KVR Audio

pannewb · Post by **pannewb** » Mon May 16, 2005 3:24 am

One would think that they would both accomplish the same thing and that they are fairly easy to make into software. But, I am not a hard man and do not know much about plug development.

You're probably thinking "O my poor tired eyes, another X vs. Y topic" but is this not actually a useful topic?
Aside for perhaps some latency, would there be enough difference between them to buy hardware+2 cables over software? I am using Cubase on a XP system with 1 gig of RAM and a 2600+ Athlon XP.
thx

greendoor · Post by **greendoor** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:24 am

There is good and bad hardware, and good and bad software. Cheap/affordable hardware eq is frequently unusable in a studio because it hisses too much. In that regard, most VST plugin eq is superior. The holy grail of eq is generally the ultra high-end analog hardware - and the best plugins attempt to recreate their sound. For example, I find the eq in most software DAWs (including Cubase SX) to sound a bit harsh when boosting the high frequencies. I use Kjaerhus GEQ-7, which blew me away with it's musical sound. Some people who own the expensive Oxford or Cambridge eq software say that the GEQ-7 is comparable - I don't know, but it sounds good to me - plenty of variation, including that Pultec-type sound.

greendoor · Post by **greendoor** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:35 am

Also - your DA and AD converters need to be very high quality if you decide to use external eq. The difference between excellent software and excellent hardware might be annihilated if your converters aren't the best. Which is why I'm very happy with software.

kilroy · Post by **kilroy** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:48 am

For clinical/surgical work a good digital EQ is very useful. With a good design, for example, you can make relatively fine, aggressive cuts without the drastic phase shifts you would normally get from analog designs using steep, narrow band gain reductions.

For general wide band shaping, the good analog designs still play a very useful role. An EQ like Millenia's NSEQ-2 is so quiet that noise concerns are rather moot indeed, and no digital EQ I have used has quite the ability to impart so much wonderfulness to a signal in such a musically transparent way.

I am forever grateful we have both technologies at our disposal, and the absence of either one would be sorely missed indeed.

cold c · Post by **cold c** » Mon May 16, 2005 5:04 am

pannewb wrote:would there be enough difference between them to buy hardware+2 cables over software?

No. If you have audio that is already in digital form (in your DAW) it makes sense to process it digitally, furthermore, you get much more for your money with software EQs, not just in terms of price/quality ratio but in terms of flexibilty (multiple instances, patch recall, sample accuracy etc.).

A high end analogue EQ is going to be extremely expensive and as greendoor says the D/A and A/D converters are going to be used in an 'extra' round trip, so to minimize their impact on the signal (with a high end EQ and the increased number of signal journeys) they need to be good quality which may mean more expense.

On the other hand, if you are recording from an external source and can EQ your signal in analogue before it gets to the first A/D then it makes sense to do that with a hardware analogue EQ if you have one available.

If you want to spend money I suggest you try the various EQs from:
Sonalksis
Voxengo
Waves
Kjaerhus

and probably others

which are all better value than a high end analogue EQ.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Mon May 16, 2005 6:34 am

I find that wearing a pair of loose fitting trousers helps EQing whether using hardware or software.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Mon May 16, 2005 3:05 pm

I find that wearing a pair of loose fitting trousers helps EQing whether using hardware or software.

And yet strangely enough, I find that wearing a tight pair of underpants works well with wearing loose-fitting trousers. Conversely, wearing no underpants is perfectly acceptable with a pair of tight-fitting trousers. I have no idea what the effect of loose-fitting ot tight-fitting underpants has on one's use of Eq. I always imagine that those who utilise overly-much high end Eq wear tight underpants, and those more of a disposition towards mid and bass frequencies would be those of a baggy pant persuasion. I have no scientific evidence for this though; it is purely anecdotal.

bobby yarrow · Post by **bobby yarrow** » Mon May 16, 2005 4:15 pm

There's a hardware eq . . . a pretty good one in my opinion . . . in my little EQ shoot-out. Details in the A/B eq thread, clips here: www.theyarrows.com/eqtest I don't find the test particularly useful, but maybe somebody else will.

cold c · Post by **cold c** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:49 pm

kritikon wrote:
I find that wearing a pair of loose fitting trousers helps EQing whether using hardware or software.
And yet strangely enough, I find that wearing a tight pair of underpants works well with wearing loose-fitting trousers.

I find that switching off the EQ graph (if possible) and simply using the GUI dials (where available) helps produce nice results.

pannewb · Post by **pannewb** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:35 pm

Hmmm...
Software is the way for me to go, I think. I am not using any outside input, all VST and some samples. And I am not ready to purchase a nice sound card. (SB Audigy 2 Value probably not that good.)
So...
Could anybody reccomend both a surgical EQ and a general tone EQ? I like the GEQ-7 from kjaerhus, but beyond that I know nothing about EQs.
Peace and Thanks for the replies so far

.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Tue May 17, 2005 2:24 pm

GEQ-7 sounds like a good bet. One of these days I'll get around to buying myself a decent Eq (I really don't use Eq that much). And my main 3 contenders are probably Eqium from Elemental Audio, GEQ-7, and that new URS Fultec thingummy. Possibly I might get Eqium and one from the 2 others (because Eqium has a lovely glassy high end that I like, but is too digital and clean for my tastes in the other ranges - whereas the other two have character lower down)

As far as getting one for precision and one for general tone - I wouldn't do that - any decent parametric Eq can do both anyway: One is enough for you, but the choice is in the flavour of Eq you like. That's pretty well the only reason users have more than one Eq - there can be quite a noticeable difference in character (just because they're digital doesn't mean they're all the same).

dx-9 · Post by **dx-9** » Tue May 17, 2005 2:36 pm

i dont know a really good soft-eq. again it depends what you want to eq with...
but for final mixes or mastering i use PQ (spl) hardware OF COURSE...

daverich · Post by **daverich** » Tue May 17, 2005 3:04 pm

voxengo gliss EQ is *very* good - as is the curve EQ for mastering.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

Software vs. Hardware EQ