10-Band PLParEQ is Here!

[fritzman]

Just tried the 10-band demo version. I used all 10 bands at quality level 5 and got a CPU reading of 40%. Not bad!

Cheers!
bManic

What kinda machine do you have there? I got 55% on my P4 @ 3.5GHz.

haha thats nothing.

quality 5, all 10 bands active with PL on, i get 16%.

edit: jus realised as soon as you move the gain away from 0 the cpu load goes up. so quality 5, all 10 bands with gain and PL on, equals 75% cpu

Yeah right,

my number is with all 10 bands on PLPk1 and gain non zero.


Best wishes, FRitz

[original flipper]

HI

I remember people harking on about the 'Ambience' reverb and in the next sentence about 30%+ CPU usage - I can't in this day and age of 3,000ghz power DAW's accept that anything that takes up much more than 10% per instance is worth considering as anything other than of curiosity value.

Personally I found this plug to be a pretty tempremental bleeder!

Flipper.

[Kingston]

I can't in this day and age of 3,000ghz power DAW's accept that anything that takes up much more than 10% per instance is worth considering as anything other than of curiosity value.

Well it's for mastering, not mixing, so the CPU usage isn't that much of a problem.

[bk]

David, thanks for the freebie. It sounds great.
If you're interested, I came up with a few "improvements" that could be made to help justify the cost on your 10 band version.

Please note: I'm not moaning at all! I'm quite happy with it the way it is, but there are a few things I've come to expect (and I'm sure, others as well) from a good EQ, besides the sound.

First up would be mousewheel control of the Q. This becomes very intuitive after you use it for a while.

Next would be "doubleclicking" nodes to bypass them.

An option for a higher resolution display (ie: +/- 6 dB, rather than 20). I doubt many mastering engineers are forced to EQ that drastically!

Also a graph showing the composite response of all active filters would be handy.

Again, don't take this the wrong way, I'm not bitching at all, but I feel like part of the reason you've put this up for us is kind of like a pilot program where you're trying to get some honest feedback from end users. So, there it is!
Thanks again. I wish you much success.

[martian]

ok im gonna commit kvr suicide here, but i need educating.

im using quality 5 and PL on, but for me plp isnt sounding as transparent as hydra (amk) over a full mix, esp in the highs. it has a lil of that kind of ringy/phasy quality, whereas hydra has none, and i couldnt tell it was on the mix.

is it because im running at 44.1?

[greendoor]

These PLParEQ plugins are ultimate quality - they aren't intended for bedroom hackers making mp3 demos. Personally, I don't care how much CPU a plugin takes - if the sound is high class, I don't like settling for anything less. There are plenty of ways to conserve CPU - rendering/bouncing/exporting/freezing or networking multiple PC's.

I don't understand the logic behind this idea that you can use an inferior eq for mixing, and leave the ultimate eq's for mastering. If a cheap eq screws up your track, it's not possible for an ultimate eq to restore this later on. The mastering guy might be able fudge things a bit to remove the obvious nastiness, but damage done with crap eq is permanent.

I'm grateful that guys like Refined Audio are pushing the limits of software eq - it's necessary. Compared to hardware, the asking price of US$1000 is reasonable, for professional use. Excellent work.

[martian]

Yeah right,

my number is with all 10 bands on PLPk1 and gain non zero.


Best wishes, FRitz

well i have jus got a new computer, so was hoping for that kind of performance, but i guess each core can only use one plugin, as thats the way sx does multi processing.

[original flipper]

HI

Oh, sorry.

I thought perhaps someone might mistakenly be using it as an insert or something.

Does that mean that you can only use Synthedit stuff for mastering?

Only messing, although the term 'mastering' in my book would be something I would leave to the 'acetate' man to fathom out - you know: the guy at the cutting studio.

In all fairness though if so called 'mastering' plug's all ate that kind of CPU: could you imagine the power you might need to run an EQ, Compressor and Maximizer of 'Mastering' quality and appetite!

Flipper.

[bmanic]

Just tried the 10-band demo version. I used all 10 bands at quality level 5 and got a CPU reading of 40%. Not bad!

Cheers!
bManic

What kinda machine do you have there? I got 55% on my P4 @ 3.5GHz.

AMD Athlon XP 3200+, barton core. Ran the plugin in FL Studio, checked CPU usage with windows task manager. Maybe AMD processors aint that bad for this plugin after all!

Cheers!
bManic

[93143]

Thanks for telling you are using FIR filters - this describes why CPU use is so high.

His site explains their method - it's IIR forward/backward, but the way it's implemented is supposed to be equivalent to a symmetric FIR filter (which would take a lot more CPU). It seems a good chunk of the processor load is taken by the sinc upsampling...

[bmanic]

In all fairness though if so called 'mastering' plug's all ate that kind of CPU: could you imagine the power you might need to run an EQ, Compressor and Maximizer of 'Mastering' quality and appetite!

Flipper.

Eh? I don't know how you do your mastering but I always run everything at 96khz. This makes most plugins pretty CPU intensive. Elephant at 4x oversampling at 96khz is already taking a chunk, so is Soniformer and now this EQ. I really fail to see any logic in your previous posts.

- bManic

[greendoor]

David - thank you for giving us a taste of amazing eq. I agree with BK's comments above. Just suggestions for making your full commercial version more appealing and competitive. I would also add the suggestion that a 'reset' option, per band, might be useful too. I know that each band can be disabled, but sometimes I like to start with every parameter zero'd, and if that could be done with a double click somewhere that would be nice.

The option of peak metering (dBFS), input and/or output metering, and maybe larger meters with some calibration scale would also be appreciated.

Just some ideas - these freebies are gratefully appreciated, but it's nice to know that there is now some serious competition for the commercial ones. I've been put off the commercial ones by the hardware cards or dongles and challenge/response and other problems. I'm hoping that at the high-end user level, there is enough professional ethics and understanding of intellectual property rights that these draconian measures won't be necessary. Best wishes!

[JeffSanders]

This really is fantastic sounding. I just have to say - with this, the Voxengo Marquis and Wizooverb W2, my UAD plugs are freaking trembling in their shoes right now.

[original flipper]

HI

Well, you wouldn't would you?

So we all have to master at 96khz then?

You perpetuated your own lack of logic by being illogical and assuming that 'your' 96khz is the only 'way' masterng should be done.

My point is there is no right way, I never had a point - I gave an opinion.

I love these threads that end up talking about 'Mastering' - to think that there is a right way of doing anything is anti-creative, a killer of expression.

I personally 'mix' FLAT as a pancake - WHY?

Because the ear of a mastering engineer tend's to be less enthusiastic towards the bass content that I would otherwise pile onto an acetate.

I don't have a beef with this plug or any other - I simply think mega cpu usage seem's a bit OTT - what's wrong with that?

Flipper.

[bmanic]

Hey.. easy there. I didn't mean anything personal so stop attacking and making assumptions. When did I say 'my way is the only way'? Stop putting words in my mouth.

Look I used the smiley just to make sure you understod that I really didn't understand your logic and hence waiting for an explanation. No need to get rude.

You seem to get pegged up awfully easily. Chill out man, get laid or something or have a joint.

Edit: I still don't understand your last line "..mega cpu usage seems to be a bit OTT". Why is it over the top? Usually a certain amount of quality requires CPU cycles, no? Or do you not hear the difference between the different quality levels (1 trough 5)? If not then you could happily use quality level 1 which uses a bit less cpu (albeit quite a lot too, around 12% for 3 bands on my cpu).

- bManic