KVR Audio

omo · Post by **omo** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:19 pm

fritzman, that doesn't sound quite honest to me but, anyway, our discussion was about the particular EQ and you started it after comparing to Algorithmix EQs, remember? So my post was not about your personal way of work or anything but strictly about your monitoring environment being up to the job in this particular case. I propose us to get back on topic.

omo · Post by **omo** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:26 pm

ps: you'd fool yourself if you thought your monitors are good enough because you do mostly rock and electronic music. this is as precise as I can be.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:28 pm

omo wrote:fritzman, that doesn't sound quite honest to me but, anyway, our discussion was about the particular EQ and you started it after comparing to Algorithmix EQs, remember? So my post was not about your personal way of work or anything but strictly about your monitoring environment being up to the job in this particular case. I propose us to get back on topic.

OK,

if you think I'm not honest I can't help you with that.

But back on topic: Which EQs do you prefer and why? And what do you think about the Algorithmix eqs?

Best wishes, FRitz

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:32 pm

omo wrote:ps: you'd fool yourself if you thought your monitors are good enough because you do mostly rock and electronic music. this is as precise as I can be.

OK, no problem. Now I've got an idea where you're coming from.

omo · Post by **omo** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:36 pm

fritzman, I don't have it now. Could you download the sample I posted and use dry signal to cut all the way down with narrow Q at around 170Hz and post it? Better both Red and Orange.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:39 pm

omo wrote:fritzman, I don't have it now. Could you download the sample I posted and use dry signal to cut all the way down with narrow Q at around 170Hz and post it? Better both Red and Orange.

Yes, gimme half an hour or so. Got something else going right now.

omo · Post by **omo** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:46 pm

here's wav http://s65.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1G72 ... VVXF8VR9PX

P.T. · Post by **P.T.** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:00 pm

PeterL wrote:
JonnySun 2.0 wrote:I have an AMD Thunderbird 1400. It's not possible to test a GUI-version of these eqs. They are in permanent bypass-modus after inserting in a slot and cause a crash after a short time.
I have no problems with this new GUI-version PLParEQ3. I will stick with PLParEQ3 now (although 1 band less).

Where did you find the PLParEQ3?

Even the pages for the 1 and 4 seem to have been taken down.

PeterL · Post by **PeterL** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:23 pm

PT wrote:
PeterL wrote:
JonnySun 2.0 wrote:I have an AMD Thunderbird 1400. It's not possible to test a GUI-version of these eqs. They are in permanent bypass-modus after inserting in a slot and cause a crash after a short time.
I have no problems with this new GUI-version PLParEQ3. I will stick with PLParEQ3 now (although 1 band less).
Where did you find the PLParEQ3?

Even the pages for the 1 and 4 seem to have been taken down.

Here:
http://refinedaudiometrics.com/pages/16/index.htm
Scroll down to the middle. It's a free 3-Band version of the commercial 10-Band PLParEQ offered for a limited time.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:22 pm

Hi Omo,

OK, made the test with the Algorithmix EQs and PLParEQ.

testwav.wav

testwav_PLParEQ_quality_5_non-PL_mode.wav

testwav_PLParEQ_quality_1_PL_mode.wav

testwav_PLParEQ_quality_5_PL_mode.wav

testwav_Algorithmix_orange.wav

testwav_Algorithmix_red.wav

Same setting for all plugins: Peak/Bell, 170Hz, 12dB cut (max value for the Algorithmix), Q=15 (again, max value for the Algorithmix).
Both Algorithmix were set to high quality. PLParEQ quality as in file names.

I added a non-PL version of PLParEQ to show it's quality without PL.

Best wishes, FRitz

omo · Post by **omo** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:18 pm

Ok, here goes: they all prering alot and thus are unusable fo surgical equing. Red a hair less then plpareq and Orange the most preringing in given examples. It also seems that plpreq fails to cut more the the others, just like it fails to boost at narrower Q settings - try boosting a lot and hear no boost but only preringin artefacts to get an idea. I wouldn't use it in pl mode and I certainly wouldn't buy any hyped linear-phase 3zero fancy gui eq.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:43 pm

omo wrote:Ok, here goes: they all prering alot and thus are unusable fo surgical equing. Red a hair less then plpareq and Orange the most preringing in given examples. It also seems that plpreq fails to cut more the the others, just like it fails to boost at narrower Q settings - try boosting a lot and hear no boost but only preringin artefacts to get an idea. I wouldn't use it in pl mode and I certainly wouldn't buy any hyped linear-phase 3grand fancy gui eq.

I knew your answer already. But obviously not everyone is looking for the same things in an eq. I would never do these things with a phase linear eq. For the same reasons. Lower Q settings sound great with this eq. Especially with some boost in the bass. Mid boosts or cuts with relatively wide Q settings sound great. Just nice. But that's just my taste.

Best wishes, FRitz

omo · Post by **omo** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:59 pm

Read my first (i think it was first) in this thread. What you say makes no sence. It still prerings and in any case preringing is a lot worse then some phase shift. As I've said before - it all sums up at the end. After spending 2-3 ours on it against Algorithmix you said nothing of this very problem they all share. With your "obviously not everyone is looking for the same things in an eq" you totally lost me. The very point in pl eq is transparency and surgical dial.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:16 pm

omo wrote:After spending 2-3 ours on it against Algorithmix you said nothing of this very problem they all share. With your "obviously not everyone is looking for the same things in an eq" you totally lost me. The very point in pl eq is transparency and surgical dial.

Hi Omo,

I didn't say a thing about it because I basically don't care. I didn't say: "Hey, this is a scientific test!" So that's it where you lost me.

If these qualities are the ones that are most important to you then use no PL eq. But you do that already as I guess.

Best wishes, FRitz

Ever heard of Bob Katz? He likes PL eqs. Maybe he doesn't know what to look for in a PL eq?

omo · Post by **omo** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:28 pm

Oh, Bob Katz said something somewhere? What an argument. You see, anytime one shows something important to understand there's two kind of arguments against him - one is that it is subjective and don't use it if you don't like and another one is big name trick. Perfect tools to hype something. Yet ignoring the very point that's well made. Peringing is ther even at low boosts/cuts you accept it or not, whatever arguments you used here. You may tell now how musical it can be... subjectively...

PLParEQ and Algorithmix EQs