KVR Audio

rcat · Post by **rcat** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:09 pm

Why are there all the ongoing discussions about the "tonal character" of an equalizer? Shouldn't an equalizer be totally transparent, and once the eq is right, then add "color" with another effect such as a compressor/limiter or enhancer, similar to Vintage Warmer or CamelPhat? It seems it would be much simpler than demoing every eq in the universe to get "just the right sound". Your thoughts please. Thanks.

rpc9943 · Post by **rpc9943** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:21 pm

"should or shouldnt" doesn't really mean much in the audio world... at least mine

lol

ROnC

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:28 pm

In an ideal world an EQ should be completely transparent, but that's hard to achive, still you can get pretty close. (Like the free one I call pileofshit even though it's very good -I always forget it's real name.

That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with special purpose EQs. It simplifies getting the desired effect. Also, often when they try to emulate some kind of analogue gear it's not simply a matter of EQ + compression, but various kinds of waveshaping and phase adjustments.
In short, a special purpose effect much like an exiters, enhancers, bassboosters, etc.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:35 pm

rcat wrote:Why are there all the ongoing discussions about the "tonal character" of an equalizer? Shouldn't an equalizer be totally transparent, and once the eq is right, then add "color" with another effect such as a compressor/limiter or enhancer, similar to Vintage Warmer or CamelPhat? It seems it would be much simpler than demoing every eq in the universe to get "just the right sound". Your thoughts please. Thanks.

Think of certain vintage EQ units as special chili spice mix in your kitchen. The mix is derived from certain basic ingredients but still this particular mix tastes different than other brands. When you learn how it tastes, you know exactly where it fits the best and you can use it to experiment with in new dishes.

The point is, any effect that has a lot of character, a certain tone, can be learned. You can learn to "visualize", that is, hear in your minds-ear how it will sound on different material. Once you get to this stage you can start to build up on your personal "spice" rack and get your own signature sound. This is what having specialised tools is all about. Sure you can mix your own Chili Mix Spice of the same basic ingredients but it will probably not taste exactly like that certain vintage brand.

That's my 2 cents on the matter.. Cheers!
bManic

nibbzious · Post by **nibbzious** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:38 pm

Rock Hardbuns wrote:Like the free one I call pileofshit even though it's very good -I always forget it's real name.

Made my day

I'm guessing you're refering to this guy. Fantastic EQ, but I think everybody here knows that

jackson · Post by **jackson** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:42 pm

Yeah, that's the one I call Poshifuckit.

sounddesigner · Post by **sounddesigner** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:43 pm

rcat wrote:Why are there all the ongoing discussions about the "tonal character" of an equalizer? Shouldn't an equalizer be totally transparent, and once the eq is right, then add "color" with another effect such as a compressor/limiter or enhancer, similar to Vintage Warmer or CamelPhat? It seems it would be much simpler than demoing every eq in the universe to get "just the right sound". Your thoughts please. Thanks.

I usually want both transparant and character types in all classes of tools. I have transparent eq's such as plpareq and beautifull colorer's such as curve eq and both are great for different situation. Your question could be directed aswell at compressors, reverbs etc because you can get a transparent type of all these and get coloring/character elsewhere, but getting character tone and transparent in all classes in the end makes my job easier. But when you don't want to evaluate countless eq's then you can post the question 'What's the most transparent eq out here?' and this may save you time (and probably money

).

rpc9943 · Post by **rpc9943** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:56 pm

i find myself simply using glisseq

ahh heaven
ROnC

Lusamars · Post by **Lusamars** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:02 pm

i dont think an EQ should be transparent or not... depends on the aplication. nothing is definite in such artistic area as music production. why would an EQ has to be transparent??

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:51 am

A lot of hardware EQ's aren't transparent.. so why should our software be?

The Chase · Post by **The Chase** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:58 am

jackson wrote:Yeah, that's the one I call Poshifuckit.

Posihfopit! Like Kjaerhus I've learned to spell it from recommending it so much.

Lagrange · Post by **Lagrange** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:47 am

hahaa you guys kill me.. I dont know if its my set up or what but eqium (when not being automated) is quite trasparent! BUT I could be wrong..

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:21 pm

most transparent is to not use an EQ

politcat · Post by **politcat** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:28 pm

plpareq = transparent

Zaphod (giancarlo) · Post by **Zaphod (giancarlo)** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:49 pm

hifiboom wrote:most transparent is to not use an EQ

imho an eq is a toy like the panner, the gain (for mixing), the compressor.Everything changes something. A surgical tool sometimes is useful anyway. For example a roll-off filter.

Why have "tonal character" in an equalizer?