Most powerful precise best sounding EQ Available is what?

[IIRs]

You should give these a try before you spend any serious money

(I consider the lack of a graphic EQ curve display to be a feature not a limitation btw, before anyone points that out!)

[hifiboom]

don't agree. It's not a matter of taste. The "toy" you use for a particular scope it is the best toy for you, I agree. But in general you have parameters for judging an equalizer, otherwise everything is good enought, even an bad programmed cracking digital equalizer.

best music cd: you could not tell someone if U2 is better than Coldplay. But hey, there are oscars, awards,....

look an Sepultura lover may tell you that coldplay sucks.
I also have some friends that think every chart sound or mainstream is shit. I'll respect this, although I don't see it that extreme.

music that is nominated for arwards is what the mainstream likes most.

apllied to EQs this would mean, we all vote between lets say 20 different EQs. And that one that has the highest count is "the best" or "awarded" one.

But does this mean it really is the best for every task?

don't think so.

I for example like the free ddmf EQs fr clean eqing and the Paris EQ for colouring EQing.

But I wouldn't just call them the best.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

ok... I'll try to explain why I disagreed: a lot of topics have the question "what is the best xx". I know, this is not a good question, because "best" means nothing. Anyway, go on.
A common answer is:"if it sounds right it is right", "the better tool is the best tool for you" and so on.
I know, you are right, this is a good educational tip. But I suppose if someone asks he is interested in your judgement, and probably in a short explanation. This helps. This is very very important, because no so many musicians know even what they "should" look for. Probably they could be simply beginners.
Here we are not speaking about the best artist or the best dish. We are speaking about tools, and imho it's not so subjective!!!!!!

In my opinion algorithmix and audiometrics are good tools. You probably will not believe me, but I've not ever installed or tried them (very quickly audiometrics 2 months ago) Simply bmanic says that they are ok, I agree with his judgements 99% if the time, because in the past I discovered we have a similar method for judging an eq. Here the clever suggestion: if I need to buy an equalizer, I'll try demos before.
But I'm very interested in what xx or yy writes....

[fred2112]

URS for sound of course !

I like uniqui-lizer for the precision and flexibility and Waves 4000 EQ are so good on drum.........

[Jbravo]

I must admit I'm ignorant about all those EQs and knowing what makes a good one. If someone could post an example to demonstrate the artefacts of a BAD eq, it would be very enlightening

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

There is an interesting topic here, there are examples too

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... c&start=60

[bmanic]

I'd say probably Algorithmix Red EQ at it's full quality level.

Oh, and forget about running it in realtime. Takes over 400% cpu on my Athlon 3200+ but it does sound 'flawless', that is, you really don't hear ANY artefacts at all. Things just simply disappear or increase in volume.


Cheers!
bManic

Why should that take so much power? Seems OOT to me, any tech guys explain possible reasons?

I have no idea. Probably because the impulse response length is way over 1 second (read: very very very very long!) to minimize pre-ring effects and other anomalies. It's a huge task for the computer to calculate it.

In the end, I don't really care. The "full" quality versus the "high" quality is audible but quite subtle. On some material the realtime "high" fidelity level is enough.

Cheers!
bManic

[xsub]

I'd say probably Algorithmix Red EQ at it's full quality level.

Oh, and forget about running it in realtime. Takes over 400% cpu on my Athlon 3200+ but it does sound 'flawless', that is, you really don't hear ANY artefacts at all. Things just simply disappear or increase in volume.


Cheers!
bManic

Why should that take so much power? Seems OOT to me, any tech guys explain possible reasons?

my friend told me about this, someone or something called 'ego' wants the most expencive software.

Apart from that, no idea.

[Debutante]

I must admit I'm ignorant about all those EQs and knowing what makes a good one. If someone could post an example to demonstrate the artefacts of a BAD eq, it would be very enlightening

The thread someone suggested is what really got me into learning EQ differences. I actually kept alot of the samples together with copied text to catalouge for later reading... like examples of bad tansients or something and lots of other little tidbits about very peculiar aspects of EQ's. It got me to finally start listening to minute aspects of EQ'ing and encouraged me to try all the ones I had more definitively. I ended up throwing out quite a few and now have only four that I keep.

It's a long thread, but I suggest you read it thoroughly. It is the most helpful thread I've ever seen here at KVR and I have always been thankful to *Budde*, martian, bmanic and a couple of other guys who kept that thread sharpish. There was nothing but ral honest debate in that thread

[bmanic]

I'd say probably Algorithmix Red EQ at it's full quality level.

Oh, and forget about running it in realtime. Takes over 400% cpu on my Athlon 3200+ but it does sound 'flawless', that is, you really don't hear ANY artefacts at all. Things just simply disappear or increase in volume.


Cheers!
bManic

Why should that take so much power? Seems OOT to me, any tech guys explain possible reasons?

my friend told me about this, someone or something called 'ego' wants the most expencive software.

Apart from that, no idea.

..

[brok landers]

i wonder noone mentioned air eq?

[kaufi]

the internal CubaseSX1 EQ is so awesome, you must try it (before you buy it???) - ha ha ha, what a questiion??? guys!!! please THINK!!! ... help!!

[Arksun]

I'd say probably Algorithmix Red EQ at it's full quality level.

Oh, and forget about running it in realtime. Takes over 400% cpu on my Athlon 3200+ but it does sound 'flawless', that is, you really don't hear ANY artefacts at all. Things just simply disappear or increase in volume.

Cheers!
bManic

I'm surprised its using that much on a 3200+, I downloaded the demo version of peq Red and running realtime in wavelab I can run the High mode around 25%. Switch to max ultra that jumps to about 68% and the audio stutters a bit. But then I increased wavelabs buffer setting and the stuttering went away. (This is all on the single core btw, so in reality its using 12.5% and 34% in each case.

One thing I did notice is that its cpu usage is very erratic at the highest settings, seems to jump up and down like crazy.

Forgot to mention , this is on 4400+ X2

[jplanet]

No mention of Sonalksis?

Right now I am learning a lot about eq'ing by using CurveEQ...it's been very helpful to have the visual feedback as a beginnner engineer (plus it sounds great to my ears), I find now I know how to use other eq's better as a result.

[VicDiesel]

This one

Most powerful? Definitely this one:



Victor.