Analog Eq emulations Vs Digital Eq [BLIND TEST]

[Frankie.T]

We are lucky enough to have lots of good plugins, and for some it's even an addiction.

In the latest years we saw analog emulations from almost every company, this means there is a request from customers cause they sells.

But do we really need them? Are they better for real than their "digital" counterparts?
I'm not so sure.

Lot's of discussion about this topic, that seems to let people to stay on his shoes regardless the discussion, because everyone have his toughts and his beliefs.

And i'm not an exception, i have my idea too about that topic, but i'm certainly not scared to change my mind!

So i thought the only way to understand if there is any real superiority in sound quality (cause this is something that i see being wrote many time) a blind test is the only way to go.

So no bias, no vintage skins or rusty screw, neither "our favorite company" involved, just our ears to decide if there is a "sonic superiority" or not.

So i made a blind test where i compare one of my favorite analog emulation "pink4" along my favorite digital eq "madeq" and the eq from "ozone" i explained in the video why i chose this one

If you wanna join this test and have some fun, you can watch it here

My suggestion is to watch the entire video to have a better understanding of this topic along some consideration (it's just 8 minute in total).

Then write your favorite each test as comment of the video, cause that's what i will count as answer to take my conclusions that i will share in a future video along disclosing which is which in any test.

The reason i'm asking to write your best pick (if there is any) under the video as comment is simple. Is because i want people to have all the data there, just in one place as a valuable info for everyone who will watch the video in any moment.

Ofc if you want you can also write and discuss it here, please just be polite and respect any different opinion, this is not a war, but a way to have some more infos or even just have fun playing the test and see if you got something right.

It's important for me to make a clear statement though.

The purpose of this video/blind test, is not to convince anyone! It's just a way for people who is open to have a better understanding or just being curious to have a kind of data, or just to test itself.

So take this test the way is more useful for you, not as an "attack" to your style of work with music, or whatever, everything it's up to you!

That's the idea, and i hope you appreciate and have fun with it!

[funky lime]

The things we do to avoid actually making music ...

[Frankie.T]

The things we do to avoid actually making music ...

Don't worry, i make enough music, in the last months even too many songs for my taste (3 songs in 3 months plus multiple remixes)

And so this is something i do to avoid wasting money on unneded plugins, at least if my thought is correct

[funky lime]

And so this is something i do to avoid wasting money on unneded plugins, at least if my thought is correct

Fair enough, my apologies! Seems like you've got great tools already.

[Frankie.T]

And so this is something i do to avoid wasting money on unneded plugins, at least if my thought is correct

Fair enough, my apologies! Seems like you've got great tools already.

No worries, there is no need to apologies! I'm just trying to give a kind of answer to that topic, where (if my thought it's true) may help people to spare money avoiding buying lots of unnecessary plugins.

And instead to do what other people does on forums or YT, i don't wanna say "hey i'm right, that's the way, cause i'm telling it" but instead, question everything, and ask people to listen and share their thoughts.

So everything, from the listening to the voting, is unbiased and very democratic, cause no one have control over that, it's just a bunch of votes/thoughts where everyone says what he thinks

[QCGroove]

I admire this type of work. I feel like Dan Worrall and Jim Lill are doing amazing things with music mythbusting and you certainly could help with that using your unique skills and talents. I’ve seen posts similar to this on GS that go completely ignored because most of the users there are absolute cork sniffers. But I hope you continue and help some people save money and get back to music making!

[pekbro]

To me it seems like most tend to buy eq's because they like something about them, e.g. sound, workflow etc, regardless of whether an eq is an emulation or not. Of course it could be me not noticing, as I wouldn't put much stock into what someone who would buy an eq based only on marketing spiel would say. Just because a plugin is an emulation doesn't mean that it's good or bad, it depends on the plugin. The exact same thing can be said about digital, inexpensive or costly eq plugins.

That said, probably some folks buy stuff based on popular opinion, again these folks are not going to garner any interest from me.

btw: Personally, If this is just about how you only need Melda plugins and nothing else, I would not be putting much stock in what you have to say either.

-Cheers

[Danilo Villanova]

Great test, the eqs sound almost identical.

I have noticed in some tests comparing Acustica plugins with non-sampled counterparts that they do seem to work better with material with lots of transients. They poke a bit more. Is it the FIR type filters? (I know nothing about filter types).

Also boosting highs by lots of dB gets me smoother and more pleasant results with Acquas than with other eqs. Or maybe I'm just high.

[Frankie.T]

I admire this type of work. I feel like Dan Worrall and Jim Lill are doing amazing things with music mythbusting and you certainly could help with that using your unique skills and talents. I’ve seen posts similar to this on GS that go completely ignored because most of the users there are absolute cork sniffers. But I hope you continue and help some people save money and get back to music making!

Thank you very much for your words, i really appreciate.
Unfortunatly there are people that imho prefer to believe in some kind of magic, on GS you see lots of "insta-buy" on the new products section, that comes with no-sense, expecially when you notice most of them are the same ppl who continue to buy stuff, and i'm asking myself, how many eq and channel strip they need to make music? Really, i really don't get it.

Some of them may be rich, and make collection of vst, and it's fine, but i guess some of them (as many in this world) doesn't have a so happy life, so falls in some addiction probably like we all do with music Although this may become a very expensive one, for no reason.

To me it seems like most tend to buy eq's because they like something about them, e.g. sound, workflow etc, regardless of whether an eq is an emulation or not. Of course it could be me not noticing, as I wouldn't put much stock into what someone who would buy an eq based only on marketing spiel would say. Just because a plugin is an emulation doesn't mean that it's good or bad, it depends on the plugin. The exact same thing can be said about digital, inexpensive or costly eq plugins.

That said, probably some folks buy stuff based on popular opinion, again these folks are not going to garner any interest from me.

btw: Personally, If this is just about how you only need Melda plugins and nothing else, I would not be putting much stock in what you have to say either.

-Cheers

If someone buy these stuff because of workflow or they just like the UI, it's fine, these are good product, i don't think it different.
The main point is people who says this stuff comes with a superior sonic quality, in the video i've just showed one comment, because i didn't wanted to create a kind of sensationalistic video maybe even engaging some forum users, just showing all these kinds of comments, and the "insta-buy" written for every plugin releases.
Cause that's the issue i'd love people who start thinking about, and the reason of this video, just to check and show, that superior sonic quality is just in their mind and marketing depts.

Cause discussin isn't enough, and if something cannot be heard, it's a definitive answer whatever we like the answer or not.

This video is not about you need only Melda plugins haha I like them (not all but most for various reasons) but here i've used MADEQ just because i wanted to place what i use the most in the game out of curiosity.
As i told in the video, i wanna question my own belief, cause i have my idea, but i may be wrong, i don't fear to end up with a result that says that pink4 is superior for real, and so i had to place the eq i use, also because i needed at least 2 digital eq, and so pick one or another for me is the same.

Ah btw, MADEQ is my favorite not for "the superior quality" that imho is a marketing BS, but because of features and workflow, as an analog like eq, may be a favorite for someone else for the same reason!

Great test, the eqs sound almost identical.

I have noticed in some tests comparing Acustica plugins with non-sampled counterparts that they do seem to work better with material with lots of transients. They poke a bit more. Is it the FIR type filters? (I know nothing about filter types).

Also boosting highs by lots of dB gets me smoother and more pleasant results with Acquas than with other eqs. Or maybe I'm just high.

Thanks for your reply, i felt the same on highs myself, so i digged out more on that area, and my conclusion were not about the tecnology, but the kind of filters.
If you check AA plugins they usually cramp at Nyqist, and usually the curve comes with a little dip or just looks like an higher Q below (at least the ones i liked the highs).
And so i tryed that kind of shapes with my usual eq, and the result is the same.

So it's again just matter of knowing how to use an eq

[kritikon]

I won't listen to them as I already know I won't hear any difference. Maybe my ear is just not attuned to such things but I rarely hear any difference worth bothering with in any Eqs. At large boosts I can hear it, I remember well the differences between desk Eqs...the woolliness of cheapo Behringers against the more preciseness of good desks...but only at large boosts mostly, and I rarely if ever use Eq that extreme. And that sort of difference has a lot to do with bandwidth anyway. I know for example that there are saturating Eq plugins...which baffles me, as the level of Eq I use I just can't hear the saturation either.

From as long ago as I can remember, to me Eq was not anything worth wasting money on. The infinitesimal gains are not worth even very few $$$ imo. If all a I do is a soupcon of Eq here and there with only a dB or 2 of boost cut...I use my stock DAW Eq that I already paid for. It sounds the same to me as exquisitely coded boutique Eqs. Acustica release an Eq/dynamics thing every week modeled on some esoteric gadget from 1952 that nobody's ever heard of...and they sound identical to me, at least for any use I'd put them to. I have 50,000 kicks sourced and processed from all over the place so why would I need 10dB of any Eq on it? Every synth I have has various filters and fx that can surgically change Eq, so why am I going to radically post-process it with Eq. Any fine tune Eq changes and Cubase does it fine, thanks. I know damned well that 1db mid range cut will sound the same on almost any plugin Eq out there unless you're a bat with augmented X-Men megahearing.

But I get why peeps obsess and collect Eqs or other plugins. Same as me collecting synths, though I suggest synths offer radically different sounds than Eqs do. If you're going to collect toys, there are better obsessions than Eq imo.

[martiu]

buy pro-q 3 and forget about EQs

[vurt]

my host has several options for eq.

[Ploki]

Thanks for your reply, i felt the same on highs myself, so i digged out more on that area, and my conclusion were not about the tecnology, but the kind of filters.
If you check AA plugins they usually cramp at Nyqist, and usually the curve comes with a little dip or just looks like an higher Q below (at least the ones i liked the highs).
And so i tryed that kind of shapes with my usual eq, and the result is the same.

So it's again just matter of knowing how to use an eq

I'm in no way fan of Acoustica plugins, i think they're bloated piece of messy code more or less, but if you need to make 5 moves with ProQ3 to get the same sound, it isn't really a "sound" but "workflow" question.
You can make a lot of things sound similar but you have to do things you'd never do in a normal mixing scenario because it looks stupid and takes a lot of time.

[Frankie.T]

I think differences on eq's are about workflow not sound, at least that's my theory. But lots of people think it differently, that's why i wanted to make this test. If blinded and something is objectivelly superior in sound, would people catch it?

I personally just use digital eq's, because while mixing i know how to use it, i mean i can quickly translate what i ear and what i'd want the sound to be, curves on my digital eq, and usually it require me just few seconds.

But that's me, and i get someone may prefer a different workflow, and this is completly fine!

The point would be to kind debunk the belief in any sonic superiority by certain analog emulations, as many people suggest, as the comment i showed in the video about Ozone eq.
Or maybe the opposite, just to see that people can feel a better sonic quality catching the analog emulation, i have an idea, but i don't have something i "hope for" i'm just trying to search for an answer that hopefully will help people to make better decision while deciding if and what to buy

[Danilo Villanova]

I do big boosts a lot. Acustica eq's sound subjectively better than algo eq's in that regard. Obviously, you won't hear any difference doing 1-2 db cuts/boosts. Bu that doesn't mean that all eq's sound the same.
This video is a deep dive explaining why that is: