KVR Audio

lightsfadelow · Post by **lightsfadelow** » Tue May 03, 2011 12:58 pm

DaveGamble wrote:
aircargo wrote:I don't really get why people want DMG to clone Pro-Q.
You can call me Dave btw.

I did... Later in the post

bezusheist · Post by **bezusheist** » Tue May 03, 2011 1:04 pm

i was wondering if the developer's implementation of "Q" could possibly be one factor that helps "shape" our perception of an EQ's overall "sound" ?...

i thought it would be an interesting aspect of the comparison...maybe?

(i did this comparison with EQuality in Linear Phase mode...assuming it was somewhat equivalent to Pro-Q's Linear Phase...i may be wrong...but just add some salt and it will taste fine...)

(*for entertainment purposes only...

)

10db boost @1000Hz with "default" Q for both...(i believe EQuality is .71 and Pro-Q is 1)...

10db boost @1000Hz Q=1 for both

30db boost @1000Hz with "default" Q for both...

30 db boost @1000Hz with Q=1 for both...

core · Post by **core** » Tue May 03, 2011 1:35 pm

Tie at 55 vs 55 when I just checked, I think that means both EQs are quite excellent and personal preference should be the deciding factor in your choice of weapon, ttoz... As per usual there's no real "best", just what works best in your situation

Didn't vote btw, as I only know Pro-Q (which I think is top notch for my needs)

Freaqpeak · Post by **Freaqpeak** » Tue May 03, 2011 1:43 pm

Pro-Q has M/S and also shows frequency analyzer in the background + A/B comparisson + unlimited bands.
Haven't seen any screenshot of anything that seems better.... soundwise I don't know. I guess both are "normal" EQs (none or little difference).

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue May 03, 2011 2:18 pm

bezusheist wrote:i was wondering if the developer's implementation of "Q" could possibly be one factor that helps "shape" our perception of an EQ's overall "sound" ?...

This is a very known fact. Band interaction and the overall "shape" of a bell will greatly influence the way we perceive the sound "quality" of a digital EQ. Once you precisely match the curves of two digital EQs, which use the same basic algorithms, you can null them.

This is why Eiosis AirEQ is a bit cheeky.. when you dial in +1dB of boost, it might in reality give you 1.7dB or more. This could cause the user to think the EQ is more exciting and "phat" than the competition when in fact it is actually lying to you. On the other hand, it forces the user to use his/her ears instead of looking at numbers.

Same goes for a lot of analogue EQs. What you read on the label very rarely matches the reality. Try measuring a manley massive passive and look at the curves you get by simply boosting a single knob a bit. Now try two, then three. The band interactivity and the wonky curves you get are pretty interesting.

Cheers!
bManic

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue May 03, 2011 2:21 pm

cnt wrote:Pro-Q has M/S and also shows frequency analyzer in the background + A/B comparisson + unlimited bands.
Haven't seen any screenshot of anything that seems better.... soundwise I don't know. I guess both are "normal" EQs (none or little difference).

Correction. There are not unlimited bands. 24 to be exact, which is usually enough though.

Cheers!
bManic

DaveGamble · Post by **DaveGamble** » Tue May 03, 2011 2:57 pm

cnt wrote:.... soundwise I don't know. I guess both are "normal" EQs (none or little difference).

Bzzt. We've discussed this. Don't guess if you've not tried it, that's unfair to me

Dave.

DaveGamble · Post by **DaveGamble** » Tue May 03, 2011 2:59 pm

bmanic wrote:
bezusheist wrote:i was wondering if the developer's implementation of "Q" could possibly be one factor that helps "shape" our perception of an EQ's overall "sound" ?...
This is a very known fact. Band interaction and the overall "shape" of a bell will greatly influence the way we perceive the sound "quality" of a digital EQ. Once you precisely match the curves of two digital EQs, which use the same basic algorithms, you can null them.

Except that as verified, you can't null EQuality against Pro-Q at the top. EQuality has symmetric curves. It matches analogue gear. Hence the difference you can hear.

EQuality has an entirely different algorithm

Dave.

sunny_j · Post by **sunny_j** » Tue May 03, 2011 3:07 pm

EQuality has symmetric curves

AND symmetric phase response aswell !

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue May 03, 2011 3:08 pm

DaveGamble wrote:
bmanic wrote:
bezusheist wrote:i was wondering if the developer's implementation of "Q" could possibly be one factor that helps "shape" our perception of an EQ's overall "sound" ?...
This is a very known fact. Band interaction and the overall "shape" of a bell will greatly influence the way we perceive the sound "quality" of a digital EQ. Once you precisely match the curves of two digital EQs, which use the same basic algorithms, you can null them.
Except that as verified, you can't null EQuality against Pro-Q at the top. EQuality has symmetric curves. It matches analogue gear. Hence the difference you can hear.
EQuality has an entirely different algorithm

Dave.

That's why I precisely stated "which use the same basic algorithms" to be absolutely sure nobody would confuse my statement.

As we know, a lot of digital EQ plugins over the years have been fairly simple, well known, algorithms under the surface, with a few changes to give them their shape and interactivity.

Not sure what you mean with the top though as Pro-Q doesn't suffer from warping at nyquist. For me the biggest difference seems to be the impulse response. Equality has less ringing.. not sure how it's done but that's what I hear.

When I want to boost the highs, I use Nebula and it's Mammoth/massive passive emulation. Nothing beats that silky smooth top.

Cheers!
bManic

bezusheist · Post by **bezusheist** » Tue May 03, 2011 3:15 pm

DaveGamble wrote: ...EQuality has an entirely different algorithm

hey, while you're here,,,does it have different algorithms for the different modes?...i noticed the bass region acts very differently in digital vs. analog mode (and minimum/linear phase modes...)...kind of strange actually...is there a method behind this madness or does my Equality have bugs?

DaveGamble · Post by **DaveGamble** » Tue May 03, 2011 3:25 pm

bezusheist wrote:
DaveGamble wrote: ...EQuality has an entirely different algorithm
hey, while you're here,,,does it have different algorithms for the different modes?...i noticed the bass region acts very differently in digital vs. analog mode (and minimum/linear phase modes...)...kind of strange actually...is there a method behind this madness or does my Equality have bugs?

Yep. It's the old IIR vs FIR question. EQuality 1.12 has configurable IR length, which gives you a ton of control over this.

Dave.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue May 03, 2011 3:38 pm

Looking at the magnitude, phase and group delay it looks like Equality and Pro-Q are pretty much identical when Equality is set to it's default "digital" mode.

However, changing Equality to analogue phase mode it looks very different and has noticeably more smooth curves and a more distributed group delay.

I used Christian Budde's analyzer to see these differences.

Cheers!
bManic

Exhile · Post by **Exhile** » Tue May 03, 2011 3:53 pm

bmanic wrote:Looking at the magnitude, phase and group delay it looks like Equality and Pro-Q are pretty much identical when Equality is set to it's default "digital" mode.

However, changing Equality to analogue phase mode it looks very different and has noticeably more smooth curves and a more distributed group delay.

I used Christian Budde's analyzer to see these differences.

Cheers!
bManic

That is why i am looking forward to the low-cpu analog mode.

By the way, do any of the algo's in Pro-Q compare to Analog mode in EQuality or is that totally different?

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Tue May 03, 2011 4:20 pm

[DELETED]

KVR Audio

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

Fabfilter Pro-Q vs DMG Equality