Tried the Sonalksis EQ

[steffensen]

if you ask me: an eq is an eq and not meant for (harmonic) coloring but just precise spectrum manipulation.

just for curiousity, if EQ arent ment for coloring, whats the URS EQ's about then?

for me its both.
i tend to use sonalksis for both coloring and surgical stuff, and URS Fulltec for mainly coloring.

[AKJ]

Most of the time in mixing I use the Sonitus EQ (the plugin version and the one which is biuld into Sonar). Sometimes, if I need a dynamic behaviour or the spectrum overlay-funtion, I use GlissEQ. If I want coloration I use Lampthruster and/or Tube Booster and/or Convolution.

For mastering I use CurveEQ where I can swithc on and off the coloration options according to my needs.

akj

[martian]

The point is, do not be so quick to jump to conclusions. Some people might have superior hardware to make identification of subtle changes much easier (superior soundcard,clock and monitors). I do not bathe in glory but rather just trying to give tips and tricks on how to improve ones ear-brain work and the sonalksis "test" is a good exercise, that's all.

Now, want more? Try hearing the subtle differences of the Voxengo Warmifier different tube modes!

Cheers!
bManic

probably a bit beyond me if i cant hear the eqs differences.

it does amaze me though that they can be so worried about the tiniest change in sound, but then still have a harsh high end on the eq (no worse than other alogorithmic eqs though), i'm assuming its jus impossible to sort with an alogorithmic approach currently?!

[MickGael]

One way to look at this question is to consider than simply passing unprocessed audio through some vintage gear (and some not so vontage) does change the sound.

The question then becomes "is the sound desirable?"

But what do I know? I still swear that back in the day, when I would make 1:1 ADAT dupes (supposedly perfect digital copies), the very high-end and transients on the copies was (ever so slightly) smeared.

[AKJ]

One way to look at this question is to consider than simply passing unprocessed audio through some vintage gear (and some not so vontage) does change the sound.

I can well imagine that it pappens with hardware but if it happens withg software I suppose it is a coding error and should be fixed.

[multree]

The point is, do not be so quick to jump to conclusions. Some people might have superior hardware to make identification of subtle changes much easier (superior soundcard,clock and monitors). I do not bathe in glory but rather just trying to give tips and tricks on how to improve ones ear-brain work and the sonalksis "test" is a good exercise, that's all.

Now, want more? Try hearing the subtle differences of the Voxengo Warmifier different tube modes!

Cheers!
bManic

probably a bit beyond me if i cant hear the eqs differences.

it does amaze me though that they can be so worried about the tiniest change in sound, but then still have a harsh high end on the eq (no worse than other alogorithmic eqs though), i'm assuming its jus impossible to sort with an alogorithmic approach currently?!

try URS' BLT or Fulltec.... super smooth highs... and still algo EQ's

[MickGael]

One way to look at this question is to consider than simply passing unprocessed audio through some vintage gear (and some not so vontage) does change the sound.

I can well imagine that it pappens with hardware but if it happens withg software I suppose it is a coding error and should be fixed.

I was being tongue-in-cheek....

[bmanic]

probably a bit beyond me if i cant hear the eqs differences.

it does amaze me though that they can be so worried about the tiniest change in sound, but then still have a harsh high end on the eq (no worse than other alogorithmic eqs though), i'm assuming its jus impossible to sort with an alogorithmic approach currently?!

Yeah, I agree. I even suggested to sonalksis that they provide x4 oversampling to sort out the high end but they gave a firm no, stating that the EQ is fine as it is.. I even provided .wav files (should still be in some thread there) of sonalksis EQ at 44.1khz and at 96khz to demonstrate the benefits. Oh well, can't have it all I guess.

Btw, I'm probably the only person on earth that does NOT like the URS plugins that much. We demoed them with a bunch of other EQs (UA pultec, macDSP eqs, focusrite red eq plug, sony oxford, bombfactory pultec, waves all EQs etc.) and found them to be quite digital sounding too at more extreme settings (like most algorithmic EQs I've ever heard). This test was done in a proper studio over genelec 1031's and a protools HD system (all plugins were TDM versions).

Maybe they've changed the code for the better lately as it's over a year since the shootout.

IMO for smoothest algorithmic EQ there is only one, Voxengo HarmoniEQ at 96khz. Smooth as silk and absolute killer on CPU (literally killing it!)

-bManic

[martian]

Yeah, I agree. I even suggested to sonalksis that they provide x4 oversampling to sort out the high end but they gave a firm no, stating that the EQ is fine as it is.. I even provided .wav files (should still be in some thread there) of sonalksis EQ at 44.1khz and at 96khz to demonstrate the benefits. Oh well, can't have it all I guess.

Btw, I'm probably the only person on earth that does NOT like the URS plugins that much. We demoed them with a bunch of other EQs (UA pultec, macDSP eqs, focusrite red eq plug, sony oxford, bombfactory pultec, waves all EQs etc.) and found them to be quite digital sounding too at more extreme settings (like most algorithmic EQs I've ever heard). This test was done in a proper studio over genelec 1031's and a protools HD system (all plugins were TDM versions).

Maybe they've changed the code for the better lately as it's over a year since the shootout.

IMO for smoothest algorithmic EQ there is only one, Voxengo HarmoniEQ at 96khz. Smooth as silk and absolute killer on CPU (literally killing it!)

-bManic

wow im impressed, nice one, wonder why they couldnt have 4x as an option?!

i jus tried harmonieq with the new phasy mode which is v smooth. i still feel hydra is a bit smoother though, maybe my hearing though ?!

amongst other things i make club music, so the harshness of the high end is usually the most important thing to me with eqs, everything has to sound as clear and unpainful as posible at volume.

i havent tried any at 96k though, cause id never be able to use it like that in production (cpu is usually maxed at 44.1), but something i'll try soon for the experience.

anoying i cant try the urs stuff cause of the stupid pace.

[defjamm]

probably a bit beyond me if i cant hear the eqs differences.

it does amaze me though that they can be so worried about the tiniest change in sound, but then still have a harsh high end on the eq (no worse than other alogorithmic eqs though), i'm assuming its jus impossible to sort with an alogorithmic approach currently?!

Yeah, I agree. I even suggested to sonalksis that they provide x4 oversampling to sort out the high end but they gave a firm no, stating that the EQ is fine as it is.. I even provided .wav files (should still be in some thread there) of sonalksis EQ at 44.1khz and at 96khz to demonstrate the benefits. Oh well, can't have it all I guess.

Btw, I'm probably the only person on earth that does NOT like the URS plugins that much. We demoed them with a bunch of other EQs (UA pultec, macDSP eqs, focusrite red eq plug, sony oxford, bombfactory pultec, waves all EQs etc.) and found them to be quite digital sounding too at more extreme settings (like most algorithmic EQs I've ever heard). This test was done in a proper studio over genelec 1031's and a protools HD system (all plugins were TDM versions).

Maybe they've changed the code for the better lately as it's over a year since the shootout.

IMO for smoothest algorithmic EQ there is only one, Voxengo HarmoniEQ at 96khz. Smooth as silk and absolute killer on CPU (literally killing it!)

-bManic

no, you're not the only one with your opinion about urs. looking at the price and the nice graphics i thought they would be better, i like hydratone more. imo urs are similar to sonalksis, both sound nice for their cpu-consumption. harshness can be musical when the source needs it.
regarding algorithmic eqs, i bet algorithmix has the best ones(for clean tasks), but they need crazy amounts of cpu and are pricey.
the uad-1 precision-eq is also nice for an algorihtmic one.
^^that's all at 44khz. i don't try eqs at 96khz because i'm not able to work on a whole project at 96k with my current setup, so i simply don't care.
i hope it's not too long until angeltone gets released, it's supposed to be even better than hydratone in the highs at 44k.

@bmaniac: what did you think of the other eqs you tested?

[defjamm]

Q-clone, this is one hell of an EQ. Boost 6db at 10kHz, n'f**king'p. Its a pricy bit of kit, but if Voxengo or Kjaerhus make a similar plug then this really will be the way forward.

do you have any idea what EQ's where used to make the included impulses then? I read something about it in SOS, but there were no model nrs...?

neve, pultec, massenburg as far as i remember. but it's not really usable without a nice hardware-eq, using presets from a menu for equalizing sucks. i admit i liked the sound of it more than their other eqs.

here's the 'sonalksis-upsampling'-thread btw. i wonder where their gate is?
http://www.sonalksis.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96

[bmanic]

@bmaniac: what did you think of the other eqs you tested?

The general opinion with all listeners was that they all had good and bad points. Most were very usable but in different situations. URS Eq for instance had a very 'musical shape' of the curve but the algorithm itself was a bit grainy.
UA pultec was quite nice for cutting bass but boosting the highs it also seemed quite harsh and compared to the tubetec pultec clone it was "just another plugin". I personally didn't like any of the McDSP plugins at all. Very much a case of "pretty graphics, mediocre sound" (IMHO!).
Waves TDM renEQ fared actually pretty well in the comparison (for basic cut, not boost!) and this was also the time we noticed that there was quite a difference in RTAS and TDM waves plugins, in ALL of them (especially noticeable on the C4 multiband compressor and the L2 ultramaximizer).
The sony oxford plugin did quite well too but it also worked much better when cutting than boosting (a common trend among algorithmic EQs).
Of all the plugins we tried (compressors, amp sims, EQs, etc.), the only real jaw droppers were the UA La-2A and 1176, which all agreed, were superb.

Cheers!
bManic

[steffensen]

so in the end, wich of the software EQ's are the best of choice then?

as said before, personally i prefer using my URS eq's for coloring (as they are very musical..) and my sonalksis for surgical cutting and some coloring as well, as it are smoooth.
i would use my creamware eq if it were better than the urs and sonalksis actually, as creamware for me, have overall the best sounding stuff ever.

i am however using their 1176 "emulation".. ok, its more based on the 1176 than an emulation, but its still v nice.

sure, harmonieq sounds über smooth, and i wouldnt be surprised if it were the best sounding eq of them all, but i cant overlook the cpu consumption of it, and therefore i cant really put that one on the top, as cpu consumption really must be taken in the consideration imo.

btw bManic, dont make me regret seeling my UAD-1 now.. im having a hard time NOT missing the LA2A and 1176 here.


(i am not gonna buy anymore eq's as im waay more than pleased with my setup, so the above question is mainly out of curiousity.)

[bmanic]

btw bManic, dont make me regret seeling my UAD-1 now.. im having a hard time NOT missing the LA2A and 1176 here.

... you .. you sold it???

- bManic

[steffensen]

haha yea.. i have a LOT more use of a creamware pulsar II than a uad-1.
so i really dont regret it, not one bit.

i DO however miss the LA2A and 1176. but its not the end of the world, as i have other stuff that are pretty good too.