PLParEQ and Algorithmix EQs

[Kingston]

It isn't unfortunately. It's definitely not a run-of-the-mill standard filter mode.

There's about as many parameter sets for linearphase and phase warped filters as there are developers. That's why they all sound different. The internal parameters go way beyond (what an understatement even that is) the usual gain, Q and freq.

[Frippertronix]

It isn't unfortunately.

Really? I thought it was, but I run at 96 KHz to begin with. I haven't run it much at all in phase warped mode, though.

[Kingston]

I do my all my projects and mixing at 48khz, mastering at 96khz.

Going from 18.5%(linear) to 13.5%(phase warp) doesn't help a whole lot in mixing. It's still too much.

[Frippertronix]

I do my all my projects and mixing at 48khz, matering at 96khz.

Going from 18.5%(linear) to 13.5%(phase warp) doesn't help a whole lot in mixing. It's still too much.

What does posihfopit take?

[Kingston]

Between 2.7-3.5% depending on modes(but when oversampled).

It's quite the same with my old favourite, GlissEQ (dyn0, alt or high mode).

[Frippertronix]

Between 2.7-3.5% depending on modes(but when oversampled).

It's quite the same with my old favourite, GlissEQ (dyn0, alt or high mode).

Hmmm, so I guess it's lots of track bouncing or just use PLPara in the m/b. Frustrating, particularly when you are only working with limited bands. I'll probably mix with it and bounce a fair amount, but I try to make a lot out of not that many tracks.

[Kingston]

It's not that big of a deal really. I can always print PLpar (offline) if it's crucially needed and I'm getting dualcore soon so that'll help. At least the busses will see PLpar.

[Frippertronix]

On the issue of "transparency", you seem to have implied that transient problems created by pre-ring are a bigger problem than phase warping. Are you saying that, to your ears, a really good phase warped EQ is actually more transparent than a high quality phase linear EQ?

[Kingston]

that's a bit apples and oranges.

*good* phase warping

*high quality* phase linear

The comparison is only fair if done using the same framework. So for example with PLpar, yes, phasewarping is actually more transparent to my ears.

Maybe the correct terms should be *timedomain linear* (ie phase warped) vs. *phasedomain linear*(ie transient warped).

[omo]

You think in phase warped it's really better than other phase warped Eq's, like GEQ-7, for instance?

Yeah, quite a lot better in fact and it's not just the oversampling. Wish I could use this in mixing.

Yes, warp mode sounds quite good. I wouldn't put it this way "better than other phase warped" as they're not all the same and you'd have to shoot it against each and evry of them to be sure. I put it against URS Mix and it seems like Mix isn't much of a competition (always thought it sucked anyway so no surprise here). This will take some time to come to somewhat final conclusion because mastering, well, who really knows something about mastering here... and noone seem to be using it in mixing yet so there isn't much of experience for us to share. Freeze is the only hope for me to try it in real life.

[Frippertronix]

that's a big apples and oranges.

*good* phase warping

*high quality* phase linear

The comparison is only fair if done using the same framework. So for example with PLpar, yes, phasewarping is actually more transparent to my ears.

Maybe the correct terms should be *timedomain linear* (ie phase warped) vs. *phasedomain linear*(ie transient warped).

Yea, that's what I was getting at---the two modes in PLParEQ. I should have stated like that. That's interesting to me, though, since so much effort was made to make the PL mode work as cleanly as possible (thus, obviously, the name). Still, though, the non-PL mode is more transparent to your ears. David has explained the concept behind the relative cleannes of the PL mode, so I wonder how he achieved excellent transparency also in non-PL mode.

[Kingston]

Like I said, there are scenarios where PL mode sounds better (to my ears). Too many variables to say anything conclusive.





omo, I've tried possibly every single plugin EQ since about '97 in relatively good studio environments. I could say I have shot PLpar against "all of them". Wether you'd like my aesthetic choices I have no clue about. I'm a winetaster of EQs. (and lately a developer, too)

[Frippertronix]

One thing is clear, the overall quality, in both (all) modes is very high on this. In my opinion, Refined Audiometrics have distinguished themselves as a serious, high quality native developer. I'm excited to see what they come up with next.

My personal choice would be to see them look more towards mass marketing in the future (and thus lower price points), but that's another thread, I guess...

[Kingston]

Refined audiometrics mastering limiter....








(but elephant is bleeding awesome, too)

[omo]

Kingston, there's nothing about likes or dislikes and your aesthetic choices. It is simply stupid to take anyone for granted. On the internet boards everyone is an expert and every piece of software and gear is great in almost any magazine review. Reality is tho - there aren't many good products for pro audio and engineers often have to build their own processors or even right software. I may post some audio examples later today/tomorrow and see how it turnes out publicly.