Me too. The only disadvantage with the Gliss is it's GUI. But after spending some hours working with it, I got used to its looks.peppy197 wrote:I prefer the looks of Kjaerhus EQ for some reason...
anyone have Kjaerhus' Golden equaliser?
-
- KVRist
- 75 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Sweden
-
- KVRist
- 227 posts since 27 May, 2004
I have both GEQ and GlissEQ.
GlissEQ is a cross between an Equalizer and a compressor, so CPU is higher than GEQ. GlissEQ is a fantastic tool - it can unmask two tracks that share the same frequency range by applying the EQ only during the most dynamic "moments" of each track. Since you can overlay the spectrum of two competing tracks in the same spectrum analyzer window, it is easy to see where the problem areas reside in the frequency range of a masked track. Dynamic equalization can also make key parts "pop" and come to life.
GEQ is my most used EQ plug, however, because CPU usage is low, and as such is more practical for situations where dynamic equalization is not necessary.
Both are great tools from supportive top notch developers.
GlissEQ is a cross between an Equalizer and a compressor, so CPU is higher than GEQ. GlissEQ is a fantastic tool - it can unmask two tracks that share the same frequency range by applying the EQ only during the most dynamic "moments" of each track. Since you can overlay the spectrum of two competing tracks in the same spectrum analyzer window, it is easy to see where the problem areas reside in the frequency range of a masked track. Dynamic equalization can also make key parts "pop" and come to life.
GEQ is my most used EQ plug, however, because CPU usage is low, and as such is more practical for situations where dynamic equalization is not necessary.
Both are great tools from supportive top notch developers.
-
- KVRist
- 35 posts since 2 May, 2004 from Germany
I can only recommend Golden EQ. Especially the 48db low- and highcut is very nice to remove unwanted noise:-)
Welcome to my sicknature...
-
- KVRist
- 75 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Sweden
I made a shootout between GEQ, GlissEQ, CurveEQ, Sonalksis EQ and the PSP MasterQ.EnzymeX wrote:GlissEQ is a cross between an Equalizer and a compressor, so CPU is higher than GEQ.
I disabled the dynamic feature of Gliss to make the comparision as close as possible. On my limited system (Celeron 1,2 GHz, 384 Mb RAM, Audigy) the Gliss used about as much CPU as the GEQ.
I found the PSP MasterQ to be the cleanest sounding EQ (though most CPU consuming). The Sonalksis added more colour than the others, but as I was looking for a bread-and-butter-EQ this wasn't at it's advantage (the colours good though).
I didn't really get a grip on the user interface of the CurveEQ (otherwise the sound wasn't too far away from the Gliss).
The last to combatants (regarding cpu consumption and usability) was the GEQ and the Gliss. I choose the Gliss mostly because of its features (spectrum analyzator, dynamic cut/boost etc) and partly because of the low price tag (which made it possible for me to get some other plugins as well).
One thing that annoyed me about the GEQ was the size of the plugin window. On my system it caused some dropouts when I moved the window around (but that probably says more about my system than the plugin).
I recommend anyone that's searching for a suitable EQ to demo all the plugins I've mentioned above.
Edit: typo
-
- KVRist
- 227 posts since 27 May, 2004
Joachime,joachime wrote:I made a shootout between GEQ, GlissEQ, CurveEQ, Sonalksis EQ and the PSP MasterQ.EnzymeX wrote:GlissEQ is a cross between an Equalizer and a compressor, so CPU is higher than GEQ.
I disabled the dynamic feature of Gliss to make the comparision as close as possible. On my limited system (Celeron 1,2 GHz, 384 Mb RAM, Audigy) the Gliss used about as much CPU as the GEQ.
I could get comparable CPU on GlissEQ only if I disbled the Dynamics functions AND the plug interface was closed. When the GlissEQ plug interface is open on my Desktop or Laptop system my cpu usage is 25-30% higher than with a comparable instance of GEQ due to the calculations from the spectrum analyzer window. I don't doubt your own experience but like you said, a prospective buyer should test out the plugs on their system as mileage may vary.
That being said, the CPU usage of GlissEQ is reasonable for what it does and the quality is fantastic.
-
- KVRist
- 75 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Sweden
Your'e right! And the quality parameter (upsampling?) has to be on normal (or auto). Forgot to mention. Sorry!EnzymeX wrote:I could get comparable CPU on GlissEQ only if I disbled the Dynamics functions AND the plug interface was closed. When the GlissEQ plug interface is open on my Desktop or Laptop system my cpu usage is 25-30% higher than with a comparable instance of GEQ due to the calculations from the spectrum analyzer window.
-
- Banned
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRist
- 223 posts since 2 Aug, 2004 from Boston, MA
GEQ is transparent to my ears as well. I found the Sonalksis and Voxengo GlissEQ to sound more similar to one another than to the GEQ, in that both add an analogish sound (I didn't turn off the dynamic part of the GlissEQ when I demoed it). The UI for GlissEQ is fairly unattractive, but it does have the built in spectrum analyzer, which can be helpful. I've never tried PSP MasterQ.
I do recommend that people try the Eqium and Firium EQ plugs from Elemental Audio. I'll describe them a little since there hasn't been much on them in this thread. Eqium sounds transparent to me (slightly more so than Kjaerhus GEQ) and is not an analog modelled EQ as far as I know. It does well with surgically precise EQ work, and the presets reflect that (you can do things like cut a particular frequency and the first 4 or 8 overtones/harmonics); you can also add and remove filters as you need them. Firium is more for mastering and introduces significant delay but sounds similarly transparent to me. Firium does EQ matching, where you play a file into Firium to capture its frequency pattern, so to speak, and then Firium will listen to another file/project and apply EQ changes to make the 2nd file match the 1st. This is useful for mastering, but I also find it to be pretty revealing and informative in general.
Both have certain UI niceties. The UIs are very clear, precise, and flexible, and in Firium you can save something like 50 EQ settings and automate/morph between different states (it fills in EQ states between saved states). The UIs are not based on hardware but remain easy to use and clearly thought out.
Conclusion: lots of good EQs. I favor Sonalksis/Eqium/Firium for EQ for sound, UI design, and flexibility, but the combination of GEQ/GlissEQ covers the same ground (you can do similar things with Eqium and Sonalksis or GEQ and GlissEQ and get very similar sounding results, IMO; Firium is kind of a different beast). GEQ/GlissEQ is also a significantly better value, and GEQ is great for its low CPU utilization (which means I will probably start using it more than Eqium).
-c
I do recommend that people try the Eqium and Firium EQ plugs from Elemental Audio. I'll describe them a little since there hasn't been much on them in this thread. Eqium sounds transparent to me (slightly more so than Kjaerhus GEQ) and is not an analog modelled EQ as far as I know. It does well with surgically precise EQ work, and the presets reflect that (you can do things like cut a particular frequency and the first 4 or 8 overtones/harmonics); you can also add and remove filters as you need them. Firium is more for mastering and introduces significant delay but sounds similarly transparent to me. Firium does EQ matching, where you play a file into Firium to capture its frequency pattern, so to speak, and then Firium will listen to another file/project and apply EQ changes to make the 2nd file match the 1st. This is useful for mastering, but I also find it to be pretty revealing and informative in general.
Both have certain UI niceties. The UIs are very clear, precise, and flexible, and in Firium you can save something like 50 EQ settings and automate/morph between different states (it fills in EQ states between saved states). The UIs are not based on hardware but remain easy to use and clearly thought out.
Conclusion: lots of good EQs. I favor Sonalksis/Eqium/Firium for EQ for sound, UI design, and flexibility, but the combination of GEQ/GlissEQ covers the same ground (you can do similar things with Eqium and Sonalksis or GEQ and GlissEQ and get very similar sounding results, IMO; Firium is kind of a different beast). GEQ/GlissEQ is also a significantly better value, and GEQ is great for its low CPU utilization (which means I will probably start using it more than Eqium).
-c