KVR Audio

jammer42777 · Post by **jammer42777** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:49 pm

Hi guys, which out of these two:
(GEQ7 & GCO)
(Gliss EQ & Crunchessor)
would be the most CPU efficient,
have the "warmest" sound aka better clarity on highs and lows
be the most stable,
easiest to use,
And all around better for track EQ and compression

And as far as GEQ7 can users move individual points on the grid or are moving the knobs the only option?

Anyways,
thanks for your help!
--Joshua

P.S. please no flamming, the AC is out in this room and it's already hot!

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:01 pm

jammer42777 · Post by **jammer42777** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:06 pm

and if you're not going to help, please don't waste your time by posting

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:00 pm

I have the Kjaerhus and love them both immensely. I have demoed the Voxengo and they are also good, but not AS good in my opinion. And the Voxengo plugs are definitely more CPU hungry if that is an issue.

But without wishing to sound unhelpful, I really think that you should just demo them and make up your own mind. They both offer time-limited demos that are fully functional. Opinions vary

krank · Post by **krank** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:21 pm

Once again: what is the point of your signature?

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:27 pm

Which bit?

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:31 pm

Nice clown lamp Kingston...

Jammer - actually, while not seeming to be directly helpful to you specific inquiry, by popping his head into your thread showing a child on a bed (hehe - you get it) it has reminded me to tell you that if you reasearch KVR threads with Kingston comments and arguments you will surely get a better picture about how to judge EQs for yourself and learn about phase warping as well as how to balance scientific specs with psychoacoustic phenom...is that about right Kingston? Happy EQing - the secret to the Universe is truley Harmonic Balance....

I think Crunchessor will eat more cpu than GCO. GEQ7 has different filter types from Gliss (see the extensive GEQ7 manual) and Gliss has the dynamic type that GEQ7 doesen't, I suppose oversampling (Gliss=High) also. Then besides the features are the sounds you can actually get out of each one...a personal judgement for sure!

PS: Neither Vox or Kjaer have stability issues in my hosts (Adobe Audition, Sonar5, Magix11, stc.) if crashing is what you meant.

krank · Post by **krank** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:33 pm

headquest wrote:Which bit?

The OP's.

defjamm · Post by **defjamm** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:46 pm

gliss + gco could also be an option.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:47 pm

krank wrote:
headquest wrote:Which bit?
The OP's.

Oh yes - that's kind of ambiguous

jammer42777 · Post by **jammer42777** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:07 pm

headquest wrote:I have the Kjaerhus and love them both immensely. I have demoed the Voxengo and they are also good, but not AS good in my opinion. And the Voxengo plugs are definitely more CPU hungry if that is an issue.

But without wishing to sound unhelpful, I really think that you should just demo them and make up your own mind. They both offer time-limited demos that are fully functional. Opinions vary

i definately appreciate the feedback!

fgimian · Post by **fgimian** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:03 am

I used to own Crunchessor and didn't like it, sorry Aleksey

The Marquis on the other hand is incredible ! I currently own GlissEQ and use it daily, I also own the 2 Kjaerhus plugins mentioned.

For my personal taste, the Kjaerhus stuff is a better bread-and-butter stuff, highly tweakable, low CPU, I have had a few CPU spiking issues in Cubase with them, but no one else seems to notice this.

I still use my Voxengo plugins for specialised tasks, The GEQ and GCO can not do the same things the Voxengo plugins do, but they are more widely useable I find.

In conclusion, I'd start with the Kjaerhus stuff and buy some Voxengo stuff in a few months when you have more cash, Voxengo plugins have a lot more attitude and innovation. Kjaerhus plugins are great allrounders that sound incredibly and work exactly the way you'd expect them to

Fots

P.S.: a quick search of the forum and you'll find a lot of topics which are similar that may help you

M'Snah · Post by **M'Snah** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:23 am

I think Marquis would be a better competitor for GCO, both can be very transparent, while Crunchessor aims to add color.

Not sure about GlissEQ vs GEQ... The nice thing about GlissEQ is the frequency display, which I miss with GEQ.

fgimian · Post by **fgimian** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:43 am

Yep, also GlissEQ has draggable handles while the GEQ doesn't so for ease of use, some people may prefer GlissEQ over GEQ.

Let's sum up the comparison...

GEQ vs GlissEQ

GEQ Advantage
- Better quality bell filter (warping of GlissEQ bell filter near 20 khz, this wlil be fixed in newer update)
- Much more flexibility in high / low cut filters

GlissEQ Advantage
- Draggable handles
- FFT Analysis
- Dynamic behaviour (very useful)
- Frequency of all bands is 20 hz - 20 khz

GCO vs Marquis (not fair to compare against Crunchessor)

GCO1 Advantages
- Linearity control
- Allows linear phase parallel compression without latency (Marquis has latency to produce linear phase response)
- Very predictable behaviour, works as you'd expect

Marquis Advantages
- Very warm and rich sound, can sculpt sounds a lot more than the GCO1
- Knee can be set to a much higher value than the GCO1, subtle but effective difference

Fots

(GEQ7 & GCO) vs (Gliss EQ & Crunchessor)