KVR Audio

Christian Budde · Post by **Christian Budde** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:31 pm

Ja.x wrote:It's brazilian portuguese... Where is it from?

It's a track from Tom Zé, a brazilian Artist. I really like his stuff.

metamorphosis wrote:can you elaborate on the design philosophy? I'm not sure why thinning the bandwidth at higher gain levels is more desirable in this case, ditto re asymetrical curves on said bandwidth. Could you explain? I'm used to working with run of the mill, straight-as-your-uncle's-back Q's, with no variation-

I designed the EQ according to other famous EQs, which have the same 'philosophy of thining the bandwidth at higher levels. Some people prefer it this way, others the way around. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other straight-as-your-uncle's-back EQs out there.
I don't plan to change anything in this EQ, since it was just an experiment for me. However you can use our Electri-Q if you want a more straight-as-your-uncle's-back sound.

Kind regards,

Christian

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:04 pm

Hey, I'm not hassling it, I'm just interested. I know there's plenty of other eq's out there (duh

)-
Also, you didn't answer my question - as to why it's more desirable-
m@

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:10 pm

Yes he did answer you. There is no rule or reason to "more desirable". It's just for SOME people it's more desirable. It's also how most classic mixer EQ's work, the larger the boost/cut the narrower the Q. It's considered "musical" and more precise. You could of course do the exact same thing with a constant Q equalizer. It's just a bit more fiddly to setup (you need 2 instances or more to do the gradual narrowing of Q).

Cheers!
bManic

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:36 pm

No, he didn't answer me, BManic. And neither have you-
Why is it considered 'more musical' (which is as unrevealing as 'desirable')?
Saying that the bigger eq's prefer it a certain way does not explain _why_ they prefer it a certain way-
ditto asymetric bandwidths-
Saying it's more desirable for some people, doesn't explain why it's more desirable-
you seem to think I'm hassling him, but I'm actually just curious-
Thanks,
M@

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:51 pm

Metamorphosis, here's a good link that describes the reasoning behind this and other filters.

http://www.dc.umich.edu/dmc/emusic/Docs ... es/REQ.pdf

Check out p.10 - 11.

Christian Budde · Post by **Christian Budde** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:57 pm

Just two examples:
a) you have an acoustical resonance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance) in your room. You usually try to remove it with a very narrow bandwidth and a high attenuation. In that case it's useful if you don't need to narrow the bandwidth 'on your own'.
b) you're a mastering engineer and you'd like to preserve the music and the transients as good as possible. For that case you use a wide bandwidth and only small gain/attenuations. That results in very short impulse responses of the filters, which means you're transients will keep together very close.
So some people like to have a filter that is good for a mastering purpose on very small levels and good for mixing/surgical purpose for large levels.
By designing filters that have a relationship between bandwidth and gain it was easier for circuit designers to build a filter. That's another reason why it got so famous. Once people used and liked it, they were trained to get fast results with such a type of filter, because they know how it 'sounds' (in fact they did know how it 'works' or 'feels').
I hope those are the answers you were looking for,

Christian

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:49 pm

Nope, that makes sense - I prefer to work with normal q's as I'm rarely doing surgical fixups and I have a separate eq setup for mastering.
Could you elaborate on the horizontally-asymmetric bandwidth design you're using? I can guess a certain part of it from the fact that smaller bandwidths are more useful the lower the frequency is, is there anything more to it?
Bduffy's example covered vertical asymmetry (didn't actually explain it's appeal, *shrug*) but not horizontal asymetry-
Thanks,
Matt

Christian Budde · Post by **Christian Budde** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:24 pm

Hi,

just want to let you know, that a 'splitted' version of the Noname-EQ is available for download.

It makes use of my Split Plugin Creator but has been slightly modified for the use with an EQ.

It allows you not only to apply oversampling of up to 16x to the plugin, but also to have two separate instances for the left and right channel. Or switch to mid/side processing. Further more there are some other modes available like 'Dynamic' to differ between quiet and loud signals. Or use 'Spin' to spin around both instances as if they were placed before and behind your head.

Although it might increase the CPU consumption, it also exponentiates your possibilities. It gives you more creative control.

But be warned that it is still only a beta version. I'm just a single developer and I don't have the time or money to test it in every host. But you can help! There's a link on the left side below my profile you can use to send me an email to let me know about the problems that might exist.

Christian

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:32 pm

Exciting! Thanks!

sinkmusic · Post by **sinkmusic** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:36 pm

Amazing !
Thank you, Christian.

So... may we try to do the same with Electri-Q, or shall we wait for an official update with such a neat feature ?

Thanks again

sinkmusic · Post by **sinkmusic** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:45 pm

Hi again
fyi, it crashes Ext2, but it works in Live7.

It is funny, because it is indeed really 2 instances : the preferences and GUI scheme has to be set 2 times

I will get good use of it !

Btw, that version uses a lot more cpu,of course, even with Oversampling disabled.

Cordelia · Post by **Cordelia** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:58 pm

Thank you Christian! I can't wait to try this out.

Christian Budde · Post by **Christian Budde** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:06 pm

sinkmusic wrote:So... may we try to do the same with Electri-Q, or shall we wait for an official update with such a neat feature ?

There will probably be an official wrapper at the end of this year. It will be faster and may offer more modes.

Christian

PS: Btw. you are of course allowed to give this 'treatment' to whatever effect you like...

echopark · Post by **echopark** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:24 pm

Hallo Christian,
this splitted Version doesn't work here.

Chainer : Crash immidiatly
Phrazor: Error Plugin couldn't be loaded

Cubase 4: When I put it in a insert, theres only a Sound like a feedback coming out of this Plugin.

Dean Aka Nekro · Post by **Dean Aka Nekro** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm

Thanks yet again Cristian Budde (this is getting silly now the amount of thank you posts i am having to type out: maybe i will knock up a template

), looking forward to trying it out

@ metamorphosis: on a much bigger picture - we all do not have the same set of ears, monitors, listening environments or use the same source material/microphones/...etc, which is a non-technical way of explaining why one certain tool is useful and well liked/used opposed to another with neither being superior. I just keep it as simple as that and that analogy translates very well to most things audio.

I do however like reading up on and reading posts about the more technical aspects of whatever the subject maybe, in this case EQ.

Best regards and take it easy all

Dean

New track EQ available