heard a rumor equality is coming out with steep butterworth filter option...(answer :TRUE, new eq)
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- Banned
- 4491 posts since 8 Jul, 2008 from UK
EQuality is exactly that, pure quality.
But I am totally intrigued as to what it's big brother could hold.
They made something special with EQuality and COMPassion, so to improve or just go deeper with something like EQuality is pretty hardcore tbh.
But I am totally intrigued as to what it's big brother could hold.
They made something special with EQuality and COMPassion, so to improve or just go deeper with something like EQuality is pretty hardcore tbh.
-
- KVRian
- 1401 posts since 9 Feb, 2012
Dave's dropped some insights in various forum threads and on the DMG blog. Basically what I get and remember is combine equality and equick features and add a lot more: L/R-M/S per band and across surround pairs, as an example. I'd like to see gain/Q interaction setting per band, kind of like masterworks, but continuous like equality. Then we could do some nice vintage and hybrid curve-a-likes.
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
Krzysztof Oktalski Krzysztof Oktalski https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=118549
- KVRist
- 282 posts since 1 Sep, 2006
Exactly. Our next EQ will feature everything we couldn't make work with EQuality - for example, surround processing and more filters. There's no point in us releasing a new EQ unless it redefines the game, and this is what we hope to achieve; something that will catch all of the exceptional use cases as well as the standard ones that we designed EQuality for, and more flexibility.ttoz wrote:i just thought the way it is right now with more freedom to pick filters would make it the *perfect* eq, seriously.
It's still a while away yet, so holding your breath might not work out well - congratulations on your purchase!
Inicidentally antithesist, on the subject of Gain/Q interaction - why would you like to see it per band? It doesn't really do anything, we're wondering whether gain/q interaction really has any relevance in the digital world at all. Why do you need to be tricked into different relationships between the 2? I think in the long term it can only act as a distraction or a piece of misinformation as regards how the interface and the output relate; changing that per band surely means making it harder to predict the behaviour of that band. What say you?
-
- KVRian
- 1401 posts since 9 Feb, 2012
KO: I wrote a whole long thing thinking the reason was one thing, which is still valid. But I'll spare you that, at least for now. When I was trying to draw that treatise to a conclusion, it occurred to me that, in most cases, I like some amount of gain/Q interaction when using equality. But, that setting is usually a compromise since it's global for all the bells. It's sort of like if the shelf shift were always the same for both high and low. I know, that does something though, something that can't be done without the shift control. Well, I guess it's about economy. If there were separate GQI controls in those nice open spots in the slope/shift row, I'd take a guess at Q and GQI settings based on how peaky I want the band to be as I increase the gain. It's just not the same as setting only the Q. I like the Q to change when I change the gain. It's kind of like key follow on a synth filter. Sure, I could probably play a lead and turn the filter knob to brighter as I go up and darker as I go down. Anyway, I guess the answer is because I like it. It would be nice to have bell asymmetry per band as well. But hey, you take what you can get where you can get it.