Hi guys

I am really mystified. Why are some EQ's better than others? Or what goes in to it?

I am hoping a programmer can help me out with this.

I am demoing 3 Eq's right now. Just a quick demo.

I am matching the EQ settings by inputting value and finding that I need to make some adjustments to match.

The 3 Eq's are

1Sonalksis 517mk2
2bx_digital v2
3 Sonoris Parallel EQ

I am so far comparing them both to Sonoris

Here are my findings

1) Sonalksis I need to boost at least 1db more to get the same sort of sound
2) bx sounds much better than Sonalksis but the Q's don't seem to match and nevertheless it still doesn't sound as good because
3) Sonoris does something really powerful. It seems to preserve or enhance transients. I get a smack from the kick with this on even when only boosting high frequencies. The bass sticks to the front of the mix and gets really glued.

But wait, then I exported the whole file as a wave, bypassing the EQ's. So now I do the exact same thing again, same settings. Now I automated the bypasses so you cannot even hear a switch and I find there isn't that much difference between sonoris and sonalksis, but there is with BX digital.

I am in a maze.



Download, loop and analyse in your DAW.

Also, I think it's easier to notice high frequencies introduced but not as easy to notice when they are lost, when we are talking about small amounts.

I think I am hearing HF fall a little when Sonalksis comes in.

Whats going here any ideas?

Sami

It's very much likely that even though the settings are the same the three EQ's implement slightly different curves hence the differences that you're hearing.

Because you have to design and implement a filter.

Yes, but I think this is whats causing my problem, I've gotten the impression from people who talk about the technical aspects that the formulas are basically off the shelf and that digital Eq's are for the most part the same apart from curve shapes and saturation (if any) characteristics.

You also have very cheap ranging to 1000 Euro digital Eq's.

Anyhow, does anyone know of a really good really indepth tutorial on EQ's, their problems, their styles, their different quirks, how to use them in various different situations and to solve all kinds of problems?

I spotted Fabfilters EQ tutorials and had a great time watching them. I learning somethings and now I want to learn more.

I know of this one: http://www.dancemusicproduction.com/...sessions-06-eq

Got groove3's mixing dance music and I don't think I want anything else from Groove3 after that. At the moment I mainly work on electronic synths and drums.

Thanks

Alrorithmix clears a lot of things up for me here:

Algorithmix Classic PEQ Blue -- 12-in-1. The most complete collection of classic equalizers ever in one DirectX/VST PlugIn: ten serial plus two parallel. Precise emulation of legendary analog equalizers, extended by progressive, new models: standard/

I can understand what makes them different now.

This

what you mean "apart from curve shapes"? The curve shapes are what everybody gets so excited about when they talk emulations.

I saw an article from an audio myth busters type of guy who took various digital EQs and hacked them so he could control them from the same interface. He took many famous digital EQs including the (ugh) Waves ones and showed that if using the exact same settings, every digital EQ (that he tested) is scientifically exactly identical. He used phase and spectrum graphs to show it. So that's why I have come up with these answers:

1.) On the sonalksis, you are likely using a slightly narrower Q. -- less energy, needs more.

2.) BX may use parallel bands and higher quality filters.

3.) Sonoris may be linear phase. it also likely has a different weighting of the spectrum graph, causing you to unknowingly use wider Qs, which will result in this phenomenon.

the curve is only a third of it - there is phase and saturation as well. also, the curve/gain response, but that is only on certain EQs.

I originally went to college for an education degree, until I fell (more) deeply in love with recording. I would be happy to teach you for the hell of it - teaching and recording are my passions!

I'm new to this forum, but direct message me (if possible), and I'll send you my email.

I don't think these "thirds" have equal value!

I certainly do not consider saturation to be 33% of why I would use a certain EQ

If I am using plug-in EQs, I would prefer to get my saturation elsewhere, anyway - simply as a matter of workflow.

But I thought even the curves were fairly standard. The Algorithmix (hereafter algo) website said that with a good digital Eq you can mimic any design.

They talk about a couple of the curves and their q interactions that they modeled for PEQ (which I definitely want )

But if these things are well known I am just wondering what exactly do some do better than others, if anything.

There are standard curves for the most common eq types that you can find in any filter design book but that doesn't mean you have to use them. With the right approach you can shape both frequency and phase response to your likings, which is what actually makes the difference in a filter.

It's a common misconception to believe that even in the analog world saturation plays a big role in the sound of a filter, on the contrary if you try to measure THD of a well maintained hardware eq you should get something below 1%. In a nutshell THD tells how much non-linear behaviour you're getting and values below 1% are very much not likely to be heard (a bit like frequencies above 20Khz).

Getting back to filter design whatever is linear can be modeled 100% with a linear filter. At the moment I'm writing a convolution VST plugin and among all the tests that I've run I tried to impulse model my trident 8T console eq. After going through two converter stages and the filter itself the convolution filter nulled at -48 dB on peaks and -54 dB on "non peaking" material. We're talking about a 0.15%-0.3% difference, which IMO is pretty accurate.

Addressing your question again designing a filter is like drawing shapes. You can draw them perfectly to resemble what you see in geometry books or you can try to mimic what they'd look like if they were drawn on a chalk board by a human being. At that point parameters you read on the interface are just a way to give you control over the filter. I believe nobody would care if a Q factor reading was off by 10% as long as it sounds good...I mean...would you?

Bx Digital from Brainworx, it's fantastic

No, and I was reading up on this too and I understand now about constant and variable Q's. My Sonalksis EQ has 3 models actually, 2 classic with variable Q and their own constant Q design. And they all have symmetric and asymmetric modes.

So I think that's a pretty versatile EQ. The only thing I miss is M/S mode.

I've been thinking, can I send my audio to two channels, and using my AA compressors which have M/S controls or the free brainworx solo, take the side out of one channel, EQ it and then take the Mid out of the other and EQ that separately.

I've not tried it yet.

I would buy Fabfilters EQ if it was cheaper. I just think kits to expensive for workhorse EQ. Its mostly the design I like and as far as I know its pretty CPU friendly. I have EQs that sound better but are more awkward to use. I know that Fab Filter has that fancy phase thing and I bet without that it would be cheaper if it didnt. I would only ever use that on a whole track or if I needed to surgically get in there on a particular sound

I have never been a fan of any Sonalksis plugins. Its not the sound I think, its the design. Their very tiring to use and your not sure if your boosting or cutting enough to much or to less with the tiny screen. I know, we dont need a screen, but if your going to have one at least get it right which is why I do fancy the Fab Filter one.

ISnt there a free one out there like that?

Waves
A mate of mine has been buying their stuff for years and its all he uses. He can really get some cool action from their EQ's. But he's right. He says their average but he knows them so well now its all he uses. And that's another thing. Using the same EQ on just about everything is the way to go


I quite like the free sonnimus EQ but it is limited. I wish they would add a little more to it. I would easily pay for it. Adda big huge massive display and better/faster ways of quickly changing the EQ. Again something Fab Filter has got right there.

IS there anything else out there like Fab Filter? I have the DDMF ones and while they sound good the interface is a bit jittery and actually they dont sound as good as the fab filter eqs

Fab Filters FIlter is a an overpriced piece of nonsense. They tried to be to smart with that one. I would steer well clear of it. But I only used it a short time but couldn't get anything satisfying out of it at all.

To complicated as a workhorse eq imho.

Yes, very complicated...I use also H-EQ from Waves, for the M/S...