KVR Audio

olepro · Post by **olepro** » Sun May 01, 2011 4:28 pm

Hmm... looks like the audience is split 50-50, maybe you should call a friend

pikadilly · Post by **pikadilly** » Sun May 01, 2011 4:59 pm

I had been using FL's peq2 for mixing sometimes. After buying eQuality, there is no way back really. I tested Equality among Redline eq and Pro-Q. Equality sounds most pleasant to my ears, even with steep cut or high q. Equality's interface is helpful to my workflow. The only thing I hope for Equality is it becoming more CPu efficient like PeQ2. But I guess that would be hard since Peq2 is FLS-native.

I could've also gotten Pro-Q too. But I found Pro-L is more interesting and suitable to my need. I might get Pro-Q in the future.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sun May 01, 2011 5:26 pm

keel wrote:Isn't all digital EQ's sounds same? People claim all the time "that EQ sounds so shit blaablaa". I'm using FL's own PEQ2, cause it is super super light on cpu, has really nice "analyzer". It get job done. I don't hear any difference on using PEQ2, equality or pro-q. Sure there is differences between linear phase and so on modes, but in digital, they all just sound same imo..

The problem with the "every digital EQ sounds the same argument" is people who refuse to READ the original threads properly and understand them.

Up until a few years ago, most plugin EQ's used identical algorithms. Usually the Orpfanidis, RBJ (as described in his famous "cook book") or any of those Russian geniuse's coefficients. Obviously there is MUCH more to digital filters than just these but the mentioned ones are simple, there is lots of data available and they work well enough for most cases. THIS is the reason a ton of plugins all sound and behave exactly the same (when you match the curves).

However, having said that, there are of course other techniques and ways of creating digital filters which means it is of course possible to create something unique, and not just differently shaped curves. Obviously Dave has some interesting way of doing things as by measuring the impulse response of the filters you get different results than from a typical digital EQ design.

What Dave said. The acid test is the top end, particularly when boosting it. EQuality shines for this.

Here's a simple test: Take a track of cymbals, and add a sharp hp filter at around 3k. On a low-quality eq, that's usually enough to wreck things all on its own. The cymbals will often start to sound a bit..."crispy" (as in "fried", not "crisp and clear"). To further aggravate things, start boosting at frequencies above the HP cutoff. On a "so-so" eq, the problems become immediately apparent.

So as much as all digital eq's are theoretically the same, in practice, they are most certainly not.

kell

Unfortunately our minds are too susceptible to the placebo effect to truly be able to trust our own opinions when it comes to these very subtle things. You really just have to measure them (quite easy when it comes to digital EQs) and try to understand what is going on.

There are tons of people who swore that Waves Q10 was a superior sounding EQ back in the day, when in fact they used the most basic of algorithms that you can get. Even after several people proved their point by completely nulling the Q10 native version (note: the PT TDM version is different, can't null it to the native version.. probably due to some internal rounding differences/dither) to some freeware EQ plugin.

Marketing + placebo is a very powerful combo. Don't fall for it.

Anyhow, I just wish for Equality with Pro-Q GUI. That'd be the ultimate digital EQ for me.

Cheers!
bManic

DaveGamble · Post by **DaveGamble** » Sun May 01, 2011 5:29 pm

bmanic wrote:Anyhow, I just wish for Equality with Pro-Q GUI. That'd be the ultimate digital EQ for me.

I'd like to now confirm that this is a go.

Dave.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sun May 01, 2011 5:32 pm

DaveGamble wrote:
bmanic wrote:Anyhow, I just wish for Equality with Pro-Q GUI. That'd be the ultimate digital EQ for me.
I'd like to now confirm that this is a go.

Dave.

.. and there we have it!!!

A W E S O M E!!

Cheers Dave!
bManic

Dr.Gunjah · Post by **Dr.Gunjah** » Sun May 01, 2011 5:42 pm

DaveGamble wrote:
bmanic wrote:Anyhow, I just wish for Equality with Pro-Q GUI. That'd be the ultimate digital EQ for me.
I'd like to now confirm that this is a go.

Dave.

really?

looking forward to the new take on the gui

Cheers,
Doc

keel · Post by **keel** » Sun May 01, 2011 5:42 pm

bmanic wrote:Lot's of text..

Thanks for this mate

bmanic wrote:Equality with Pro-Q GUI.

THIS + PEQ2 cpu-usage

Exhile · Post by **Exhile** » Sun May 01, 2011 5:42 pm

DaveGamble wrote:
bmanic wrote:Anyhow, I just wish for Equality with Pro-Q GUI. That'd be the ultimate digital EQ for me.
I'd like to now confirm that this is a go.

Dave.

Oh you mean ..... Now what am i supposed to do with my fabfilter total bundle

And i thought i was sorted with Pro-C and Pro-Q

DaveGamble · Post by **DaveGamble** » Sun May 01, 2011 5:45 pm

keel wrote:THIS + PEQ2 cpu-usage

Yeah, investigating the CPU usage. After Compassion 1.02, that's my main outstanding task for EQuality 1.12.

Dave.

4damind · Post by **4damind** » Sun May 01, 2011 5:55 pm

DaveGamble wrote:
bmanic wrote:Anyhow, I just wish for Equality with Pro-Q GUI. That'd be the ultimate digital EQ for me.
I'd like to now confirm that this is a go.

Dave.

docdued · Post by **docdued** » Sun May 01, 2011 6:01 pm

ttoz wrote:
I have been requesting more filterslopes for ages because they are not steep enough and that simple update just doesn't seem to be happening, i guess you get what you pay for??

Hmmm... I can still remember you posting about this so it can't be THAT long ago

Ceterum censeo: all digital EQs are 99.99% the same (soundwise, that is), although this has been repeated so many times people start to not believe it anymore...

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun May 01, 2011 6:39 pm

[DELETED]

DaveGamble · Post by **DaveGamble** » Sun May 01, 2011 6:46 pm

ttoz wrote:Dave says equality sounds better than other digital eq's.

Actually it measures better. You definitely don't need to take my word for it. Get the analysers out.

Most people seem to find that after working with EQuality for a little while, they have a hard time getting the same top-end control with anything else.

Dave.

DaveGamble · Post by **DaveGamble** » Sun May 01, 2011 6:48 pm

docdued wrote:Hmmm... I can still remember you posting about this so it can't be THAT long ago Ceterum censeo: all digital EQs are 99.99% the same (soundwise, that is), although this has been repeated so many times people start to not believe it anymore...

In linear phase modes, sure. Near enough. Windowing and IR length are big factors, of course.

As IIRs, not so. http://www.eiosis.com/images/amlt/EQCurveComparison.gif
As an EQ designer it's very important to understand what this table represents.

Dave.

Dr.Gunjah · Post by **Dr.Gunjah** » Sun May 01, 2011 7:10 pm

DaveGamble wrote:http://www.eiosis.com/images/amlt/EQCurveComparison.gif
As an EQ designer it's very important to understand what this table represents.

To me this looks like marketing... but well I'm not a EQ designer

Cheers,
Doc

KVR Audio

Equality VS Pro-Q (final answer, Equality).

Fabfilter Pro-Q vs DMG Equality