Quality of built-in EQ
-
christianmusicmaker christianmusicmaker https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12152 - KVRAF
- 1670 posts since 1 Feb, 2004 from UK
Thanks for getting back...I am interested in comments about the UAD - 1 I have heard nothing but great things about this product.japut_99 wrote: On the other hand I've heard that any eq is usable in the right hands and that even matching eq settings between eqs is pretty much possible but a lot of work. So I think anything is usable but some eqs have that gloss we are all working for. So try the demo because my words mean nothing in your productions.....
I did a bit of research and found out that the Cambridge Eq is an optional add on for the UAD 1 Project Pak.
UAD -1 users with Trackion...
Can the Cambridge eq be bought separately? The price stated in Future Music is $149 for the Cambridge Eq.
I would almost certainly get the cambridge eq if it can be bought and used in Tracktion for $149!
From what I read though I would need to do one of two things...
Option 1. Buy the UAD - 1 Studio PAk for £750 and get all the UAD 1 plugs.
a.Pultec Pro
b.Fairchild
c.Teletronix LA -2A
d.Urei 1176LN
e.Dreamverb
f.Cambridge
Option 2 get the UAD - 1 Project Pak for £350 and buy the optional Cambridge EQ for £75.
Apparently the Urei 1176 is one of the most desirable and used compressor / limiters in the world
Even the fairchild plug is a software version of a £15000 hardware filter.
I guess the price relfects the quality. Any UAD -1 users with Tracktion?
-
- KVRist
- 126 posts since 26 Aug, 2003 from TRying to get to your place
I would say if you have the money go with the studio pack. You will probably want all te UA plugs once you get your mitts on them. Oh and btw I purchased Tracktion because it played nice with the Uad.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 38 posts since 31 Mar, 2004
After spending way too many hours fiddling around with sonalksis, tracktion's eq, eqium, and the golden eq, I've come to a few conclusions.
A> I'm an idiot. I was doing comparisons for some time at 44.1 instead of 96k. This invalidated much of what I had concluded so I had to rerun many of my tests. Running at 96k has a huge impact on all of the eq's ability to do high end properly. ugh.
B> These plugs all have unique merits, yet some of them are almost identical at certain settings.
Parametric bands:
The tracktion eq, eqium, and golden (type 1) bell shapes are identical. They can be made to completely cancel each other even at different q settings.
Eqium and tracktion only have one bell shape option,
so if you wanted lots of different options here, you might look to the others.
Golden has 4 options of bell shapes. the first two are the same boost-wise as eqium and tracktion. the third and fourth are unique in boost and cut. the second is also unique in cut.
Sonalksis has 3 bell shapes which are all unique. I couldn't get any of the other plugs to completely cancel it, but I came pretty close on bell III. Usually what was left was a little bit of high end which (after looking at a spectrum analyzer) was the sonalksis. What also seemed to be left (after near cancellation) were tiny little attacks at the beginning of the hits - the transients. I can't be sure which plug those were coming from since I didn't render and compare the waves, but I'd guess it was the sonalksis. (I also did try to listen for it but it was very subtle so I can't be sure that I wasn't experiencing a placebo effect, but I think I heard the transients coming from sonalksis while doing a/b's)
Shelving filters:
All of the plugs seemed to have their own idea as to what a shelving filter should look like. I could get some of them pretty close at certain settings, but couldn't get any of them to match across the board. Since I couldn't get much cancellation, I chose to focus most of my efforts on comparing the parametric bands instead.
More conclusions:
The tracktion eq, eqium, and golden all seem to be what the Sonalksis response (page 2 of this thread) claimed to be "digital eq's". Personally, the only reason I would upgrade to eqium or golden from the tracktion eq is for more options and flexibility, not because they (supposedly) have a better sound (because I don't believe they do).
Eqium has an awesome interface, 2 shelving filter types, and unlimited bands.
Golden has more bell shapes, but less shelving options.
Basically, what I've been building up to here is that it does seem to me that what Sonalksis says about their stuff is not BS or marketing hype. It seems to be the only one that is doing something genuinely different than the others. The plug definitely had more high end and seemed to respond to the transients better. If I were only looking for more options over the tracktion eq, then eqium or golden might be fine. But if I were looking for an eq that does some "magic" to the signal as opposed to being just another face to the same algorithms, I'd go with the Sonalksis. You get what you pay for I guess.
So to answer my own original question, the eq in tracktion is really really freaking good if you ask me. The fact that it keeps up with $100+ plugins and it's built-in to an $80 program is just astounding. For me, it'll take a $240 plugin to truly outdo it. So for now I'm stickin' to the tracktion eq. Jules, you rock!
Randy
Oh, and I also should mention that Sonalksis was definitely the most cpu hungry of the bunch, and understandably so.
Also, don't forget about the 96k thing
A> I'm an idiot. I was doing comparisons for some time at 44.1 instead of 96k. This invalidated much of what I had concluded so I had to rerun many of my tests. Running at 96k has a huge impact on all of the eq's ability to do high end properly. ugh.
B> These plugs all have unique merits, yet some of them are almost identical at certain settings.
Parametric bands:
The tracktion eq, eqium, and golden (type 1) bell shapes are identical. They can be made to completely cancel each other even at different q settings.
Eqium and tracktion only have one bell shape option,
so if you wanted lots of different options here, you might look to the others.
Golden has 4 options of bell shapes. the first two are the same boost-wise as eqium and tracktion. the third and fourth are unique in boost and cut. the second is also unique in cut.
Sonalksis has 3 bell shapes which are all unique. I couldn't get any of the other plugs to completely cancel it, but I came pretty close on bell III. Usually what was left was a little bit of high end which (after looking at a spectrum analyzer) was the sonalksis. What also seemed to be left (after near cancellation) were tiny little attacks at the beginning of the hits - the transients. I can't be sure which plug those were coming from since I didn't render and compare the waves, but I'd guess it was the sonalksis. (I also did try to listen for it but it was very subtle so I can't be sure that I wasn't experiencing a placebo effect, but I think I heard the transients coming from sonalksis while doing a/b's)
Shelving filters:
All of the plugs seemed to have their own idea as to what a shelving filter should look like. I could get some of them pretty close at certain settings, but couldn't get any of them to match across the board. Since I couldn't get much cancellation, I chose to focus most of my efforts on comparing the parametric bands instead.
More conclusions:
The tracktion eq, eqium, and golden all seem to be what the Sonalksis response (page 2 of this thread) claimed to be "digital eq's". Personally, the only reason I would upgrade to eqium or golden from the tracktion eq is for more options and flexibility, not because they (supposedly) have a better sound (because I don't believe they do).
Eqium has an awesome interface, 2 shelving filter types, and unlimited bands.
Golden has more bell shapes, but less shelving options.
Basically, what I've been building up to here is that it does seem to me that what Sonalksis says about their stuff is not BS or marketing hype. It seems to be the only one that is doing something genuinely different than the others. The plug definitely had more high end and seemed to respond to the transients better. If I were only looking for more options over the tracktion eq, then eqium or golden might be fine. But if I were looking for an eq that does some "magic" to the signal as opposed to being just another face to the same algorithms, I'd go with the Sonalksis. You get what you pay for I guess.
So to answer my own original question, the eq in tracktion is really really freaking good if you ask me. The fact that it keeps up with $100+ plugins and it's built-in to an $80 program is just astounding. For me, it'll take a $240 plugin to truly outdo it. So for now I'm stickin' to the tracktion eq. Jules, you rock!
Randy
Oh, and I also should mention that Sonalksis was definitely the most cpu hungry of the bunch, and understandably so.
Also, don't forget about the 96k thing
-
christianmusicmaker christianmusicmaker https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12152
- KVRAF
- 1670 posts since 1 Feb, 2004 from UK
Great news for me japut_99, excellent feedback with Tracktion + UAD 1, at least I now know it works with T!japut_99 wrote:I would say if you have the money go with the studio pack. You will probably want all te UA plugs once you get your mitts on them. Oh and btw I purchased Tracktion because it played nice with the Uad.
I may wait a bit and get the UAD 1 instead now, thanks again. -
- KVRian
- 1349 posts since 12 Jan, 2003 from Paris
How lucky you are, you will save some money...RandyHancock wrote:The tracktion eq, eqium, and golden all seem to be what the Sonalksis response (page 2 of this thread) claimed to be "digital eq's". Personally, the only reason I would upgrade to eqium or golden from the tracktion eq is for more options and flexibility, not because they (supposedly) have a better sound (because I don't believe they do).
What you seem to call "magic" is an EQ that does other thing than EQ. Warmifier, subtle analog saturation etc...RandyHancock wrote:But if I were looking for an eq that does some "magic" to the signal as opposed to being just another face to the same algorithms, I'd go with the Sonalksis. You get what you pay for I guess.
So you may be interested by :
GlissEQ http://www.voxengo.com
You are of course wrong when saying Eqium, golden (GEQ-7?) and Tracktion EQ have the same algorithms...
-
- KVRist
- 126 posts since 26 Aug, 2003 from TRying to get to your place
I just wanted to say that the lack of using 96k sampling rates is one of the reasons I picked up an upgraded eq. I roll off the highend at 17-19k because I am not working at 96 and what I work on doesn't warrant it. More filters types, with what to my ear seemed to be high quality algorithms is why I purchased a new eq. Still are. And T's eq is a sweet, sweet freebie too. 
Well you have to pay your eighty to get in but....
Well you have to pay your eighty to get in but....