TritoneDigital.. hydratone, Voxengo and Kjaerhus, Fear it!

[Kingston]

Why are you saying to test with Dyn=0, that just makes Gliss a normal EQ - right? What's the test criteria for that ?

We want to compare the two as normal EQs. Hence the setting. Hydratone doesn't have any dynamic options in it.

you don't talk about music, about practical use of these eqs, and i did.

Earlier in this thread I said everything I felt there was to say about this EQ, and I'll stand by it. You obviously just came looking for a fight. And yes, I did critically listen to it, instead of just looking at the terrible malfunctioning GUI.

[kylen]

...We want to compare the two as normal EQs. Hence the setting. Hydratone doesn't have any dynamic options in it.

OK - sorry I'm an idiot - I thought the comparison was with Fire but without Dyn...

[defjamm]

take a hihat, place it on 3 tracks, one with hydratone on, one with gliss2 at dyn0 and one with harmoniEQ. boost(bell) at 14k with 9db with a q of 1(try to match all eqs) and match the loudness of all tracks to be equal. NOW compare. if you don't hear a big difference you should stop using eqs. the gliss and harmoniEQ sound plain digital, with digital harshness all over the place. the hydratone sounds a lot better.

i must admit, that i like gliss in alt-mode for bass-frequencies. but it isn't even close in the high-end. i'm using a rme-soundcard and beyerdynamic dt770 pro headphones.

[bmanic]

I have to agree with defjam here. I really don't understand Kingston either (sorry mate..). To my ears Hydratone is the exact opposite of what you've described so far. It's the ONLY eq that PRESERVES transients naturally. There is NO "rounding" or "smoothing" or artificial stuff around it. This is maybe what you hear as 'harsh'? This, I've concluded in my tests, is the reason for it's very different sound.

Day by day hydratone is becoming my favourite EQ for tuning things, removing mush, etc. It will not find place in my mastering chain however, not yet.

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

Oh and one more thing, I actually LIKE the effect the sonalksis EQ does. I've always liked it.. but like you said, it doesn't always work, especially when using them in series (channel -> bus -> master = usually a 'no go' situation). The sonalksis works very well as a 'de-harshener' for sterile sounding VSTi sounds or nasty samples.

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

and the fire button... it sounds just plain bad. Why on earth would I want a cheap badsounding digital waveshaper algorithm after an EQ that at least pretends to sound analog?

I have to disagree with you once more here.. (we're still friends, right? ). I've come to like the fire button quite a bit lately. It works very well on a lot of synth sounds and it's definately not just a "cheap waveshaper". Well, maybe it is, but I happen to like cheap waveshapers!

Cheers!
bManic

[Kingston]

Ok, as soon as bmanic re-entered the conversation I had to go back and re-test the bloody culprit in this war.

And well, everything I've said this far, I still stand by it.

Opinions. Preferences.

Yes, it seems I actually prefer the extremely well done digital tone of HarmoniEQ, ultrasmooth that doesn't hurt when overdone and impossible to replicate on analog equipment. GlissEQ2 on the other hand is just a good swiss army knife, just like hydratone would/will be if they iron out the bugs.

A person who uses "digital harshness" as a way to describe HarmoniEQ is in the wrong business.

[007]

AHA, now I understand you Kingston. You prefer the sound of a digital eq. I did not understand your problems with Hydratone first.

[Ronny Pries]

since i'm very interested in eq's, too - and still looking for the one that's best suitable for me - i've been reading this thread with big interest until around page 6. after that it turned into a pretty worn out bubblegum (from a "thread outsiders" perspective).



chill

ronny

[007]

Good idea.

Nice picture. Is that you?

[Ronny Pries]

Yes, that's me ~50 years ago. I hope i find the perfect EQ before i die...

[brianbrian]

and the fire button... it sounds just plain bad. Why on earth would I want a cheap badsounding digital waveshaper algorithm after an EQ that at least pretends to sound analog?

It's a bit more complex than that. Turning up the fire changes between IRs of the main color unit driven at different levels. On top of this there is the waveshaper(?) for saturation, which sounds nice to me. The "Blast" mode adds some compression as well as more saturation. It also seems to add some weight to the bottom end. So the Fire knob is very interactive with the main color option, and apparently there will be a bunch of new colors added (they have access to API, Neve, Avalon, Amek, SSL, Chandler, and other preamps I believe).

I can't wait to see the bugs ironed out, the performance optimized for PC, new EQ colors, new overall colors...and the option to buy this.

[Sascha Franck]

As with all the other threads about 44.1 vs. higher rates, summing of DAWs, I've yet to hear ANY music of a KVR member making me think there's anything worthwile in switching to something else but what I allready have.

This is just too much theoretical talk - everybody should learn how to do good music using good sources first and then learn how to mix the results of that halfway properly.

[snooky]

Well, what about Eq's that isn't so harsh then?

the "Nyqvist EQ" for starters? any good?

[bmanic]

Nyquist EQ is a very fine EQ. I use it a lot. It's definately one of my favourites too because of the way it operates and keeps the output level steady. Forces you to mix with it differently.

Cheers!
bManic