The Best EQ-Matching Equalizer VST

[ahmedyaser100]

What are you using EQ matching for that requires so many bands? Hard to edit the output at that point.

I'm trying to recreate sound samples from noise.

That's interesting, why are you doing that? (if you have coding skills you can do that by randomising the phase info of the fft)

Actually, I've had the idea of creating my own samples for a while because I wanted them to sound just like I want them to, and I think that creating them from noise is the simplest way to do it;
So, I want an equalizer with a precise and accurate EQ-Matching function to see what different sounds look like as EQ curves, so that when I think of a sound, I should be able to determine the shape of the EQ curve that when applied to noise gives a close enough sound, then I can edit it a bit to get the sound I want.

[ahmedyaser100]

If not Melda, the most detailed to know is the (offline) FFT in Samplitude but you'll need the DAW for that.

I actually tried it, the only problem with it is that its matching feature isn't precise enough.

[MirkoVanHauten]

The more bands you have in a matching eq the more artificial the results will get. Because those details are useless when applied to other signals since they depend on the signal itself. It's the overall direction that matters here (for exmaple when 2 vocals were recorded in diffferent rooms) and that's why eq match plugins usually only have a limited amount of bands.

HOFA Analyzer has a "difference" function, showing you the spectral differences between 2 sources. Maybe that can help you more than eq matching. You can also try some sort of vocoding.

[midi_transmission]

Please keep this thread updated. Very interesting topic.

I have not tested them, but as far as I know some of the TDR eqs have also matching function. Not sure how detailed they can be. Maybe worth to check.

[ahmedyaser100]

https://www.eventideaudio.com/products/ ... equivocate

I think the problem with Equivocate is that it's limited to 26 bands.

That's rather a problem in theory.
In my experience Equivocate gives very convincing results.

I actually want more precision than that to have more control about the sound I'm trying to achieve.

[ahmedyaser100]

The more bands you have in a matching eq the more artificial the results will get. Because those details are useless when applied to other signals since they depend on the signal itself. It's the overall direction that matters here (for exmaple when 2 vocals were recorded in diffferent rooms) and that's why eq match plugins usually only have a limited amount of bands.

HOFA Analyzer has a "difference" function, showing you the spectral differences between 2 sources. Maybe that can help you more than eq matching. You can also try some sort of vocoding.

What I'm actually trying to do is to create my own sound samples from noise, it's an idea I've had for a while;
So, I want an equalizer with a precise and accurate EQ-Matching function to see what different sounds look like as EQ curves, so that when I think of a sound, I should be able to determine the shape of the EQ curve that when applied to noise gives a close enough sound, then I can edit it a bit to get the sound I want.

[ahmedyaser100]

Please keep this thread updated. Very interesting topic.

I have not tested them, but as far as I know some of the TDR eqs have also matching function. Not sure how detailed they can be. Maybe worth to check.

Sure, I'll check them out

[ahmedyaser100]

While doing some research, I found this:
https://www.intdevices.com/site/index.p ... -equalizer
which appears to be a discontinued product;
Does any of you guys know anything about it?

[Johnny Blade]

I've never tested this, but it must be very interesting:

[ahmedyaser100]

T-RackS Master Match - https://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/trmastermatch/

I've tested everything I could, this is the best.

This looks good, I'll check it out .

It appears to be a parametric EQ, and I actually want a linear-phase one.

[MrBauer]

If you'd have an unlimited amount of bands you're simply copying the spectrum and end up with the exact same sound... Same as copying the sample file. What's the difference then between applying the eq curve to noise and dialing back vs. altering the sample itself?

[ahmedyaser100]

I've never tested this, but it must be very interesting:

It's actually interesting but not exactly what I'm looking for, Ozone is closer what I want and I've tried it but I found some problems with it, I can't directly edit the matching curve or draw my own, and there are only 8 EQ bands for editing.

[Johnny Blade]

It appears to be a parametric EQ, and I actually want a linear-phase one.

Master Match is LINEAR PHASE. And you can enable or disable its linear phase feature.

It's really the best I could test. Easy. Effective. Excellent.

[Cooker]

If not Melda, the most detailed to know is the (offline) FFT in Samplitude but you'll need the DAW for that.

I actually tried it, the only problem with it is that its matching feature isn't precise enough.

Hmmm, just in case missed if you don't select the whole wave it will only analyze the first 30 seconds. My final suggestion would be to try har-bal.

I didn't exactly understand what you're after but also research for something that matches max-peak response (can't remember if melda can do that, voxengo can but the eq on it isn't detailed).

[ahmedyaser100]

If you'd have an unlimited amount of bands you're simply copying the spectrum and end up with the exact same sound... Same as copying the sample file. What's the difference then between applying the eq curve to noise and dialing back vs. altering the sample itself?

Copying the spectrum is just the first step, after that I edit the EQ curve but with a lot of control to do precise edits, then I apply some effects to end up having a sound that is close enough to what I want it to sound like;
Besides, copying the spectrum removes some of the effects that could be applied to the original sound (like cut-off filters) which I might want to remove.