EQ A/B test -- last day

[bobby yarrow]

If you haven't heard them, there's a bunch of test clips of EQ plugins (+1 hardware) here: www.theyarrows.com/eqtest I'm thinking I'll pull them off the site tomorrow, so there you go.

I'd love to hear if anybody found the tests interesting. I'm undecided myself. Thought they'd be totally useless, but they're a bit more revealing than that I think.

[Funkybot]

I definately found this interesting and would love to do this again. I'd still really like to see a bass track, a full mix, and an acoustic guitar, all processed with different EQs at different settings from the same original wav file, then converted to at least a 192kbps MP3 to save as much fidelity as possible, with some greater boosts/cuts on some (8db high shelf boost at 5k, 6db low shelf boost at 100hz, for example).

What surprised me most about these tests, is how well I thought MasterQ held up against the URS plug-ins (though those probably win in the high end), and just how great I thought the Oxford EQ's mode 4 was. I still need to give them a lot more listens, as there's still a few where I can't decide if one is more pleasing than the other, but this was extrememly helpful, and hopefully something we can try again later on.

[Left Headphone]

Cool test... I didn't like the URS as much as I thought I would.

The EqStat and UAD had the clearer tone to me.

I would've liked to heard the Blue Tubes Eq A. I'm test driving it for 8 more days. I think alot of people are sleeping on the NF BT plugs.

[bobby yarrow]

I'd be game to do it again, and a higher bandwidth would probably be a good idea. I went down to 128 only cause that was the highest mono bandwidth I could export, and I decided to keep the whole thing mono.

I find it most revealing in the EQ's that allow for identical settings. The pultec is just a shot in the dark, not really a fair test, and the URS plugins required some guess work.

I'm wishing I'd flipped for the URS A. I really like the N, but I should have gone for the package . . .

The oxford is pretty stunning, even low rez. It's a lot of lettuce for a plugin, I still think so, but it really is awful nice. My powercore is really under-utilized, so maybe dumping $400+ on the EQ could be characterized as a re-capture of my investment . . .

I've loved MasterQ, have thought that it stacked up well against the avalon, and I feel like the test is consistent with that; I'm actually surpised how much character the avalon's got, I'd thought of it as almost dangerously clean.

Anyhow. Higher rez, some different program material, would be interesting for sure. Maybe I'll put up .wav files of a bass part with a separate .wav of the rest of the mix, and then we can process the bass in context. Do the same with a vocal. And then a separate solo acoustic. That'd be a nice series.

Man. I really only did this to prove how useless it would be, and now I'm kind of getting into it . . .

[Funkybot]

I think reverb A/B tests are pretty useless, but I had a feeling that even at worst this test would be interesting. I was also shocked that nothing that was tested sounded horrible, and listening to the demos again, I really want me an Oxford (I'm gonna need a damn DSP card first). If you do try this test again though, please boost the highs on the full mix to a level one wouldn't normally push them to. It'd be a good test to see of what these EQs are really doing to the high end. Also, if you run this again, drop me an e-mail (even ahead of time if you want) I'll contribute with the Sonic Timeworks EQ as well as Eqium (I could even do MasterQ), and possibly some freebies I still have in my plugins folder. This was a lot of fun though.

I think my finals thoughts are that I really liked the Oxford (on both settings, though that type 4 example sounds great), the URS stuff was good, but like you, I prefered the A to the N, and I also liked the Fulltec a lot. I didn't like the Pultec demo at all (but that may just be the settings incompatibility making it sound too different), EQSat did nothing for me (didn't find the top end or bottom end to appealing), and MasterQ held up pretty well in all the frequency ranges sounding quite natural, but the top end wasn't quite as sweet as the Oxford's.

[9b0]

I have only one suggestion... if you could please describe, how you used thoose EQ's... it would say sooo much more to me! By some of them, i can hear a low boost, while some have lack on low frequencies. I think, this data would make the comparsion more exact and reliable.

[Funkybot]

9b0, Bobby Yarrow posted this information in his post in the original thread that linked to the sound files. Check out that thread for more info.

[bobby yarrow]

I have only one suggestion... if you could please describe, how you used thoose EQ's... it would say sooo much more to me! By some of them, i can hear a low boost, while some have lack on low frequencies. I think, this data would make the comparsion more exact and reliable.

Yes, very hard to guess what the eq's are doing. The target was: high-pass at 110 with 24db/octave (when available); high shelf at 8K, Q of 1, +3db; and, bump of 5 db at 3.2K, fairly narrow. If we do it again, I think the specifics of the settings should be more uniform.

[dharmawan]

that avalon is f**ked up sounds like youve got feedback going somewhere

[dharmawan]

out of these fulltec and oxford sound best to my ears

[bobby yarrow]

The gain structure on the avalon might have messed up, I did it in about 30 seconds in an unfit state one morning. It does sound smeared out, especially the bottom. If it's feedback, I'm a little screwed, so let's hope it just the gain structure's weird . . .