The new Waves F6 Floating Band Dynamic EQ - Your opinion and experience

[jens]

The thing that is the biggest buzzword here, is "Floating Band", Dynamic EQ and M/S is just the tip of the iceberg. While this EQ is in fact supposed to be a Dynamic EQ, that's not the problem.

You clearly called "M/S" and "Dynamic EQ" buzzwords. Here is what you wrote:

Also, each company has to use the buzzwords "Dynamic EQ" and "mid/side" these days now...

And while I would agree that the use of "Floating Band" is a tad unfortunate here, I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "buzzword" either. I guess they just couldn't come up with a more adequate term as an attempt to say in one word what they meant.

But you have to admit that one of the "selling buzzwords" these days is M/S. If a tool these days is not M/S capable, it's considered crap shite - or am I wrong on this?

What does this have to do with anything?

Either a tool has M/S functionality or it hasn't. And if it has, then why not mention it?

Either an EQ has dynamic functionality or it hasn't. And just imagine this one would be a dynamic one and they wouldn't mention it anywhere on the product's Website. Now that would be silly and annoying.

So in short:

Also, each company has to use the buzzwords "Dynamic EQ" and "mid/side" these days now...

You have no point at all here. Basically it's all just silly nonsense.

But you have to admit that one of the "selling buzzwords" these days is M/S. If a tool these days is not M/S capable, it's considered crap shite - or am I wrong on this?

You have no point at all here. Basically it's all just silly nonsense.

[jens]

Your doubts are unrelated to reality though.
In reality the F6 features zero-latency and Mid/Side per band while Nova GE does not.

Thanks for bringing me back into reality, Jens.

You are welcome.

Nova GE has many features that the Waves F6 doesn't have. Check the smart actions for example. Nova GE also does have Mid/Side (not per channel though). If Waves F6 is zero latency (= low latency, there is no such thing as "zero latency"), then I guess it's doesn't have the same pristine audio processing quality that Nova GE offers.

But that is not what you wrote.

You didn't say "I doubt that the Waves F6 has everything that TDR Nova GE has.", which would have been perfectly valid (even if a bit pointless).

Instead you wrote:

I doubt that the Waves F6 has anything that TDR Nova GE doesn't have.

Which is wrong.

[Compyfox]

From Waves website :

Hm... so my assumption was correct. Interesting...




Now on to jens... *sigh - coffee is wearing off it seems...*

You quoted the wrong bit of the Manual (I have no idea what you were trying to prove or show with that).

Here's the right part of the manual:

Latency 44.1/48k: 187 samples
Latency 88.2/96k: 31 samples
Latency 176.4/192k: 0 samples

You're right (I guess?), I did quote the wrong part for you to discuss upon. Maybe I wanted to prove the fact that there is more "processing" happening behind the scenes, therefore showing why it's not 0-latency.

But let's do the math real quick: 1000 / (sample rate / number of samples) = milliseconds
44,4kHz = 4,24ms
48kHz = 3,895ms
88,2kHz = 0,351ms
96kHz = 0,323ms

Everything higher = 0 samples = 0ms latency

So yes, @44,1k/48k it's a whopping 187 samples - is that your idea of "minimum"?

At "merely" 4,24ms - actually yes. I've seen worse offenders in my plugin arsenal. Starting at 30ms and up, going up to fixed 2s of latency.

YMMV though.

Please read again!

I wrote "per band" - and no, also here Nova isn't even close, GE or not.

In this case - correct - as of this moment neither Melda Production (up until v10, didn't test v11 yet) nor TDL can do "per band M/S processing". Unless NOVA gets as similar treatment like the stereo width control in SlickEQ M.

If we (obviously now) want to talk about fine details... *cough - sarcasm - cough*

You clearly called "M/S" and "Dynamic EQ" buzzwords. Here is what you wrote:

Yes, so? (rhetoric!)

And while I would agree that the use of "Floating Band" is a tad unfortunate here, I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "buzzword" either. I guess they just couldn't come up with a more adequate term as an attempt to say in one word what they meant.

I beg to differ - but opinions and all that.

What does this have to do with anything?

Either a tool has M/S functionality or it hasn't. And if it has, then why not mention it?

Either an EQ has dynamic functionality or it hasn't. And just imagine this one would be a dynamic one and they wouldn't mention it anywhere on the product's Website. Now that would be silly and annoying.

I didn't say "do not mention it" (which would indeed be silly), I'm saying that the way how it's written these days it's "buzzwords to sell".

So in short:
...

You have no point at all here. Basically it's all just silly nonsense.

I'm a jokester alright... as I wrote yesterday in another thread. *honk honk*

[do_androids_dream]

I'm saying that the way how it's written these days it's "buzzwords to sell".

I guess they caught you on an off day.. I've seen far, far worse plugin marketing rhetoric. At the end of the day it offers a hell of a lot of useful functionality for a very good price so I'm not going to be too critical of how it's sold. We all have to market what we offer to a certain extent. They could have written 'It's a dynamic eq' as their entire marketing strategy and it would still sell like hotcakes at that price.

[Compyfox]

Er... I guess to "them", I'm always on an off day.

Other than that - yes, I agree. There doesn't have to be blown up marketing strategy just to get your tools out to the masses. But then again, personal opinion and all (too long in this area). Others need their whiskers to be tickled first.

[Phorous]

I am no expert on matters of EQ, but after mixing a few tracks F6 sounds very smooth and transparent to my ears. Maybe its more of a testament to how much easier it is to use dynamic EQ than multi-band compression/expansion. Definitely feel like I got way more than my $30 worth with this plugin.

[lunarchris1]

I was tired of my single band dynamic from BX DynEQ, so I figured I'd buy this one. I've got to say, it has a bunch of features set in an uber intuitive GUI that just makes the path from "having an idea" to "implementing and getting on with things" very short. I'm not familiar with Nova or GlissEQ, so for me this is a great EQ that'll get a lot of use.

[EdSevered]

I ask this question as a novice: Is there a downside to using a separate spectrum analyzer plugin with F6?

[Compyfox]

IMO no.

Want to see the difference betweenthe incoming signal vs the one on the output, then you do need two analyzers of course.

Plenty available at this point as well. From freeware to affordable to "I'd lime to sell my left kidney, please!". Chances are, your host already has an analyzer bundled as plugin. I know that Reaper does with it's JS scripts, Logic X does so as well.

[simon.a.billington]

So full parametric EQ's went from "free sweepable" to "free form" and are now called "floating band". Also, each company has to use the buzzwords "Dynamic EQ" and "mid/side" these days now...

Been wanting more "floating-bands in C6 for a while, or the ability to set the "fixed-bands" as floating. Instead of upgrading C6 it would seem Waves just met our needs with a new plugin instead. I can't complain really. Probably more useful this way.

Which brings me to the point...

I think the term floating-bands came from the C6 legacy. I don't know what's in the C6 manual, but it has a 4-band dynamic compressor, plus it had these 2 bands of dynamic eq. So dynamic-eq isn't a new thing to Waves, many of us have been using it for years in C6.

To differentiate between the band types, many C6 users, such as myself, started calling them "fixed" and "floating." Since in C6, it pretty much described their behaviour. I don't know if this is something that is actually in the manual, or a phrase that people such as myself started using. It did become a common term though.

So naturally, since F6 is the upgrade that C6 never got, it would seem that the terminology has carried over. Where the term helped to ease the confusion talking about the C6 to others, in the F6 its almost a superfluous term, but one which C6 users can immediately identify to.

[simon.a.billington]

I ask this question as a novice: Is there a downside to using a separate spectrum analyzer plugin with F6?

Latency!! Thats the big one.

Not so bad for mixing with latency compensation, but i think they wanted to design a plugin that could also be used live. I can imagine this could go along way to help solve some resonant issues in venues . So it could definitely be used there. Although, X-FBK would cover a bit of this territory, a little bit of overlap doesn't hurt.

The more accurate an analyser is, the more latency it induces. It burns more CPU too. It would seem that in this case, Waves thought it best to not include one, but you would still be fully ably to use a operate analyser

[MogwaiBoy]

If you have Pro-Q 2... two instances, one before and one after F6 - and all 3 visible onscreen should do the trick.

Re: comparison to C6... can they be compared directly? Multiband vs dynamic EQ?

[simon.a.billington]

Re: comparison to C6... can they be compared directly? Multiband vs dynamic EQ?

Well the C6 already had to dynamic eqs built in. In conjunction with the other 4-bands of multiband compression/expansion, they were quite a useful addition. Just not enough for some tasks.

There are times when I could have done with more "floating-bands" in the C6. The only way around that would be to stack them, or buy another product.

F6 adds those "extra" bands. For those who own the C6, it's kind of the upgrade we were waiting for. It just happened to come in the form of an entirely new plugin, as opposed to extra features added to C6.

It's not revolutionary. Although it does add a mid/side or stereo option as well as a sidechain all on a per band basis. As well as promising to be low latency. It's more of an overdue update for C6 or for anyone who doesn't not yet have a dynamic eq as part of their tool kit. Most DAW's don't even offer one.

[Caine123]

While discovering trackspacer i saw posts about f6 and nova ge.
Trackspacer is a bit too limited for me. Normally i use sidechaining but this dynamic eq process seems to be more transparent and better controlled doesnt it?

Which dyneq would u recommend? The f6 is cheap but no spectrum analyzer is a bummer for me.

[soulone82]

Which dyneq would u recommend? The f6 is cheap but no spectrum analyzer is a bummer for me.

TDR Nova