KVR Audio

Zaphod (giancarlo) · Post by **Zaphod (giancarlo)** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:40 pm

bmanic was against common biquad plugins. In this thread didn't say anything new.
The fancy gui is NOT a part of the workflow. It's not for him and it's not for me.
A close match of the frequency and phase response could be part of that workflow. Now, a real pultec should add a bit of pleasant distortion. That distortion and a close match of frequency and phase response could play an important role in the speedness of reaching a result.

I'm with the poster when he says that a lot of plugins are placebo, and that a cool gui when you need a bit of hype during the mixing stage (for yourself or for clients).
For sure not ALL plugins could be emulated successfully using other plugins. For example using a plugin without oversampling you can't emulate a plugin with oversampling. I guess than not many equalisers are able to emulate nebula when he plays a tube equaliser (libraries are coming), even if you tweak them all the night long.
Budde said interesting things: I agree a lot with him when he speaks about mistakes in design that now are considered a plus. I would add that many hardware equalisers were not perfect, but musical, and a countless number of hits used them, making them even more "standard" and good to our ears. The typical SSL sound, or lexicon sound is a piece of our culture now. So, even if not perfect they are still used a lot. And it's not obvious that when you tweak high frequencies a vintage equaliser changes something in the low ones. And not, analog equalisers are not exactly minimum phase like most digital plugins, cause constraints.

Zaphod (giancarlo) · Post by **Zaphod (giancarlo)** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:42 pm

niklas/bmanic anticipated me

please note that both bmanic and I are speaking about expected pleasant distortion in a pultec emulation

jens · Post by **jens** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:53 pm

bmanic wrote: Sorry if my opinion somehow offends you oh mighty warrior of freeware defense..

no, it doesn't offend me... not at all - I just don't think that it makes any significant difference for your way of arguing if bog standard filter algorithm + x = easy achievement of desirable ('musical') sound or if bog standard filter algorithm + cleverly restricted gui = easy achievemnt of desirable sound...

and b.t.w.: may I kindly ask you to leave the ad-hominem attacks away?

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:14 pm

jens wrote:
bmanic wrote: Sorry if my opinion somehow offends you oh mighty warrior of freeware defense..
no, it doesn't offend me... not at all - I just don't think that it makes any significant difference for your way of arguing if bog standard filter algorithm + x = easy achievement of desirable ('musical') sound or if bog standard filter algorithm + cleverly restricted gui = easy achievemnt of desirable sound...

and b.t.w.: may I kindly ask you to leave the ad-hominem attacks away?

Sorry about the "Attack". However, it's not the first time you go digging up "old" threads to use 'against' other people without even trying to understand what they have said (I know you are a smart guy so hence I get the feeling you didn't even try).

So, let me explain then:

Algorithm + cleverly restricted GUI (how is it restricted any different than a bog standard graphic equalizer?) does NOT make it "musical" or "quirky". The whole point was that if you tweak just one single knob on some old hardware, there are MASSIVE changes in the complete frequency/phase response. Not just at the frequency which is on the label of the knob. Not to mention the distortion created at several stages of the hardware (input/gain stage/output etc).

So, a bog standard biquad without the X-factor (distortion, weird behavior, hiss/noise/whatever) is always going to be a bog standard biquad, no matter how fancy the GUI is. It simply does not make any tweaking easier or lead to more "happy accidents" than say IIEQ. That was my point all along, and I think also kind of Vieris point.

A standard biquad is a standard biquad, no matter how pretty the GUI is or how much $$$$ it costs. However, my view differs from Vieris view (perhaps, I'm not sure) in that I find that X factor very important and the main reason why it is worth doing an emulation in the first place. Separating the X from the EQ does theoretically equal biquad + separate plugin that causes the X but it does not equal the work flow/inspiration that the original has.

Ok, so my above ramblings are not very clear but you'll have to forgive me.. I'm a bit drunk.

Sorry again Jens for the "attack".. it wasn't meant very seriously. Just as a little hint for you and your sometimes a bit arrogant/"I need to challenge your own words" attitude. Though that is also what I admire in you as well so rock on!

Cheers!
bManic

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:18 pm

I'll not be so politically correct about it, there is a reason jens was banned for quite some time. Guessing some things never change.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:33 pm

Yes, that's the second time you're not "P.C.". The first time "oh no, who let you back

". Trying hard to start a fight.

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:12 am

I'll retract and move on......check pm shy please

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:58 am

Screw political correctness. So annoying, those who insist on P.C.

Brent

shogger · Post by **shogger** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:03 pm

koolkeys wrote:Screw political correctness. So annoying, those who insist on P.C.

Brent

Hehe,

just insist on tolerance and be intolerant to all who are not tolerant the way you want it.

Sorry for the OT. Very interesting discussion.

Shogger

Edit: That was just a general small rant, nothing to you Brent! OK?

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:46 pm

shogger wrote:
koolkeys wrote:Screw political correctness. So annoying, those who insist on P.C.

Brent
Hehe,

just insist on tolerance and be intolerant to all who are not tolerant the way you want it.
Sorry for the OT. Very interesting discussion.

Shogger

Edit: That was just a general small rant, nothing to you Brent! OK?

No bad thoughts here! I'm all for tolerance, and I think tolerance is easier than carefully selecting every single word so you don't insult one person with a word because they insist on being offended.

Brent

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:53 pm

Aren't you kind of not saying anything? What I kind of got from that post is all X is the same if you don't consider any other variable." With X being some sort of ideal EQ algorithm. Isn't the interest in anything the characteristics? The flaws and limitations of something are what give it it's charm, no? It all comes back to quality vs characteristics. You're paying the extra money for the characteristics of the EQ. Wether or not it's worth all that is up to you. If you get it and you think it makes your tracks sound better, then so be it.