freeware parametric EQ comparison

[Crackbaby]

as for the "same algorithm, different GUIs" question: i think, these are actually two questions:

1. will people actually dial in different settings when the GUIs are different? (for example without numeric feedback, one is forced to use ears and there's less tendency to dial in exact numbers)

2. will people think that the two equalizers sound different even when the settings (and hence, the output signal) are actually exactly the same, just because of the GUI - like: "hey, that one sounds warmer" (GUI has retro look with wood-panels)

I like your thinking +1 for brains.
There is an hour long lecture video about these things. I've been trying to find it but i cant remember the right keywords to google. It was very interesting and it adds a dimension to these debates. Not only you compare the eq's but also the people behind their opinions. It's not very popular to bring up though as you basically say that their brain's has been fooling them.
Personally i love discovering that my brain has deceived me as i then can adjust

I prefer when there's little readout. While i don't have any scientific data to support my belief, i think that our eyes has priority over our ears and that two senses competing over attention will never be as good as one sense getting all of it. I have done some tests on my own though, and their result support this Yup, im that kind of guy

[Music Engineer]

Personally i love discovering that my brain has deceived me as i then can adjust

i also think that we should just accept it as a fact of life that our senses may deceive us rather than take it as insult. and deal with it appropriately rather than deny it. [edit: which is one reason, why i advocate objective measurements in addition to listening tests]

I prefer when there's little readout. While i don't have any scientific data to support my belief, i think that our eyes has priority over our ears and that two senses competing over attention will never be as good as one sense getting all of it. I have done some tests on my own though, and their result support this Yup, im that kind of guy

this question of trade-off has been poking around head in my for quite some years: should i provide precise numerical readouts (and type-ins) or should i force the user to use ears. apparently, i have opted for the former as i lean more to the scientific, or "engineering" side. i think, it depends strongly on the circumstances whether or not precise numerical editing is desirable or not. when, for example, in sound-design, i want to adjust a filter-resonance exactly to a particular harmonic, it's certainly nice to be able to just type-in "100" (percent) for the keytrack parameter. but for an equalizer adjustment that sits on the track insert, the situation is a different one and just using ears seems more sensible in this context.

[mauseoleum]

Type-ins are neccesary imho. Once you "figure out" the tricks that work for you, typing is the way to go.

Or when you want to "pin down" a rough mix..

[dandmkirkwood]

As freeware, i use Electri-Q because i can choose between analog/digital behavior and a LOT of types of EQ and curves.

Curves are the key (like with women)

PS : i forgot this splendid article :
http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/201 ... ves-again/

And read the Electri-Q manual too

i dont think this eq is free. i wish it was tho, it looks awesome

[Crackbaby]

three's a version called "Electri-Q (posihfopit edition).dll" that's free. I just tried it briefly and it seems cool You cant see the spectrum analyzer with it though (or so i think)

One EQ not mentioned here (or was it.. :s): NyquistEQ ! No readouts at all yet very good graphical feedback. Easy to control .. just foolproof

[dandmkirkwood]

thanx heaps. I like MEquilizer because of the spectrum analyzer. it gives me a good perspective when mixing. Ill give NyquistEQ a go too. thanx for the tip.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

as for the "same algorithm, different GUIs" question: i think, these are actually two questions:

1. will people actually dial in different settings when the GUIs are different? (for example without numeric feedback, one is forced to use ears and there's less tendency to dial in exact numbers)

2. will people think that the two equalizers sound different even when the settings (and hence, the output signal) are actually exactly the same, just because of the GUI - like: "hey, that one sounds warmer" (GUI has retro look with wood-panels)

I like your thinking +1 for brains.
There is an hour long lecture video about these things. I've been trying to find it but i cant remember the right keywords to google. It was very interesting and it adds a dimension to these debates. Not only you compare the eq's but also the people behind their opinions. It's not very popular to bring up though as you basically say that their brain's has been fooling them.
Personally i love discovering that my brain has deceived me as i then can adjust

I prefer when there's little readout. While i don't have any scientific data to support my belief, i think that our eyes has priority over our ears and that two senses competing over attention will never be as good as one sense getting all of it. I have done some tests on my own though, and their result support this Yup, im that kind of guy

Unfortunately something like a third of our brain is dedicated to processing visual information...Rather useless in a non-visual area which is what we all to some extent operate in I am also the sort that prefers little to no visual feedback when making important changes to source signals/mixing. Definately extends beyond EQ. If that means closing my eyes then yes i do that...Not at all suggesting analysis tools are not important either

Some good reads here if anyone is interested:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=B ... i=scholart

I hear you (sic) big time on the problem, I am not saying GUI are really the problem but we ourselves are by our very nature. If i can disable the visual feedback i usually do. At the same time they do have an important place/use. Its a tough area/balance

Maybe some sort of looking into/doing some test if someone can come up with a simple criteria/set of source material to EQ with possibly help from a developer whom would be willing to do two GUI versions of the same EQ plug-in, One being a 'blind EQ' and the other a 'visual-aided EQ' would be useful I would definately be game or some sort of good article on the topic...etc.

All the best to all

Dean

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Personally i love discovering that my brain has deceived me as i then can adjust

i also think that we should just accept it as a fact of life that our senses may deceive us rather than take it as insult. and deal with it appropriately rather than deny it. [edit: which is one reason, why i advocate objective measurements in addition to listening tests]

I prefer when there's little readout. While i don't have any scientific data to support my belief, i think that our eyes has priority over our ears and that two senses competing over attention will never be as good as one sense getting all of it. I have done some tests on my own though, and their result support this Yup, im that kind of guy

this question of trade-off has been poking around head in my for quite some years: should i provide precise numerical readouts (and type-ins) or should i force the user to use ears. apparently, i have opted for the former as i lean more to the scientific, or "engineering" side. i think, it depends strongly on the circumstances whether or not precise numerical editing is desirable or not. when, for example, in sound-design, i want to adjust a filter-resonance exactly to a particular harmonic, it's certainly nice to be able to just type-in "100" (percent) for the keytrack parameter. but for an equalizer adjustment that sits on the track insert, the situation is a different one and just using ears seems more sensible in this context.

Using EQ is always a balancing act anyway However it is an area that it would be really useful to delve into further. You could be the very developer to help Robin

Dean

[Crackbaby]

If you're looking for a very easy to use eq, try Toneboosters TB_EZQ.dll (dont know the exact name, only see the plug here in my folder)
It has an x/y grid going from Dark to Bright, Warm to Tinny. No numbers, only ears

There's more free easy plugs like that
elysia niveau filter: one +/- knob and one frequency knob
SPL free ranger: a 4 band version of their 8 band fixed eq. 40, 150, 1.8k and 16kHz

None of them would fit for this test though due to their "limited" design, but for what i do, they are, along with nyquist, perfect

Ps. Robin, Crossover is great!!

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Thank you for the suggestions Crackbaby I do use elysia niveau tilt filter and its a fine one. I do have the blind Equalization and visual Equalization areas totally covered but i really do appreciate the heads up man. I am more intrested in some sort of 'experiment' i guess the best word is to use, Using the exact same EQ blind and visualized on a pre-defined set of source signals...I know there is no way 'correct' or wrong or right way of going about applying cuts and boosts but if there were a group of us and we all posted back our results of the blind EQ'd source and the visual EQ'd source it could be useful/yeild interesting results. Both how each of us EQ with and without visual feedback and also how each other does also. It would not be that useful scientifically admittedly but would still i think would/could be a worthwhile comparisson

Thank you and all the best plus that goes to Robin for the RS-MET plug-ins and bpb for another great resource. Hope that your Ear sharpening practice yields good results personally for you as you do alot for the communtiy

Dean aka the idiot formerly known as NEKRO.MACHINE

[Dean Aka Nekro]

If you're looking for a very easy to use eq, try Toneboosters TB_EZQ.dll (dont know the exact name, only see the plug here in my folder)
It has an x/y grid going from Dark to Bright, Warm to Tinny. No numbers, only ears

There's more free easy plugs like that
elysia niveau filter: one +/- knob and one frequency knob
SPL free ranger: a 4 band version of their 8 band fixed eq. 40, 150, 1.8k and 16kHz

None of them would fit for this test though due to their "limited" design, but for what i do, they are, along with nyquist, perfect

Ps. Robin, Crossover is great!!

Crackbaby, Here are two IMHumbleHO good freeware Parametric EQs which i have in the old VstPlugis folder, They are SynthEdit (I know some people have issues using SynthEdit and/or SynthMaker created plug-ins), By a top dude Matthew Lindsay:

http://rekkerd.org/tag/matthew-lindsay/

NCL EQ & NCL PhaseEQ (has Mid/Side processing), bpb i would definately recommend adding these to your list hope you find them useful. I have been using NCL EQ since it had a fuggly GUI/a very early beta and its a good one/keeper for me. As is NCL PhaseEQ

Then some other freeware EQ plug-ins i sometimes deploy include:

LiquidSonics FiltrateLE (Nice)
Pipeline Audio DrummyQ (Great for low-end boosts and as hinted at on a drumkit period) then there are MuZQ & SlammyQ (I only got/use the DrummyQ awhile ago and they are here: http://pipelineaudio.net/products/plugins/) They are donationware IRRC
Michael Gruhn 3BandEQ (NOT a Parametric EQ/Surgical), ParaEQ & ParaEQLite are (Got those years ago from here: http://LOSER.asseca.com)
AudioTekknik DoublePressionEqualizer (already mentioned and good)
eaReckon FREE87 FR-EQUA (nothing special but its in the folder dust gathering to be honest)
Then i also have some others that are already in your list bpb

Hope you find something useful Crackbaby/anyone else and/or additions to add to your shortlist maybe bpb

Dean