm trying to recreate sound samples from noise.

That's interesting, why are you doing that? (if you have coding skills you can do that by randomising the phase info of the fft)
Yeah, this seems like FFT territory rather than EQ filter territory. Sounds like OP is trying to reinvent spectral synthesis? Check out Spectral and Thorn.

KVRAF
5362 posts since 28 Dec, 2015 from Hanover, Germany

Post Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:34 am

Somebody already mentioned iZotope OZONE?

Return to “Effects”