KVR Audio

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:11 pm

[DELETED]

Zexila · Post by **Zexila** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:47 pm

TheoM wrote:On my machine when comparing the various modes it works out exactly the same instances as pro Q2.

So what can I say?

I can only say what i found here, just as you can.

The slope shaping is the big thing to me too, and afaik totally unique to have such control.

Well I'm actually pretty glad to hear that, as I recall you are on a Mac, so this just might be Windows 10 thing.

Have an amazing day

stian · Post by **stian** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:58 pm

Zexila wrote:Well I'm actually pretty glad to hear that, as I recall you are on a Mac, so this just might be Windows 10 thing.

Have an amazing day

Thanks for mentioning Equalize in this thread, guys! I just wanted to comment on the CPU usage. It is not very likely a Windows vs. OS X issue, but rather how you measure. In Equalize, the CPU usage remains almost constant when adding several bands (the steepness affects CPU usage, though), but IIR based implementations increase the CPU usage proportional to the number of bands. I suppose you tested with fairly complex curves, Theo? Equalize is probably also more sensitive to block lengths as well.

Best,
Stian

toothnclaw · Post by **toothnclaw** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:11 pm

Sometimes less options/bling is better. Only the OP knows what he needs it for. Sonnox is a classic, I can also recommend the Sonalksis EQ. Or just use ReaEQ.

Zexila · Post by **Zexila** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:17 pm

stian wrote:Thanks for mentioning Equalize in this thread, guys!

Thank you for it

I just wanted to comment on the CPU usage. It is not very likely a Windows vs. OS X issue, but rather how you measure. In Equalize, the CPU usage remains almost constant when adding several bands (the steepness affects CPU usage, though), but IIR based implementations increase the CPU usage proportional to the number of bands. I suppose you tested with fairly complex curves, Theo? Equalize is probably also more sensitive to block lengths as well.

Best,
Stian

I managed to get it as low as ProQ (0,3% difference in worst case), but with higher buffer setting, TheoM is on Logic, so by default he is on high buffer in non-recording mode(Logic thing), also I went with x64 version (inside of x64 DAW, before that both were x86) and from the get go 0,5% got reduced.

Well, that's it, I'm moving entirely to x64, it's right about the time

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:55 pm

[DELETED]

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:45 am

kelldammit wrote:
djanthonyw wrote:I believe Dave was also behind Sonnox before creating DMG Audio.
Paul Frindle was Sonnox. He did the software for the Oxford consoles (and i believe was involved in their port to plugins), as well as designing the SSL G-series channel electronics.

Dave was with Focusrite and Sonalksis.

RE: the OP, between the sonnox and ProQ2, i'd probably say ProQ2, if only for the extra bands (and if memory serves, you can set LPF's higher), and no iLok (i don't know if that's a consideration for you or not).
ProQ2 is quite nice. I'd have bought it if i didn't already have EQuilibrium.
FWIW, I'd actually replaced my Sonnox EQ with EQuality when it came out (and then went to EQuilibrium when it was released a couple of years later).

All are worth investigating...demo them puppies!

Ah, yes. That's correct. I was mixing them up.

stian · Post by **stian** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:42 am

Zexila wrote:I managed to get it as low as ProQ (0,3% difference in worst case), but with higher buffer setting, TheoM is on Logic, so by default he is on high buffer in non-recording mode(Logic thing), also I went with x64 version (inside of x64 DAW, before that both were x86) and from the get go 0,5% got reduced.

Well, that's it, I'm moving entirely to x64, it's right about the time

Nice! I wasn't aware of the performance difference between the 32 and the 64 versions...

Best,
Stian

stian · Post by **stian** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:44 am

TheoM wrote:i tested with 10 bands active at all times, in proQ vs Acon. Then I tested mode vs mode. In one mode they were equal (i think that was linear phase, can't remember, was ages ago), in one mode acon used less, and in the last mode it used more. So i balanced it out as overall being the same. Using the minimum phase no latency mode, and multiple EQ plugin instances, is not challenging to any computer made in the last 8 years in either proQ2 or Acon.

Thanks for elaborating, Theo! Sounds like a very thorough and realistic test you did there.

Best,
Stian

stardustmedia · Post by **stardustmedia** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:27 am

kelldammit wrote:
djanthonyw wrote: ... RE: the OP, between the sonnox and ProQ2, i'd probably say ProQ2, if only for the extra bands (and if memory serves, you can set LPF's higher), ...

Yes, Sonnox doesn't support LPF and HPF for the entire bandwidth. ProQ2 can lo-/hicut at all frequencies, for all 10 bands. ProQ2 is definitely way more flexible than Sonnox. Nevertheless you can get very good results with Sonnox all the time. Maybe just for some extreme situations ProQ2 will do the trick, where Sonnox is just not capable of doing it.

kelldammit · Post by **kelldammit** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:24 am

djanthonyw wrote: (RE: Frindle/Gamble)
Ah, yes. That's correct. I was mixing them up.

No worries, i do it too. They're both super-nice, readily share knowledge, and have outstanding creds. It's easy to!

kelldammit · Post by **kelldammit** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:27 am

stardustmedia wrote: Yes, Sonnox doesn't support LPF and HPF for the entire bandwidth. ProQ2 can lo-/hicut at all frequencies, for all 10 bands. ProQ2 is definitely way more flexible than Sonnox. Nevertheless you can get very good results with Sonnox all the time. Maybe just for some extreme situations ProQ2 will do the trick, where Sonnox is just not capable of doing it.

Yup, I'd agree. In fairness, it's also worth considering that the sonnox is a console eq in software form, versus a mother-of-all-eq's type thing like ProQ or EQuilibrium.
These days, Sonnox would frustrate me because i frequently like to lpf stuff like cymbals well above 1khz...

stardustmedia · Post by **stardustmedia** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:41 am

These days, Sonnox would frustrate me because i frequently like to lpf stuff like cymbals well above 1khz...

Exactly one of the reasons Sonnox isn't used by me anymore.

SLGB · Post by **SLGB** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:25 pm

wow, so much to take in and consider! Thanks for all the replies people, i have a job on my hands choosing one. I understand that the Sonnox is not as extreme but i would need to work out if i need such a extreme eq on my machine as i have been prone to taking out or putting in too much.

That being said, if i did need to cut certain frequencies is it not viable to use something that does but use the Sonnox for the rest of the sound?

At the moment I'm using a Maag eq4 or Ik Pultec for shaping the sounds as they tend to not let me overkill the sound. I know I'm supposed to be using the Logic EQ but tbh i can't stand it.

As i write this post i can see I'm mainly in need of a eq to help me separate my sounds i.e. drums, synths, bass and i think maybe the Pro-Q2 is for me.. So confusing!!

TheHelioSequence · Post by **TheHelioSequence** » Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:18 pm

I'd get the Pro-Q 2 over the Sonnox any day. Natural Phase mode is a tad cleaner sounding and the gui is much better, to the point where it actually helps make your work more efficient.

Since you don't have a top shelf clean eq though, I would definitely recommend checking out Pro-Q 2 alongside DMG Equilibrium. Equilibrium is much more flexible sonically...

With deep control over different FIR modes, similar to the Pro-Q 'Natural Phase' or Linear Phase modes, but with actual control over window size - which reduces the amount of post/pre-ringing - and having many FIR modes which can have subtle, but powerful impact on the sound quality. Not to mention parallel and serial modes and all of the different EQ shapes that are modeled after very popular analog devices.

If that's too much to think about, one could simply set Equilibrium at IIR, digital compensation at 512 and phase + on and never think about any deeper settings, besides how they'd like to customize the gui. You'd still have a CPU efficient clean EQ with many EQ shapes. And in the future If you wanted to say setup a mastering mode... just setup a preset with a high window size in FIR Analog or FIR Full Minimum and you'll get to a quality level that the Pro-Q 2 simply can't reach.

Just my opinion, try out both of the demos and good luck. Either is a great choice!

Fabfilter Pro-Q2 Vs Sonnox Oxford EQ