No love for Crave EQ?

[Ghost Dog]

No newsletter, but there is an RSS feed:
https://cravedsp.com/crave-eq/release-history/rss

There is also a page with the changelog. You can follow that link from Elevated being's post (found it later myself; somehow didn't see it at first, it's a bit inconspicuous at the bottom of the page).

[audiot]

No newsletter, but there is an RSS feed:
https://cravedsp.com/crave-eq/release-history/rss

There is also a page with the changelog. You can follow that link from Elevated being's post (found it later myself; somehow didn't see it at first, it's a bit inconspicuous at the bottom of the page).

Thanks for the info! But i bought to many plugins over the last years. But i'll stay resistant this years Black Friday It would just take up to much time to check all the devs websites frequently.

All devs should have an RSS changelog for each plugin ... not a big effort as they could show the XML also directly on their websites with a small script. But yeah ... this might only be a problem for people who just have to many plugins

[AudioAlien]

I have to say, this one of the fastest EQs to dial in settings.

[mxbf]

I'm EQ shopping right now. this thing really sounds good... seems like it has some very subtle saturation built in that really, really works well. I can't argue with the results. good shit.

probably gonna buy this and equilibrium and rejoice

[dubguy99]

seems like it has some very subtle saturation built in that really, really works well.

it doesn't.

[mxbf]

it probably does if you know what saturation means, and subtle means

also consider the definition of the word "very"

so when you say "very subtle" you have to combine those two words and then apply them to the word saturation

running your audio through any analog equipment can be said to apply "very subtle saturation."

maybe our definitions diverge

[Passing Bye]

Maybe it’s just placebo effect.

[CrystalWizard]

it probably does if you know what saturation means, and subtle means
also consider the definition of the word "very"
so when you say "very subtle" you have to combine those two words and then apply them to the word saturation

running your audio through any analog equipment can be said to apply "very subtle saturation."

maybe our definitions diverge

Yes, Analog equipment. As in truly analog, not virtual analog. Overdriving the input of just about any mixer, preamp, fx unit, synth, etc., but that is not how overdrive works in the digital realm.

[mxbf]

Have you ever taken too high a dose of some medicine, and found that language totally breaks down and becomes meaningless? That happened to me one time. Communication breakdown. I could hear the words, but for some reason they didn’t mean anything anymore. It was like there was a chasm or void, almost like a notch filter where the meaning was supposed to be. It trailed off to infinity.

What is “communication?”

Did you think that I was saying that this software EQ was truly analog? Maybe my method of communication is not very clear. I’m very “French postmodernist.”

I guess I could have just said that to my ears, Crave sounds quite good. It’s very subtle to me, but when EQing identically with Crave set to the analog setting, whatever the algorithm is doing, my experience has been that the sound always feels a bit thicker and more roughed up than EQing with stock or Fabfilter.

I know it’s not a saturation plugin or even “character EQ” by strict technical definition. In fact it could be placebo as you say. I only can report my experience over several years using Crave is that it tends to lead to a specific sound and result when I work with it, that to my ears sounds like it is very subtly saturating.

I am not making a conjecture about what algorithm is in it. I don’t know if this is considered a bad thing. I meant it as a compliment.

To get much more pedantic, which I think I am very much justified to do, software algorithms don’t really need to be defined as “saturation” and “not saturation.” Or distortion and not distortion. I don’t know the algorithms in these programs that make them sound different. I get the feeling that many varieties of stuff are done behind the scenes to distinguish one algo from another, that differentiates the sound of different plugins. Or even digital or analog hardware.

So, Diva for instance is not a saturation effect. It is a synth emulation. But I think it is safe to say that the algorithm contains aspects that could be called saturation ish.

Saturation to me, the blue collar guy who works a low income job, is just “roughing up the sound, like that analog stuff.” Saturation, gain, distortion, analog sound, all basically refer to that same general thing. “Woah mate, thaTs mad saturated!”

All to say, Crave has a pleasantly three dimensional sound that doesn’t feel digital to me. I don’t know why. I can report this phenomenon as happening over the two times I’ve demoed it the last two years, and reports from other users. Maybe I’m imagining it. Regardless I do think it is a good boosting EQ that “doesn’t sound digital” and “feels loud and good.”

I might need to go on some new medication.

I would also say that it’s a reasonable assumption to make that a setting called “Analog” might introduce something subtle to the algorithm. Perhaps even subtly an emulation of analog saturation. Then again, it could also just be a different EQ curve or something technical I’m too stupid to figure out.

[Mind Riot]

Actually, there was a huge thread on Gearslutz years ago that was all about debunking the notion that digital EQs were any different from each other in terms of sound. It was pretty conclusively demonstrated that your run of the mill digital parametric EQs would perfectly null with each other if you matched their settings and flipped the polarity on one of them. ReaEQ that comes with Reaper, Toneboosters EQ, and Melda's free MEqualizer all nulled perfectly (which was no scandal, they never claimed to be anything but workhorse digital EQs).Even some more expensive EQs were caught with their pants down in those tests, if my memory serves, but I couldn't tell you which ones.

I used those basic EQs as a benchmark and did some testing of my own, pitting them against some of the higher end ones to see if people buying things like Pro Q and EQuality were wasting their money. Did these expensive EQs null with the cheap or free ones?

They did not.

Regardless of settings, Pro Q (I think it was long enough ago that it was in it's first iteration), DMG EQuality, two of DDMF's EQs, his Linear Phase one and IIEQPro, maybe a couple more I can't remember, none of these would null with the basic EQs and none of them would null with each other.

So each of these spendier EQs have some sort of 'secret sauce' going on that makes them sound unique. I noticed it particularly in the high end when boosting for the tests. A 10db boost at 10k can be very revealing and is a good way to quickly see if two EQs will null or not. EQuality has a clean shimmer to it's high end that I have yet to hear in any other EQ, including Pro Q. In fact, when placed side by side, the sound quality of Pro Q was noticeably inferior to EQuality. (Runs for the hills before the Pro Q mob shows up to kill me)

So there's a little something going on under the hood with some of these EQs, and a little bit of saturation is one of the most likely culprits.

What's my point? Just that saturation in a digital EQ is a very real possibility and can be discussed as such.

[MogwaiBoy]

A 10db boost at 10k can be very revealing and

This is what I did with CraveEQ and ProQ.

The rebuttal is "Well I don't hear this inferiority you speak of".

You don't notice it until you A/B.

[Mind Riot]

A 10db boost at 10k can be very revealing and

This is what I did with CraveEQ and ProQ.

The rebuttal is "Well I don't hear this inferiority you speak of".

You don't notice it until you A/B.

Oh, Pro Q didn't cut the mustard in the A/B?

It's like, I don't take any pleasure in putting down somebody's favorite plug, and I know it's hugely popular, but when you put it up against anything from DMG Audio or I guess Crave based on what you've said, the difference is REALLY obvious.

The UI is great, but these are tools for working with SOUND. I don't think I'd use Pro Q if it was free.

[CrystalWizard]

Have you ever taken too high a dose of some medicine, and found that language totally breaks down and becomes meaningless?.... It trailed off to infinity.

Yes, i have definitely had that experience. Not yet today but quite a few times

What is “communication?”

Did you think that I was saying that this software EQ was truly analog? Maybe my method of communication is not very clear. I’m very “French postmodernist.”

I guess I could have just said that to my ears, Crave sounds quite good. It’s very subtle to me, but when EQing identically with Crave set to the analog setting, whatever the algorithm is doing, my experience has been that the sound always feels a bit thicker and more roughed up than EQing with stock or Fabfilter.

... Then again, it could also just be a different EQ curve or something technical

Fair enough. I was just making the distinction that real analog circuits saturate because of inherent properties of the components. Any sort of saturation in digital (whether it's VA or otherwise) has to be put into the software. It seemed like you were conflating the two but i see that i misinterpreted your post. Seems like i'm the one being pedantic.

[BONES]

A 10db boost at 10k can be very revealing and

This is what I did with CraveEQ and ProQ. The rebuttal is "Well I don't hear this inferiority you speak of". You don't notice it until you A/B.

If the difference is at 10kHz and you have to boost the shit out of it to even hear it, who cares? That's like 0.01% of the sound and you wouldn't hear it over a PA anyway. Life's too short to sweat the little stuff like this.

[CrystalWizard]

Kind of depends on the source, no? Cymbals, hi freq synthesizer, anything with a lot of upper harmonics. The freq range of my hearing isn't that great but i would easily notice boosts (esp) at 10k. Sometimes it's just the ticket.