KVR Audio

Shamanix · Post by **Shamanix** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:20 pm

slugfest99 wrote: I think my main issue was using onboard DAW EQ... naughty boy.

I'm going off topic here (sorry) but I've never really managed to "hear" any great difference between EQ's ...

Because there isn't at least between Parametric EQs!

http://www.rhythminmind.net/presetblog/ ... fact-myth/

This will explain everything much better then I could.
It's only a matter of time now for some Waves, UAD, etc fanboys to show up

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:18 pm

Mouxbar, if you're meaning the EQ on the channels, then that is not a prob! I have always regarded that as an essential ... like the channel Vol slider for creating a decent mix! .... but even if you're talking about the fruity parametric EQ, I wouldn't even see that as an unfair advantage, or for that matter, an effect .... in fact, as an EQ, it doesn't really do anything that cant be done in other DAWS, and certainly doesn't change the sound to be unrepresentative of that which can be expected from our host synth ... unless you really mean it to

... Still see you more of a bender than a breaker

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:59 pm

OK, just uploaded 'Snipping the Nozzle' ... named after one of the more successful tasks I've managed to accomplish in the ongoing saga of my leaky toilet outflow!!!

Thanks again Rob_lee for your ongoing an accelerating support!

Major B ... hows Orkney treatin ye? maybe a bit late wi this advice, but ... Dinna tak yer instrument intae the Queens hotel! ... they will mak ye play it a' night, while they buy lots o' beer an force ye tae drink it! .... Could get messy!

(... mind you, Ah think its been tarted up a bit since Ah enjo.... err endured that experience, but tak care nanetheless! )

Shamanix ... great article!

... 2 days to go!

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:40 am

http://onesynthcomp.4shared.com/

... just posting that hosting file ad again ... just so any last-minute-larry types can beat the deadline by avoiding clicking back to page 1 of the thread

As previously stated, I dont listen to/comment on any tracks til they're all in so I can treat/regard/review them fairly ... however, since you didnt want to submit that track Gamma, I gave it a listen. ... bloody hell, are you sure you cant replace your illegal parts with legal equivalents??

I dont know what the tracks in the comp are like ( apart from my own ) but that 'happy cat' track is cool! ... Even if the new 'cleansed' version was lacking by comparison, I think it would still make an impact ... at least by my own voting criteria.

Anyway, whatever you do, well done! I like it a lot!

.... and it certainly features sfxr sounds prominently!

slugfest99 · Post by **slugfest99** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:53 am

Shamanix wrote: Because there isn't at least between Parametric EQs!

http://www.rhythminmind.net/presetblog/ ... fact-myth/

This will explain everything much better then I could.
It's only a matter of time now for some Waves, UAD, etc fanboys to show up

Well thanks Shamanix, that's my new thing learnt for the day.

My ears don't lie

Yes, on Fruity, each mixer track gets its own 3 channel parametric EQ tool by default - this is what I try to use to make my tracks up.

Apart from that, I just add a master EQ to kill off stuff below about 35Hz and "unmuddy" the mix a bit. All a fine art in itself EQ...

Great stuff and thanks also to Tattie for his latest views on the subject

Cheers,
Mouxbar

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:45 pm

Ahem ... just a wee bump incase someone has a free day with nothing better to do than huddle a track together ...

Gamma-UT · Post by **Gamma-UT** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:39 pm

tattiemannie wrote:are you sure you cant replace your illegal parts with legal equivalents?? I dont know what the tracks in the comp are like ( apart from my own ) but that 'happy cat' track is cool! ... Even if the new 'cleansed' version was lacking by comparison, I think it would still make an impact ... at least by my own voting criteria.

Anyway, whatever you do, well done! I like it a lot! .... and it certainly features sfxr sounds prominently!

Thanks, much appreciated.

Having realised that the deadline is today rather than the 20th (I don't know why I thought it was then), I've purged the piece of payware plug-ins and uploaded a new mix, which contains a few small alterations. I went for a couple of Expert Sleepers plug-ins for delay, having discovered them through the KVR database. And very nice they are too.

Gamma-UT · Post by **Gamma-UT** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:51 pm

Shamanix wrote:
slugfest99 wrote: I think my main issue was using onboard DAW EQ... naughty boy.

I'm going off topic here (sorry) but I've never really managed to "hear" any great difference between EQ's ...
Because there isn't at least between Parametric EQs!

http://www.rhythminmind.net/presetblog/ ... fact-myth/

This will explain everything much better then I could.
It's only a matter of time now for some Waves, UAD, etc fanboys to show up

There are some caveats to all this. This assumes that the EQs are all biquads, which most minimum-phase parametric EQs are. A linear-phase will sound different (although for similar reasons, most linear-phase EQs should be able to emulate each other). However, the difference lies in how you get from the EQ setting you want to the coefficients that control the actual biquad filter code. As I understand, the transformation formula can differ by quite a lot from plug-in to plug-in. This is why, in this thread, they have to mess with the settings until the signal nulls out.

The upshot is that most biquads can emulate each other just as long as you know how they approach the transformation from setting to filter coefficients. It's worth bearing in mind that some devs, such as the guy behind Airwindows, have claimed that they don't use conventional biquad implementations so that they can get a different response to the conventional one. And DDMF ColorEQ has a novel split-peak option which messes with the harmonics in interesting ways.

IIRC there is one other important difference between PEQs: that is how they behave with high frequencies. Some of them use tricks such as decramping and warping the filter settings to improve their behaviour as the signal gets near the Nyquist frequency. This, I think, is why EQs can sound quite different if you compare their boost behaviour on high hats. For example, the DDMF and Sonalksis EQs sound subjectively less harsh for a given setting on severely boosted hats than, say, the Live EQ8. Now, the question is, if you're using VSTs or AUs, do you really need to put a 10dB boost on a hi-hat? I'd say that's unlikely. But, it is a source of difference between EQs.

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:34 pm

Cool Gamma, glad you could add another track to the collection

... And cheers for the interesting contribution re. EQs ....

About 12 hours to go I reckon, so if anyone is thrashing one out, and sweating over the deadline ....

I'll close the folder to uploads around midday tomorrow (GMT), and have the poll up by Friday.

Shamanix · Post by **Shamanix** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:56 am

I've cooked up something in like 2 hours, and uploaded it. It's pretty much shit by my standards because normally I make like 10 seconds in 2 hours, but I was bored, so I had a little fun.

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:10 pm

Great stuff Shamanix ... glad the comp filled in a couple of redundant hours for you, look forward to hearing your submission

The folder is now closed, and I'll post a link here to the voting thread when I get it together.

Thanks again to everyone who submitted a track and/or supported the comp in any other way .... best of luck to all.

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:59 pm

Rightee-ho, here's the link to the voting thread ...
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 41#3684041

One-Synth-Challenge 6! - SFXR.