Difference between VST eq's?

[Bosqoue!]

Recently i downloaded a demo of sonalksis sv-517 eq to compare against the TC Native Bundle we usually run here at my school.

I just made a simple test and tried to set them up with the exact same settings and output volumes.

I could hardly hear any difference...

Later i talked about it with one of my teachers, who said that in the digital domain, there is not a very big differnce between eqs, because the maths that goes on inside is quite simple and very much alike. And because there is no such things as noise and quality issues found in analog eq's he said that you could use any digital eq - the result would be the same. On the other hand digtial compressors should be quite different from each other because they are build on algorithms.

All of this made me a tad confused. You see bunches of expensive VST eq's come out quite often. I can hardly believe he's right? Or what? Can anyone really hear great difference with VST eq's?

[C00kie]

True, if the algo's behind are the same, they'll sound the same. That also goes for analogue EQ's btw: simular filter cirquit designs will sound simular.

The problem is that the basic filter algorythm used in an EQ is not advertised. There are exceptions, like phase-linear EQ's.

Nevertheless I do not see it as a problem. Just stick with one you really like.

[pinkwasp]

Ahaaah! Bosqoue, it seems you mgiht be exposing the fact that the emperor doesn't seem to have many clothes on.

[Bosqoue!]

well, something like that could also be the title of this topic

But i wouldn't be good if it was true

[snooky]

isn't the sonalksis supposed to sound analog and smooth? the TC Native one's sound really harsh to me...can't really compare those two can you? also, as far as I know, the TC bundle was supposed to run on a 400mhz p2, and the sonalkis optimised for new P4:s and AMD CPU's.

[Bosqoue!]

Well.. I could hardly hear any differnce and i think one should hear if they are really far from each other..? Can you hear the difference between eq's? im wondering if my ear isn't trained enough or if the differences really aren't that big....

[peejunk]

As with analogue, digital filters also have designs. They can, however, employ different algos to implement their filter designs. Difference that would, with analogue equmpent, come from different parts models is non-existand in digital domain, but there are others (oversampling, interpolation etc.)

[snooky]

Well.. I could hardly hear any differnce and i think one should hear if they are really far from each other..? Can you hear the difference between eq's? im wondering if my ear isn't trained enough or if the differences really aren't that big....

If you're asking me then yes! I can hear EQ diffrences very well. it's easiest to hear the dif if you make extreme EQ settings, especially in the high register. most digital eq's tend to distort the harmonics and sound really harsh when the highs are pushed to far...analog eq' do that aswell if they use lower grade components.

[useruseruser]

Later i talked about it with one of my teachers, who said that in the digital domain, there is not a very big differnce between eqs, because the maths that goes on inside is quite simple and very much alike. And because there is no such things as noise and quality issues found in analog eq's he said that you could use any digital eq - the result would be the same.

Hopefully the world is somehow "different" to the "point of view" of your teacher...

[fac]

I can also hear differences with extreme settings, although I can't actually quantify or even describe those differences.

When I was in search for an EQ plugin I tried a bunch: Steinberg FreeFilter, Voxengo CurveEQ and GlissEQ, PSP MasterQ, Waves RenEQ, WaveArts TrackPlug, along with the ones I already had: Cakewalk Parametric EQ, DSP-FX EQ, ParisEQ.

All of them did a decent job at normal settings (ie.- less than 6db cut/boost), but some of them started to sound harsh at more extreme settings (12 db) - I reduced the options only to those which sounded best to me.

Then I focused on the interface and other features. In the end I chose two plugins: CurveEQ and WaveArts TrackPlug. The TrackPlug is great for tracking, sounds very transparent, and is extremely CPU efficient (2x to 4x faster than the others). CurveEQ has a great interface, great sound, and plenty of features which make it an excellent EQ for mastering.

[dasdeck]

if you try the eq's on really good lively accoustic source material(samples that really sound fresh,smoth and real), the differences are easyer to hear. Bad EQs quckly makes the sound dull., also the differences might seem very small to you, the problems of a bad sounding eq sum up in a mix.


DECK

[greendoor]

Later i talked about it with one of my teachers, who said that in the digital domain, there is not a very big differnce between eqs, because the maths that goes on inside is quite simple and very much alike. And because there is no such things as noise and quality issues found in analog eq's he said that you could use any digital eq - the result would be the same. On the other hand digtial compressors should be quite different from each other because they are build on algorithms.

This statement seems to contradict itself, either that or you teacher is an ass.

Real Analog ciruits have a lot of noise and quality issues such as phaseshifts. I find most low cost eq's to be far too noisy for recording use. Digital eq's don't suffer from noise, but they do suffer from sounding harsh. There are large variations in digital eq sound quality. I like Kjaerhus GEQ-7 for sweet sounding, flexible eq options.

[Sascha Franck]

I'm no EQing expert by any means, but quite a while ago I did some tests.
I couldn't actually notice too much of a difference between the build in Logic EQ (FatEQ, for the matter) and Waves' ParamEQ or RenEQ (those were the two I used - as said, it's been quite a while ago). Oh yes, on drastic settings they sounded somewhat different, especially in boost mode, but on "normal" mixing settings everything seemed to be OK using either of the three.
Well, after fooling around with individual signals I thought I should try this in a mix, carefully replacing each Logic EQ with a Waves one, using approximately the same settings (plain number readouts didn't do it, so some adjustements were required). FWIW, it was some rather plain band stuff, multitracked drums (I think on 8 tracks), bass, 1-2 guitars, Rhodes, some Hammond bits, main vocals and 2-3 backing vocals in a sort of sould-funk alike song.
Well, what can I say? The mix sounded quite a bit better with the Waves EQs. I couldn't nail down the differences on the individual track settings, but as soon as the full mix was running, everything seemed to be more open, wider and fatter too.
This has at least been around 3-4 years ago, in the meantime there should be even better 3rd party EQs.

However, something that needs to be stressed out: MANY EQs seem to do a reasonable job on cutting frequencies, whereas they might indeed sound harsh on boost settings. So, a trick (actually not a trick at all but rather old wisdom, even in the analog domain) might be to cut unwanted portions of a signal rather than boosting parts/frequencies you want to be exposed.

But as said, I am no EQ expert at all, my ears are ageing and all that...

[AndrewSimon]

I can hear differences between EQ's.
How much difference? well that is up to interpretation.

Some of the EQ's that are modeled after vintage tube EQ's are definitely different (Pultec, T-racks)

[Left Headphone]

There is a difference... I have Eqium and Gliss. A +4db @ 8k wide band on a drum track is a huge difference. These are more surgical eq's. Probably not the best for boosting.