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

[4damind]

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

Have a good product and tell others that it's great
But Fabrice from Eiosis and SlateDigital is a good DSP developer and AirEQ is not the worst EQ

[DaveGamble]

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

It's stuff you can measure yourself with a spectrum analyser
It's a checkbox list of whether you actually get what you ask for when you dial in a band of EQ.

Dave.

[Dr.Gunjah]

Hey Dave,

that it can be measured doesn't necessarily mean that it can actually be heard
When you're talking about EQuality providing better "sound quality", what does it actually mean?
Does it mean, that EQuality matches the filter curves more accurately?
Does it sound more "musical"? (I love this marketing word )
Less aliasing? (or any other kind of digital "error"? )

I wasn't able to tell a massive difference between Pro-Q and EQuality in digital mode. Also EQuality didn't have that "magic" for me that for example the softube PE 1C or the ik pultec provide. Most likely we all have a different opinion about what "magic" is

Now I'm looking on this sheet and it says things like "analog like curve"... but considering there are so many different analog EQs out there and all of them have different frequency responses... which "analog like curve" is it they are talking about?

No offence, I just want to understand it and generally I'm always interested in improving my knowledge about those things

Cheers,
Doc

[DaveGamble]

Hey Dave,

that it can be measured doesn't necessarily mean that it can actually be heard

Sure, but with calibrated monitoring, this can be heard pretty easily.

The best way of measuring it I've found, is with a watch. With a good EQ, the mix comes together quite a lot faster, because there's less work to be done at the top end.

When you're talking about EQuality providing better "sound quality", what does it actually mean?
Does it mean, that EQuality matches the filter curves more accurately?
Does it sound more "musical"? (I love this marketing word )
Less aliasing? (or any other kind of digital "error"? )

There is a set of equations, from physics, of the form H(s)=s^2 + G/Qs +1 / (s^2 +1/GQ s +1)
(that's a peaking EQ, for instance), and what's interesting is how well a Digital EQ can implement that shape.

That shape is symmetric (on the log scale) and consistent. Most Digital EQs, around Nyquist, are not.

I wasn't able to tell a massive difference between Pro-Q and EQuality in digital mode.

You'll need to test with audio that has some high frequency content. I think someone suggested cymbals earlier in the thread, which will make it more obvious.
That said, if you're listening on uncalibrated monitors, you're going to have a hard time.
I'm a VERY strong advocate of borrowing a reference mic and tuning your monitors. It's the closest thing there is to a silver bullet for audio production.

Also EQuality didn't have that "magic" for me that for example the softube PE 1C or the ik pultec provide. Most likely we all have a different opinion about what "magic" is

The "magic" is pretty well established to be a combination of distortion (which EQuality doesn't do) and interaction (which EQuality does do, on a slider). Things like shelf Shift get you a long way towards the Pultec sound.

Now I'm looking on this sheet and it says things like "analog like curve"... but considering there are so many different analog EQs out there and all of them have different frequency responses... which "analog like curve" is it they are talking about?

Actually, not so much.
There are certainly EQs which are exceptions; the Pultec which interacts so heavily, it's more like a guitar tone control than an EQ, or some parallel graphic equalisers, but, excepting how the term "Q" in that above equation is, or is not influenced by the value G (how gain and bandwidth interact), analogue EQs do the same job.

With analogue EQs, available range, noise floor, interaction, whether the pots crackle, etc, are the defining factors.

No offence, I just want to understand it and generally I'm always interested in improving my knowledge about those things

None taken. I hope my explanation isn't too hurried! I'm in a rush to head out and get some food.
One task left before Compassion 1.02

Dave.

[Dr.Gunjah]

Ok, think I'm getting the point now.

As you wrote about improving the GUI of EQuality it might be a good opportunity to check this again... when it's finally out then.
Of course only if you'll be so kind to grant me yet another demo period
(I'm really starting to get a guilty conscience about this )

Cheers,
Doc

[bezusheist]

will we still be able to have the current EQuality GUI because i love it the way it is and i think Pro-Q is insanely ugly and hard to work with,,,

[keel]

will we still be able to have the current EQuality GUI because i love it the way it is and i think Pro-Q is insanely ugly and hard to work with,,,

"You can still use old version" -gol

[cosmosis]

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.

Well this is a shocking turn of events When can we see?

[A.M. Gold]

That's cool, good news. I think it makes sense to at least have an alternate GUI that is open and mostly graph-based. Maybe the old GUI or version can coexist with it for those who want that kind of structure.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[Krzysztof Oktalski]

will we still be able to have the current EQuality GUI because i love it the way it is and i think Pro-Q is insanely ugly and hard to work with,,,

Yes, and you're in the majority. We'd never change the current EQuality interface because we have so many top producers and engineers using it that prefer it to anything else. It's designed for a set of tasks and it's still the best at those tasks, it'd be commercial suicide for us to ditch that.

Our new version will be a slimmed down graph only version with higher band counts. This new version won't have all the features of EQuality, it'll be designed for sound design/mixing rather than mastering. It will probably have all the features of our competitors though, and will come with EQuality. If you use EQuality for mastering it'll mean very little, however, as a mix EQ it'll give you a few useful features we couldn't easily implement otherwise.

It won't be about for a little while yet, so lets not get too excited, but we do work quickly. We've planned for this for a long time.

[bezusheist]

oh good,,,,thanks...and thank you (K.O.) for the beautiful GUI...i see Dave getting a lot of praise (which he most definitely deserves), but the graphic designer deserves a lot of credit, too...

[vata44]

A mix and master EQ all for the price of one. Damn, if EQuality had a introductory sale for that release... I am sure people would swarm in like ants.

[sonicpowa]

...decision made.

Or is it? ..to be continued..

[bezusheist]

if anyone (esp. Dr. Ganja) is having a hard time hearing the "character" of EQuality, i may have a good test for you to perform...

(there really is no method behind this madness, and these frequencies were chosen at random,,,and by no means is this any type of scientific test trying to "prove" anything...but it definitely worked for me...)

1. generate a 20Hz square wave...
2. set up EQuality with a 20db boost @ 100hz, 500hz, 2000hz, and 10,000hz with a Q of 5 (or higher)
3. now switch between the 5 different modes and you should hear a significant difference in 4 of the 5 modes...

(i use headphones, fwiw...very noticeable that way...(assuming you have good headphones))