What is your go to EQ?

[Nokenoku]

The differences I mentioned between samplers were not, what I would call, statistically insignificant. So if you have any advice on how to get GVI, Rapture, SFZ, Kontakt, Dimension LE, HighLife, XS-1 and the trackers to all null up with each other, I'd be genuinely happy if you could provide it. My experience has been that some null and some don't, and the ones that null often (but not always) have higher CPU usage than the ones that don't.

Most of those I have never tested. The only one I've ever came across is Kontakt. I don't think Kontakt or GVI color the sound if you just play a 44,1kHz-sample in 44,1kHz without pitching etc.
But I haven't tested it so far.

The version of RenEQ I've been using in RTAS form at Dreamtown Music has no evident option of that kind. Many EQs either have it enabled or disabled and don't give the user control. Several of the UAD plugs automatically resample. Several older digital plug-in EQs (still modern) have no resampling option. That is all I was referring to: a differentiating feature that affects the sound.

Ok, point taken. And I agree.

I think that maybe I'm too old school in my vocabulary here so I apologize if I'm creating unnecessary confusion here: when I hear talk of EQ curves, I think of the frequencies that are affected each time a band is modified. If another EQ cannot, using a single band, create that same sound, regardless of the reasons for that, then two of the many options seem most likely: either one of the EQs has the ability to go to a narrower/wider Q than the other, or they have have different colors.

I'd actually say it the same way. And the different color comes from the difference in the curve form.

I hope I don't sound defensive, this is more just honest confusion. I've found that some EQs I can practically replicate with another and others I can only get a very close approximation. Are you saying that you've found you can replicate every EQ in your collection with every other EQ simply by using curve analysis?

No, it's like you said, I only come close for some.

But what I was saying is, that in the end it doesn't matter. I mean, you take an EQ and you set it up that way you want the sound. Some EQ might work better for you, because it offers curves (and the right GUI), which let you come faster to your desired destination. But there is no qualitative difference.

Ah, maybe I now know how to say it:
If you mix with different EQs you might get different results (if the curves/handling differs), because you approximate to the sound you want from different ways. And because there is no absolute/exact destination in sound you end up with different sounds.
Think about it like a crossroads with one road for every EQ. Now while mixing you go one of those roads (depending on which EQ you use) in the direction of the crossroads. If you are close enough you stop.
So in the end with every different EQ you would stand on different points around the crossroads, but still in an approximately same gap.

You might like the place on one road better than another, but still it's not really a qualitative difference, but more of a personal preference.

What I simply wanted to tell all you guys is, that a 330€ Sonnox EQ is not better than a freeware EQ. It's just different.
There's nothing in the Sonnox, which makes the sound more transparent, and there's nothing in the freeware EQ (at leats not in the ones I tested), which makes the sound muddy. The phase response is always directly related to the curve and the small differences in the curves are less important than any single small mix-decision you make.
And if you're familar with one standart parametric EQ, I don't see a reason to waste a lot of money for 5 other EQ plugins.

What stays is the feeling. If you have a nice piece of hardware or even just a nice GUI on your plugin, it might look more expensive/exclusive/better and that makes you happy. And if you are happy, you might do better mixes.

Good night Nokenoku: Thanks for challanging my assertions rather than letting me grow lazy in my complacency.

I wish I could fall asleep too but my insomnia has been pretty nasty the last couple days. Oh well, worth another shot.

Thank you too for the nice discussion.

Btw. .. I have the same problem .. took me to about 2am to finally fell asleep yesterday.

you expect me to tell you the difference with crappy 192k mp3 encoded files! you idiot, send them at 16-Bit 44.1Khz and then i try will try and tell you!

Hrhrhrhr I really lmfao!

Here: http://rapidshare.com/files/142807131/test.rar
Good luck.

[Per Lichtman]

I agree with you about the "no right curve" but I'd say in my case it is as much about the intended effect as the source. But that probably is a genre thing. That's part of the reason why I had a long list of "go-to" EQs instead of just one.

Yes, the curves of an EQ are one of the most essential parts, for sure. I don't mean to come off as arguing otherwise. I just really often end up making major modifications in the >11 khz region when doing sound design so aliasing and other artifacts, whether helping my sound or not, tend to become important pretty quickly and as we said.

These differences are not easy to compensate for in the normal mixing process but it sounds like they can be handled with careful analysis and often additional tools (such as Christian Budde's).

I guess what frustrates me a little bit sometimes is that when you see manufacturers talk about curves, they often look quite simple. They might show one filter as being steeper than another, etc. but they don't get into some of the other things that happen. On the other hand, if you look at plot for the curves on the Liquid Mix for some of the vintage emulations you can see that modifying a band has an effect on frequencies nowhere near it. I'm talking curves where you modify the high, get a boost in the high, then nothing happens for several octaves and suddenly you have a cut or boost in the low. That wasn't something I had previously thought of as part of a curve, more like using a curve to approximate certain saturation or distortion or something (which the Liquid Mix EQs do not model).

I believe Christian Budde was talking at one point about a modern plug-in EQ that would tend to modify the curve in very different ways than the user interface would lead you to believe. I'm afraid I can't recall it at the moment.

Here's my thought on the curve thing though: the difference between the sounds I can dial in using all the different curves on the Liquid Mix is much less than the difference between using the Liquid Mix and some of my other EQ plugs. That's partially because some of them have level dependent distortion modeling, which creates such curve complexities that it no longer feels fair to just call it a curve. Now, that's not most of the EQs of course.

So long story short: most of the things we tend to think of as separate from the curve end up coming back to affecting the curve in some way. Fair enough?

[Per Lichtman]

The differences I mentioned between samplers were not, what I would call, statistically insignificant. So if you have any advice on how to get GVI, Rapture, SFZ, Kontakt, Dimension LE, HighLife, XS-1 and the trackers to all null up with each other, I'd be genuinely happy if you could provide it. My experience has been that some null and some don't, and the ones that null often (but not always) have higher CPU usage than the ones that don't.

Most of those I have never tested. The only one I've ever came across is Kontakt. I don't think Kontakt or GVI color the sound if you just play a 44,1kHz-sample in 44,1kHz without pitching etc.
But I haven't tested it so far.

Yes, GVI was what I ended up using a lot of the time. On P4 3.2 GHz, it also tended to use 7-12% when playing back a series of samples at root pitch without modification, so it was kind of like using a Ferrari Testarosa to spend a day running errands: possible, but not really the most effective use of resources.

I think that maybe I'm too old school in my vocabulary here so I apologize if I'm creating unnecessary confusion here: when I hear talk of EQ curves, I think of the frequencies that are affected each time a band is modified. If another EQ cannot, using a single band, create that same sound, regardless of the reasons for that, then two of the many options seem most likely: either one of the EQs has the ability to go to a narrower/wider Q than the other, or they have have different colors.

I'd actually say it the same way. And the different color comes from the difference in the curve form.

Fair enough: more often than not it may be the result of complex differences in the minutiae of the curve than some of the other issues mentioned (such as phase differences). Of course if an EQ is modeling signal path (e.g. noise, gain stages, etc.) than this can add additional complexities that I don't think are fair to ascribe to the curve. However, I think we can agree that this isn't usually the differentiating factor in for instance a RenEQ vs. Sonalksis SV-517 comparison. It may be in the case of some of the emulations, however, such as certain Nebula ones.

Ah, maybe I now know how to say it:
If you mix with different EQs you might get different results (if the curves/handling differs), because you approximate to the sound you want from different ways. And because there is no absolute/exact destination in sound you end up with different sounds.
Think about it like a crossroads with one road for every EQ. Now while mixing you go one of those roads (depending on which EQ you use) in the direction of the crossroads. If you are close enough you stop.
So in the end with every different EQ you would stand on different points around the crossroads, but still in an approximately same gap.

You might like the place on one road better than another, but still it's not really a qualitative difference, but more of a personal preference.

I think that this is a great way of explaining why we tend to end up talking about "colors" instead of quality. Assuming we're comparing two simple EQs (i.e. they are not modeling distortion etc.) then it is fair to say that the primary difference in the sound when they are made to sound as similar as possible, will be the result of differences in their curves (even if those differences include the effects of oversampling, aliasing, etc.)

I completely agree with your comment about one EQ not being better than another. When I recommend EQs to my friends who are starting mixing I tend to tell them about an EQs "color tendencies". In other words, using a given EQ they will often tend to move in a certain direction. If the curve of a lowpass filter on one EQ tends toward steeper cuts than another, then that could be explained as a color difference. And as we discussed earlier, the issues of warping, oversampling, etc., effect the complexities of the curve. So if you like the sound of one set of complexities better than another (or at least better for certain material) then you might find that EQ is worth more money to you than another.

What stays is the feeling. If you have a nice piece of hardware or even just a nice GUI on your plugin, it might look more expensive/exclusive/better and that makes you happy. And if you are happy, you might do better mixes.

I agree that how you feel about what you are working with can have a big effect on the way you work and change the results, and that can be the most important thing. That doesn't mean that there can't be legitimate differences in the tools or that you can't enjoy working with a cheaper one more than expensive ones though.

Good night Nokenoku: Thanks for challanging my assertions rather than letting me grow lazy in my complacency.

I wish I could fall asleep too but my insomnia has been pretty nasty the last couple days. Oh well, worth another shot.

Thank you too for the nice discussion.

Btw. .. I have the same problem .. took me to about 2am to finally fell asleep yesterday.

Yeah, I've been lucky to fall asleep before 5 or 6AM the last few weeks. Frustrating. I've managed to make it happen a few days though.

[Soarer]

I really love using apEQ because of it's features, nice GUI and ease of use.
The inbuilt background analyzer is sooo nice to have and gives precise feedback
when you cut or boost. Every eq should have that.
You can go ultra surgical with the analyzer, the zoom feature (zooms in really far) and the filter stacking.

You have Mono/Stereo, Left/Right and Mid-Side processing.

I appreciate it every time I use it.

Highly recommended!

[aMUSEd]

Well now I have my Juice Pack I'm going to use the FL one simply because it's so much prettier than the competition - I have no idea if it sounds better (lets face it how do you tell?) but it's fun to look at all those wibbly wobbly colourful lines going up and down when I move the coloured disky things that look like transparent Smarties (M&M's for any Americans present)



(OK that's enough technical talk for me )

[Nokenoku]

I have no idea if it sounds better (lets face it how do you tell?)

It sounds "as good" as "the competition".

With the standart-mode (one dot) you get exactly the curves of the Sonnox EQ if you enable HQ mode. And if you go to dot2 (second order it was called I think) you have exactly the curves of the PSP Neon (HQ-mode does the same like FAT on Neon HR).

Only difference is the mentioned added phase shift while using HQ-mode. You can check if you are able to hear any differences coming from that by comparing those two examples:
http://rapidshare.com/files/142807131/test.rar

Yes, the curves of an EQ are one of the most essential parts, for sure. I don't mean to come off as arguing otherwise. I just really often end up making major modifications in the >11 khz region when doing sound design so aliasing and other artifacts, whether helping my sound or not, tend to become important pretty quickly and as we said.

I don't think I've ever came across a plugin EQ, which had aliasing in an audible area. You don't have to worry about that point.

Here's my thought on the curve thing though: the difference between the sounds I can dial in using all the different curves on the Liquid Mix is much less than the difference between using the Liquid Mix and some of my other EQ plugs. That's partially because some of them have level dependent distortion modeling, which creates such curve complexities that it no longer feels fair to just call it a curve. Now, that's not most of the EQs of course.

Of course distortion/saturation can influence the curve. Louder parts might get a different frequency response curve than calmer parts etc.

So long story short: most of the things we tend to think of as separate from the curve end up coming back to affecting the curve in some way. Fair enough?

Yes.

Anyways: 99% of the plugin-EQs just don't model such things. Even the expensive ones from Waves, URS, Sonnox don't do that.

[matt42]

Anyways: 99% of the plugin-EQs just don't model such things. Even the expensive ones from Waves, URS, Sonnox don't do that.

An eq that does do a nice model of transistor saturation is Electri-Q posifhopit edition and it's free!

http://www.kvraudio.com/get/2470.html

As well as optional oversmpling it also offers orfanidi filters which give a nice responce in the higher registers without the need for oversampling.

[Igro]

Please advise me what is better to choose - IIEQ PRO or KeyToSound Precision EQ. They are both transparent. I see people know much more than me about equalization . Thank you.

[Per Lichtman]

So long story short: most of the things we tend to think of as separate from the curve end up coming back to affecting the curve in some way. Fair enough?

Yes.

Anyways: 99% of the plugin-EQs just don't model such things. Even the expensive ones from Waves, URS, Sonnox don't do that.

Oh, I almost forgot one small detail: the URS M Series EQs may not model harmonic distortion within the EQ itself but they do have gain stage modeling on the gain control. I seem to remember the Motor City one had more pronounced behavior in that respect. Try normalizing the output signal and doing a null test with it at different settings.

Not a big detail, but I didn't want to slight the M Series. The Abbey Road EMI TG Mastering Pack is similar in that respect.

[Rottweiler]

My advice: don't get the most expensive EQ or the cheapest. Pick something middle of the road that appeals to your eye. That's right. Don't bother listening to it because it doesn't matter. Pick it because of how it looks and you'll be happy. Rinse and repeat with compressors. Whatever KVR.

lets face it, we're all music tech nerds here and love our little plugins!

no, the music tech nerds uses hardwares, we are just wannabes.

[Per Lichtman]

Or build or mod the hardware themselves ...

I have friends like that. They make it easier for me to concentrate on my work instead.

[.:illanoise:.]

didn't read the pages. Go to is Vibe EQ or Trackplug.

[Klemperer]

didn't read the whole thread, but some pages, many useful infos too here. The FL eq indeed looks lovely!
My EQs (I don't "go to them", but this lame joke is surely made by others here before, he he) I really like are the just now updated IIEQpro, and the LP10 for mastering. I just like what I get, and am happy with them. Anything that doesn't sound like it should is my fault with those fine plugins.

And I use the plparEQ3, the version you got for 20$ many months ago.

[Polybius]

I'm sorry if i'm going a bit O/T here, but what's the difference between a mastering EQ and a "regular" EQ you would insert on seperate tracks?

[Per Lichtman]

Mastering EQs are generally prized for the transparency, while tracking EQs are sometimes "designed to add color", though this is not always the case. In addition, a mastering EQ has the option of using a higher latency design (such as linear phase) because latency and processor usage are less of a concern when dealing with a single stereo track than with a full mix.

In addition, a mastering EQ doesn't necessarily need to have a wide gain range since the shaping at the mastering stage should be gentle with a properly mixed track.

Now, these are some of the things that have been advertised by companies that make mastering EQs or mentioned by people that use them, but they will not all apply all the time, nor should they be taken as "rules" of any kind. Just more of an indication of what "mastering EQ" may mean.