KVR Audio

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:59 am

Kingston, thanks... Though, I'm still wondering about those 'blind spots'. Another question - does this EQ add harmonics without any Fire functions enabled?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:16 am

It doesn't add any harmonics in the traditional sense without the fire function. The two different modes sound completely different to each other but that's down to the impulses. As far as the blind spots, the EQ sound is consistent thruout the spectrum, no blinds spots in that sense. But maybe the lack of certain accuracy, or livelyness, could be described as such. Also, you can't do frequency sweeps with hydratone. You dial in the settings and it's static. That's quite the shortcoming, automation will sound clicky and bad.

Ronny Pries · Post by **Ronny Pries** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:56 am

Kingston wrote:Also, you can't do frequency sweeps with hydratone. You dial in the settings and it's static. That's quite the shortcoming, automation will sound clicky and bad.

WHAT? AND THAT'S A PLUGIN PEOPLE RAVE ABOUT?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:00 am

Ronny Pries wrote:
Kingston wrote:Also, you can't do frequency sweeps with hydratone. You dial in the settings and it's static. That's quite the shortcoming, automation will sound clicky and bad.
WHAT? AND THAT'S A PLUGIN PEOPLE RAVE ABOUT?

Well I've tried my best to talk (and even fight) some sense, but witness the power of hype...

007 · Post by **007** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:37 am

Indeed, you should use it as an EQ, not as an effect unit.

chagzuki · Post by **chagzuki** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:44 am

All this talk and I can't even test the plugin myself

. Unless the demo is available now?

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:48 am

Kingston, thanks for the response... BTW, I've come up with a newer approach to EQ'ing, inspired by multi-impulse EQing (probably like in Hydratone). I'll see if this can be implemented in HarmoniEQ. The difference is quite subtle, but it does preserve transients better - that's the only obvious thing.

Ronny Pries · Post by **Ronny Pries** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:39 pm

007 wrote:Indeed, you should use it as an EQ, not as an effect unit.

where do you draw the line? would you also buy a porsche to ride it accurately at 50mph?

if those guys can't realize the concept without putting stupid limitations on the user they should either lower the price or spend more time on developing a more user friendly version.

my 2 cent tho.

ronny

007 · Post by **007** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:34 pm

Personly I never use frequency sweeps, actually I hate that. So, no problem for me. Probably it is a limitation due to the concept.

JeffSanders · Post by **JeffSanders** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:38 pm

HarmoniEQ sounds so unbelievable to me, I have little desire to check out Hydratone.

When you record acoustic instruments, the mic placement that makes your toes curl, "the flame" of the sound is crucial, because the ear candy of the acoustic tone is in the harmonics and transients. Otherwise it might as well be a sine wave. That's why HarmoniEQ sounds beautiful. Those odd harmonics are what makes tube gear sound good. Because they're the same harmonic action made by the voice and stringed instruments. In Voxengo tradition, it will evolve and get even better.

HarmoniEQ does something no other eq does. It wakes your ears the 'f up.

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:39 pm

One thing, is this thing really an EQ? isn't eq's supposed to do sweeps? Isn't this more of an impulse player...a digital eq with some kind of "analoge" code or whatever can sound dynamic because it's not limited by a fixed set of parameter settings...or something...am I completely offline?

007 · Post by **007** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:53 pm

I presume Kingston is talking about automated sweeps, according to him this sounds clicky. I never tried it, because I never use that.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:48 pm

I don't automate sweeps either but it sure doesn't sound "clicky" when sweeping with the mouse. It's completely smooth here on my system. It works just as any other parametric EQ.

EDIT: I tried doing some wild sweeps with the mouse (read: FAST) and it does indeed click a bit. I guess this is what kingston means and I agree that this would be a problem when automating.

Defjam, yes, your description is very close to what I hear in Hydratone too. It simply "geels", adds, the desired boost to the sound without any other artefacts. This is what I'd describe as "transparent" but after hearing the Weiss EQ I've come to realize what true transparency is.

Anyways, lets just put it this way, it complements the original sound in a very different way than any other plugin EQ I've ever heard.

Cheers!
bManic

Lesha · Post by **Lesha** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:23 pm

i have to disagree with kingston, i 've tried automation and it's smooth as any other eq.
comparing to harmonieq, it has a different sound. why? because it's captured from a hardware eqs (amek 9098 & avalon vt737sp are implemented so far)..
so, how can you compare hardware impulses to harmonieq? i think you can't...

JeffSanders · Post by **JeffSanders** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:31 pm

How does it compare with the UAD-1 Pultec eq then? Having the Pultec...does it make having another analog emulation redundant?
HarmoniEQ does something different I can't explain. It's pure ear candy. Goodness.

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