What is your go to EQ?

[Nokenoku]

About avalon, someone modelled it. Yes, there are plug-ins which model harmonic distortion.
In the past 2 years there were eiosis and electricq, just to name 2. Waves, UAD and URS released equalisers with a particular color (neve, api, ...).

Can't speak about the AirEQ. But the Waves EQs do nothing else than EQing. No saturation/coloring/whatever, the "Analog"-Button just adds noise and does absolutely nothing else.
Not sure about the URS ones atm, but I strongly believe it's the same .. they do just EQing. It's just about the curves.

[Per Lichtman]

First of all, I'd just like to say that the selection of plug-in EQs has really blossomed over the last few years, let alone back when I first started using them (ca. 1998-1999 as Buzz machines in Jeskola Buzz).

There are a lot of great options in terms of both EQs that provide a strong color and those that are more neutral at practically every price point now. Here are few that I like for different things:

Strong Coloration:
- Abbey Road TG Mastering Pack (not yet VST but planned to be).
- URS M Series EQ
- Nebula (spoilt for choice)
- UAD Neve 1073 and Helios 69
- Stillwell 1973 and Vibe EQ

More Neutral:
- Sonalksis SV-517 or Sonnox EQ (the UI on the former is faster to work with, the curves on the latter can go tighter and Joanna St. Claire said "they sound more similar to each other than any other EQs we've worked with.")
- Sonitus EQ (fast, efficient and flexible though not as transparent as the above)
- NoName EQ
- Electri-Q Poshofpit
- Electri-Q CM Edition

I also really liked the sound of the Waves emulation of the API eqs (let alone the API-2500 compressor), but I am not a fan of the Waves' policies in general so I have avoided purchasing. If you like the sound though, you can find great emulations of some of the API models in Nebula, though not the graphic EQ.

I also use the Focusrite Liquid Mix, though not as often as I had thought I would since getting it late last year. It tends to be a lot brighter than other emulations of the gear modeled and much of the music I do calls for a great deal of warmth and subtlety. But as I've started crossing some genre lines recently, I'll be curious to see if I use it more.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

But the Waves EQs do nothing else than EQing. No saturation/coloring/whatever, the "Analog"-Button just adds noise and does absolutely nothing else.
Not sure about the URS ones atm, but I strongly believe it's the same .. they do just EQing. It's just about the curves.

I forgot to tell you: avalon doesn't add harmonic distortion. I measured those units, and I discovered that the harmonic distortion is neglegible, and the dynamic is pretty untouched. They are simply clean. A lot of hardware equalisers are clean. We implemented harmonic distortion in apis, but really those units are almost clean.
My point is that phase response IS color. I agree that a lot of digital equalisers (95%?) are minimum phase, and that just a little percentage (especially digital ones) are linear. But a mixture of minimum and linear phase is possible.

Other tip: the bell shape helps. We sampled so many equalisers (hardware, software), so we compared so many devices, but avalon is still my preferred one. It depends on the music genre you are doing. Maybe if you are mixing dance you are interested in compressors and dont' care about equalisers, if you are mixing classic, soul or flamenco you care much more about the eq.

Now there are tons of engineers who carefully choose the equipment for their room. I discovered by myself. I found expert engineers in AES, they were demoing products carefully and slowly, trying tons of different settings. Believe me, they were not interested just in ergonimics or in the interface. I can't believe they are all retarded.

[Per Lichtman]

About avalon, someone modelled it. Yes, there are plug-ins which model harmonic distortion.
In the past 2 years there were eiosis and electricq, just to name 2. Waves, UAD and URS released equalisers with a particular color (neve, api, ...).

Can't speak about the AirEQ. But the Waves EQs do nothing else than EQing. No saturation/coloring/whatever, the "Analog"-Button just adds noise and does absolutely nothing else.
Not sure about the URS ones atm, but I strongly believe it's the same .. they do just EQing. It's just about the curves.

Not to quibble too much, but there's one quick way to disprove that. Try overloading the output of the Waves plug-ins with analog mode enabled and disabled and you'll see what I mean.

Also many of the EQs in question have distinct colors. If you match the curves on a Waves Q-10 and Waves RenEQ you'll find that RenEQ comes out darker. Also, listen to the UAD "EQ-shootout" where they acoustically analyzed and proceeded to try and replicate curves from some of their EQs with other of there EQs. You'll once again notice a distinct difference in color, even with similar curves.

Is everybody going to notice these differences on every track at every setting in every environment? Hell no. But that can also be said of many of the other changes made during mixing and it all adds up after a while. As someone said earlier, a great engineer with less than great tools can often be better than a bad engineer with fantastic tools.

Also some people will really notice the difference. One of the artists I work with can consistently pick their favorite EQ for a given track out of blind testing of 5-10 EQs.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Apology accepted, and I must also apologize as the tone of my initial post was somewhat sour. Buy you a beer?

of course (virtually speaking)

[Dean Aka Nekro]

So to get back on topic, which EQ should i let my mom buy me if i want to sound like Tangerine Dream? I want it now and i want it fast!

just kidding offcourse

the brand new 'sound like a Tangerine Dream' EQ 'Coming soon' its modelled on members of Tangerine Dream's grey matter and thinks like they do

and ballads should always remain illegal

[Nokenoku]

I forgot to tell you: avalon doesn't add harmonic distortion. I measured those units, and I discovered that the harmonic distortion is neglegible, and the dynamic is pretty untouched. They are simply clean. A lot of hardware equalisers are clean. We implemented harmonic distortion in apis, but really those units are almost clean.

So, since you are actually sampling those stuff, what can you tell me about the "why" ?
What is different to a generic digital EQ ... just the curves or something else?
The curves are reproducable easily in the digital world.

My point was, that for plugin EQs things like "transparence", "warmth", "analogue sound" don't really apply, since the only things which differ are the form of the curves and the GUI/handling.
There are things like Electri-Q, which actually can do a little bit more, but this is really an exception and like you pointed out, it has to be something different on an Avalon, what makes it sounds "better" (IF it actually sounds better ... never used one, so I sadly can't comment here).

My point is that phase response IS color. I agree that a lot of digital equalisers (95%?) are minimum phase, and that just a little percentage (especially digital ones) are linear. But a mixture of minimum and linear phase is possible.

Yes. But as long as it is "mimumum phase", which are most of the plugin-EQs and I think all analogue ones (correct me, if I'm wrong here), the phase response is totally related to the form of the curves.
So this can't be the reason for an Avalon to sound better either.

Now there are tons of engineers who carefully choose the equipment for their room. I discovered by myself. I found expert engineers in AES, they were demoing products carefully and slowly, trying tons of different settings. Believe me, they were not interested just in ergonimics or in the interface. I can't believe they are all retarded.

Has nothing to do with being retarded or something like that. I'd say, they just pick, what makes them feel better ... if this comes actually from the sound or just the interface/handling or just totally from a placebo-effect doesn't matter in the end.
To be clear here: In the end, "handling" actually means "sound"!

Let's say you use a Pultec EQP-1A for example. If you are used to it and its limited possibilities you might just know "hey, I only have to to this settings to get that sound". And that sound might just be what you always want on your vocals.
With a full parametric standart EQ, you would never match the same curve by using it normally in your workflow (even if it's theoretically possible). You would do something different, which might sound better or worse and/or might better or worse fit your personal style.

Not to quibble too much, but there's one quick way to disprove that. Try overloading the output of the Waves plug-ins with analog mode enabled and disabled and you'll see what I mean.

I did exactly that doing the nulltest, and guess what.
Right: It cancelled 100% except the equalized noise.

Also many of the EQs in question have distinct colors. If you match the curves on a Waves Q-10 and Waves RenEQ you'll find that RenEQ comes out darker. Also, listen to the UAD "EQ-shootout" where they acoustically analyzed and proceeded to try and replicate curves from some of their EQs with other of there EQs. You'll once again notice a distinct difference in color, even with similar curves.

Ok, before getting any further into this. Have you done this tests just by listening or also doing the nulltest ?
I did several nulltests and the result was, that the sound is the same if the curves are the same (of course it's not always easy to match them exactly).

Please tell me, where should the differences in sound should come from?
It seems people always think about something "mystical" behind the scenes of an EQ.
There's really too much "thinking" here and too less "analysing".

[mystran]

Not to quibble too much, but there's one quick way to disprove that. Try overloading the output of the Waves plug-ins with analog mode enabled and disabled and you'll see what I mean.

I did exactly that doing the nulltest, and guess what.
Right: It cancelled 100% except the equalized noise.

And just to make it clear for everyone, by "nulltest" I guess you mean running the thing twice (once with each setting) and then substracting one sample-wise from the other, in which case the equal signals cancel and you're left with the difference?

Anyway, for anyone that wants to play with their favourite EQ:

It's easy to test linearity of something at least for steady state function; run a sinewave through it, possibly boost/cut the sine a little (it's possible to build both linear and non-linear EQ that doesn't do anything at all to signal outside the boost/cut band; which isn't unheard design in analog EQs either as far as I know) and then run it through a decent spectrum analyzer. If you see a single peak (that is, no distorted harmonics), it's acting linear. If you're not convinced, you can always run two sines together at different frequencies, in which case you should get intermodulation distortion as well. Oh and be sure to check your unprocessed sine waves first so you know what artifacts were NOT caused by the EQ (table lookup oscillators can easily cause some distortion peaks of their own which is rarely audible, but can be visible on an analyzer; and sometimes analyzers can display "false peaks" as well depending on window function).

[lukejay]

My go to EQ?
After using and purchasing Sonalksis/Waves/URS/Focusrite/And and expensive 550b
I still use time after time
Waves Ren Eq
And
EricSound Plugins
.
Yea sure i use the other stuff alot, but my first impulse is to grab either of these two.
Coming in close third also is Tritone's Valvetone '62, god i love that plug.

Actually I'll also add, my demo for Abbey Road's Brilliance EQ ran out a week or two ago, and that will definitely be next buy. I have yet to hear an EQ sound as awesome as that. Words cant describe it.

[Per Lichtman]

Not to quibble too much, but there's one quick way to disprove that. Try overloading the output of the Waves plug-ins with analog mode enabled and disabled and you'll see what I mean.

I did exactly that doing the nulltest, and guess what.
Right: It cancelled 100% except the equalized noise.

Ah, I see now. It was a while ago that I did the test with Waves SSL and API trials and I had just starting doing nulltests so my guess is that once the level got loud enough, the noise level increased enough that it came off as distortion rather than noise. My mistake on that one and thanks for giving me some relief on what had perplexed me (as it had been advertised and presented as just noise). It was an error in my testing methodology for that particular plug-in and my lack of thinking, rather than an overabundance of it.

Also many of the EQs in question have distinct colors. If you match the curves on a Waves Q-10 and Waves RenEQ you'll find that RenEQ comes out darker. Also, listen to the UAD "EQ-shootout" where they acoustically analyzed and proceeded to try and replicate curves from some of their EQs with other of there EQs. You'll once again notice a distinct difference in color, even with similar curves.

Ok, before getting any further into this. Have you done this tests just by listening or also doing the nulltest ?
I did several nulltests and the result was, that the sound is the same if the curves are the same (of course it's not always easy to match them exactly).

Please tell me, where should the differences in sound should come from?
It seems people always think about something "mystical" behind the scenes of an EQ.
There's really too much "thinking" here and too less "analysing".[/quote]

I don't think there's something "mystical" about EQs. It is to my disadvantage as a younger engineer to have invest in either plug-ins or equipment that my seniors have had more time to build up the resources and capital to purchase themselves or may already have amassed a large array of themselves. Over the past couple years I have quite literally spent weeks doing comparison tests, using visual spectrum analyzers (sometimes cross referencing between different ones), matching levels and aural testing to compare the trials and in some cases full versions of various EQs against each other. I have spent hours at a time using sometimes as many as 10 digital EQs at time to try and reproduce the same effect, trying to match curves, etc. I also kept a record of my subjective impressions in addition to the often times difficulty to quantify findings.

If I can't reproduce a curve that is supposed to lie within the parameters of two different EQs no matter how hard I analyze, or no matter how similar they may be visually claiming to be in their UIs, then it is fair to say they each have a distinct color, regardless of whether that is derived from curves or not. That was my experience with the RenEQ compared to certain others: I tended to end up with a darker sound, regardless of whether that was due to limitations in the UIs ability to modify the curve or not, even when I tried to make sure that a curve was well within the range of all the plug-ins in question. In fact, that was the very reason that I employed it in a few situations. Those situations just don't really seem to come up anymore.

Matching settings rarely produces a similar result between EQs because their curves tend to be different, so in that sense I agree that curves can be an important differentiating factor in the user experience and potentially perception. In fact, several products, epitomized by Algorithmix Blue EQ (and that same technology in the SSL X-EQ) pride themselves on modeling several different curves. However, in some cases we are dealing with more than simply a difference in curves.

Another issue, of course, is when the on-screen representation of a curve on the frequency plot (for the EQs that feature one) isn't entirely accurate. I am not saying this is the norm (nor that is an advantage or deficiency) but merely that it can sometimes help to form the perception of a certain EQ having a certain "sound".

Moving along, however, there is the issue of artifacts. Some EQs oversample, others don't and some give you an option. This can, potentially, affect the sound. Do a null test between the oversampled and normal versions of the Stillwell EQ plug-ins across a variety of material and you'll see what I mean. You could argue that this is simply a change in the approximation of the curve due to the accuracy of the sample rate but I would posit that the presence or absence of artifacts and oversampling or other techniques such as forms of "smoothing" (forgive the non-technical term) can make a difference when ostensibly applying the same curve.

However, if I really knew every possible variable that could affect the sound of a plug-in EQ I might very well have tried my hand at writing one by now. I don't. I can only speak from my experiences working with them.

Some EQs do indeed model harmonic distortion. Some EQs model distortion differently depending on the stage, where for instance they have both an input and output gain where the result of increasing one vs. the other is quite different from each other, let alone from increasing the gain on a DAW's standard fader. This echoes my hands analog experience using 3 Avalon 737s at two different studios. I am not trying to imply that this is the norm, however. It was quite surprising to me the first time I encountered it and I wasted no time in starting to use it. That was one of the things that became "fun" for me as a neophyte engineer with using different EQs.

In the cases of Nebula EQs, they vary greatly in the type they model, the way in which they model them and the quality of those models. In some cases you will find the same EQ both with and without modeling harmonic distortion (the latter being called "Stone" if I remember correctly, but please correct me Zaphod).

EQs, like any other plug-ins, are a place where coding errors (sometimes later preserved if they have a desired effect) can effect the overall sound. I had been quite skeptical about such issues until I really dove into a lot of testing. I can tell you that such things are not limited to a particular manufacturer or price range. One of my preferred pay-for EQs used to have an error at higher frequencies in RTAS but after I brought it to their attention, sent them sample files and null tests, they subsequently fixed it.

I had a chance to speak with George Massenburg, one of the originators of the parametric EQ, about the topic of digital oversampling in conjunction with digital processing such as EQs and compression and he talked a great deal about how it could change the plug-ins behavior. That was part of what me to start doing testing in the first place since I wanted to know if we were talking about statistically insignificant (or at the very least "Golden Ears only") differences or whether these were things that people like me could pick out.

Similar experience with software samplers, where I found that even playback of a sample at root frequency without filters enabled could vary from sampler to sampler. This was even more so in the case of glitches like the SFZ Player bug where playing back a .WAV or .SFZ file at the same frequency and samplerate that was originally recorded yields can result in horrible artifacts in many cases, something that does not happen in the same plug-in with .SF2 files.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

My point is that phase response IS color. I agree that a lot of digital equalisers (95%?) are minimum phase, and that just a little percentage (especially digital ones) are linear. But a mixture of minimum and linear phase is possible.

Yes. But as long as it is "mimumum phase", which are most of the plugin-EQs and I think all analogue ones (correct me, if I'm wrong here), the phase response is totally related to the form of the curves. So this can't be the reason for an Avalon to sound better either.

IMO you have to bear in mind that if you apply any minimum phase EQ on a an individual track by track basis and then further on a stereo bus all these 'minimum phase' artifacts soon become a big issue and can totally skew a mix.
That is how i see it anyway and hear it and so i always try to use EQ as little as possible that i can get away with

[Per Lichtman]

My point is that phase response IS color. I agree that a lot of digital equalisers (95%?) are minimum phase, and that just a little percentage (especially digital ones) are linear. But a mixture of minimum and linear phase is possible.

Yes. But as long as it is "mimumum phase", which are most of the plugin-EQs and I think all analogue ones (correct me, if I'm wrong here), the phase response is totally related to the form of the curves. So this can't be the reason for an Avalon to sound better either.

IMO you have to bear in mind that if you apply any minimum phase EQ on a an individual track by track basis and then further on a stereo bus all these 'minimum phase' artifacts soon become a big issue and can totally skew a mix.
That is how i see it anyway and hear it and so i always try to use EQ as little as possible that i can get away with

Mmm.... skewered grilled mix. Just the way I liked it. Seriously though, there is something to this idea that one person's "color" is another person's artifact. It really is all about who's perceiving it and what their perspective is in the end.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Mmm.... skewered grilled mix. Just the way I liked it. Seriously though, there is something to this idea that one person's "color" is another person's artifact. It really is all about who's perceiving it and what their perspective is in the end.

yeah i fully agree and i dont really have much else to add so i reckon i may read but not post further on this one. Its been interesting and sure reckon it shall continue to be

take care Per friend

Dean

[Per Lichtman]

You too Dean and thanks for the great discussion and sorting out that "Analog" issue with the Waves plugs for me!

[martian]

I don't think there's something "mystical" about EQs. It is to my disadvantage as a younger engineer to have invest in either plug-ins or equipment that my seniors have had more time to build up the resources and capital to purchase themselves or may already have amassed a large array of themselves. Over the past couple years I have quite literally spent weeks doing comparison tests, using visual spectrum analyzers (sometimes cross referencing between different ones), matching levels and aural testing to compare the trials and in some cases full versions of various EQs against each other. I have spent hours at a time using sometimes as many as 10 digital EQs at time to try and reproduce the same effect, trying to match curves, etc. I also kept a record of my subjective impressions in addition to the often times difficulty to quantify findings.

If I can't reproduce a curve that is supposed to lie within the parameters of two different EQs no matter how hard I analyze, or no matter how similar they may be visually claiming to be in their UIs, then it is fair to say they each have a distinct color, regardless of whether that is derived from curves or not. That was my experience with the RenEQ compared to certain others: I tended to end up with a darker sound, regardless of whether that was due to limitations in the UIs ability to modify the curve or not, even when I tried to make sure that a curve was well within the range of all the plug-ins in question. In fact, that was the very reason that I employed it in a few situations. Those situations just don't really seem to come up anymore.

hi per, sorry, im going to continue the discussion if you dont mind

i still think your testing is potentially flawed. you have to literally match the curves of eqs exactly, if you use real time spectrum analyers this will be near impossible. have you tried budde's offline plugin analyser?

http://www.savioursofsoul.de/Christian/?page_id=5

this will show you the exact freq/distortion/phase/group delay responses of plugin eqs and allow you to compare responses on top of one another.

as for waves Q and ren, they have different high freq bell response near nyquist, i think Q may even have an assymetrical bell. havent used them for a long time though.

Moving along, however, there is the issue of artifacts. Some EQs oversample, others don't and some give you an option. This can, potentially, affect the sound. Do a null test between the oversampled and normal versions of the Stillwell EQ plug-ins across a variety of material and you'll see what I mean. You could argue that this is simply a change in the approximation of the curve due to the accuracy of the sample rate but I would posit that the presence or absence of artifacts and oversampling or other techniques such as forms of "smoothing" (forgive the non-technical term) can make a difference when ostensibly applying the same curve.

when i compare eqs with oversampling the sound is different to those without, i percieve it only as a slight brightening in the highs though, so i can match that by turning the non-oversampled eq up slightly. the phase response gets adjusted quite radically with oversampling i think, which may account for the sound differences. but really if you only eveer percieve a sound difference as 'brighter' or 'darker' what difference will this make when using it? since youd just keep changing the parameters till you get the sound you want, so end up with the same result with either in a mix situation.