Starship Krupa Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 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. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Ewing Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 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. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFigg Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 Oh yes he is. Oh no he’s not. Oh yes he is. Oh no he’s not. etc… 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technostica Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 I bought my first EQ recently and that was because I thought the workflow of Claro was interesting and it was heavily reduced to about twelve bucks. I have a large number of other ones that came in bundles that I've never used. I usually reach for Melda. It's the same with channel strips, although I've never even considered buying one of those. Not sure I have ever used one at all! I don't record instruments, so everything is created ITB which helps. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starship Krupa Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 3 hours ago, Carl Ewing said: none of these EQs have the same features, nor the same bands, nor the same cut / boost features Right, and that's true even between precision parametric types like MEqualizer and similar. Maybe you could get pretty close, but as you say, it takes a LONG time to copy an EQ curve from one EQ to another, even with the help of Plug-In Doctor. Also what you say about different emulations of the same hardware getting it way different: noticing that I had somehow wound up with 5 different Pulteclones, I decided to turn Plug-In Doctor loose on them. And no two of them were exactly similar. A couple of them were WAY different with the same settings. All of the differences were far off enough to be audible. Am I going to get different results depending on which one I use? Of course I will. I wouldn't pay much mind of the guy calling himself a "mastering engineer." He could change his sparkplugs and call himself a "mechanic," too. The only thing we can be sure of is that he's a "guy with a YouTube channel." It's just clickbait, of value only to the extent that it encourages us to think about these things. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwal³ Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 ok, he's a bit correct and a bit incorrect, his tests weren't thorough/detailed/deep enough, but i do love a nice GUI, UX FTW TBF, nobody (apart from artist/mixer/producer) listening to a finished track can tell the difference 🤷♀️ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Ewing Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 13 minutes ago, pwal³ said: but i do love a nice GUI, UX FTW But do you understand the differences? For example, if I gave you an API 5500 emulation and a Massive Passive emulation, would you understand why they will sound radically different? And that applies to both the hardware and - if they're modelled correctly - the plugin emulation. These two EQs are built on entirely different circuitry which results in one sounding very colored (active) and the other sounding very transparent (passive). Meaning they have entirely different objectives. If you were sitting down to mix and master, and you had a specific tone you were trying to achieve, would you know which EQ to use? And if you were missing one of them, would you know how to get that sound by other means, or know what to buy? This is important. Like really important. Quote TBF, nobody (apart from artist/mixer/producer) listening to a finished track can tell the difference 🤷♀️ I'm sure you'd definitely notice if your favorite album was mixed / mastered with different EQ hardware / software. Anyone who's mixed or mastered an album would know this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfrobert Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) Just watched this out of curiosity, here is / are my 2 cents: 1. I think people around here know that we all have more software than we need, that a little collection of good tools can take you a long way, that GAS and "new and shiny", market oversaturation and marketing buzzprases are real things. Nothing new here. 2. Vintage emulations imply another workflow than clean digital EQs, and they are used for other things. I have Fabfilter for digital, Black Rooster for vintage (which I got dirt cheap), TDR SlickEQ GE for the in-betweens. I think having more than one EQ makes sense. 3. Methodical mistakes aside, this guy of course has a point. Many people have pointed this out before, but he's getting a lot of clicks which he wants. I recommend Dan Worrall and his lengthy 1 hour video on testing plugins. This all won't keep me from buying a new toy every month. Wasted money? Perhaps, but playing around with plugins can be seen as a hobby on its own, and it remains within reasonable borders for me. So what has been achieved? Nothing I would say, except for a discussion here and some clicks elsewhere. So ... back to making music. Edited May 22 by ralfrobert 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwal³ Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 i have no comparison to hardware, no i can tell the difference between originals/remasters, yes but i stand by my statement that the audience can't tell and frankly don't care 🤷♀️ they're mostly listening on phone speakers ffs, not a treated room with wonderful speakers and a sweet spot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Blanc Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 Perhaps redundant, but it's not important that I can recreate a certain curve with ProQ of my stock EQ. Sure I can. Sometimes I like to work without a graphical EQ to just use my ears. Sometimes I like the way the curves from a certain EQ are for a certain frequency range (Maag high end, Pultec lowend, etc.). I could probably match those curves if I was proficient enough, remembered all the curves and was willing to spend the time. But I don't. So I use different EQ's. There, lot's of money spending justified. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrate Audio Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) 12 hours ago, Magic Russ said: Shouldn't Q be the same though? conceptually, they do the same thing. but which one is used really depends. its sort of like a drawing pen and sizes. which point size you need? hence a 10 or 20 band transparent graphic eq vs a pultec. What the fellow is claiming is, you are being fooled by the GUI or the company logo. Well, there is lots of free eq's. And you can compare it to your paid ones and see if they do same thing really. https://www.voxengo.com/product/overtonegeq/ https://www.voxengo.com/product/marvelgeq/ https://www.voxengo.com/product/teq421/ Edited May 22 by Nitrate Audio 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrate Audio Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, pwal³ said: i have no comparison to hardware, no i can tell the difference between originals/remasters, yes but i stand by my statement that the audience can't tell and frankly don't care 🤷♀️ they're mostly listening on phone speakers ffs, not a treated room with wonderful speakers and a sweet spot i managed to pickup a real 31 band graphic eq from work. (they were throwing away the old PA system). let me tell you. its a real pain in the ***** to try to use compared to a plugin. you need to find a rack for it. you need find a power outlet for it, you need to find a cables for it. you need to figure out how and where to patch it in the signal chain. it's been sitting on a shelf waiting for me to find free time to tinker with it. too busy working on songs ITB in a DAW. btw.. i agree about the most people dont care and listen on buds and phone speaker. but it also depends if you have defined your audience or figured out who you are targeting. maybe you are going for a niche market and they are people who do have stereos and a decent listening system -- the SH forums folks who buy back catalog remastered stuff. In which case, you don't want to release something which will sound like crap on their systems. Edited May 22 by Nitrate Audio 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwal³ Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 tbf, i expect that the subtle differences will show on say acoustic or orchestral stuff, but not once those tracks are mushed mixed with 100 other tracks 🤷♀️ and not to say i don't enjoy the challenge of only using a 3 band eq across an 8-track song, but let's face it, we're not the beatles 🤪 /enjoymakingmusicx 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fleer Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 I need FabFilter ProQ4 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heath Row Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starship Krupa Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 7 hours ago, Carl Ewing said: If you were sitting down to mix and master, and you had a specific tone you were trying to achieve, would you know which EQ to use? I only use at the most 3 per project, so yes. Probably the Quadcurve built into the Sonar Console view, MEqualizer, and a knob EQ of some sort, maybe TRackS EQ-81. 7 hours ago, Carl Ewing said: if you were missing one of them, would you know how to get that sound by other means Of course. Just as back in the day, when there was nothing but hardware, a mix engineer had their choice of only what was in the console strips and in the rack of whatever studio they happened to be working in. They couldn't go from studio to studio and get the same brand and model of board EQ or rack EQ's. 7 hours ago, Carl Ewing said: I'm sure you'd definitely notice if your favorite album was mixed / mastered with different EQ hardware / software. Anyone who's mixed or mastered an album would know this. You're saying that you're sure I'd notice the difference in sound between the same person mixing the same song using one company's emulation of a specific hardware EQ vs. another company's emulation and/or one company's 8 band parametric vs. another company's? So if someone gave the same mixing engineer access to, say, Fab Filter's parametrics for one song on a record and then Kilohearts' on the next song, I'd be able to tell that they were mixed using different products? I dunno, mate, I think you're giving me (the listener) too much credit there. And since the fact that there's a human being in the middle, using tools with 2 different-looking UI's, makes any kind of objective test invalid. A song mixed by the same person using exactly the same tools, then done again the next day will sound different each time. I'm a fan of The Beach Boys and if a certain number of songs on an album were mixed at one studio and a number at another, I am sure I wouldn't be able to tell you which songs were mixed at the same studio and which ones were mixed at different ones. Same for any other band. And I listen close, like "Music Bee sounds different from AIMP" close. Do you have examples of different songs by the same artist that were mixed with different EQ's by the same engineers that I should be able to tell apart sonically? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PavlovsCat Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 13 hours ago, Starship Krupa said: 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. That is so very well said, I wish you were doing YouTube videos instead of folks like the YouTuber in question. People would actually learn something valuable -- as I often do from your posts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 19 hours ago, pwal³ said: i have no comparison to hardware, no i can tell the difference between originals/remasters, yes but i stand by my statement that the audience can't tell and frankly don't care 🤷♀️ they're mostly listening on phone speakers ffs, not a treated room with wonderful speakers and a sweet spot There's some producers who get that. Often it's the ones doing dance genres. The music is often played in mono in dance halls. Outside of seeing an orchestra in a hall, most rock concerts are not about the fidelity but the visual. That video is good for beginners who do it for fun and think spending $300 on an EQ is gonna make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwal³ Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 5 hours ago, kitekrazy said: most rock concerts are not about the fidelity but the visual. and the ENERGY! (depending on the band, natch) and then there's bands like yo la tengo... 😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhonoBrainer Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 (edited) On 5/22/2024 at 5:16 AM, Heath Row said: Edited May 23 by PhonoBrainer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now