KVR Audio

defjamm · Post by **defjamm** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:48 pm

if some of you people don't hear a difference, it's ok, use what you like to achieve what you want. but don't say there isn't one. you can download demos of all products and test yourself, maybe some of you don't know what to listen for, try the following:

get a snare on 5 channels, one with hydratone, one with equim, one with sonalksis, one with kjaerhus golden eq, one with HarmoniEQ. once again, try to boost 5k with 4db with a q=1(try to match them), match the loudness and LISTEN. sonalksis, equim, kjaerhus and HarmoniEQ will all sound pretty similar, each with it's own little 'signature-sound'(especially harmonie), but pretty similar, i would call that the typical 'digital-sound', maybe you like that sound, i don't. it's like the original snare with 4db at 5k, but it doesn't sound as one unit. when you listen to hydratone, it's a different world. the 4db at 5k get into the snare, they become one. i'm not a native english speaker so maybe some will have problems with this explanation. i'm sure bmaniac knows what i mean, right?
if you don't care about that, use whatever you like, if i could i would use hydratone on each channel.
the other mentioned eqs are all great digital eqs, but IMHO no one of them touches hydratone when you boost.

@ronny pries: you should test eqs, not read about them in online-forums.

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:56 pm

bmanic wrote:Nyquist EQ...because of the way it operates and keeps the output level steady.

Hmm - I'll have to check that out -you're saying that it compensates it's output level to account for filter gain changes ? Nice...

mauseoleum · Post by **mauseoleum** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:28 pm

If your host lets you access it's hidden parameters or flip into non-gui state, it's even nicer.

kilroy · Post by **kilroy** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:05 pm

Sascha Franck wrote: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.

In other words, Sascha is saying an expert with a slingshot is more deadly than a baboon in a medium tank.

And I am quite inclined to agree with that.

defjamm · Post by **defjamm** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:33 pm

kilroy wrote:
Sascha Franck wrote: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.
In other words, Sascha is saying an expert with a slingshot is more deadly than a baboon in a medium tank.

And I am quite inclined to agree with that.

that's true and pops always up in discussions like that. but you need the right tool for the right job, an expert has also his preferences and tools he likes the most for certain jobs. and this has nothing to do with the subject of differences in equalizers.

putte · Post by **putte** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:36 pm

ahh .. it´s a really new feeling for me to say "my fave EQ is, cause i love its sound" .. but here i am, jaha!

putte

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:11 am

defjamm, interesting comments on the Hydratone... I have not tried it myself - I will test it when it is released.

I'm doing my own research on the EQs, and so I have to ask you: could you describe the sound of Hydratone as consistent? Does it sound equally 'glueing' on all Freq/Gain/Q settings, or are there any 'blind spots' where it sounds like a normal digital EQ? I assume you were testing without any Fire functions enabled.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:22 am

Aleksey,

defjamm is in the ballpark with his description. It has a sound of its own. Generally it doesn't have that clean and 'static' digital sound to it. The "glueing" is IMO due to the way it handles transients. It lifts them (in boosting) in a very effortless way. Similarly in cuts you can't quite hear the "muffled" phase artifacts more audible with the cleaner static cuts of digital. Sounds sort of like a new kind of transfer function that perfectly follows the rising and falling slopes of the boosted/cut transients' phase and compensates for the artifacts...

It still seems to have a slight "accuracy" problem, hard to describe it. It's a "blunt" carving tool. Hence my comments about preferring the hi-end digital EQs.

007 · Post by **007** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:20 am

Hmmm...I imagined what would happen if I describe the sound of a violin to a violin maker using the explanation above.

In other words, it sounds warm?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:31 am

007 wrote:Hmmm...I imagined what would happen if I describe the sound of a violin to a violin maker using the explanation above.

In other words, it sounds warm?

The description was pretty accurate without resorting to images and scientific analysis. From experience I can tell that the violin maker in question is used to and knows how to decipher that kind of language.

007 · Post by **007** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:33 am

Just a joke. He indeed understands that but it is not the language he uses to describe sound.

I actually made some violins, never heard that language.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:38 am

Winetasting, anyone?

Ralf23 · Post by **Ralf23** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:49 am

Hello !

Is it possible to get a demo-version of hydratone for PC ?

PeterL · Post by **PeterL** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:03 am

Ralf23 wrote:Is it possible to get a demo-version of hydratone for PC ?

I wonder also, because some compare HarmoniEQ to Hydratone (HarmoniEQ=PC, Hydratone=Mac) ?!

007 · Post by **007** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:14 am

No, Hydratone is PC also. We are talking about the beta. The demo arrives in a few days. The Mac version is already released.

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