Old 05-11-2016, 11:10 AM   #81
Magicbuss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post

I do think usability matters, I couldn't care less if someone says you can make EQ A sound just like EQ B if the latter does it in a single click or easier way. /ramble
This is main reason why that blog post about all digital EQ's being identical is especially wrong (regardless of the fact that it is largely untrue).

Neve curves are different than API's which are different from Pultecs (and I'm intentionally leaving out the saturation characteristics of the hardware or their various emulations). Yes you can probably simulate these curves with reaeq but why the hell would you when you can just grab the EQ with the sound you like and that you know works on particular sources right out of the box.
Magicbuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 11:25 AM   #82
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
Neve curves are different than API's which are different from Pultecs (and I'm intentionally leaving out the saturation characteristics of the hardware or their various emulations). Yes you can probably simulate these curves with reaeq but why the hell would you when you can just grab the EQ with the sound you like and that you know works on particular sources right out of the box.
Sure, that's one way of doing things.

I wanted to know what EQ worked for me and why, so I tried matching curves of more specific-EQ-curve type plugins with a more universal EQ plugin. After doing that, it was hard to consider going back to specific-EQ-curve type plugins since I knew I could do the same thing with a more universal EQ plugin (and change the curves as I inevitably would do). Since plugin presets are there, I can always fall back to that if I want "quick and easy X-type curve" without calling up another plugin. It just took a bit more learning, which I knew I had to do anyway.

Although, whether someone does that (what I said above) versus choosing a specific-EQ-curve type plugin, there's not much difference in the end. Either way it's choosing a preset curve of some kind and working with it. Whatever workflow a person prefers. Some prefer a 3-knob EQ with preset bands. I'm not going to argue.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 11:31 AM   #83
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 4,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Sure, that's one way of doing things.

I wanted to know what EQ worked for me and why, so I tried matching curves of more specific-EQ-curve type plugins with a more universal EQ plugin. After doing that, it was hard to consider going back to specific-EQ-curve type plugins since I knew I could do the same thing with a more universal EQ plugin (and change the curves as I inevitably would do). Since plugin presets are there, I can always fall back to that if I want "quick and easy X-type curve" without calling up another plugin. It just took a bit more learning, which I knew I had to do anyway.

Although, whether someone does that (what I said above) versus choosing a specific-EQ-curve type plugin, there's not much difference in the end. Either way it's choosing a preset curve of some kind and working with it. Whatever workflow a person prefers. Some prefer a 3-knob EQ with preset bands. I'm not going to argue.
How do you tackle proportional Q, or the kind of asymmetric curves you get from passive Pultec style EQ's?
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 11:43 AM   #84
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
How do you tackle proportional Q, or the kind of asymmetric curves you get from passive Pultec style EQ's?
This is generally what I was thinking of when that post was made, because I've managed to get curves like that in more universal EQ plugins despite the initial challenge.

On one hand you can approach it from a different perspective such as "upward compression", focusing on what you want to do instead of how you'd normally do it with "X type" curves/response. The overall gain of the signal should be considered instead of just focusing on how "lows are boosted" or "mids are cut" (because you can work the other way and compensate for gain, as well as blend wet/dry signal). It may not be identical in the end, but I'm not looking for a very specific curve so much as a result for what I'm hearing. (If I start with a very specific curve like that it tends to throw off the mix more than I like.)

On the other hand you can use 2 instances of EQ in parallel:

http://forum.recordingreview.com/f8/...c-reaeq-66521/

Not that I'd want to bother doing that. If I were really into the Pultec type thing, I'd use a more specific Pultec type plugin. Although I think my particular "more universal EQ" has some Pultec type curves built in (I never really use them so I forget how close they are). (Edit) I just checked. It's TB EQ, and it has "Pultec style" high and low shelf type curves.

As for proportional Q: I just change the Q as I boost or cut. Sometimes I'm modulating that anyway, so it's something I consider more closely instead of using as though the Q will do "whatever it does as I boost or cut".
__________________
http://petersamplification.com

Last edited by JamesPeters; 05-11-2016 at 11:53 AM.
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2016, 12:20 AM   #85
Multibomber
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 295
Default

Pro-Q has solo mode. If you're using amp model plugins like Bias Amp, Amplitude, even EzMix2, youll never ever get out al the nasty harmonic resonances without a solo mode to find them. I've been getting beter and beter results by using ReaEQ or Waves SSL for my main cuts and boosts, and Pro-Q2 to make surgical cuts and notches for harmonic resonances only.
Multibomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:22 AM   #86
Mr. PC
Human being with feelings
 
Mr. PC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cloud 37
Posts: 769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stews View Post
Digital EQs don't sound different. It's the GUI you're paying for (which, IMO, Fabfilter is the absolute king of).

Obviously linear phase is different and ReaEQ doesn't have this. FWIW, it's not standard practice to use linear phase EQs even in big studios.

The only time an EQ sounds different is if it's emulating the distortion of a hardware unit.

I remember some article where a guy nulled various EQs with a standard one. Might even have been ReaEQ.
When I use Neutron EQ, I feel it sounds better than ReaEQ (same settings).

Can we be certain this is a placebo?
__________________
AlbertMcKay.com
SoundCloud BandCamp
ReaNote Hotkeys to make Reaper notation easy/fast
Mr. PC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:29 AM   #87
bezusheist
Human being with feelings
 
bezusheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dummytown
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. PC View Post
When I use Neutron EQ, I feel it sounds better than ReaEQ (same settings).

Can we be certain this is a placebo?
When comparing EQ, you really need to match the curves with an analyzer to be sure they are the same. Having the "same settings" does not guarantee they are the same curve.
__________________
the quim reaper
bezusheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:42 AM   #88
Mr. PC
Human being with feelings
 
Mr. PC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cloud 37
Posts: 769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bezusheist View Post
When comparing EQ, you really need to match the curves with an analyzer to be sure they are the same. Having the "same settings" does not guarantee they are the same curve.
So basically the difference I'm hearing is the fact that I can't really replicate settings 100%. And so thinking about an EQ in terms of 'how little does it harm the signal' is useless; they're all the same in that regard.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
That's not true.

Different filters sound different, and affect phase differently (something that would only be audible when dealing with multiple sources), also de-cramping around Nyquist is handled in a variety of ways.
But if you're oversampling / mixing at a higher sample rate, there will be no Nyquist cramping.
__________________
AlbertMcKay.com
SoundCloud BandCamp
ReaNote Hotkeys to make Reaper notation easy/fast
Mr. PC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:55 AM   #89
bezusheist
Human being with feelings
 
bezusheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dummytown
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. PC View Post
So basically the difference I'm hearing is the fact that I can't really replicate settings 100%. And so thinking about an EQ in terms of 'how little does it harm the signal' is useless; they're all the same in that regard.
It is a possibility...but the only way to really know is to match them 1:1.
__________________
the quim reaper
bezusheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 03:58 AM   #90
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 3,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. PC View Post
So basically the difference I'm hearing is the fact that I can't really replicate settings 100%. And so thinking about an EQ in terms of 'how little does it harm the signal' is useless; they're all the same in that regard.

But if you're oversampling / mixing at a higher sample rate, there will be no Nyquist cramping.
Yes, basically, all minimum phase eq's are the same - all linear phase eq's are the same. Match the curves and they're the same. It then comes down to which interface you like using - which one gets you results you were after quickest/easiest.

Cramping, for me, is only a factor if I'm doing a bell boost around that frequency - and I almost never am - more likely a shelf boost. So, for me, I couldn't give a hoot about cramping.
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 04:06 AM   #91
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 3,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. PC View Post
When I use Neutron EQ, I feel it sounds better than ReaEQ (same settings).

Can we be certain this is a placebo?
Almost certainly. It happened to me many times when I was doing eq comparisons with tens and tens of eq plugins. You think it sounds different - then you match the curve, reverse the polarity on one - and it nulls to a degree that cannot be heard.

The only eq I know of that actually has a 'different' sound with a certain setting is AOM's Tranquilizr. One of the modes was impossible to match with anything else.
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 06:17 AM   #92
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 4,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
As for proportional Q: I just change the Q as I boost or cut. Sometimes I'm modulating that anyway, so it's something I consider more closely instead of using as though the Q will do "whatever it does as I boost or cut".
I thought the curves were different?

Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2017, 04:30 AM   #93
bezusheist
Human being with feelings
 
bezusheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dummytown
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. PC View Post
When I use Neutron EQ, I feel it sounds better than ReaEQ (same settings).

Can we be certain this is a placebo?
i just downloaded the demo for Neutron and analyzed it vs ReaEQ.
the main difference is warped vs. analog phase response of the high end.
a kind of disturbing difference i found was with the HPF...you can match the (audible spectrum's) frequency and phase response (almost exact) of Neutron with ReaEQ, but the step response is different. the Neutron filters do not completely remove DC (which, by definition, any/all HPF should do). so, ReaEQ has a better HPF from a technical standpoint.
i found this to be the case (poor DC removal) with some of the DMG filters a while back when i tested them, but iirc Dave has fixed most of them.

edit: check this out...i did this quick so excuse the low resolution, but it shows the difference of the phase response of these two filters (Neutron (red) vs. ReaEQ (blue))...
12 dB HPF @ 100 Hz
Neutron Q = 1
ReaEQ Q = 1.89...
(Butterworth filter)


ReaEQ has the "typical" response for this type of filter...Neutron is doing something a little different. you will not get the same type of infrasonic attenuation from these two filters. ReaEQ will perform better.
__________________
the quim reaper

Last edited by bezusheist; 07-15-2017 at 10:49 PM.
bezusheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2017, 05:07 AM   #94
bezusheist
Human being with feelings
 
bezusheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dummytown
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
I thought the curves were different?

Yes, because the implementation of Q is different. But you could easily change the Q of one of those filters to match the other.
__________________
the quim reaper
bezusheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2017, 11:11 AM   #95
OPI
Human being with feelings
 
OPI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,741
Default

Hey, how can most accurately match eq curves? Is there a curve plugin I could place after and eq?
OPI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2017, 11:43 AM   #96
bezusheist
Human being with feelings
 
bezusheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dummytown
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OPI View Post
Hey, how can most accurately match eq curves? Is there a curve plugin I could place after and eq?
I use a 1 sample pulse (impulse)...it gives you a perfectly flat line across the spectrum.
To analyze the curves, I use Span (larger block size = more resolution), but you can use any analyzer you like.
I made a folder of pulses for each sample rate up to 192 kHz here > https://forum.cockos.com/attachment....3&d=1497807627
__________________
the quim reaper

Last edited by bezusheist; 07-15-2017 at 12:59 PM.
bezusheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 11:27 PM   #97
Mr. PC
Human being with feelings
 
Mr. PC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cloud 37
Posts: 769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bezusheist View Post
i just downloaded the demo for Neutron and analyzed it vs ReaEQ.
the main difference is warped vs. analog phase response of the high end.
a kind of disturbing difference i found was with the HPF...you can match the (audible spectrum's) frequency and phase response (almost exact) of Neutron with ReaEQ, but the step response is different. the Neutron filters do not completely remove DC (which, by definition, any/all HPF should do). so, ReaEQ has a better HPF from a technical standpoint.
i found this to be the case (poor DC removal) with some of the DMG filters a while back when i tested them, but iirc Dave has fixed most of them.

edit: check this out...i did this quick so excuse the low resolution, but it shows the difference of the phase response of these two filters (Neutron (red) vs. ReaEQ (blue))...
12 dB HPF @ 100 Hz
Neutron Q = 1
ReaEQ Q = 1.89...
(Butterworth filter)


ReaEQ has the "typical" response for this type of filter...Neutron is doing something a little different. you will not get the same type of infrasonic attenuation from these two filters. ReaEQ will perform better.
Oh? So maybe I need to ditch Neutron and move back to ReaEQ. Is phase response equal to attenuation? Could there be some reason / benefit Neutron does this?
__________________
AlbertMcKay.com
SoundCloud BandCamp
ReaNote Hotkeys to make Reaper notation easy/fast
Mr. PC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2017, 03:22 AM   #98
bezusheist
Human being with feelings
 
bezusheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dummytown
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. PC View Post
Oh? So maybe I need to ditch Neutron and move back to ReaEQ. Is phase response equal to attenuation? Could there be some reason / benefit Neutron does this?
If you like Neutron then I would just send an email to the developer and ask about this behavior. The 6 dB and 12 dB HPF perform poorly for removing DC and sub sonic material.
The 24 dB and 48 dB filters seem fine.
I have no idea why they all don't perform equally well on DC, since any (IIR) HPF should completely remove it, regardless of slope.
Maybe they are FIR filters, I don't know, didn't study it much. But (iirc) FIR have a tendency to not perform as well in this aspect if the impulse length is too short.
But to test it, just set the tone generator to 0 Hz and apply the HPF...you will notice there is still a reading on the meter, and you can see it with a decent analyzer.
__________________
the quim reaper
bezusheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2017, 07:25 AM   #99
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,921
Default

Usability, UI, imo.

I doubt if most people could even tell the difference between most of them in the blind.
__________________
"I, Bozo The Clown, do solemly swear to uphold the Consti.. consti... uh, how do you pronounce that again?".
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2017, 07:33 AM   #100
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 19,699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Usability, UI, imo.

I doubt if most people could even tell the difference between most of them in the blind.
You sane bastard you.
__________________
Choosing to play the simpler part instead of the fancier one, takes a lot of courage
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.