PLParEQ and Algorithmix EQs

[fritzman]

Oh, Bob Katz said something somewhere? What an argument.

No, not the point. But I said something, here. That's a good argument.


All the best, FRitz

Pleas tell me which EQs you use and why. Thank you.

[omo]

what i use is irrelevant to the subject.

[HanafiH]

what i use is irrelevant to the subject.

I bet you say that to all the girls.

[l33troll]

This thread has potential, I feel it...

[fritzman]

what i use is irrelevant to the subject.

Well, you wanted to see where I'm coming from and and I told you. You made several statements and I would like to get some background info, too.
That is relevant to me. If you're just happy with your theoretical challenge, well then OK.


Best wishes, FRitz

[shamann]

what i use is irrelevant to the subject.

It would be educational for you to tell us. Not in a "you show me yours" kind of way, but since you clearly have invested some brainpower into thinking about EQs, it would be interesting to know which EQs you are satisfied with. Goes for the rest of you EQ-threaders. Edumacate us.

[omo]

I use a few custom design passive eq channels, 747, psp masterq. I wouldn't use any digital eq if I didn't have to. And off course I often use RenEQ when it is not my rig. And I'm still far from having my opinion matured even tho I do this for almost 20 years. I began in 80 with nothing but analog (tube mostly) gear available to us at state rock club so I know the difference digital brought.

I backed up my opinion with good examples where problems these eq designs have are brought very effectively to your attention. You may do with it what you please. f**k up your tunes if you wish. Best luck.

HanafiH, I don't get your drift. What I say to my girls if I had ones is non of your business.

[snooky]

well, I no more could resist trying the plparEQ3/4 plugs after all the threads about them...first impression *nothing happens??* well..I figured that was because they don't "warp" the sound like other lesser plugins. AfterI got used to the controlls and actually nice interface, I really liked these plugs...they sound like I have never heard an EQ sound before...focused and "clean" ...I tried using two plpareq-3 with quality 5 and 5 bands together for mastering purposes, and it really does sound very dif from other plugins.
All at 50% CPU..not bad!

They don't colour the sound, they just affect what I want them to..at least in my ears.
I guess that adding somekind of "saturation" plugin before these to get the extra harmonics and then the EQ's, it would sound very nice indeed...I'm impressed!

[Frippertronix]

Isn't it proven mathematically that prering is cancelled out at quality 5 on the PLParEQ? Omo, have you measured this phenomenon with equipment?

[Kingston]

Isn't it proven mathematically that prering is cancelled out at quality 5 on the PLParEQ? Omo, have you measured this phenomenon with equipment?

It's just isn't possible to cancel out preringing completely, unfortunately, no matter how high the sample rate. It's a trade off: you have phase warping and accurate transients, or you have linearphase with pre-ringing. Or you could have anything inbetween the two tradeoff factors as "optimal phase".

It's dead easy to measure this in your favourite host. Create a file with silence, draw one sample impulse with silence after it. Basically just use pen/draw mode and "blip" one sample out of the silence.

Run filter thru it. Zoom in. See what happens?

By the way sonalksis EQ does something quite interesting and out of norm when measured this way, even in its internal bypass mode. (objective proof that sonalksis can sound harsh)

[Frippertronix]

Kingston---subjectively speaking, what kind of material do you think this level of pre-ring (that PLParEQ has at quality 5) is enough to be a bother?

Would you only perceive it, say, only on acoustic instruments? All I'm saying is that, on the synthesizer material I've used it on (which is all I've tried it on so far), even a PL 1 it sounds great to my ears, but I guess I haven't really tried hard to listen for artefacts.

[Kingston]

I almost always prefer accurate transients over linear phase. In music it's always easier to spot transient smearing than phase problems.

I do actively use linearphase filters elsewhere for mathematical reasons (my research, but that's another thing entirely).

With PLpar and algorithmix this whole things becomes nearly irrelevant: math aside, they both sound exteremely good, linearphase or not. I have already stumbled on a place where I wanted to use the linearphase filter in PLpar instead. If I have to generalise, I'd say linearphase filters are no good for material with heavy transients when you have to EQ a lot. Because the more you have to EQ, the more you'll hear the transient smear, especially on "sharp" material. You can easily test this yourself.

95% of the time I use the phase warped mode.

[Frippertronix]

You think in phase warped it's really better than other phase warped Eq's, like GEQ-7, for instance?

[Kingston]

You think in phase warped it's really better than other phase warped Eq's, like GEQ-7, for instance?

Yeah, quite a lot better in fact and it's not just the oversampling. Wish I could use this in mixing.

In this weird turn of events when brilliance is suddenly free, my favourite EQs are PLpar(master) and posihfopit(mix).

[Frippertronix]

You think in phase warped it's really better than other phase warped Eq's, like GEQ-7, for instance?

Yeah, quite a lot better in fact and it's not just the oversampling. Wish I could use this in mixing.

Why can't you? Isn't CPU much lower in phase warped mode?

edit: I don't know how many tracks you run. I track and mix at 96 KHz wih not a lot of tracks. Is the upsampling too much of a load for you on tracks?