MDW EQ type

[pepe44]

Any free/paid MDW EQ type that you guys know of ?

[domzy]

ReaEQ

[pepe44]

Originally Posted by domzy

ReaEQ

reaEQ is a great tool but seems it misses a few "functions" to be a great mastering eq, take a look at the manual of the MDW EQ

Some functions like

◆ Double-precision 48-bit processing
◆ High-resolution processing, from 44.1kHz to 192kHz
◆ IsoPeak® function eases frequency selection
◆ Wide frequency selection from 10 Hz to 41 kHz

[domzy]

i haven't heard the mdw plugin so i'm not really able to give a sensible answer, given that i'd be inclined to trust my ears rather than numbers on spec sheets.
i don't really want to get into a physics debate, but i'd be surprised if there is a big difference between this and any other good eq (running at a high sample rate or oversampled).
What is it that you feel you are missing, EQ-wise? I've never really felt i needed anything more than the EQ / filter plugins in reaper - usually in conjunction with some js saturation / treble boost

[daverich]

Originally Posted by pepe44

reaEQ is a great tool but seems it misses a few "functions" to be a great mastering eq, take a look at the manual of the MDW EQ

Some functions like

◆ Double-precision 48-bit processing
◆ High-resolution processing, from 44.1kHz to 192kHz
◆ IsoPeak® function eases frequency selection
◆ Wide frequency selection from 10 Hz to 41 kHz

Getting seriously into snake oil territory there

not sure what IsoPeak is but never had a problem selecting a frequency in ReaEq, and there is nothing above 20khz anyone can hear. Honestly. Truthfully, Provably. Do a google on Ethan Winer and his testing of industry professionals.

[pepe44]

i come from a rock pop production type of recording and mixing for about 20 years. I have a big quest ahead, mixing a 80 piece orchestra , with deca tree, surround, stereos and point to point sources. I am researching for a nice , transparent, curve wise, filter wise , sample rate dependant eq.
Been reading a couple of tape op, SOS and many other resources along with some talking with a couple of engineers that do music score for film and other production, many told me about the Massengurg eq and how great it is.

I imagine that there is a great difference in algorithm done and approved by the inventor of parametric eq compared to the stock plugin in Reaper...correct me if i am totally wrong!

[pepe44]

Originally Posted by daverich

Getting seriously into snake oil territory there

not sure what IsoPeak is but never had a problem selecting a frequency in ReaEq, and there is nothing above 20khz anyone can hear. Honestly. Truthfully, Provably. Do a google on Ethan Winer and his testing of industry professionals.

nothing above 20kHz you can hear, CORRECT, BUT...why do DSD sounds so great on classical music or jazz ? sampling at 384kHz ?

this would lead us to a endless conversation, where everyone is trying to be smarter , no need for that. Main post is ...Any free/paid MDW EQ type that you guys know of ?

[daverich]

Originally Posted by pepe44

nothing above 20kHz you can hear, CORRECT, BUT...why do DSD sounds so great on classical music or jazz ? sampling at 384kHz ?

this would lead us to a endless conversation, where everyone is trying to be smarter , no need for that. Main post is ...Any free/paid MDW EQ type that you guys know of ?

They dont. It's been proven with double blind testing

[daverich]

Originally Posted by pepe44

i come from a rock pop production type of recording and mixing for about 20 years. I have a big quest ahead, mixing a 80 piece orchestra , with deca tree, surround, stereos and point to point sources. I am researching for a nice , transparent, curve wise, filter wise , sample rate dependant eq.
Been reading a couple of tape op, SOS and many other resources along with some talking with a couple of engineers that do music score for film and other production, many told me about the Massengurg eq and how great it is.

I imagine that there is a great difference in algorithm done and approved by the inventor of parametric eq compared to the stock plugin in Reaper...correct me if i am totally wrong!

What there could be is saturation which alot of eqs emulate these days. If this plugin is doing that then yes it would be different. It's easy to test though, see if they null when you cut the others boost etc.

[daverich]

Originally Posted by pepe44

nothing above 20kHz you can hear, CORRECT, BUT...why do DSD sounds so great on classical music or jazz ? sampling at 384kHz ?

this would lead us to a endless conversation, where everyone is trying to be smarter , no need for that. Main post is ...Any free/paid MDW EQ type that you guys know of ?

http://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/tr5cs/

If you're looking for a free EQ T-racks5 comes with their classic EQ for free. If you don't mind spending a little money their pultec is awesome. (and lots of lovely saturation)

[daverich]

http://www.voxengo.com/product/glisseq/

is also awesome and features 8x oversampling for the bats.

You can also narrowband sweep/solo the frequencies which is I think what that Iso thingy does.

It's a dynamic EQ too, but you can set that to 0% to have just a normal EQ behavior.

Voxengo also feature a few nice free eqs including a linear phase graphic eq for mastering.

[serr]

Originally Posted by pepe44

why do DSD sounds so great on classical music or jazz ? sampling at 384kHz ?

Sorry, this is off topic...

Can you point me to one single example of a case where the very same master has been mastered to both DSD and PCM where the PCM version suffers in some way and the DSD version does not? And with a couple very important caveats! We're comparing to 24 bit 96k or 24 bit 192k PCM. The source master can be analog, HD PCM digital, or DSD digital. (Yeah, now we're introducing HD digital format conversions for the last 2 there. Still posing the same question even with that "handicap". But if you prefer, only give me an example where the source is an analog master.)

What I'm getting at is I believe HD PCM and DSD to be equally good full fidelity formats. Further, all I've ever seen are apples/oranges comparisons between DSD and lo-def PCM at 16 bit (CD). I think that although the DSD digital "language" is every bit as good as HD PCM, the only reason Sony tried to reinvent this wheel was to facilitate disabling their disc players from reading competing formats and vice verse. Now consumers get to choose between two equally good (and equally very expensive) versions of DA converters or bust their wallet buying both.

Sorry for the off topic rant! But I am listening if someone has an actual example out there. The part where everyone abandons their expensive PCM converters and goes out and buys DSD units... yeah right! (They're all posting on forums on how they can't even tell the difference between mp3 and 16 bit CD and how everyone is silly for wasting hard drive space.)
And how's the DSD supporting version of Reaper coming alone?

[daverich]

Originally Posted by serr

Sorry, this is off topic...

Can you point me to one single example of a case where the very same master has been mastered to both DSD and PCM where the PCM version suffers in some way and the DSD version does not? And with a couple very important caveats! We're comparing to 24 bit 96k or 24 bit 192k PCM. The source master can be analog, HD PCM digital, or DSD digital. (Yeah, now we're introducing HD digital format conversions for the last 2 there. Still posing the same question even with that "handicap". But if you prefer, only give me an example where the source is an analog master.)

What I'm getting at is I believe HD PCM and DSD to be equally good full fidelity formats. Further, all I've ever seen are apples/oranges comparisons between DSD and lo-def PCM at 16 bit (CD). I think that although the DSD digital "language" is every bit as good as HD PCM, the only reason Sony tried to reinvent this wheel was to facilitate disabling their disc players from reading competing formats and vice verse. Now consumers get to choose between two equally good (and equally very expensive) versions of DA converters or bust their wallet buying both.

Sorry for the off topic rant! But I am listening if someone has an actual example out there. The part where everyone abandons their expensive PCM converters and goes out and buys DSD units... yeah right! (They're all posting on forums on how they can't even tell the difference between mp3 and 16 bit CD and how everyone is silly for wasting hard drive space.)
And how's the DSD supporting version of Reaper coming alone?

have a look at http://ethanwiner.com/hd-audio.htm

from his facebook page -

Back on January 2, 2018 I posted this article with files for the "High Definition Audio Comparison" linked below.

Following are the results based on 80 people responding. Many people said they couldn't tell a difference and didn't specify any choices. Even when people did specify a choice, many admitted they were mostly guessing. There are 2 Classical examples and 2 Pop music examples, for a total of 4 possible choices times 80 people = 320 choices.

Classical correct (out of 2x80=160): 47
Pop music correct (out of 2x80=160): 47
Acknowledged they can't tell: 18
Got all four correct: 4
Got all four wrong: 7

I'm not a statistics guy, but with 80 respondents I think that's enough to expect random success to be closer to 80 rather than the 47 I counted for both groups. So that implies there may be a perceivable difference between the files, and some people really did hear a difference but thought the processed files sounded "better" for whatever reason. Or it could mean my test is flawed. Then again, only 7 people were wrong on all four files, and only 4 were correct for all four. If there is a difference that only some (younger?) people can hear, I'd expect more to get them all wrong, or all right. I welcome input from anyone more skilled in statistics.

[serr]

Originally Posted by daverich

have a look at http://ethanwiner.com/hd-audio.htm

from his facebook page -

Back on January 2, 2018 I posted this article with files for the "High Definition Audio Comparison" linked below.

Following are the results based on 80 people responding. Many people said they couldn't tell a difference and didn't specify any choices. Even when people did specify a choice, many admitted they were mostly guessing. There are 2 Classical examples and 2 Pop music examples, for a total of 4 possible choices times 80 people = 320 choices.

Classical correct (out of 2x80=160): 47
Pop music correct (out of 2x80=160): 47
Acknowledged they can't tell: 18
Got all four correct: 4
Got all four wrong: 7

I'm not a statistics guy, but with 80 respondents I think that's enough to expect random success to be closer to 80 rather than the 47 I counted for both groups. So that implies there may be a perceivable difference between the files, and some people really did hear a difference but thought the processed files sounded "better" for whatever reason. Or it could mean my test is flawed. Then again, only 7 people were wrong on all four files, and only 4 were correct for all four. If there is a difference that only some (younger?) people can hear, I'd expect more to get them all wrong, or all right. I welcome input from anyone more skilled in statistics.

That article talked about comparing low res PCM to high res PCM. Both PCM. I'm interested if anyone compared DSD to PCM (HD pcm only please).

Oh, and then if we DO find an example that sounds different between formats, we need to be able to qualify if it was really truly the same mix and master of if we are in fact comparing two different mastering jobs and THAT is the actual root of the sound difference.


To recap:
The examples must have started from the same exact master!
One mastered to DSD. One mastered to HD PCM.
One DSD DA unit. One PCM DA unit. (How about Prism for both?)
Analog outputs calibrated to within 0.1db.
A/B listen and somebody actually hears a difference!

No apples/oranges stuff comparing to CD or mp3!
Must truly be the same master for both.


Remember when Sony got busted early on releasing some SACD (the disc format for DSD program that also includes a "CD layer" with lowly 16bit PCM audio) titles with the CD layer degraded to make the DSD program sound better next to it? That wasn't even comparing against HD PCM and they still had to cheat!

I'll adjust my opinion if I can hear just one example! I don't think it exists and I don't think DSD has any business existing.

I'll stop with the digression here.

[pepe44]

Thanks for the Links Dave.

[airon]

MDW EQ sounds good and has a decent workflow.

Isopeak is solo'ing the band as far as I remember. It's good at what it does. Decide for yourself if you need or want it. We're seriously spoiled for choices these days.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by pepe44

reaEQ is a great tool but seems it misses a few "functions" to be a great mastering eq, take a look at the manual of the MDW EQ

Some functions like

◆ Double-precision 48-bit processing
◆ High-resolution processing, from 44.1kHz to 192kHz
◆ IsoPeak® function eases frequency selection
◆ Wide frequency selection from 10 Hz to 41 kHz

ReaEQ:

◆ Double-precision 64-bit processing
◆ High-resolution processing, to as high as your ADC can go!

If you want to isolate bands, then the Waves F6 might still be on sale, which has that functionality.

The nicest "air band" I've got is Boz Digital's Hoser (I got the bundle for a huge discount when he did a sale a few months ago) - goes up to 25kHz: https://www.bozdigitallabs.com/product/the-hoser-xt/

A bit about DSD myths: https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-...myth-vs-truth/

EDIT: here's my preferred "uncoloured" EQ: https://ddmf.eu/iieqpro-equalizer-plugin/
It does everything the MDW does, except solo'ing bands, but does a lot more that MDW doesn't.

[serr]

Originally Posted by Reynaud

All LPCM A/D converters for close on the last two decades actually use a Sigma-Delta Modulator in their first stage, so they function exactly the same as DSD converters.

From Cirrus Logic: https://www.cirrus.com/products/cs5361/
(The AD chip in my Rosetta800 apparently.)

"The CS5361 uses a fifth-order, multibit Delta Sigma modulator followed by digital filtering and decimation..."

Am I confusing two different things here? Falling for some marketing language? Or is my AD chip in this unit in fact multibit?

[karbomusic]

I'm not a statistics guy, but with 80 respondents I think that's enough to expect random success to be closer to 80 rather than the 47 I counted for both groups. So that implies there may be a perceivable difference between the files, and some people really did hear a difference but thought the processed files sounded "better" for whatever reason

Not sure if I understood the result but when listening/choosing in listening tests, a single miss counts heavily against being significant. For example, if a single person gets it right 90% of the time (multiple tries), it's not a good sign because it requires 95% correct guesses at minimum to be considered statistically significant. That makes sense if you think about it because if someone really can hear something reliably, they should be able to nail it close to if not 100% of the time.

I'm with you on the snake oil.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by serr

From Cirrus Logic: https://www.cirrus.com/products/cs5361/
(The AD chip in my Rosetta800 apparently.)

"The CS5361 uses a fifth-order, multibit Delta Sigma modulator followed by digital filtering and decimation..."

Am I confusing two different things here? Falling for some marketing language? Or is my AD chip in this unit in fact multibit?

If you could find a way to tap the signal before the low pass and decimation you would.

How delta-sigma ADCs work: http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slyt438/slyt438.pdf

[cassembler]

Originally Posted by pepe44

reaEQ is a great tool but seems it misses a few "functions" to be a great mastering eq, take a look at the manual of the MDW EQ

Some functions like

◆ Double-precision 48-bit processing
◆ High-resolution processing, from 44.1kHz to 192kHz
◆ IsoPeak® function eases frequency selection
◆ Wide frequency selection from 10 Hz to 41 kHz

Fruitful discussions of the merits of "hi-fi in 2018" aside*, one option for the OP question is TDR Nova. Supports 192kHz with 64 bit internal processing. Selectable frequency from 10 - 40kHz**. It also has useful dynamics processing, if that's helpful to your functional needs***.

* Although I hope THIS will finally be THE thread that settles it once and for all

** FWIW, I'm not suggesting this feature set makes TDR Nova a great mastering EQ, but it checks the OP's boxes, and I find it to be generally transparent at reasonable settings.

*** The TDR Slick EQ has same specs, minus dynamics functionality, but I haven't tried it.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by cassembler

Fruitful discussions of the merits of "hi-fi in 2018" aside*, one option for the OP question is TDR Nova. Supports 192kHz with 64 bit internal processing. Selectable frequency from 10 - 40kHz**. It also has useful dynamics processing, if that's helpful to your functional needs***.

I like Nova, but I just got the updated F6 from Waves and I prefer it because it's a lot more snappy and less CPU intensive.

[Magicbuss]

Originally Posted by cassembler

Fruitful discussions of the merits of "hi-fi in 2018" aside*, one option for the OP question is TDR Nova. Supports 192kHz with 64 bit internal processing. Selectable frequency from 10 - 40kHz**. It also has useful dynamics processing, if that's helpful to your functional needs***.

* Although I hope THIS will finally be THE thread that settles it once and for all

** FWIW, I'm not suggesting this feature set makes TDR Nova a great mastering EQ, but it checks the OP's boxes, and I find it to be generally transparent at reasonable settings.

*** The TDR Slick EQ has same specs, minus dynamics functionality, but I haven't tried it.

TDR has a mastering version of Slick EQ
http://www.tokyodawn.net/tdr-slickeq-m/

[beingmf]

Is it about the sound or the workflow?

[karbomusic]

The sound if the workflow gets us there before we die.

[beingmf]

Well, then SurgeEQ (for Nebula) it is! When your computer is powerful enough and you care to load 4 or 5 CPU demanding bands in LBX strip. In all honesty, this EQ is insanely clean - it just doesn't sound EQ'd, very natural.
(There's also a complete EQ strip by Acustica, called Green, but I think in its current version it doesn't sound as good as SurgeEQ)