It's not too expensive - and different sounding - so I'm thinking of going in for it. What do you all think, is the GlissEQ any good?
GlissEQ
- Thread starter bdemenil
- Start date
R
RAMI
Guest
What does that mean? Is that a good thing?bdemenil said:
BigRay
New member
i Like all of the Voxengo stuff . I would go for it.
I use Algorithmix Linear Phase EQ because it is as close to invisible as I have ever heard, but the Gliss EQ definitely has some character.
while you are at it, check out R8 brain pro...my favorite SRC algorithm..
I use Algorithmix Linear Phase EQ because it is as close to invisible as I have ever heard, but the Gliss EQ definitely has some character.
while you are at it, check out R8 brain pro...my favorite SRC algorithm..
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Sure, it's a worthwhile plug to add to the toolbox; it defenitely has its strong points, especially since it does have a unique feel to it that's not quite like any other.bdemenil said:
Should it be the *only* EQ in your toolbox? No. Is it a good addition to a team of 3 or 4 overall EQs to choose from when mixing? Yes, I'd recommend it as a good candidate.
G.
R
RAMI
Guest
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Ah, I see. Thanx Glen, that answers my questions too.
So you're saying that an EQ that colors the sound and isn't transparent is sometimes desireable?
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
What I'm saying is that there's really no such thing as "colorless" or "transparent" EQs, in the sense that they all have their own distinctive characteristics. EQs are like monitors, if they were all indeed anywhere near as "flat" or "transparent" as we are often led to believe, they'd all sounded exactly the same and there'd be no need or market for a hundred different models of each device.RAMI said:
The fact is that every EQ has it's own "characteristics" of one sort or another that make it particularly appropriate for certain tasks whereas anotheer EQ might sound better at other tasks.
I have 5 or 6 VST EQ plugs and an external hardware EQ that I regularly go to depending upon the task at hand (plus uncounted other EQs that I have but only rarely go to). One might work best at notching out resonances, wheras another is better at adding air. Yet a third is better for sorting out the usual traffic jam in the upper midranges, etc.
GlissEQ (and even it's free little brother, EssEQ) I happen to often - but not always - like for gentle shaping/polishing of the two mix as part of self-mastering. But I personally often prefer other EQs for some other tasks such as differential (tongue and groove) EQing, sweeping out resonances, deessing, etc. And those uses are just to my particular taste. You might like to use them for different purposes than I do.
To my mind, having only one or two EQs in one's toolkit is like having only one or two models of microphone in one's locker. You can get by with it and make some servicable recordings, but after a while everything will start sounding the same.
G.
R
RAMI
Guest
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Thanx...makes sense...thanx alot.
BigRay
New member
try algorithmix LP eq and then get back to me. 
It doesnt impart any "charactaristic"..this makes it highly desirable to me and my colleagues.
It is very transparent....this is what makes it suitable for the work I do, , which is 100% classical/purist work... I am not particularly led to believe anything, but go by my ears and my monitoring chain. I dont have multiple EQs, nor do I desire to. What I need and want is the tool with the least amount of coloration, and Algorithmix is fantastic in that regard.
little spendy, but c'est la vie.
It doesnt impart any "charactaristic"..this makes it highly desirable to me and my colleagues. It is very transparent....this is what makes it suitable for the work I do, , which is 100% classical/purist work... I am not particularly led to believe anything, but go by my ears and my monitoring chain. I dont have multiple EQs, nor do I desire to. What I need and want is the tool with the least amount of coloration, and Algorithmix is fantastic in that regard.
little spendy, but c'est la vie.
SouthSIDE Glen said:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I have no doubt that it's a fine as you say it is, ray. I have not tried it, but yours is an opinion I have come to respect. That said, that would make it one out of how many hundreds of EQs.BigRay said:try algorithmix LP eq and then get back to me.
But I'd like to take it beyond that a bit, and drop the word "coloration" for a minute. I used the term "characteristics" deliberately. It is possible for an EQ to be transparent, yet still have unique characteristics in how it acts. For example:
- there are plenty of graphic EQ plugs that do not follow the standard integral thirds formula for determining the center frequencies of its bands. Even two theoretically perfectly "transparent" EQs will have different characteristics if the center frequencies of the prime bass bands on one are 63, 100 and 150Hz and on the other are 56, 113, and 225Hz.
- more often than one might think, both graphic and parametric EQs use different forumulas for generating their Q slopes/actionable bandwidths. Similarly, the boost/cut range designed into the EQ can have an effect on it's overall curve at any given setting as well.
- many shelving/bandpass EQs and filters offer different knee characteristics at the set frequency, sometimes even being selectable or adjustable.
Those are just three examples off the top of my head. There are probably a few more that I'm forgetting offhand.
But to get back to "color", again, maybe your LP EQ is as transparent as an astronomer's SG corrector plate. As soon as you move any one of it's gain controls off of zero, you are adding (or subtracting) "color" to/from the signal. As soon as you use EQ, in other words, it - by it's very nature - is coloring the signal. That is it's purpose! You want transparent, colorless sound, stop applying EQ to it!
All EQs have a unique personality to my ears. If there's an EQ whose coloration or "personality" is favorable to gaining the result I'm looking for - whether I'm working on something by Santana or Stravinsky - I'll use it and bypass the others. The LP EQ would be just one more unique "personality" I'd add to my arsenal. You may be using the Neumann M150 of EQs there, but I'd still want a few ATs, Sennheisers, EVs and Shures in my studio to go along with it.
And, on the other side of the fence, Ray; you ought to slum in your studio tasks once in a while.
I had a project a couple of months back where I had to remaster some stereo casette tracks from the 80s. It was 80s-style rock somewhere between Squeeze and Elvis Costello. The original tracking and mixes were pretty awful to begin with, and the age of the media certainly didn't help. There were some tracks where I had to run multiple passes of shelving, notching, sweeping and bumping from a number of EQs (seperately) from Voxengo, Elemental Audio, dbx, Sony and Kjaerhus, just to make the remasters palatable. Frankly, just one EQ type, no matter how "transaprent" it was, would not have given me what I needed to get that job done.G.
BigRay
New member
There is a free Demo BTW. That one and pretty much all of their plugs can be used gratis for a month. You are right on the characteristics issue. When I think characteristics, I automatically think "flavor" or "color" or sonic footprint , that is , color outside of the assigned task. Yes, by nature EQ is coloring the signal, but as I am a big believer in minimalism, I like to see tools that do the job without adding anything extra, or as little as possible. Hardware EQs, like the Pendulum for example , certainly add to the source material. In the case of the Pendulum, a bit of a Euphonic blanket is added to the signal, for a sweet touch. While this produces very nice results to the ear, I personally like to accomplish such things with either mic technique/placement or preamp selection. I dont like messing with things in post , but when I have to , I reach for the tools that simply do the task without adding/taking away anything other than the target frequencies. (or add/take away as little extra as possible)There are a select few that have pleased me in this regard, and the Algo stuff is phenomenal.
In this Genre, Glen, clients are often of the audiophile rank, and are very picky about the mastering and mixing of the material. Loyalty/fidelity to the source material is a must, so the less I do , the better. Unfortunately, it seems like the less coloration I want from a plugin, mic, or hardware unit, the more money I pay.
.
but...
so you dont think I am a gear snob with his nose in the air and his face buried in a stack of monteverdi and puccini scores...outside of my work as a classical singer and recording engineer, I also play lap and pedal steel and acoustic guitar(as well as lead vocals) in a couple of old timey country bands. .I grew up on pre 70s country records and punk rock/rockabilly/appalachian/bluegrass.. Now for this sort of thing I love hearing it grimey and dirty..l.....(check out the group Chili Cold Blood or Uncle Tupelo March 16-20, 1992) I love the sound of my pedals and laps through my tube amps and compressors...am always seeking that "lofi" sound..(Iron and Wine, the Creek Drank the Cradle is a good example of that ) but that stuff is just for fun, a stress reliever.
In this Genre, Glen, clients are often of the audiophile rank, and are very picky about the mastering and mixing of the material. Loyalty/fidelity to the source material is a must, so the less I do , the better. Unfortunately, it seems like the less coloration I want from a plugin, mic, or hardware unit, the more money I pay.
. but...
so you dont think I am a gear snob with his nose in the air and his face buried in a stack of monteverdi and puccini scores...outside of my work as a classical singer and recording engineer, I also play lap and pedal steel and acoustic guitar(as well as lead vocals) in a couple of old timey country bands. .I grew up on pre 70s country records and punk rock/rockabilly/appalachian/bluegrass.. Now for this sort of thing I love hearing it grimey and dirty..l.....(check out the group Chili Cold Blood or Uncle Tupelo March 16-20, 1992) I love the sound of my pedals and laps through my tube amps and compressors...am always seeking that "lofi" sound..(Iron and Wine, the Creek Drank the Cradle is a good example of that ) but that stuff is just for fun, a stress reliever.
SouthSIDE Glen said:I have no doubt that it's a fine as you say it is, ray. I have not tried it, but yours is an opinion I have come to respect. That said, that would make it one out of how many hundreds of EQs.
But I'd like to take it beyond that a bit, and drop the word "coloration" for a minute. I used the term "characteristics" deliberately. It is possible for an EQ to be transparent, yet still have unique characteristics in how it acts. For example:
- there are plenty of graphic EQ plugs that do not follow the standard integral thirds formula for determining the center frequencies of its bands. Even two theoretically perfectly "transparent" EQs will have different characteristics if the center frequencies of the prime bass bands on one are 63, 100 and 150Hz and on the other are 56, 113, and 225Hz.
- more often than one might think, both graphic and parametric EQs use different forumulas for generating their Q slopes/actionable bandwidths. Similarly, the boost/cut range designed into the EQ can have an effect on it's overall curve at any given setting as well.
- many shelving/bandpass EQs and filters offer different knee characteristics at the set frequency, sometimes even being selectable or adjustable.
Those are just three examples off the top of my head. There are probably a few more that I'm forgetting offhand.
But to get back to "color", again, maybe your LP EQ is as transparent as an astronomer's SG corrector plate. As soon as you move any one of it's gain controls off of zero, you are adding (or subtracting) "color" to/from the signal. As soon as you use EQ, in other words, it - by it's very nature - is coloring the signal. That is it's purpose! You want transparent, colorless sound, stop applying EQ to it!
All EQs have a unique personality to my ears. If there's an EQ whose coloration or "personality" is favorable to gaining the result I'm looking for - whether I'm working on something by Santana or Stravinsky - I'll use it and bypass the others. The LP EQ would be just one more unique "personality" I'd add to my arsenal. You may be using the Neumann M150 of EQs there, but I'd still want a few ATs, Sennheisers, EVs and Shures in my studio to go along with it.
And, on the other side of the fence, Ray; you ought to slum in your studio tasks once in a while.
G.
Last edited:
flatfinger
Use every dam bit!
anyone wishing to expand their toolbox; http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/campaign.php
the geq-7 is on sale for a few more days!
( no I don't work for them, just a satisfied cust!)
the geq-7 is on sale for a few more days!
( no I don't work for them, just a satisfied cust!)
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Ray,
Just checked out the Algorithmix info.
Just wondering whether you use the Red or the Orange EQ yourself. Also wondering if they are so doggone transparent, why they have offer two different "colors", and why the two colors are are so doggone different as to be able to justify charging $1500 for each of them individually.
They really should take the needles out of their arms before they decide on prices of their plugs. The old "overprice a product to attract the bluebloods and keep out the riff raff" is so 18th centuy. All of a sudden it looks like Roger Nichols is giving his stuff away .
They also should really reconsider their strategy of selling two different EQs and calling them both "the best, but different." It really comes off smelling a bit past ripe.
And just so you know, I'm not really arguing with you or picking a fight with you. I can't pick on someone who knws his way around pedal steel. Robert Randolph happens to be my "artist of the month" this month after catching his Austin City Limits performance last week. Just a friendly debate/discussion is all. I was happy to let this drop with your last post, in fact, until I saw the apparent doubletake doublespeak on the Algorithmix website, which re-piqued my curiosity.
G.
Just checked out the Algorithmix info.
Just wondering whether you use the Red or the Orange EQ yourself. Also wondering if they are so doggone transparent, why they have offer two different "colors", and why the two colors are are so doggone different as to be able to justify charging $1500 for each of them individually.
They really should take the needles out of their arms before they decide on prices of their plugs. The old "overprice a product to attract the bluebloods and keep out the riff raff" is so 18th centuy. All of a sudden it looks like Roger Nichols is giving his stuff away
.They also should really reconsider their strategy of selling two different EQs and calling them both "the best, but different." It really comes off smelling a bit past ripe.
And just so you know, I'm not really arguing with you or picking a fight with you. I can't pick on someone who knws his way around pedal steel. Robert Randolph happens to be my "artist of the month" this month after catching his Austin City Limits performance last week
. Just a friendly debate/discussion is all. I was happy to let this drop with your last post, in fact, until I saw the apparent doubletake doublespeak on the Algorithmix website, which re-piqued my curiosity.G.
R
RAMI
Guest
I don't know enough this to make a judgement one way or another (hence, my original post in this thread). But that's one of my favorite paragraphs ever...it was almost........musicalSouthSIDE Glen said:
BigRay
New member
I use the Orange. Their products are the cream of the crop, up there with CEDAR and the Ilk. They do fine as far as sales go, so I dont think they will be changing prices or marketing strategy anytime soon. I cant speak to the price point of these products other than to say that it all boils down to the fact of whether or not a tool is worth the price to you. I went through many EQs before discovering this one, and I say beyond a shadow of a doubt that it burned everything else asunder in terms of invisibility, so it was worth it to me, and continues to be so. I am fortunate in that i have a steady flow of recording gigs, so they have already paid for themselves. ...I havent used the red much so I cannot comment. They are geared towards a different market, that is for sure. They are after the same market that buys WEISS and Pacific Microsonic converters. If I think something is worth it, I drop the coin. If not, I dont.That is my philosophy. I wasnt a business major nor do I have a background in software development, so I am not qualified to cast judgement on their pricing. Market dictates pricing. CEDAR stuff is WAY expensive too, but that company sells products like there is no tommorow. Like I said, these guys are the cream of the crop.
just try em Glenn.
I dont think the colors are "sonic" references, but maybe feature sets??I said that they were the most transparent I have ever used, and I stand by that statement. Of course hearing is believing.....
just try em Glenn.
I dont think the colors are "sonic" references, but maybe feature sets??I said that they were the most transparent I have ever used, and I stand by that statement. Of course hearing is believing.....
SouthSIDE Glen said:Ray,
Just checked out the Algorithmix info.
Just wondering whether you use the Red or the Orange EQ yourself. Also wondering if they are so doggone transparent, why they have offer two different "colors", and why the two colors are are so doggone different as to be able to justify charging $1500 for each of them individually.
They really should take the needles out of their arms before they decide on prices of their plugs. The old "overprice a product to attract the bluebloods and keep out the riff raff" is so 18th centuy. All of a sudden it looks like Roger Nichols is giving his stuff away
They also should really reconsider their strategy of selling two different EQs and calling them both "the best, but different." It really comes off smelling a bit past ripe.
And just so you know, I'm not really arguing with you or picking a fight with you. I can't pick on someone who knws his way around pedal steel. Robert Randolph happens to be my "artist of the month" this month after catching his Austin City Limits performance last week
G.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'd like to, Ray, and I might try a demo for curiosity sake. But frankly beyond utter curiosity there's no point.BigRay said:just try em Glenn.
You may be lucky enough to have enough discretionary budget to be able to drop US$1500 for a single VST plug without thinking twice, but I'm a smaller guy who just cant afford it. Nor could I justify it (either to myself or to an investor) by saying that it would give me enough increased business to pay for itself, because frankly it wouldn't. Not because of it's quality, but frankly because any difference it may or may not make in my current projects would not be enough to be a serious sales point for my business in it's current configuration.
Well, this is from their website, on the "Red vs.Orange" page:BigRay said:I dont think the colors are "sonic" references, but maybe feature sets??I said that they were the most transparent I have ever used, and I stand by that statement. Of course hearing is believing.....
"We investigated all thinkable theories dealing with linear-phase filters to find out the best one for our linear-phase equalizer. At the end of our extensive research and countless tests two methods seemed to be good candidates for our products. Although both lead to extraordinary clean sound and similar features, each of them has some so special, individual properties that we decided to design two independent products: LinearPhase PEQ Red and LinearPhase PEQ Orange. Some mastering engineers clearly prefer Red, some of them Orange, but also many of them use both, often even serially connected.
We frequently have been asked about the differences between the Red and the Orange. It is difficult to describe their sonic characteristics; therefore we better leave up the decision to our customers."
The only differences between the two of them are the filtering algorithms they use that give them "special, individual properties". In other words, just like every other EQ that's based upon digital mathematical algorithms, they each have their own color (and I don't just mean by name
). Now, perhaps their coloration is quite a bit more "pale" than lesser EQs, but its still enough where, again to use their words, "Some mastering engineers clearly prefer Red, some of them Orange".Now, to me that is a huge statement. It says three things: a) that the two EQs *do* have a different sound (and therefore different shades of coloration), b) that this difference is great enough that users can discern it well enough to "clearly prefer" one over the other, and c) that the MEs are not in any more agreement over which one is "better" than the engineers who developed them were. The preference between the two colorations is purely subjective.
And I do have experience in software development in this industry, after having worked as a software engineer for D-Vision Systems, Discreet Logic, and an engineering software consultantcy firm called RDI Software. I can almost guartantee you that the price model that Algorithmix is working with is one of high profit margin at relatively low sales volume, not because their R&D costs were ten times higher than Elemental Audio's, but because it places their product into a rareified strata of a price point that actually *attracts* those most inclined to desire such a product.
I'm sure they are great EQ plugs. I have no qualm over that. Are they ten times better than Eqium, or even three times better than the Sony Oxford, as the price would suggest? That is up to the buyer, of course, but I'd have to say that it's debatable at best.
Like I said earlier, it is to EQ plugs what the Neumann 150 (or your fave cream-of-the-crop mic) is to microphones. But if I had a choice between owning one 150 for six grand, or a lesser Neumann along with locker full of ATs, EVs, Shures, etc., I'll take the the locker-full. Same with the EQ's. The Algorithmix EQs *each* cost more than I have spent for every EQ I own put together. Given the choice, I'll take the tool kit full of EQs over the single one any day.
Of course I'd like to have them all, including the top notch stuff. but some of us just can't justify the expense as a sound (no pun intended
) business decision. G.
Last edited:
BigRay
New member
Fair enough, Glenn.(Id rather have the one big microphone, btw )
)SouthSIDE Glen said:I'd like to, Ray, and I might try a demo for curiosity sake. But frankly beyond utter curiosity there's no point.
You may be lucky enough to have enough discretionary budget to be able to drop US$1500 for a single VST plug without thinking twice, but I'm a smaller guy who just cant afford it. Nor could I justify it (either to myself or to an investor) by saying that it would give me enough increased business to pay for itself, because frankly it wouldn't. Not because of it's quality, but frankly because any difference it may or may not make in my current projects would not be enough to be a serious sales point for my business in it's current configuration.
Well, this is from their website, on the "Red vs.Orange" page:
"We investigated all thinkable theories dealing with linear-phase filters to find out the best one for our linear-phase equalizer. At the end of our extensive research and countless tests two methods seemed to be good candidates for our products. Although both lead to extraordinary clean sound and similar features, each of them has some so special, individual properties that we decided to design two independent products: LinearPhase PEQ Red and LinearPhase PEQ Orange. Some mastering engineers clearly prefer Red, some of them Orange, but also many of them use both, often even serially connected.
We frequently have been asked about the differences between the Red and the Orange. It is difficult to describe their sonic characteristics; therefore we better leave up the decision to our customers."
The only differences between the two of them are the filtering algorithms they use that give them "special, individual properties". In other words, just like every other EQ that's based upon digital mathematical algorithms, they each have their own color (and I don't just mean by name
Now, to me that is a huge statement. It says three things: a) that the two EQs *do* have a different sound (and therefore different shades of coloration), b) that this difference is great enough that users can discern it well enough to "clearly prefer" one over the other, and c) that the MEs are not in any more agreement over which one is "better" than the engineers who developed them were. The preference between the two colorations is purely subjective.
And I do have experience in software development in this industry, after having worked as a software engineer for D-Vision Systems, Discreet Logic, and an engineering software consultantcy firm called RDI Software. I can almost guartantee you that the price model that Algorithmix is working with is one of high profit margin at relatively low sales volume, not because their R&D costs were ten times higher than Elemental Audio's, but because it places their product into a rareified strata of a price point that actually *attracts* those most inclined to desire such a product.
I'm sure they are great EQ plugs. I have no qualm over that. Are they ten times better than Eqium, or even three times better than the Sony Oxford, as the price would suggest? That is up to the buyer, of course, but I'd have to say that it's debatable at best.
Like I said earlier, it is to EQ plugs what the Neumann 150 (or your fave cream-of-the-crop mic) is to microphones. But if I had a choice between owning one 150 for six grand, or a lesser Neumann along with locker full of ATs, EVs, Shures, etc., I'll take the the locker-full. Same with the EQ's. The Algorithmix EQs *each* cost more than I have spent for every EQ I own put together. Given the choice, I'll take the tool kit full of EQs over the single one any day.
Of course I'd like to have them all, including the top notch stuff. but some of us just can't justify the expense as a sound (no pun intended
G.