Digital EQ Fact & Myth.

[SWAN808]

I'm a duende & URS owner myself. I use them for the unique qualities .

THis is interesting. Are you refering to Duende EQs? So whilst arguing that all digital EQs are basically the same - you like to use duende eq for its unique qualities?

Considering the cost of Duende that must deem the unique qualities to be of some significance.

Can you guys stop misinterpreting what vieris is saying with that statement.

He is talking about emulating eq's and their behaviors with multiple components (plugins) to arrive at the same sound or behavior. he never said that deems each EQ plugin as NOT unique. Argue the topic and stop trying to "catch" him in a contradiction. he hasnt contradicted himself at all. Even if you were able to arrive at the same sound and behavior as lets say the duende it doesnt mean the duende isnt a unique plugin. on the contrary. because it sounds different than other plugins and that it is able to achieve its sonic result and behavior in a comprehensive "unit" makes it exactly that - unique. Vieris acknowledges that. So argue the point at hand if u want to discuss something: if you can indeed arrive at the same results using multiple cheaper or possibly free components/plugins.

well ok - but there has been a pretty big statement made here and you cant just expect it to be swallowed given that it goes against what many people have been lead to believe.

I would be interested with a list of plugins that qualify as 'properly designed' that are in the reasonable/free bracket + some examples of saturation plugins that are good enough to be used in conjunction with such EQs as to be able to create similar effects to the 'hyped' plugins. So far the €990 Blue EQ has been used as an example and also Sonar and Live EQ. Im talking EQs available in VST and AU format for multiple hosts. This would make the argument more useful rather than a mere statement.

In some ways the OP has dropped a significant fact that is contrary to many peoples belief - but has not gone on to suggest or help out with more specific examples following on from dropping this bomb.

[SWAN808]

it ends in theory vs practice. Digital plug-in EQs may all be the same in theory, but that doesn't make it the reality.

Yes - this is what it sounds like to me at the moment

[audiovet]

DELETED

[SWAN808]

Yes, it is a big statement. So lets stick to that statement and investigate that. Otherwise theres no need to try and denounce what he says as contradictory.

Controversy? Ok, thats fine. Lets stick to that.

yeah I get that - thanks for the little 'telling off' you have administered for a second time - I hope that was satisfying for you.

Im not trying to be difficult just trying to understand what is being said here.

[ckatrun411]

But....

I do not disagree with this:
" You can get a pro quality result with freeware -- You can get a pro quality result with payware "

I disagree with this:
" All parametric eq's produce the same result. They are identical. You can achieve A with B and C. "

All cars are exactly the same? They have wheels, windows, engines, transmissions, gear shifts, license plates, bumpers, seats, etc.

Other statement:
Many things on Earth share a lot of the same fundemental principles, that hardly makes them identical.

What makes Eq's different according to the OP? " X "

What makes cars different? " X "
What makes blood types different? " X "

Well what is X?

How do you fly faster in a space ship, then the speed of light?


Easy:

Build a spaceship and make sure you include x.

[audiovet]

DELETED

[bmanic]

Fine, I'll add "or Waves API 550A, or Stillwell 1973, or KeyToSound Vintage EQ". In short, it's not that simple and it's not possible to recreate everything with it. There is no one can do all EQ and there are too many parameters that can affect an EQ's behavior and sound. In theory it's possible, in practice it's not and it's unfeasible, so again it ends in theory vs practice. Digital plug-in EQs may all be the same in theory, but that doesn't make it the reality.

This is exactly what some of us said already early on. Sure, you can always BACK TRACK and analyze results done by different digital EQ's and re-create them, sometimes 100% accurately but this is not a very important point when it comes to creating music/mixing/mastering/whatever.. the point is: What made the user get to the results in the first place?. That is the point.

In the case of a "virtual pultec" it might take exactly 5 seconds to get that bass guitar to sit in a track. Surely you can then backtrack the results by analyzing them and substitute that pultec wannabe with something like IIEQ 2 or some other freeware. But again, that is not really relevant, is it?

I do however agree with Vieris that some of the pricing of certain plugins, especially EQs are ridiculous and mainly driven by hype and placebo (the pretty interfaces being the largest contributor to the placebo effect).

Also, Christian Budde had some awesome things to say a few pages back so I suggest everybody reads through that in case you just jumped on board this thread.

Cheers!
bManic

[23rdmonkey]

Hi to all

My 2c:

First of all WORKFLOW makes a difference to the SOUND: for example if a certain EQ is "tuned" with a "musically pleasing" gain-Q dependency (e.g. Neve clones), then i'll be able to get a certain good sound out of it easily, whereas if i use Live's built-in EQ i'll get to the same sweet spot with a lot more tweaking.. can i then say that Live's EQ has "worse sound"? Theoretically no, practically yes..
i mean the "neve sound" or "SSL sound" or whatever is not just hype (even if it's getting really exploited nowadays).. it's the bigger picture that makes the difference..

About the X factor: Let's not forget that originally analogue EQs were trying to be as transparent as possible. No designer wanted to do a unit with lots of noise and distortion. But now it's getting out of hand.. Waves' emulations add a f**king noisefloor! For f**k's sake! I have a computer! My point is that imperfections are sometimes nice and end up desirable but sometimes they're just imperfections and we shouldn't make a big deal out of it..

Personally i find differences between EQs mainly in the HF area. I'm no coder so i don't know the details on filter implementations and the like, but my (less than golden) ears say that doing a crazy HF shelf boost sounds radically different sometimes.. maybe a code guru could shed some light over this?

just my 2c.. interesting thread by the way.. keep it up!

[Shy]

This is exactly what some of us said already early on.

I started commenting on differences and recreating A with B on page 1

[Nokenoku]

I do however agree with Vieris that some of the pricing of certain plugins, especially EQs are ridiculous and mainly driven by hype and placebo (the pretty interfaces being the largest contributor to the placebo effect).

Yes. Most ridiculous is the price of some of em ...

[jens]

This is exactly what some of us said already early on. Sure, you can always BACK TRACK and analyze results done by different digital EQ's and re-create them, sometimes 100% accurately but this is not a very important point when it comes to creating music/mixing/mastering/whatever.. the point is: What made the user get to the results in the first place?. That is the point.


In the case of a "virtual pultec" it might take exactly 5 seconds to get that bass guitar to sit in a track. Surely you can then backtrack the results by analyzing them and substitute that pultec wannabe with something like IIEQ 2 or some other freeware. But again, that is not really relevant, is it?

and yet when we praised Leftoverlasagne's Pushtec you flamed us for falling for shiny graphics and not recognizing that its sound is absolutely generic.

well go figure. the other is a faithful model of the actual electronic signal path, and the other is a stock standard filterset (probably biquads) with a fancy interface resembling a certain famous EQ.

this is the usual case of being tricked by the GUI, ie. placebo, ie. will you guys ever learn?

I agree with him. I didn't want to post here and spoil your guys party but as Kingston already started, I have to continue. IMHO it sounds nothing spectacular at all. It's a nice freebie though but against other free plugins like Nyquist, Electri-Q posihfopit edition and especially Voxengo GEQ (which has superb harmonic enhancement!) it's falling into the forgotten shadows of mediocrenes.

Sorry..

- bManic

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

Sorry, bmanic, but the position you took in this old thread is almost the exact opposite to the one you take here.

. Why create a plugin, with a GUI that is clearly pointing towards a pretty much coloured analogue EQ that imparts quite a lot of extra harmonics and complex non-linearities, that only uses standard filter code found all over the net and in most DSP books?

I mean, that's pretty much exactly what Electri-Q can do too, but better (you get more choises, much more control, more bands and Christian's solid state modelling behaviour whatever thing on top of it).

I think there's something else that needs to be said about this plug-in that no one has mentioned. It takes two seconds to dial in a sound with Pushtec. I mean, sure the interface is based off the Pultec, but I don't own a Pultec, and damn is this a great way of interfacing with an EQ. I was using Pushtec extensively last night, and I have to say, it's just a lot simpler to dial in what what you need than the Kjaerhus EQ, Posifohpit, etc. I found myself not futzing about for the perfect Q width or frequency or anything. Just 100hz, boost, 10k attenuate, pull the mids in at 1k, and ha! that bass sound will work. Workflow is important, and I like the way this plug-in is laid out. I don't care if it's the best EQ in the world, but it does allow me to dial in a sound quickly, which I think is a trait that is sometimes undervalued around here. Anyway, those are my two cents. Pushtec will be staying in my plug-in folder.

[bmanic]

This is exactly what some of us said already early on.

I started commenting on differences and recreating A with B on page 1

Indeed you did!

Cheers!
bManic

[jinxtigr]

I was told I should check out this thread since I have an EQ coming out.

All I can say is, I'm happy that I can improperly make a digital EQ in such a way that it sounds good on music

I'm sure it will work out pretty well for me, and it's about time I did one that was more general purpose, but that's compared to freaky things like my ResEQ (which is entirely devoted to constructing a sound out of analog-style resonant peaks).

I'm also happy that if I want to make a low cutoff/highpass that makes lows more kickin' I go to the trouble of thinking up weird nonlinear behaviors to afflict the helpless plugin with which will produce that effect. If I was just trying to mimick the visual appearance of hardware that people associate with kickin' then that would be rather sad

I sympathize completely with the myth-busting enthusiasm of the original poster, but it's academic, as it certainly doesn't apply to _me_.

[bmanic]

This is exactly what some of us said already early on. Sure, you can always BACK TRACK and analyze results done by different digital EQ's and re-create them, sometimes 100% accurately but this is not a very important point when it comes to creating music/mixing/mastering/whatever.. the point is: What made the user get to the results in the first place?. That is the point.


In the case of a "virtual pultec" it might take exactly 5 seconds to get that bass guitar to sit in a track. Surely you can then backtrack the results by analyzing them and substitute that pultec wannabe with something like IIEQ 2 or some other freeware. But again, that is not really relevant, is it?

and yet when we praised Leftoverlasagne's Pushtec you flamed us for falling for shiny graphics and not recognizing that its sound is absolutely generic.

.. and I still stand by that comment. Very much so. Heck, the word "pushtec" and the GUI made it pretty obvious that it wanted to be a pultec emulation. Yet it had NO harmonic distortion modeled. None of the EQ curves were even remotely close to how a real pultec operates (the quirky Boost/Cut knob interaction) and it was exactly what Vieris has here mentioned: Pushtec is a bog standard biquad eq with a glorified GUI. In short: It completely missed the X.

Sorry if my opinion somehow offends you oh mighty warrior of freeware defense.. Or perhaps you got a little "GUI placebo" treatment from that very plugin and now feel silly?

[bmanic]

Sorry, bmanic, but the position you took in this old thread is almost the exact opposite to the one you take here.

. Why create a plugin, with a GUI that is clearly pointing towards a pretty much coloured analogue EQ that imparts quite a lot of extra harmonics and complex non-linearities, that only uses standard filter code found all over the net and in most DSP books?

I mean, that's pretty much exactly what Electri-Q can do too, but better (you get more choises, much more control, more bands and Christian's solid state modelling behaviour whatever thing on top of it).

I think there's something else that needs to be said about this plug-in that no one has mentioned. It takes two seconds to dial in a sound with Pushtec. I mean, sure the interface is based off the Pultec, but I don't own a Pultec, and damn is this a great way of interfacing with an EQ. I was using Pushtec extensively last night, and I have to say, it's just a lot simpler to dial in what what you need than the Kjaerhus EQ, Posifohpit, etc. I found myself not futzing about for the perfect Q width or frequency or anything. Just 100hz, boost, 10k attenuate, pull the mids in at 1k, and ha! that bass sound will work. Workflow is important, and I like the way this plug-in is laid out. I don't care if it's the best EQ in the world, but it does allow me to dial in a sound quickly, which I think is a trait that is sometimes undervalued around here. Anyway, those are my two cents. Pushtec will be staying in my plug-in folder.

Beep. Wrong Jens. Perhaps read what I've been saying here would help?

Pushtec does NOTHING that is "quirky" or "musical" in any sense or form. It is "exactly" the type of thing Vieris said in his original post. Heck, I even clearly said earlier that I agree with his points, to a certain point. That point is the X and the significance of that X and what it does/behaves. The pushtec plugin has none of that. It has no harmonic distortion. It has no "weird shaped" curves. Nothing. It is basically IIEQ tuned to certain frequencies with a couple of low shelf filters selected with a pretty GUI. That's it.

So no, I've not changed my mind and what I wrote before in that old thread actually strengthens my case and shows that I've had the SAME opinion all along. Sorry mate.. I know you like quoting old threads and playing the "moral judge" on people and prove that they are somehow "wrong" or "changed personalities" but this is imply not the case here.

Cheers!
bManic

PS. I have no idea why this ended up being two separate posts. Perhaps because I'm a bit intoxicated and tired?