KVR Audio

Debutante · Post by **Debutante** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:16 pm

Thank you very much for the transient example above Christian!!! That made it plain as day. It also seems like something that would be really hard to ignore even if you didn't know what was going on, and cheers! to all you guys who've made this thread so much worth the reading. I have learnt quite a bit from it

moonlite · Post by **moonlite** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:27 am

WOW, what a thread! :o

just because of the quality of the information, i'll bump it.

i've learned a LOT by reading this!

c1c2 · Post by **c1c2** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:06 am

Barbarossa wrote: Same procedure for EQ-testing works quite well on 909 open hihats, too. Hipass + loshelving to get rid of the rumble and create the correct size of the hihat's body and then reduce the peaks in the treble with high Q settings until you have a flat frequency response.

Just to clarify: how high is "high Q settings"?
It seems that I have a hihat that needs some processing, too,
and I want to give it a try the way you describe.

Thanks.

TonyC · Post by **TonyC** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:32 pm

Interesting thread indeed! Somehow I missed it until now. I read all of it, maybe I missed it, but was bmanics 'mystery eqs' ever revealed?

krank · Post by **krank** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:16 pm

TonyC wrote:Interesting thread indeed! Somehow I missed it until now. I read all of it, maybe I missed it, but was bmanics 'mystery eqs' ever revealed?

It's from the Nebula library.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:24 pm

TonyC wrote:Interesting thread indeed! Somehow I missed it until now. I read all of it, maybe I missed it, but was bmanics 'mystery eqs' ever revealed?

The EQ's are 2055 MD and the "Vintage EQ", as I recall.

Cheers!
bManic

krank · Post by **krank** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:39 pm

bmanic wrote:
TonyC wrote:Interesting thread indeed! Somehow I missed it until now. I read all of it, maybe I missed it, but was bmanics 'mystery eqs' ever revealed?
The EQ's are 2055 MD and the "Vintage EQ", as I recall.

Cheers!
bManic

Can you shed some light on why the frequency graphs of Nebula's EQs are full of ripples and huge irregularities? The original 2055 is a $5000 mastering EQ, it's hard to reconcile with this.

triple p · Post by **triple p** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:08 pm

I hope someone sheds light on this as well.
Krank and I were talking about this on the AA forum. I told him it is because with hardware there are different things going on than with a plug.
My guess is the signal in hardware is affected by other stuff, like dac and things like that. The signal is not clean, like with software the signal is totally clean. So someone come set us straight.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:23 pm

No, it's not just that, the early examples that I presented were from the beta version with short kernels which causes the accuracy of the impulse to be off mark. However, the phase response of the original tube hardware is all over the place (read: very very VERY complex) which is part of the "illusion" of the examples.

Cheers!
bManic

Zaphod (giancarlo) · Post by **Zaphod (giancarlo)** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:34 pm

krank wrote:
bmanic wrote:
TonyC wrote:Interesting thread indeed! Somehow I missed it until now. I read all of it, maybe I missed it, but was bmanics 'mystery eqs' ever revealed?
The EQ's are 2055 MD and the "Vintage EQ", as I recall.

Cheers!
bManic
Can you shed some light on why the frequency graphs of Nebula's EQs are full of ripples and huge irregularities? The original 2055 is a $5000 mastering EQ, it's hard to reconcile with this.

About double peaks: I just replied to you in our forum. It was already explained some months ago, there is a solution but we can't release it immediatly, due to the planned release scheduling.

About ripple: a couple of programs have a short kernel length. The other ones are full customizable, it means that you could increase the kernel length as you want (more or less. sometimes even 200 milliseconds or more)

About ripple II: nebula at the moment is limited to 1.5 milliseconds of pre-offset. You could tune it differently in your MAST page, but you can't use the new offset for the current program till we release a feature.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:38 pm

Can you point out where it is on your forum? Hard to tell.

krank · Post by **krank** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:39 pm

Zaphod (giancarlo) wrote:I just replied to you in our forum. It was already explained some months ago, there is a solution but we can't release it immediatly, due to the planned release scheduling.

About the dual peaks, yes, I understand. How about the ripples?

Zaphod (giancarlo) · Post by **Zaphod (giancarlo)** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:40 pm

in an obvious place: the libraries section you (= customers) asked:
http://www.acusticaudio.net/modules.php ... opic&t=398

a wiki section is coming

Zaphod (giancarlo) · Post by **Zaphod (giancarlo)** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:41 pm

krank wrote:
Zaphod (giancarlo) wrote:I just replied to you in our forum. It was already explained some months ago, there is a solution but we can't release it immediatly, due to the planned release scheduling.
About the dual peaks, yes, I understand. How about the ripples?

just explained

copperx · Post by **copperx** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:43 pm

So, does convolution-based equalization (Nebula, Hydratone) preserve transients better than a standard IIR algorithm?

At least that's what my ears tell me.

Can different implementations of standard IIR filters differ in their handling of transients?

How do you judge an EQ?