The plugin scam exposed. Did you fall for it?

[dumbquestions]

From a sound design pov: what about the “analog” saturation produced by overdriving an emulated digital version of a real life EQ. Is that all the same too? Or is he just saying that boosts & cuts in db at any frequency point can be achieved through any eq plugin (which… that part is true). But what if I am level matching & using eq as more of a drive style effect? Idk if I can replicate driving neve circuitry with logic’s stock eq for example, but what do i know

[pwal³]

14 minutes ago, dumbquestions said:

From a sound design pov: what about the “analog” saturation produced by overdriving an emulated digital version of a real life EQ. Is that all the same too? Or is he just saying that boosts & cuts in db at any frequency point can be achieved through any eq plugin (which… that part is true). But what if I am level matching & using eq as more of a drive style effect? Idk if I can replicate driving neve circuitry with logic’s stock eq for example, but what do i know

Some eq do include that but it also has to be emulated, otherwise you'll just get digital distortion rather than lovely warm analog overdrive

/havefun

[Brian Walton]

1 hour ago, dumbquestions said:

From a sound design pov: what about the “analog” saturation produced by overdriving an emulated digital version of a real life EQ. Is that all the same too? Or is he just saying that boosts & cuts in db at any frequency point can be achieved through any eq plugin (which… that part is true). But what if I am level matching & using eq as more of a drive style effect? Idk if I can replicate driving neve circuitry with logic’s stock eq for example, but what do i know

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.

Id agree that we don't need a large locker of digital EQs but even with the most feature rich eq on the market sometimes I want a different UI or limited options and has less to do with actual sound differences.  That said, some EQs do sound different when you really push the settings.

[cclarry]

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.