Kjaerhus question

[fgimian]

Sorry to bring this topic out of the dead but I also am noticing what people are saying here. I have also contacted Torben about this and am currently waiting his response but thought I would just make these points here so that people are aware of the issues. Just recently, I purchased the GOC-1, GEQ-7, GMO-1 and GPP-1.

My assumption was that ...

GOC-1 - flagship compressor
GEQ-7 - flagship EQ
GUP-1 - simple compressor
GAC-1 - all in one channel strip with slightly cut down EQ and compressor

However, it turns out that several features are completely different between the GAC-1, GUP-1 and both these processors which actually puts the GOC-1 and GEQ-7 at a major disadvantage is some very important areas.

GOC-1
- The GAC-1 & GUP-1 has full side chain support (as mentioned) while the GCO-1 doesn't

GEQ-7
- Control points available on GAC-1 for adjusting EQ with on graph, not on GEQ-7
- All bands customizable as different filter types in the GAC-1 but not the GEQ-7. Now this may be overlooked I guess ... it's not as important as the other points.
- All bands (including low-pass and high-pass filters) may be adjusted from 20 Hz - 20 Khz on the GAC-1. This is not the case with the GEQ-7 as the low and high pass filters have limited frequency ranges.
- Parametric bell filters may have lower Q values in the GAC-1 than the GEQ-7. GAC-1 can go as low as 0.25, GEQ-7 can go as low as 0.5
- Shelving filters in the GAC-1 have a much more flexible Q than in the GEQ-7. GAC-1 can go upto Q = 1.4 while GEQ-7 can only go upto Q = 0.707. This makes a HUGE difference guys, seriously. Try the shelving filters on the GAC-1 with higher than Q = 0.707 and you will see exactly what I mean.

So does anyone care to share a little more about why these differences are present ? I'm really confused, so I would have to buy the GAC-1, the GCO-1 and the GEQ-7 just to have the full features of an EQ and compressor ? that's over 400 $ though, for that price, one could go for Sonalksis instead ?

Please help guys, I've been feeling extremely confused since I noticed these differences last night.

Cheers
Fots

[kylen]

- Parametric bell filters may have lower Q values in the GAC-1 than the GEQ-7. GAC-1 can go as low as 0.25, GEQ-7 can go as low as 0.5
Cheers
Fots

soundplace - check out the manual on GEQ-7 and you'll see why the Q of a cut is misleading, it depends on the bell algorithm. I've got a bunch of EQs and GEQ-7 can make a sharper cut than any of 'em when it's set to mode 2. It's really tight - I think the demo gives access to the manual where Torben displays some beautiful pics and graphs to further explain the topic!

[fgimian]

thanks for the info kylen I just double checked the manual and although this will help for cutting, I don't believe the EQ types change anything when boosting. Any ideas about any of the other points I have mentioned guys ?

My biggest concerns at the moment are the control point editing and the shelving filter Q values. The shelving filters on the GAC-1 are so much more flexible than the GEQ-7 and I'm afraid that changing the mode doesn't help this issue

Thanks
Fots

[kaufi]

anyway Kjaerhus rules!

[kylen]

Oops - I was hoping to get back in here before you stopped by soundplace - my internet connection keeps bouncing...

Hehe - you mentioned low Q (wide bandwidth) and I was talking about low bandwidth (high Q)...

I don't use GEQ-7 for high shelving...I think I use GlissEQ mostly for that. I did have a low shelf set for a while on GEQ-7 but decided to use the DC shelf in Elephant for some reason. I can't generally make GAC-1 sound too good right now - I need more time with it, so I use GEQ-7 quite a bit for serious repairs involving transparent cuts mostly.

[fgimian]

kylen thanks a lot buddy, I am actually ready to buy the GlissEQ right now too for high end boosts mainly. I have a lot more Voxengo plugins and love em. I'm sure you can understand my confusion on this subject though ? You see, my problem is that sometimes I like REALLY high end boosts, starting to boost at around 13 khz - 14 khz for some "sparkle". But with the Kjaerhus GEQ high shelf set at the highest freuency (20 khz) and highest Q (0.707), it only starts boosting at around 10 khz which is too low for sparkle treatment. Meanwhile, the GAC-1 EQ can start boosting as high as 16 khz on the high shelf due to the extended range of the Q value

Try the EQ out on the GAC-1 for high end boosts mate and you'll see what I mean. It's just wierd that an dedicated EQ is less powerful than a channel strip EQ is it not

Thanks a lot for your help though, I guess it might be time to spend more cash on the GlissEQ :")

Take care
Fots

[kylen]

... sometimes I like REALLY high end boosts, starting to boost at around 13 khz - 14 khz for some "sparkle". But with the Kjaerhus GEQ high shelf set at the highest freuency (20 khz) and highest Q (0.707), it only starts boosting at around 10 khz which is too low for sparkle treatment. Meanwhile, the GAC-1 EQ can start boosting as high as 16 khz on the high shelf due to the extended range of the Q value

Try the EQ out on the GAC-1 for high end boosts mate and you'll see what I mean. It's just wierd that an dedicated EQ is less powerful than a channel strip EQ is it not

Thanks a lot for your help though, I guess it might be time to spend more cash on the GlissEQ :")

Take care
Fots

OK - I'll check out GAC-1 high shelf, thans for the tip. Have you thrown posihfopit into the mix - that thing actually adds some harmonic distortion (in a good way) that sounds great!

[fgimian]

cool !! nah, I can't say I have, I'll try it out more tonight I remember it had a really pretty interface

[greendoor]

I wouldn't push too hard. Torben obviously has no intention of upgrading GCO-1 if people aren't buying his other compressors to get the extra features.

How the hell can you say GCO-1 is "more versatile" when clearly it can't do important requested features that the "less versatile" ones can do.

I agree with Torben that Wet/Dry compression is best done inside the compressor, to avoid phase issues. So - why does he agree and still does not update his "flagship" product? Obviously, he wants us to purchase the cheaper ones just for that feature - and live with the "less versatile" features. GRRRR - stink marketing stragegy mate!

If money is the problem, I would gladly pay for an update to GCO-1. I don't want a bunch of similar compressors, where NONE of them can do everything I want. Fortunately, there are better sounding options otherwise I would be very upset.

[fgimian]

greendoor, yep you obviously see my point. Well, unfortunately the issue is even greater with the GEQ, where the GAC-1 EQ is far superior on some areas to the flagship EQ. I feel that these 2 products (GCO & GEQ) do really need some updating due to this reason.

But honestly, I didn't come here to pick a fight, I'm just really upset about the fact that GEQ doesn't do everything that GAC-1 EQ does and likewise with the compressor.

Cheers
Fots

P.S.: I also agree with you about the Wet / Dry point. I have never needed such a control on a compressor.

[bobby yarrow]

Apropos nothing really, I'll say that I bought the GAC cause it does things none of my compressors or eqs do on their own. I never reach for it for simple compression or eq, but only for its unique abilities. Maybe that's silly -- maybe the GAC eq and compression are worthwhile all on their own -- but that's not how I've ever used it. If I want a compressor, I can always find what I want from my compressor plugins, and likewise eq. GAC seems to me primarily designed to maximize the flexiblity of the routing, including sidechaing, wet/dry, m/s, and other nifty tricks.

[egbert]

It seems to me that Torben is like the rest of us - he is learning and his ideas are evolving - partly in response to his customers responses.

GAC-1 has new Eq and Comp code which he built later than the GCO and GEq code and not surprisingly used some new ideas and offered some new features. GUP is the compressor from GAC as a separate plugin.

While he has stated (IIRC) that he will add the compress mix parameter and sidechaining to GCO at some point I think we can take it as read that he has finite resources and, as we know, he is working on his first synth project.

[fgimian]

you make a good point egbert. And I should add that I am extremely fond of his work, and I just love these plugins. I'm sure you can see my point though. I just find the product line a little confusing in terms of which is better than which .etc.

I really hope that when Torben has some spare time, he can help the GEQ and GOC catch up with the GAC. That's honestly all I really would love to see as I just can't justify spending another 200 $ on those little things that the GAC does better and I'm sure that many other users feel the same. I think that a lot of us prefer a detailed EQ and compressor completely separate from a channel strip, I can't say that I'm fond of channel strips personally.

I hope you can see my point of view. As stated, I'm a huge Kjaerhus fan which is why I just spent over 400 $ AUD on these plugins. They truly sound spectacular. I just wish these little things wwould get some attention soon

Takre care
Fots

[egbert]

you make a good point egbert. And I should add that I am extremely fond of his work, and I just love these plugins. I'm sure you can see my point though. I just find the product line a little confusing in terms of which is better than which .etc.

This would seem to be the "curse" of the more prolific developers like Torben and Aleksey and Ddrummer too - they write lots of nice plugins with overlapping functions and, while they all have their good points, the diversity can confuse the potential user.

I really hope that when Torben has some spare time, he can help the GEQ and GOC catch up with the GAC. That's honestly all I really would love to see as I just can't justify spending another 200 $ on those little things that the GAC does better and I'm sure that many other users feel the same. I think that a lot of us prefer a detailed EQ and compressor completely separate from a channel strip, I can't say that I'm fond of channel strips personally.

While GAC takes up a bit more screen space and has smaller parts of the screen devoted to each function I would use it by preference if it sounded better on the job in hand - even for just one band of Eq. The GUI features - like dragable handles - might be adaptable to the GEq for example but, as I understand it, the filter code for GAC is completely fresh - GEq will (I'm guessing) evolve further but I don't think it's Eq section should be expected to change into GAC's because they are actually different products from the ground up.

I hope you can see my point of view. As stated, I'm a huge Kjaerhus fan which is why I just spent over 400 $ AUD on these plugins. They truly sound spectacular. I just wish these little things wwould get some attention soon

I'm not on your case here
- just trying to put these plugs in a "historical" context which goes some way to explaining the duplication of some functions.