Digital EQ Fact & Myth.

[tomg]

Let me know what you think! I have a LOT more content coming over the following weeks(I wish I could tell all!). I actually merged The Audio Garden with ProRec.com a few months back, but haven't ported over most of the content yet. In time, it will all come though.

If there is something you want to see there, let me know. I'm the co-editor, so I may be able to make it happen. We'd love to develop the community aspect more as well.

Ok, sorry for the off topic. Cheers!

Brent

ProRec ... Pro-Rec... Very close. Could be some confusion there.

http://www.pro-rec.com/synthsounds.html

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

So i decided to take it a step further.
How close could i get to the waves SSL with ANALOG on.
So instead of using sonar & my usual URS saturation I decided to try it with all native Ableton Live plugins. At 1st i was having a hell of a time trying to match the EQ Phase. That is until i turned off Live's Hi quality EQ mode heh.
Live oversamples with Hi quality on.

Here are the EQ setups.
...


Frequency Response with saturation.
...


The left measures frequency differences & the right is phase. Not bad, it's near mono. Pretty cool for completely different tools.
...

I didn't understand this test.
1) how did you matched that complex frequency response plot using ableton plugins?
2) why are you not posting harmonic responses plot? For analog mode I would expect a bit of harmonic distortion (even if SSL is pretty clean).

[koolkeys]

Let me know what you think! I have a LOT more content coming over the following weeks(I wish I could tell all!). I actually merged The Audio Garden with ProRec.com a few months back, but haven't ported over most of the content yet. In time, it will all come though.

If there is something you want to see there, let me know. I'm the co-editor, so I may be able to make it happen. We'd love to develop the community aspect more as well.

Ok, sorry for the off topic. Cheers!

Brent

ProRec ... Pro-Rec... Very close. Could be some confusion there.

http://www.pro-rec.com/synthsounds.html

ProRec.com has been around a LONG time, most likely longer than that other site. I've come across many people who remember it from years ago, so I'm sure it'll be alright. Of course, I don't own the site so it's not my issue to deal with as much. Interesting though.

Brent

[tomg]

Let me know what you think! I have a LOT more content coming over the following weeks(I wish I could tell all!). I actually merged The Audio Garden with ProRec.com a few months back, but haven't ported over most of the content yet. In time, it will all come though.

If there is something you want to see there, let me know. I'm the co-editor, so I may be able to make it happen. We'd love to develop the community aspect more as well.

Ok, sorry for the off topic. Cheers!

Brent

ProRec ... Pro-Rec... Very close. Could be some confusion there.

http://www.pro-rec.com/synthsounds.html

ProRec.com has been around a LONG time, most likely longer than that other site. I've come across many people who remember it from years ago, so I'm sure it'll be alright. Of course, I don't own the site so it's not my issue to deal with as much. Interesting though.

Brent

Pro-Rec has been in the patch and sample business...I don't even know, 25 years maybe? None of my business, just thought you'd like to know.

[Rock Hardbuns]

Both domains were registered in 1998.

[original flipper]

HI

When I was demoing several EQ's a year or so ago the thing that stood out (and indeed what I was most interested in) was how much boost/attenuation a plug could go before the sound broke up or distorted - this I found surprising with several rather expensive eq's suffering.

As stated - it makes sense that eq's will generally be able to replicate each other: they are only boosting/cutting what is already there anyway.

I suposse the interesting (random) aspect is where a dev incorporates a feature to 'add' something to the sound: distortion, vitality or even a sub octave emulated from the original sound.

I have often thought that more developers should strive (in certain cases) to 'add' such features into software - to give the user more freedom to manipulate sound.

Flipper.

[Paperclip99]

I don't get the sense of this discussion.

It's a known fact that we can emulate eq curves and get them very close so the plugs sound almost the same. Yes, you can match curves of your UAD 1073 emulation by a good old Waves Q6 (i think at least 6 bands are needed for close matching).

BUT

Who wants to lose his precious time by analyzing the hardware (or software) eq that should be recreated?

I mean:

1) EQ curves: Ok, I can dial in, save this setting, analyze it and try to match another eq to that. Possible, no doubt, but I want to make/mix music and not comparing graphs!

Then we have what was called "X" in this thread.

When we have curves matched we still have left

2) Some more or less subtle changes in the frequency response that the plug adds (take a look at a 1073 with all bands flat!)
3) Phase changes/smears
4) Harmonic distortion
5) Transient treatment

Now- If I want a 1073 sound i use my prefered 1073 plugin (Nebula + UAD) and don't waste my time trying to match all the things mentioned above. I just open Nebula or my UAD version and start mixing instead of analyzing.

But for some "super clean" plugs that skip 2-5 it is right.
They can be cloned/matched easily.
But that is not what I like in my mixes. I love outboard, I love that "character" that is based on "X" and that outboard and a very few plugins add to my tracks. And I don't lose time for recreating that with hours of analyzing and an armada of other plugins because there are already fine working solutions.

Well, just my 2 cents...

[Casar1973]

I kinda get the point of the original post but as it points out in the algorithmix quote, there are other processes apart - from equalisation -involved with traditional EQ's that may flavor the sound in a particular fashion. The emulations may capture some unique response curve which makes a certain difference to what you percieve. When I dial in something in certain EQ's I get something that appeals to me much more than the native standard bulk EQ. So it isn't always a case of only the EQ application itself, it is how it works the sum total - which in the end is what you're going to listen to. So it isn't to me a matter of finding out how to dial in something that sounds like a neve in a commodity vst eq. I wouldn't have time for that anyway.

[ckatrun411]

I think I have a very simple argument here, proving the op incorrect.

All properly designed Digital plug-in EQ's are the same.

which is a well known fact:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su ... .1.23.3931

...assuming, we stick to the standard biquad implementation and demand the gain at Nyquist frequency to be 0 dB.

I don't know anything about c++, or coding computer software, but what are you saying Mr. Robin? There is a fundamental algorithm that parametric eq's share? That is what I think you are saying, that is what I think the OP is saying.



Let us chew on this concept--

Are all airplanes, cars, trains, lasers, surgical instruments, buildings, bridges and etc, the same? All of them share some fundamental concepts. Actually, everything on earth seems to share concepts.

I'm sorry, but to build a bridge you follow some very stringent mathematical formulas. Perhaps the same is for parametric eq's. I fail to see how all bridges are the same.

That said, " All eq's are exactly the same, except for X." Is a pretty weak argument. IMHO...


Even if it is slight difference in the distortion and q....


Well, What about the slight differences between a bullet, and a missile?

[jupiter8]

I think I have a very simple argument here, proving the op incorrect.

All properly designed Digital plug-in EQ's are the same.

which is a well known fact:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su ... .1.23.3931

...assuming, we stick to the standard biquad implementation and demand the gain at Nyquist frequency to be 0 dB.

I don't know anything about c++, or coding computer software, but what are you saying Mr. Robin? There is a fundamental algorithm that parametric eq's share? That is what I think you are saying, that is what I think the OP is saying.



Let us chew on this concept--

Are all airplanes, cars, trains, lasers, surgical instruments, buildings, bridges and etc, the same? All of them share some fundamental concepts. Actually, everything on earth seems to share concepts.

I'm sorry, but to build a bridge you follow some very stringent mathematical formulas. Perhaps the same is for parametric eq's. I fail to see how all bridges are the same.

That said, " All eq's are exactly the same, except for X." Is a pretty weak argument. IMHO...


Even if it is slight difference in the distortion and q....


Well, What about the slight differences between a bullet, and a missile?

So basically you have no idea what you're talking about but still argue that plugin x can't be the same as plugin y because blue is different from red ?

[ckatrun411]

Absolutely.

Is there a difference between blue and red?

[SWAN808]

So basically you have no idea what you're talking about but still argue that plugin x can't be the same as plugin y because blue is different from red ?

Well. I think this is an interesting topic. I sense ckatrun is finding this difficult to believe as I am...

I have no idea about all this coding and what it takes to build a digital EQ. Basically some developer has come along and made a claim that all digital EQs are basically the same bar the saturation 'x'.

So what are we supposed to take from this?

How do we know which are the ones which have been 'well' coded?

Does this mean that everything we have read about users 'loving UAD 1073/Air EQ/Duende/Flux' as opposed to say Logic FAT EQ is just placebo + workflow + a bit of saturation?

I find it hard to just trash all the reviews from experienced mixers about this EQ sounding great and that EQ not...

I really find it hard to believe

Are Pro users really being tricked into thinking Duende X EQ or ePure are worth $$$ when in fact any old EQ could do exactly the same job + saturation?

Perhaps if we had some more developers chiming in to back up this argument...

[vieris]

The Duende, waves products, & so on are fine. Nothing wrong with them at all. I was just getting tired of people believing that they contain something unobtainable elsewhere. All i'm proving is that most digital parametric EQ's are identical & you can get the same sonic results without having to spend $$$$$ on a plugin bundle.
There is nothing wrong with liking a plugin based on the creativity the interface will give you.
I'm a duende & URS owner myself. I use them for the unique qualities (saturation, CPU freedom & compression) But i like to know exactly what my tools actually give me. I don't blindly accept anything. I find it funny how so few question aspects of there life in general. I find it even more bizarre how some people respond when someone does question. Buts that's a deeper topic, I'll save philosophy discussions for differnt circles.

[Shy]

There has been some response contradicting not your questioning, but your broad and oversimplifying claim that all "properly designed" digital plug-in EQ's are "the same".

[jens]

I think I have a very simple argument here.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.