The plugin scam exposed. Did you fall for it?

[Larry Shelby]

1 minute ago, Brian Walton said:

So of that gets chalked up to subtle differences.  With a null test you won't hear a lot of differences as eq saturation usually is going to be very small in most plugins on a single track.

This is the answer.  Null tests aren't "Hearing" tests".  Null out the main signal and you kill the harmonics present in the audio because you won't hear them!

There was a HUGE thread in the old Cakewalk forum that asserted that ALL DAW'S are the same "sonically" and it used the "Null" test to prove it.

Null tests prove NOTHING other than that the MAIN content has been nulled out.  Everything left behind after that you're not going to hear.

[Bapu]

Lest we forget, all hammers can drive a nail into wood too, yet carpenters have many hammers.


Me coat is over there, I'll be getting it now.

[Bapu]

3 minutes ago, cclarry said:

This is the answer.  Null tests aren't "Hearing" tests".  Null out the main signal and you kill the harmonics present in the audio because you won't hear them!

There was a HUGE thread in the old Cakewalk forum that asserted that ALL DAW'S are the same "sonically" and it used the "Null" test to prove it.

Null tests prove NOTHING other than that the MAIN content has been nulled out.  Everything left behind after that you're not going to hear.

Lars says I can keep buying EQs, Compressors, Reverbs and Toontrack products. Thanks.

[PavlovsCat]

YouTube Influencer Scam Exposed!!!

They're trying to make money off of the advertising you watch when they make videos, get free products and swag, and payment from companies they shill for. Exposed!!!

To be fair, while this guy makes some legit points, it's largely sensationalism that's bait for views. Not all plugins are the same. His entire premise is really built upon his effort to get video views. 

Edited May 22 by PavlovsCat

[Bapu]

6 minutes ago, PavlovsCat said:

His entire premise is really built upon his effort to get video views. 

He got a few here.

[antler]

I suppose yeah, technically you can recreate the curves. But it's a lot of work.

Some EQ have a constant Q; some have wider boosts than cuts; some change the Q depending on how hard you push. I'm sure if you knew the corresponding Q levels, then yes - you could get kind of get away with only using one. But then why doesn't the guy just sell a pack of EQ presets - "convert X into every EQ ever made"? It's far easier to pick the EQ with the characteristics you want and just turn the dials.

And the shelves thing was a bit silly - who wants to move ~8 EQ nodes in proportion vs. turn a dial up a bit?

Interesting he doesn't show a spectrum analyser graph of his null tests. Also interesting how he pokes at the dynamic EQ of FabFilter, but doesn't mention any other EQs that have a dynamic EQ.

Also, there's a phase thing. If linear phase EQs were pure snake oil, why do they continue to be used?

[audioschmaudio]

I trust people when they say that they hear different flavors in different EQs. But I don't hear the difference, so I don't care that much. Most of the time I just use Ableton Live's stock EQ "EQ Eight", it's easy and intuitive.
But the fact that this TikTok here exists got me thinking that it's a thing in the audio industry that some just think they hear a difference where there's none (this one is about compressors, but same principle of letting your eyes fool your ears):

 

Edited May 21 by audioschmaudio

[Magic Russ]

33 minutes ago, antler said:

Also, there's a phase thing. If linear phase EQs were pure snake oil, why do they continue to be used?

He did briefly point out that LPEQ is a real thing.

[Nitrate Audio]

 I dont know about a guy who thinks fab filer eq is same as a neve emulation eq. something not right with him.

[PavlovsCat]

Now, I personally don't know enough about mixing and mastering to debunk all of what he's saying. But there's enough statements and generalizations that he makes to see that he's following a manipulative YouTuber technique of saying something sensational for the purposes of being a contrarian and getting views. The opening is like a bad infomercial. There are, no doubt, elements of truth to what he's saying -- but his main purpose is sensationalism.  He's making a generalization -- a sweeping statement -- that is inherently an exaggeration of fact. As people have pointed out, there is a difference in the quality of EQs and various effects.

Like most YouTubers, he's professing to be an authoritative source, but what are his credentials? YouTube contains a lot of people without very good credentials whose main skills are using tried and true techniques to get views, but they aren't actually subject matter experts, and often viewers will mistakenly look to them as subject matter experts. 

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of sensalitionism and manipulation as communication techniques. It certainly gets views.  But it's not a place to look for facts and truth. Of course, YouTubers regularly engage in clickbait and clickbait-ish techniques to get views. Views, of course, are the lifeblood of their revenue, without them, they don't get money from brands, they don't get free stuff and cash from the products they promote in their faux reviews, they don't get sponsorships, and they don't get money from YouTube -- or the ego gratification and fame that most of them also prize.  YouTubers are not the place to look for facts, authoritative insights, truth and ethics, IMO. It's all about solopreneurs trying to make as much money, free stuff, and fame as they can for themselves -- and this guy is no exception. If he did that by making a truly fact-cenetered case, I could still appreciate him to an extent, but I am very turned off by his use of sensationalism and statements that even I can easily discern are ridiculous exaggerations that I candidly, find cringeworthy (even the first minute of the video is too cringe for me to sit through the whole thing; if I want to suffer through some egotistical blow hard, I can easily find advice from well regarded experts with great credentials; but I don't enjoy that kind of delivery from experts either, so I think this guy really should tone it down a bit. Just my opinion). 

Edited May 21 by PavlovsCat

[Mr No Name]

I agree with what he says in the sense that you could get along fine with one eq that you knew how to use properly, than just having 10 different ones you didn't, but "sounded" different. 

Digital eq's should all sound identical by definition assuming the Q / bandwidth was the same.

 

Disclaimer: I have a lot of different eq's, I find a lot of them to sound different.

 

My favourite one is Knif Soma, a passive one which specifically has no "sound"

Edited May 21 by Mr No Name

[Magic Russ]

Shouldn't Q be the same though?

[Marc Cormier]

No way I'm not gonna buy another EQ.  I'm here for you, Lars.

[Mr No Name]

 

14 minutes ago, Magic Russ said:

Shouldn't Q be the same though?

you have plugins/hardware units that have proportional Q,  or Sweep eq's, or fixed eq with different frequency bands.

a fabfilter pro q 3 or equivalent, or stock digital eq in a DAW should all be exactly identical with the same Q selection, some go much wider or narrower than others though.

you could get by using one of those, then using other plug in's after that mimic transformers or tubes or saturators, to make them sound analogue ect.

there was a drama a while back with a company advertising a new wonder analogue eq plugin, someone tested it and it was a bog standard digital eq, not even any harmonics. lot of that goes on.

 

Some eq plugins also don't have a correct representation of the frequency selected also - Amek 9099 channel strip eq for example, but people still like the "sound" of it.

Edited May 21 by Mr No Name

[Mr No Name]

one of the best eq's imo,   "Mix with your ears"

https://www.audiothing.net/effects/blindfold-eq/

 

[Bapu]

34 minutes ago, Mr No Name said:

one of the best eq's imo,   "Mix with your ears"

https://www.audiothing.net/effects/blindfold-eq/

 

 

Well worth the co$t for sure.

[valhill]

The most important video for beginners.

[Starship Krupa]

Straw man fallacy: who, exactly, in "the audio industry" is saying that you "need to buy a whole bunch of different EQ plug-ins to get the different flavors because some sounds might sound better with that EQ and some sounds might sound better with this other EQ?"

I don't recall a plug-in manufacturer saying that you "need" a bunch of different EQ plug-ins. They make a bunch of them, and write ad copy about how they emulate old hardware, and to pique people's curiosity, but they don't directly say that you NEED to own half a dozen of them. If anything, the "audio industry" message is "find one you like and get really good with it." They make half a dozen different ones so that you can choose your favorite.

On the contrary, when I've watched "how to EQ" this or that source videos, the person making the tutorial uses one with a straightforward UI, if not their DAW's stock one then something with the now-standard parametric UI. One that allows you to set half a dozen nodes of a variety of types, and adjust the Q and gain. I can't recall seeing such a tutorial where the instructor chose a Pultec emulation or the Lindell TE-100 or whatever.

I've always viewed the "character" EQ's, the ones with the knobs and skeuomorphic UI's and and analog circuitry emulation as something fun to use that might nudge me away from my ingrained habits. If whatever "mojo" is programmed in by the developers makes the track sound better, even if it only makes me think it sounds better, then that's great.

My favorite EQ is the one that allows me to get results the fastest. I've done some EQ "shootouts" using Plug-In Doctor to help me duplicate the EQ curves and determined that for the most part, I can't hear the difference when switching between a vintage emulation type and a precision type once I have the curve copied. But who cares? The "character" one might take me in a different, useful direction.

Even here, where having 20-50 different EQ plug-ins is probably not unusual, I don't see anyone making claims like that. We might use this or that EQ when we're in the mood to look at different graphics, but for the most part, if someone said that they couldn't mix to their full potential unless they could use Fab Filter Pro Q, I suspect that most of would think they were silly/lame.

Someone might be happiest using a certain EQ plug-in, but would any of us claim that they could get superior results using different ones on different source material? Like "bass guitar sounds so much better through TRackS EQP-1A than through Fab Filter Pro Q?" Maybe using the Pultec emulation lets you dial in a pleasing bass guitar EQ curve more quickly, but would anyone claim that it does a better job of the audio processing part?

Maybe so, but I sure wouldn't. Give me the MeldaProduction free bundle and Kilohearts Essentials and I'm ready for anything. Having the fancier ones around just makes things more fun. And if I'm having fun, then the product is likely to sound better than if I'm bored.

[Carl Ewing]

13 hours ago, pwal³ said:

tbf, he's correct

He's not correct. 

It's a bit terrifying that this guy is a "mastering engineer". I like how he's trying to null test the EQs, hears that there's DEFINITELY a difference and thinks it's "inaudible". Lol. Then later says "well, it's almost nothing." Clearly this guy has never mixed 100 track projects, where switching out one EQ with another across 100+ tracks will completely alter the mix, even when all settings are either flat or mirrored. Because whatever differences there are between the 1st and 2nd EQ - now matter how subtle - will be compounded over and over and over again. This applies to literally everything: comps, limiters, EQs, delays, saturators and on and on - and applies to both hardware and software. It boggles my mind how many people don't understand compounding differences. 

When it comes to EQing a stereo mix or group bus, you are likely choosing an EQ based on features for that particular task. I have 2 EQs on my master bus - Pro Q 3 and the EQ in the Amek 200 (used to use the 9099, but now like the Amek 200 more). Why both? Because the Pro Q 3 is for surgical / precision and stereo or mid-side work, and the Amek 200 has bare bones limited options which help with consistency across all tracks in the project. This last point is extremely important and often ignored by amateurs...and it is horrifying that a mastering engineer wouldn't understand this.

Now - even on a stereo bus - If I swapped out the Amek 200 for the Maag 4 or a Pultec or a Massive Passive, or even another channel strip like the 9099 or SSL 9000 J,  I'm going to get radically different results. Why? Because none of these EQs have the same features, nor the same bands, nor the same cut / boost features, radically different input and output characteristics (eg. some have saturation when you drive the input while others do not), different stereo or mid-side features, often low frequency mono-ing options with radically different curves. Hell, there are many emulations of the SAME hardware - like the Massive Passive - that all sound completely different. For example UADs emulation vs. Softube / NIs. 

As for Q replication. Can you replicate a Maag 4 with Pro-Q 3. Sure. Mostly. Not perfectly. Would I ever do this? No. Why? Because the Maag 4 has like 8 options, it's extremely specialized, and I can insert it and be done in 2 seconds. I know exactly what it does, exactly how it sounds and I have deadlines ffs. Do you know how long it takes to match EQ curves across different plugins or hardware?

This guys video is horribly naive and 100% technically inaccurate considering he's NOT getting a clean result when comparing EQs. What he should be doing - as most good comparisons do - is using something like Plugin Doctor to at least get the frequency curves matched as close as possible before comparing. Then - once he's got 2 EQs that seem to mostly zero each other out, do a full mix with one and then the other with settings matched as close as possible.  Then null test that **** and have an "ohhhhhhh ****" moment when those mixes sound nothing alike.

[MrFigg]

Oh yes he is. 
Oh no he’s not. 
Oh yes he is. 
Oh no he’s not. 
etc…