KVR Audio

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:10 pm

barbarossa,

I got the 20 dollar one and I like it. That's all I can say.

dw

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:28 pm

Barbarossa wrote:50 pages of praise and no one can tell me an example, where this EQ works as good as claimed?

Let me say it like this: If you know how to use EQs and you don't find this one useful then why do you ask? And what exactly is the claim? It's like the sound of Moogs, you either like it and want something that sounds like it or not. But if not: Why arguing with people who like Moogs?

Best wishes, FRitz

billybk1 · Post by **billybk1** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:36 pm

The PLParEQ is designed as a mastering type eq. It's ultra tranparency suits this task very well. Try doing some extreme eq sweeps, fire up an EQ band and then select a 20dB boost with a fairly narrow Q and sweep the frequencies. Try widening & narrowing the "Q". Compare it to other eq's, in regards to it's transparency. Most other EQ's, even if they could boost that high (most only do 12-18db's) start to give you digital artifacts. Also, the PLParEQ has a top-end frequency, of 30K, most other eq's top out, in the 12K-20K range (with the Voxengo HarmoniEQ being a notable exception, it goes to 35K

, but it tops out at 9db's for boost). Anyway, that is one way to judge the quality, of the algorithm. BTW, the PLParEQ (the inexpensive $20 3-band), can only attain "5", as the highest quality setting, while the more expensive (10)band has "7" quality settings. Still the 3 band PLParEQ, even at "5" sounds pretty darn good. Certainly worth $20 and a whole lot more, IMO.
If you really can't hear the difference, then nothing, anybody say's otherwise, is going to convince you differently anyway.

Cheers,

Billy Buck

Barbarossa · Post by **Barbarossa** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:35 pm

Fritzman,
well i'm asking, because i made a complete different experience with that EQ. So i want to narrow it down, if it just didn't fit for the task. But on the other hand, this task is a very fundamental task for EQs. If it fails here, i can hardly imagine, it is that good.

Ofcourse i'm open to suggestions to find out, where it shines, because i'm happy about every tool, that is better than the rest.

Billy Buck,
what do i have from test-scenarios, that aren't useful for mixing? I agree, that with extreme settings, differences between EQs can be quite good emphasized, and algorithmic differences become hearable, but finally it's only the result, that counts.
And i couldn't get a good result.

So i'm interested in, if besides the praise, someone already has achieved good results with this EQ. I'd like to learn under which situations.

What else, if not such discussions, are useful. 50 pages of "i like it", "i like it more", "i like it most" are not really infomative, if there's no context, under which situations the EQ worked.
Therefore i'm asking and i'm wondering, if i'm the only one, who couldn't get the desired results.

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:57 pm

My high ends on mixes sound dull, I slap this on the master and a few tracks and it sounds good.

dw

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:02 pm

The "I like it", "this is very good" etc. comments ARE useful, IF you know the people and their tastes by hanging around KvR for a longer period of time. If in doubt, go to the R/E/P mastering forum (Brad Blackwood's forum) at prosoundweb.com and see what some of the top people in the world say about it.

Lets put it like this. I have a piece of hardware outboard EQ/Compressor which retails for around 8k$ and PLParEQ totally stomps on it in a mastering application when I want transparency. AFAIK the only real competition to this EQ, regarding transparency, are: GML 9500 (or 8200 non-mastering version) which is an analogue mastering eq from George Massenburg (8k$), Weiss EQ1 mkII which is a digital hardware eq (5k$), Algorithmix Red and Orange directX plugins (1.5k$) and the SPL 2050 (costing over 15000$!).

If you can't hear the transparency in this eq I would narrow it down to the following reasons:

- Not enough experience with mastering eq's and what they are good for
- Too transparent, can be confusing when tried first time (I made a total fool of myself in front of Daniel Weiss when I thought his eq wasn't working, it was. It was just too transparent and I was listening for artefacts that I had become used to in plugin eq's!)
- Very bad monitoring
- Plugin not working correctly
- Deaf (this is very unlikely)

Cheers!
bManic

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:37 am

Barbarossa wrote:Fritzman,
well i'm asking, because i made a complete different experience with that EQ. So i want to narrow it down, if it just didn't fit for the task. But on the other hand, this task is a very fundamental task for EQs. If it fails here, i can hardly imagine, it is that good.

Ofcourse i'm open to suggestions to find out, where it shines, because i'm happy about every tool, that is better than the rest.

What else, if not such discussions, are useful. 50 pages of "i like it", "i like it more", "i like it most" are not really infomative, if there's no context, under which situations the EQ worked.
Therefore i'm asking and i'm wondering, if i'm the only one, who couldn't get the desired results.

Hi Barbarossa,

try these scenarios with a drum loop:
- insert a low and a high shelf filter and boost both to liking. Sweep the frequencies to find the sweet spots for your material. Result for me is a warm big bass fundament and shiny highs that doesn't sound harsh. Try to switch off the green PL buttons which are on the last row in the list to see if you like that sound more.
- insert a peak type 1 and boost something between 300 and 700Hz by 4-6dB. Sweep the frequency in that range and adjust the Q to liking. Result for me is a good sounding "wood" boost and not a poor honky boost of some "wrong" frequencies. Same with cut. It simply takes these frequencies away and doesn't change the sound in an unpleasant way.

Now try that with your favourite eq to compare.
Again: What do you expect? What do you want this eq to do? In which situations doesn't it work for you?

All the best, FRitz

djsubject · Post by **djsubject** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:22 am

OK, seeing as i did take all 3 free vershions i should chip in here

this EQ is verry good, but verry CPU intencive

IMO, good for mastering or sticking on a vocal bus then freezing

i do feel thay could pay someone to do a better GUI for the one that costs $1000, but that wont make it sound any better,

thanx for the freebies (sorry to broke to make a donation other then the one i just made with this post)

Subz

Barbarossa · Post by **Barbarossa** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:52 pm

Fritzman,
good suggestion, thanks. Will give it another serious try.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:04 pm

To Barbarossa,

I have had some really good luck boosting bass frequencies with the peak filters in this EQ. It has neither affected the remaining filter bands in unexpected and unpleasant ways nor has it distorted the bass. I've also come to really like the sound of the 2-pole resonant filters.

I'm using the latest version of the 3-band donationware version.

politcat · Post by **politcat** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:29 pm

either you can hear the difference or you can't. experience (ear training) determines your ability to know the difference.

i don't know much about technology but knowing what i hear is paramount.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:09 pm

I don't really get eq's - there seems to be so much "pro" mystique and jargon about them - but thought I'd try it to see what the fuss is about. The gui is horrible but I suppose that's not important. What I can't see is how do you get more than one band - on other linear eqs you click on the eq line and get extra nodes to move but on this there's just one node at a time. Also there's no presets.

pitchdrifter · Post by **pitchdrifter** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:30 pm

Click in the 2nd gap in the list view on the left side, a pulldown will appear with the band types you can add.

And it's not really mystical at all, the EQ is just very surgical and affects frequencies other than the ones each band is supposed to affect according to the settings minimally. Whether that's what you want or not is another matter. Basically the EQ doesn't color the sound. Some EQs are popular because they do color the sound in a pleasant/constructive way, while eqs considered 'bad' color the sound in mostly uncontrollable and unpleasant ways.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:33 pm

aMUSEd wrote:I don't really get eq's - there seems to be so much "pro" mystique and jargon about them - but thought I'd try it to see what the fuss is about. The gui is horrible but I suppose that's not important. What I can't see is how do you get more than one band - on other linear eqs you click on the eq line and get extra nodes to move but on this there's just one node at a time. Also there's no presets.

Hey amused,

which version do you have? There was a verrrrry old version with only one band. All other have at least three bands with a list on the left side where you just insert the different filters from a dropdown list.

Best wishes, FRitz

P.S. I'm not a fan of mystifying things with weird "pro" jargon. Sometimes it's just the lack of better words or even the use of the well established buzz words in the hope that everybody understands the bubble.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:35 pm

Ah Markus,

you've been faster, again!

Have a nice evening, FRitz

10-Band PLParEQ is Here!