DMG EQuilibrium

[Amon1973]

I also agree with Krzysztof. Plus, if one wants fixed bands, it's as easy as typing "8000", "12000" or whatever the originals are set to

[maxxxter]

DELETED

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I agree that there are advantages in the "one knob" (or similar) approach, but this is just a wrong place to ask for it.

Well, I mean...it does everything else? Why not ask for it? Stepped bands seem like the ONLY feature they left out.

[HcDoom]

Can you add or reduce gain per band higher than 18db and lower than -18db?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I also agree with Krzysztof. Plus, if one wants fixed bands, it's as easy as typing "8000", "12000" or whatever the originals are set to

That's just silly.

In all seriousness though, there already are presets for certain EQ "models." The only thing missing for some of these models is the stepped bands. It seems weird to me that someone would see the value in offering a model in the first place, but then not see the value in offering stepped bands as an option. It's just not an API, or a Neve, or a Pultec without the stepped bands IMO.

And I'm not saying "only offer stepped bands," I'm saying "offer stepped bands as an option in case someone (like me) would want to use them." Again, it's got just about every other EQ related feature one could think of.

I think it's a great product as-is (best digital EQ so far? Probably), I just think stepped bands would would make it slightly even more great product.

[billcarroll]

I was hoping to do this as well, but I'm not sure it's easily possible using a minimum of bandstrips since the frequency knob is always infinitely sweepable from 10hz to 22k.

It's true, the bands don't snap - this was discussed at great length during the beta. Dave and I have no idea at all why you'd want arbitrary frequencies selected for you, that are nearly certainly wrong for your music. The people that made those EQ's never heard your track, didn't know what key it was in and so gave a few broad brush strokes for you. Seems a bit of a silly thing to keep doing now that you've got a transparent framework where you can see the answers. After a lot of debate, it was agreed that snapping band frequencies served no function in a modern EQ, and there are some facets of past EQ design that should be left in the past.

Unlike others here, I STRONGLY AGREE with your assesment. A fixed selection of frequencies is absurd.

As absurd as not having threshold, ratio, and attack and release times on a compressor? To me they're comparable limitations, and yet a ton of people love the LA-2A which was has two fixed ratios and no attack/release controls. I also don't hear complaints about the 1176 having a fixed threshold either, or about not being able to dial in a 1.25:1 ratio with it. Stepped frequencies on an EQ are the exact same kind of limitation.

I understand if the DMG team just don't want to do that because they like options, it's completely cool if they want to be the every possibility under the sun company. I just see there being value in having stepped frequencies.

Having an option for predefined steps is only as ridiculous as having predefined EQ curves. I think we tend to reach for some tools based on their limitations because we know it will help us reach a certain sound faster.

If an EQ curve is completely malleable it gives the user way too many options, so we reach for a type that sounds good for the source material.

I think the reference to the LA-2A is completely appropriate in this case as well. Compared to Compassion, the LA-2A could be considered the past. But the LA-2A sounds good quickly, while you can swim in a sea of options with other far more complex and better compressors.

This can hold true for Equilibrium, even though I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. It really is the most amazing all around EQ I've ever seen or used. Or purchased for that matter.

When making music it's really nice to work within limitations sometimes. Getting to a creative result quickly is far more important than tweaking for hours and googling EQ settings. I often force myself to deal with artificial limitations just to remove options.

Why would someone reach for any EQ over Equilibrium? It's not sound quality. I can only think it might be workflow.

[maxxxter]

DELETED

[medienhexer]

I think the reference to the LA-2A is completely appropriate in this case as well. Compared to Compassion, the LA-2A could be considered the past. But the LA-2A sounds good quickly, while you can swim in a sea of options with other far more complex and better compressors.

To be honest, I don't get that fascination. I own licenses to the Waves, the IK and the NI/Softube LA2As. And I have seen some demonstrations where they actually gave pretty amazing results. And I kind of dig the coloration.

But the dynamic behavior hasn't worked on anything I've tried so far in my own recordings. It always does too little or sounds too squashed. Whereas the IK opto comp (options) plus Logic's integrated one always get me where I want. Klanghelm DC8C (more options) is, if set up correctly, extremely transparent and I'm a very fresh Compassion (most options) convert due to both the easy mode's near instant results as well as the deep, creative parameters.

I think it's important to have a plug-in layed out well enough so you can get great results easily. But those shouldn't impose limitations on you (like the Fairchild's Attack/Release times, for example) but give you continuous ranges. Why? Because you don't have to settle for the 'less ugly' compromise if the golden setting happens to be in between two steps.

The same is true for EQs. If you want to solve problems, you need precision and continuous ranges. If you want to adjust relative frequency levels, how is limitation helpful? The body frequency range of my down-tuned acoustic guitar is completely different from what EQ designers in the olden days designed for.

Maybe if you find yourself longing for fewer choices, you should think about whether Equilibrium is the right choice in that situation. To my understanding, it's all about removing limitations. If I want a graphic EQ, i'l reach for that. If I want colored, I'll use a colored one.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

The whole point of asking for steps as an "option" or "preference" so that some of us could use it, while others wouldn't seems to be getting lost in this debate.

[Seaside Music]

I just brought up the fixed band idea because when I first opened the 550 preset on Equilibrium, I just kinda expected the low, mid, and high bands to be coded to snap to those trademark freqs. When I found them infinitely sweepable, I thought, OK....having FAST access to that traditional API interface isn't possible here.

I LOVE the fully sweepable freq selection....but sometimes I do like simple fixed freq EQs like the 1073 and 550 as well.

I created my own 550 template with all stock API freqs pre-entered, but it took 15 bandstrips to do it.

In an EQ with such a myriad of options, it would be cool if one of the GUI options was for knobs, and it allowed 2 settings: fully sweepable or fixed, and a drop down selection for determining the number of freqs you want to fix ie, 3,4,5,6 etc.

Please don't read this as complaining.....It's just an observation and open discussion about the possibilities of this fantastic plugin!

[DaveGamble]

What's the correct usage of Pultec style bands related to the original ?
1) Use 2 bands (1boost/1cut) at same frequency, leaving Gain at 0 and set just Boost/Cut amounts (I think so).
2) Use just 1 band, set Gain up to boost and amount of Cut to cut.

I just want to know if it is the same to increase Gain or to increase Boost.

Hi.

For the high, you want two bands; one boost, one cut.
For the low, pick boost, and set the Gain to the Boost, and the Cut (bottom row, unless you've hidden it) to the desired amount.

Dave.

[DaveGamble]

I also agree with Krzysztof. Plus, if one wants fixed bands, it's as easy as typing "8000", "12000" or whatever the originals are set to

Actually, it recognises units, so just 8k, 12k, etc is fine.
I think it even does engineering style 2k4 abbreviations.

Where possible, the hardware frequency response has been warped so that entering the frequency on the silkscreen (which is inevitably miles off the actual value) gets you the same response as the hardware.

Dave.

[DaveGamble]

I agree that there are advantages in the "one knob" (or similar) approach, but this is just a wrong place to ask for it.

Well, I mean...it does everything else? Why not ask for it? Stepped bands seem like the ONLY feature they left out.

You can certainly ask for it. We're deliberating over what a good implementation would look like.

Dave.

[DaveGamble]

Can you add or reduce gain per band higher than 18db and lower than -18db?

Sure. Open the Range tray (Setup->UI->Layout->Range tray if you've hidden it. Little arrow on the left), and set your max range to, say, +36, and off you go

Dave.

[DaveGamble]

The whole point of asking for steps as an "option" or "preference" so that some of us could use it, while others wouldn't seems to be getting lost in this debate.

Not to me. I'm paying attention.

I can justify my decisions though.

Originally the Pultec model WAS snapped to the front-panel switch values.
First thing everyone did (I peer over people's shoulders)? They dragged it and expected it to move freely.

So I went away and unlocked the frequencies in all of the models; sometimes that was quite a task. Then you must remember that you can play MIDI notes, or use the Shift slider to shift things up and down in frequency. Well, how should that affect a switched control? It should? Or it shouldn't? I think that's another preference. And then what about when there are issues of a unit which differ ONLY by the available frequencies (of which there are quite a few with the units I modelled)... More options?

I stick by the rule that if I'm trying to work out how to do something, and I can't find ANY clear answers to how to structure something, I have to consider whether what I'm doing is a bad idea. So I got to that point with this feature.

Another thing to bear in mind is that I know where all these numbers came from: when I get some free time, I'll write it all up; it'll be extremely nerdy and boring, but someone will love it, I'm sure. But there's really NO "deep" significance to these numbers (remember: a "musical" frequency is a NOTE), and if you have a couple of settings that seem to be sweetspots: 1. Are you EQing to suit your room? Be cautious! 2. You can create presets and jump through them!

Anyway, enough ramble for now. I'll continue later.

But I just wanted you to know that the decision to exclude that feature was not undertaken trivially, and nor is it permanently excluded.

Dave.