Analog Eq are overrated, MAutoDynamicEq is more capable than all the others together (Video Included)

[Frankie.T]

In the latest years i see more and more people be "tricked" by companies with analog emulations. Marketing departments try to make you believe this tools bring something "magical" that you cannot achieve with other products.

This is completly wrong, it's all about curves, and sometimes they just place some kind of subtle saturation, that doesn't certainly make any real difference between a good sounding song and a bad one.

The more i use MAutoDynamicEQ the more i love it, cause to enhance sounds you just need your ears. Digital eq is the most versatile tool to achieve whatever you need.
Ofc having access at certain kind of curves may speed up your workflow, and that's the reason of this love. I was able to recreate the curves and the behavior of any different eq i was used to use, along the behavior with different Q depending on the boost amount.
Cause it's handy to have a "sound in mind" a just turn a couple of knobs. But basically all the EQs out there are just skinned presets at higher prices.
Lots of respect for Melda that made one plugin only with all the emulations inside!

In my channel a made a huge comparison series, where i test lots of EQ and compressors and despite the curiosity it's something no one usually do, cause there isn't an obvious point for doing that. Anyway using lots of different emulations from different companies was the best way to understand that in a more analytical way, so i wanted to share it with you.

I don't want to write a book here, and i've probably already went too far so if you are interested in that topic i made a video, where i can show and explaining something more, and hopefully better

[Hexspa]

On the contrary, some analog eqs get you to curves you otherwise wouldn't choose with a modern digital parametric. Sure, curves are curves - nobody can argue against that - but, again, sometimes one band of 'analog/emulation' requires more than one band of a given digital. They're not 1:1. And the most obvious difference is in the GUI: I've heard many engineers say they "EQ with their eyes closed." Ana-emus basically do this for you. My favorite thing about ana-emus is they're based on tested curves. With modern digi, you can do almost anything. With ana-emus, in comparison, you have to use what they give you. To me, that results in a different approach.

Anyway, I think both are useful and I use both. Believe me, I got a lot of flak for trying to teach people the audio frequency chart. Now I'm on to a whole new topic which I must keep secret but also involves using your eyes. It's not all a scam, man.

[Frankie.T]

I mostly don't disagree with you. I just see lots of people buying plugins as it was a collection, thinking "that tool will make their music so much better", cause lots of people think the same curves sounds different cause of a "superior technology".
You can also see lots of companies are dedicated just to release these emulations, they offer almost nothing else.
There is nothing wrong about that, that's how the market works, but i think it's important to let people understand few things, expecially about magic is not part of plugins, but movies and marketing departments.

At the end they could just sell one plugin with different presets (such Melda does with MTurboSeries) instead to sell a "new" plugin that isn't new at all.

There is nothing wrong to use some analog emulations someone find useful and faster, i just modeled what i liked into MAutoDynamicEQ for that reason, i like the way that curves sounds in certain situations, and certain plugins are just good.

Although transitioning the few analog-like to my digital presets allowed me to have better performance, cause (as i show in the video) these emulations bring more cpu consumption and latency, while a digital eq is way more efficient.

Last but certainly not least, these "famous tested curves" are a kind of myth. I tested almost every emulation out there, and i tried to match the curves for the testing purposes, and most of the "same" emulations, have completly different curves, with very few exceptions. They could even be called differently, cause tbh, an API 550 version made by COMPANY X sounds closer to (i.e.) and SSL 4000 than an API 550 made by COMPANY Y.
So there is not really "tested curves" since they are all different.

Last but not least, every song and sound is different, and it needs a different treatment, so a curve that may sound good with a sound it doesn't with another one, so you need another EQ, you could switch different plugins till you find the right one, even if there is a right one, since the lack of flexibility of these emulations compared with digital, for obvious reason, or decide instead to just train more your ears to understand what everything does, then apply, and this become a faster and way efficient workflow.

Having tested lots of eq for my comparison series, along all the reviews i've made for other plugins i learned few things that make EQ to sounds good and/or analog, that once you learn it, it makes a digital eq even a faster approach for every purpose.

Usually analog eq behave:
A trasparent analog eq usually act like a digital one
Certain analog eq make the Q narrower the more you boost/cut
Why an EQ is colored/charactful:
a) it's about a little cut before the boost, or a little boost before the cut
b) the curve is not mirrored
c) preamp/saturation (included on MAutoDynamicEq if needed)
d) a mix between them

So the most "complex" to understand, learn and apply is the colored eq. This require a bit more training, anyway just to give an idea, when you need to EQ something to achieve more clarity and definition the option A is the one that usually works better. When you have a sound you like but there is something that needs to be changed to make it sounds better or different the option B it's probably what you are looking for. The option C it's more personal imo, it depends a lot by your workflow, really hard to give a suggestion that may works for you too. The option D it's kinda rare to be found in a single eq


The point of this discussion btw, it's just to talk with newcomers, and telling them "hey don't fall into marketing BS, there is no magic hidden in a technology, be aware of that" and to more experienced users to don't fall into other BS or to fall into the boring state where everything it's just another toy to buy to brake the boredom


With that said, the only things that matter is the quality of music, if you achieve it with just stock plugins or with trilion of plugins and analog gear doesn't really matter, just be aware that a nicer GUI doesn't improve any sound, and the 90% of a song quality are made by your ears and knowledge.

m2c ofc

[Hexspa]

You have a well-reasoned argument. To be specific, Acustica just updated Gold to version 5. Using their 8066 model gets a sound that I can't immediately get with MAutoDynamicEQ. Maybe if I spent more time or loaded it into Plugin Doctor, etc. I could recreate it but, to me, that misses the point. With these analog emus, like MTurboEQ, I start to expect what it will do.

Ok, you have chipped away at the 'tested curve' theory. I must admit, I have not analyzed these EQs much so I'll give you that. However, like my first point, when you get one of these things you start to learn it. It 'has a sound'. Modern digis do too because of their default curves but it's less obvious, imo.

Anyway, I'm not going to battle someone who's better prepared I agree that marketing drives the multiplication of options but either way I still like having both at my disposal.

[Frankie.T]

No worries there is no battle
I completly understand your point, that's why there is a purpose for analog eq, everyone is different with different needs and knowledge, and i think certain tools can be very helpful, for the reason you wrote. You buy it and use it without the need to deep dive into something more complex, and this is enough to purchace and use them.

The "problem is" when people start to buy "everythings" cause there are "magic inside". It's important (for your wallet) to understand that there is not magic hidden into some "new crafted technology that blow away competition"

[dubdisciple]

Thanks for this reminder. As already pointed out, I think the magic is in the workflow. I have managed to match curves of other plugins using Melda plugins but it was far from intuitive for me. I would love if turboeq had an interface that matched controls better because they really sound good