Sonic Flavours DQ7 EQ

[Frippertronix]

I like it, but it doesn't blow away my other EQ's (PLParEQ in both PL and PW mode being the supreme one) so I proably won't buy it. I do think it's a little colder than Electri-Q/Posihfopit, but it's also more exact. High boosts are fairly pleasant as digital EQ's go. Definitely worthy of a look.

Oh, and there's this: where's the CPU? Seriously, on my 3700+ @2.75 I couldn't see the bar move when adding a single instance.

[Frippertronix]

I have that (two actually) - just not convinced eqs make that much of a difference to my music for me to pay for one. There seems to be so much bs and mystification in sales of eq's.

Always best to avoid EQing, but in my world it's practically impossible. If you mic a lot of acoustic instruments and really know what you're doing with mics and have a good studio setting, it can be avoided fairly easily.

[diverdee]

Not sure on the sound, seems ok (not that i'm an expert) for a digital eq, then it's not claiming to be 'analogue' is it?
It's ridiculously efficient on the cpu though.

[bduffy]

So which EQ's do you find retain the transients during large cuts/boosts? The ones you mentioned? Posihfopit, PLPar4EQ, Hydratone and Sonalksis?

I'm curious because I've got an album to finish and I'm about to upgrade a lot of tracks to BFD, and I need to start EQ'ing like I'm mixing a kit in the studio, with said large boosts on mic channels, amongst other things. I'm just wondering which EQ's I should be favouring.

[defjamm]

Oh, and btw. I didn't like URS eq's at all. The problem was the precision for me. The basic "eq curve" is good on them (very close to the originals too! I've A/B tested the 1073 neve versus the URS, which is apparently 1081 clone) but the 'density' or 'smoothness' is not there. They simply sound like what many would call "digital". A bit grainy. Maybe they are better now that they are upsampled? I haven't tried the new versions yet.

i don't think that they upsample. i just looked at their site and didn't find anything regarding that. i think you mean double precision processing, that was added recently to them, because in the past they were single precision.
imho they are nothing special, i would take gliss over any of them. urs are a good example for great marketing imho. i also don't like plug-ins that you operate like they were hardware, just a pain in the ass.

[defjamm]

i forgot:
personally, if you want great native emulations i would look here:

http://www.algorithmix.com/en/classic_peq_blue.htm

it doesn't have a fancy gui looking like hardware, but technically it's superior to the urs-stuff.

[bduffy]

i forgot:
personally, if you want great native emulations i would look here:

http://www.algorithmix.com/en/classic_peq_blue.htm

it doesn't have a fancy gui looking like hardware, but technically it's superior to the urs-stuff.

Pricey!!! I wonder what the CPU is like as a track EQ...I cannot invest in a boutique EQ if it isn't light enough to run in 10-30 tracks, manage-ably.

[bduffy]

I don't mean to sound snobby, but for €990, you'd think you could manage a better GUI! It's very 1997.

[defjamm]

i forgot:
personally, if you want great native emulations i would look here:

http://www.algorithmix.com/en/classic_peq_blue.htm

it doesn't have a fancy gui looking like hardware, but technically it's superior to the urs-stuff.

Pricey!!! I wonder what the CPU is like as a track EQ...I cannot invest in a boutique EQ if it isn't light enough to run in 10-30 tracks, manage-ably.

i found something that gives a rough idea:
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... msg_150762

@gui: i like it.

@price: the urs everything eq bundle is more expensive.

[bduffy]

i forgot:
personally, if you want great native emulations i would look here:

http://www.algorithmix.com/en/classic_peq_blue.htm

it doesn't have a fancy gui looking like hardware, but technically it's superior to the urs-stuff.

Pricey!!! I wonder what the CPU is like as a track EQ...I cannot invest in a boutique EQ if it isn't light enough to run in 10-30 tracks, manage-ably.

i found something that gives a rough idea:
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... msg_150762

@gui: i like it.

@price: the urs everything eq bundle is more expensive.

Thanks! I don't hate the GUI's - I mean, obviously, they're effective and easy to work with; I just think, at that price range, you can find a designer. We have a kick-ass designer here at KVR doing eye-popping GUI's for free!

anyway, that's neither here nor there. I'd like to try the demo, but it's not available yet.

[defjamm]

i forgot:
personally, if you want great native emulations i would look here:

http://www.algorithmix.com/en/classic_peq_blue.htm

it doesn't have a fancy gui looking like hardware, but technically it's superior to the urs-stuff.

Pricey!!! I wonder what the CPU is like as a track EQ...I cannot invest in a boutique EQ if it isn't light enough to run in 10-30 tracks, manage-ably.

i found something that gives a rough idea:
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... msg_150762

@gui: i like it.

@price: the urs everything eq bundle is more expensive.

Thanks! I don't hate the GUI's - I mean, obviously, they're effective and easy to work with; I just think, at that price range, you can find a designer. We have a kick-ass designer here at KVR doing eye-popping GUI's for free!

anyway, that's neither here nor there. I'd like to try the demo, but it's not available yet.

for me, more important than the guis would be some short names, so people know what eq it is based on. like nv for neve or s for ssl or a for api, stuff like that.

regarding urs:
http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/vie ... sc&start=0

to be honest what the user 'diggo' writes on page 2 makes a lot of sense to me regarding urs. i also did some tests with high-end boosts and the urs eqs sounded to me muffled in the high-end, as if there was actually less high-end(compared to waves ren eq). that's also the reason a lot of people like them i believe, they think the high-end is smoother(what actually is a digital audio flaw). all imho.

this makes me a little angry, use a pretty gui and people think it's better than the rest, even when it is average stuff. people like aleksey and torben deserve the fame way more.

[docdued]

I have tested the high frequency response of a few EQs a while ago, and as far as URS concerns, they have two ways of treating it: the A10 and the N12 peak at a frequency considerably lower than Nyquist, whereas, e.g., BLT and the S series show a true high shelf response.
Here's the N12...


This is the A10:


The BLT:


And the S series:


So the first two do sound a bit softer in the high frequency regime for a reason. But of course, all this is perfectly legitimate; nowhere on the A10 and N12 is it written that their high frequency curve peaks at Nyquist. All that matters is whether it sounds good or not.

[bmanic]

So which EQ's do you find retain the transients during large cuts/boosts? The ones you mentioned? Posihfopit, PLPar4EQ, Hydratone and Sonalksis?

I'm curious because I've got an album to finish and I'm about to upgrade a lot of tracks to BFD, and I need to start EQ'ing like I'm mixing a kit in the studio, with said large boosts on mic channels, amongst other things. I'm just wondering which EQ's I should be favouring.

I would say PLParEQ is the most forgiving on the transients of that bunch but hydratone is also very good at keeping them intact, even though it imparts a lot of "character" of it's own. Sonalksis does something truly weird which can lead to serious problems if you end up having several in series. I usually use the Sonalksis EQ as the "transient shaper" as it modifies the sound even by just inserting it on the track. I would definately not recommend the sonalksis as the first eq but rather an extra spice if you already have all the rest.

Posihfopit is a good work horse eq (when it works!) and can be used for quite heavy cutting without nasty suprises (at least when in high quality mode and the 'digital' setting). Mind you, this applies very much to analogue eq's too. Some seem to preserve the original signal better than others. It's all about finding the right unit for the job. This is also true in the plugin world. Transparency is not always a good thing.

The more I learn the less I seem to really care about what tools I use but eq and compression are the basic shapers to get a mix going which is why it's still important to pay some attention to the basic qualities of each plugin. It seems like most equalisers that are released today are "good enough", that is, they don't damage audio in the same way the basic digital eq's of yesterday did. Everybody who has used the old Yamaha digital desks know what I'm talking about. That being said, I'm still waiting for the day that I can have an equalizer of Weiss/Algorithmix quality on each track without hitting the CPU!

Cheers!
bManic

[martian]

The more I learn the less I seem to really care about what tools I use but eq and compression are the basic shapers to get a mix going which is why it's still important to pay some attention to the basic qualities of each plugin. It seems like most equalisers that are released today are "good enough", that is, they don't damage audio in the same way the basic digital eq's of yesterday did. Everybody who has used the old Yamaha digital desks know what I'm talking about. That being said, I'm still waiting for the day that I can have an equalizer of Weiss/Algorithmix quality on each track without hitting the CPU!

im the opposite, i dont care much about digital eq quality anymore.

ive tried almost every demo available, and usually with min phase i hear small differences, particularly in the highs, but i realised if its brighter i call it harsher, lighter softer, so that meant nothing. since if thats the only effect i can hear of what may be lofi distortion then i can compensate either each way. i found drum transients can slightly fall appart at high gain with waves ren and cubase Q (sounds different to channel eq), so what? all these things are subtle and i really doubt my ability is enough to genuinely benefit from the differences, esp when to hear them i have to boost way beyond anything id ever use. since i usually like very wide Qs (2.5oct+) and dont boost more than 1-3db, i high pass quite a lot though.

so i've killed all my snobery and gone back to just using sx eq more than anything , then put all my effort into using each tool to the best of my ability.

must be said, i like voxengo eqs and comps though, anything that offers a different approach and sonic result is worthwhile to me. hydratone sounds just about unique enough to be usable to me too.

i guess nowadays i instead of listing for quality i listen for character and wonder what i can do with it.

[bduffy]

Nice posts, guys.

martian: gone back to SX EQ! Indeed! You don't hear that too often. How are you finding that? Sometimes I think the SX EQ's are OK, and sometimes I think they're the bane of existence!

bmanic: I guess Hydratone is really what I'm looking for, sound-wise. God, it's just too bad they have to use Pluggo!! See? It's never quite right!

So I wonder: which compressor(s) do you favour? I've been messing around with Crunchessor again, and I'm thinking this is one nice track compressor!