Good VST Parametric EQ
- Thread starter MrWrenchey
- Start date
D
DJYoshaBYD
Guest
i actually wish i still had all my outboard stuff.. i mean, i got some midi controllers and interfaces.. i just went through some of those hard times that we all go through, and had to sell a bunch of whatnot.. lol
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Oh, don't even start with that shit. I'm not going to spout my professional IT qualifications and history, you can look it up if you want to know. I'm tired of fast drawing with every fucking gunslinger who walks by with a couple of Colt 45's strapped to their hips. You know a few things, that's great. You want to claim the title of faster draw or bigger guns, go right ahead, I don't care.
OK, sergeant, show us. Explain to us how or when you use FFT analysis, and why you need to when you do. The stage is all yours.
G.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Let's say that's true - it's not impossible. Without having the ears to confirm it, that person would have no reference and could never know that this sounds good and that doesn't.
That's just it, no matter how one slices it, we are working with *sound*, and sooner or later whatever visuls we can or cannot work with have to relate back to the sound. And if one cannot properly hear and analyze the sound itself, they have no way of knowing exactly what they see actually means, sound-wise. And if they can properly hear and analyze the sound, then not only shouldn't they need the visual aid, but would want to shun it as something that just slows them down and makes everything more complicated than it need be.
G.
D
DJYoshaBYD
Guest
hey.. lol.. you are the one that "started it".. i think im just getting under your skin..
im no sergeant, my friend.. apparently im just some "moron" or whatever.. its cool..
and sure.. we can get into all that, but then i totally foresee you nitpicking everything i say (like you have so far, as well as what others say), and starting a bigger pissing contest.. you win bro.. good for you.. thats one for your team.. lol
so yeah.. again.. sorry OP.. sorry mods.. lol
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Let's say that's true - it's not impossible, after all. But it would be a *lot* rarer than one in a million; I'd put Oprah's salary on the bet that there are not 3, let alone 310, people in this country with that savant ability. But let's say we find one. Without having the ears to confirm it, that person would have no reference and could never know that this sounds good and that doesn't. It may sound good inside their head, but sound like garbage in the physical world. They'd have to be able to make that link, that confirmation, and the only way they could do that is to confirm their talent by hearing it.
That's just it, no matter how one slices it, we are working with *sound*, and sooner or later whatever visuals we can or cannot work with have to relate back to the sound. And if one cannot properly hear and analyze the sound itself, they have no way of knowing exactly what they see actually means, sound-wise. And if they can properly hear and analyze the sound in a way where they can indeed make that connection, then not only shouldn't they need the visual aid, but would avoid it as something that just slows them down and makes everything more complicated than it need be. Why look, when you can already just listen?
G.
That's to bad. I wouldn't want to wish that on anybody.
D
DJYoshaBYD
Guest
for reals.. i had a sweet roland sampler, bunch of rack processors, etc etc.. sigh.. paid bills though.. lol
D
DJYoshaBYD
Guest
Guess it's better than robbing a bank!
haha.. not really.. maybe not a bank, but some other place.. pull a pulp fiction on rob wallets out of a restaurant..
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Aww, come on; this is no time to get coy on us.
You said you had some things to teach me, and that I was wrong about spectrum analysis. I'm always willing to learn, and want to make things right, both in my own head and between our two heads.
This is your moment. Clap hands, Chico.
G.
Last edited:
My my, play nice boys. Cheap vst eq. Cockos Rea eq (sp) free bundle stand alone I believe otherwise demo with Reaper. As to very good, works well for me. .02. Mixing with eyes bad idea. FFT helpful at times, sure. PS: I can read a score and hear it in my head but no one other than I can hear it. Thus it makes for a very empty venue when performed. 
D
DJYoshaBYD
Guest
i never said that i CAN teach you something..
operative word being "may".. im sure you know a shitload more than me.. the only thing that i said, is you dont have to be a jerk about giving out information.. would you correct customers of yours in such a manner? nah..
how about this? maybe you can give some suggestions to the OP as to what are some good vst plugs, as that is what he was asking for.. I did..
aaronmcoleman
The truth is out there!
haha, I love threads like this!
I'm a photographer and I use the histogram on the back of my camera all the time to see if I've blown out the highlights. Reason being, sometimes you don't notice until a shoot is over that there is one section completely lost. Problem with this analogy is that Photography IS visual, so visual clues have a direct bearing. Music is audible, so translations of that into visual clues has a different function.
Spectral Analyzers are good for us less experienced engineers. It is a great starting point to see what we may not be able to hear at this point. For example, someone teaching themself at home may have no clue what 180 hz sounds like versus 500 hz. they may just know the song sounds muddy. "Seeing" is a great way to help learn the differences. You can see a spike around 400-700 hz (for example) and after a few mixes you now know what frequencies are causing what sounds. Ultimately we should just be able to listen, but in the beginning, and even later, as stated, for specific purposes, seeing can be very helpful.
As for the original question, I don't have any EQs that show anything, but I really like the ReaEQ that comes with Reaper. Very transparent, no real character, but it sounds great and gets the job done well for me.
I'm a photographer and I use the histogram on the back of my camera all the time to see if I've blown out the highlights. Reason being, sometimes you don't notice until a shoot is over that there is one section completely lost. Problem with this analogy is that Photography IS visual, so visual clues have a direct bearing. Music is audible, so translations of that into visual clues has a different function.
Spectral Analyzers are good for us less experienced engineers. It is a great starting point to see what we may not be able to hear at this point. For example, someone teaching themself at home may have no clue what 180 hz sounds like versus 500 hz. they may just know the song sounds muddy. "Seeing" is a great way to help learn the differences. You can see a spike around 400-700 hz (for example) and after a few mixes you now know what frequencies are causing what sounds. Ultimately we should just be able to listen, but in the beginning, and even later, as stated, for specific purposes, seeing can be very helpful.
As for the original question, I don't have any EQs that show anything, but I really like the ReaEQ that comes with Reaper. Very transparent, no real character, but it sounds great and gets the job done well for me.
As stated before the novelty would wear off real quick.
Knowing 500hz or 180hz or any frequency for that matter is as simple as when a young child is told that the color red is red and so on up and down the spectrum.
I mean you have to admit that after (a very, very short, short afternoon somewhere between lunch and nap time) ............ when you wanted the green crayola, you grab the green crayola crayon with out have to read it on the side of the paper containing the crayon.
Knowing 500hz or 180hz or any frequency for that matter is as simple as when a young child is told that the color red is red and so on up and down the spectrum.
I mean you have to admit that after (a very, very short, short afternoon somewhere between lunch and nap time) ............ when you wanted the green crayola, you grab the green crayola crayon with out have to read it on the side of the paper containing the crayon.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
There's another important difference. When you're looking at the on-camera histogram, that's because you don't have the image proper to look at, either on a calibrated video screen or in a test print. Because you can't yet see the actual product, you use the histogram for on-site help. That's fine.
When working on music post, however, one has the music playing on their studio monitors right in front of them. It's not like they need to look at the graph because they can't hear the actual product because they're not near some loudspeakers. In fact, it's just the opposite, because they do have their studio monitors in front of them, the analyzer should not be necessary.
Unfortunately there's no way of knowing without having the proper ears just by looking at a spectrum if any given spike in it is a legitimate one or not; not all spikes are bad. And conversely, mud does not always ID itself as something that sticks out on a spectral graph; as often as not it's just an innocuous looking part of the average amplitude level.
This in fact, after thinking about it, is a problem with the theory of savants who can hear the music in their head just by looking at a spectral graph; it's entirely possible for two completey different sounds to have practically (if not necessarily perfectly) identical graphs. When you see a spike at around 500 Hz, does that mean that there is one or more instruments playing a B4 or a subharmonic of that note, does it represent a natural beat frequency "phantom note" caused by the mixing of various notes or tones, or does that mean that you're getting an excess of resonance or other kinds of mud there? You can't tell by look at a graph just what you're hearing.
And when you hear mud, does that mean that the mud is actually around that peak you see at 500Hz, or could it possibly actually be part of the general volume level with no real spikes down around 200Hz? Until or unless you can tell with your ears what 250Hz and 500Hz actually sound like, or at least get close enough for horseshoes, you have no dependable way to actually interpret what you're seeing.
Tell me, when you look at a spectrogram of a song, how can you tell if the song looks the way it's "supposed to" or not? You can't. No one can. Because there is no "supposed to".
Using a spectral analysis to learn what one is hearing is kind of putting the cart before the horse. But of more importance, it's doing it the hard way, because it'll lie to you half the time. It'll make you think that what you're looking at in the graph is what you think you're hearing, but as often as not it won't be - at least not until you have the ears to discriminate that for you.
If one wants to learn how frequencies sound, far better that what they do is sit down with a range of music styles on CD and play them through a 12-18 band graphic EQ with all the bands turned down. Then as you play the music, take one band at a time and turn it up and listen to how that sounds. How does it affect the various instruments playing at the time and what does that band sound like against each of those instruments. Then turn that band back down and raise the next one, and listen some more. And so forth down the line.
Do this for an hour a day for just a week or two, then have a friend or family member do the same thing for you, except with different CDs that you weren't practicing with, and miving random frequency bands in any order they wish, with you not looking at what he's turning up and down. Then you have to try and guess which bands they are moving up.
You may not get them all exactly correct, and that's OK, as long as you can get at least close most of the time. It really does not take long to get the hang of it; start now and you can be pretty proficient at it by Valentine's Day.
Then you will be ready to actually start mixing and to do so without having to see what you hear.
As for recommendations for plugs, I already made mine. Voxengo Span for FFT spectral analysis. I do not recommend using a combined EQ/analyzer, as most analyzer-identifiable issues are not best addressed by EQ.
Though there are some few exceptions; a harmonic noise series can best be addressed via an EQ with a harmonic filter, for example. But the only plug I know of with a built-in harmonic filter and a spectral analysis in one plug is the latest version of Roger Nichols' Frequalizer, which is now out of print.
G.
MrWrenchey
New member
Ahem...
Well, thanks jmz93, I'm trying out that compressor and I'm really loving it. Thanks for answering my question, that's all I really needed.
Oh, and I figured out how to get the VST I was originally talking about into the program, but it doesn't do the spectral analysis I originally wanted. So far, I like the LP64, so it's not a big deal, the only reason I wanted it was mainly because it was a little more vibrant than the dull gray of the built in EQ, so I was just curious if I could make it so it was a little more appealing to my eyes... But anyhoo, I got the problem fixed, all is well now.
†
Well, thanks jmz93, I'm trying out that compressor and I'm really loving it. Thanks for answering my question, that's all I really needed.
Oh, and I figured out how to get the VST I was originally talking about into the program, but it doesn't do the spectral analysis I originally wanted. So far, I like the LP64, so it's not a big deal, the only reason I wanted it was mainly because it was a little more vibrant than the dull gray of the built in EQ, so I was just curious if I could make it so it was a little more appealing to my eyes... But anyhoo, I got the problem fixed, all is well now.
†
legionserial
New member
I like the odd visual cue on things like parametric EQs because my memory is glitchy and I like to know what I just did. I know it's not entirely neccessary for me to know what I just did if it sounds good, but I like to. I certainly don't use visuals as a basis for making decisions. But sometimes I like to use my mouse on the graphical section of a para EQ to pull things around and see how it sounds rather than using the knobs.
That said, I never use a spectrum analyzer. I find them not only wholly uninformative, but actually misleading. A lot of people don't understand the nature of sound energy, and how it's represented on one of those things, yet still insist on using them instead of just listening to something and thinking "does it sound good?"
That said, I never use a spectrum analyzer. I find them not only wholly uninformative, but actually misleading. A lot of people don't understand the nature of sound energy, and how it's represented on one of those things, yet still insist on using them instead of just listening to something and thinking "does it sound good?"