All Digital Parametric EQ’s are the same

[kcearl]

poached this of the Cakewalk site...very interesting read..


http://www.rhythminmind.net/presetblog/2009/03/digital-eq-fact-myth/


any thoughts?

 

[Bristol Posse]

I'd say all PEQs period should work the same way.
Adding sound and phase shifting it to either attenuate or increase the level at the desired frequency range, I mean it's math. Either the algorithm is right and 1+1 = 2 and 1-1 =0 or it's badly coded and the clculations are off and it doesn't.

The only reason to get an aftermarket one is for the coloration and workflow.
I Love my SSL channel strip plugs for the fact that with one plugin on a track I get EQ, Compression, gating and even Dessing plus it does add an emulated coloration (and because of that euphoric distortion, your man couldn't get it to null YAY!) that a I don't get with a neutral EQ, But I still expect the EQ portion of the plug to handle the math correctly to give me the results I expect when I boost or cut

But really if you think about it for a purely transparent EQ if you add 1 db at 3.5 khz on one PEQ it should sound the same as adding 1 db at 3.5 khz on another, If they don't work the same way the results are completely unpredictable
That's like complaining that all pressure guages measure pressure in the same way, all internal combustion engines work on the same principals so there is no reason for there to be more than one type ever manufactured. The basis should be the same to ensure that results are translatable and predictable, the extra goodies are what you are paying for if you want that.

 

[mshilarious]

"All fully parametric minimum-phase EQs that do not incorporate oversampling, saturation, noise, etc., are the same". Of course, strip them down and you just have a few basic equations. It ain't rocket science, just physics and math. They are simply using standard equations that describe idealized behavior of analog filters. But really, you probably want an oversampled EQ. The rest of the "X" factor stuff, pick your poison.

I tend to like the EQs (and plugs in general) with the smallest visual footprint. Mainly I use the UAD Pultec (oversampled) and Precision (oversampled), and also the stock UAD EX-1 plug. The Precision Multiband can be used as a linear-phase EQ if desired, but it's kinda large on the screen for just that.

Collecting plugs as a hobby is a bit silly, get a small handful and get to work!

 

[miroslav]

Yeah...it's like he had an epiphany that 1+1=2 for most algorithm designers!


IMO...it's kinda pointless to talk about an algorithm when it's stripped down to the lowest common denominator, when very often it IS the "X" factors and the GUI...the implementation...that will lead to good or bad results and workflow.

It's like just talking about car engines...and leaving out the rest of the car.


So yeah...the EQ in the Waves plug sounds/works different than the EQ in my Samplitude DAW.

 

[Massive Master]

For sure. I have an EQ that I use just for cuts between 2&3kHz and nothing else. I have an EQ I use for "typical program material" one that works better for lower mids in the side information, another for the sum, some have wonderful, sparkly high end, others are like crushed glass.

A theoretical "plain" EQ should be the same as the next. Few are as "plain" as they otherwise could be...

 

[bozmillar]

For sure. I have an EQ that I use just for cuts between 2&3kHz and nothing else. I have an EQ I use for "typical program material" one that works better for lower mids in the side information, another for the sum, some have wonderful, sparkly high end, others are like crushed glass.

A theoretical "plain" EQ should be the same as the next. Few are as "plain" as they otherwise could be...

I think this link kind of showed the exact opposite of what you are saying here though. The only eq on there that was anything but "plain" was the waves SSL, which has an "analog on/off" button. All the rest were identical.

Granted, the values he entered for each eq were different, so each one does act differently for different values.

What it comes down to is that there's no such thing as a "high quality" equalizer. What people think are high quality equalizers are just equalizers that react the way they expect them to.

It's more like having a different radius on your fretboard. Some like large, some like small, but none is more high quality than the other. It all comes down to the person using it and what they find most comfortable, but really has nothing to do with quality.

 

[Bristol Posse]

The only eq on there that was anything but "plain" was the waves SSL, which has an "analog on/off" button. All the rest were identical.

Granted, the values he entered for each eq were different, so each one does act differently for different values.

Ha, I was just looking at the article again and thinking about that.

I'd say none of the EQs are plain. If that were the case there would be no effort required to get them to null at all. If they were all plain EQ calcualtions only with no added X factor, adding xDB at y Frequency should just null everytime.
The fact he had to go through a lot of trial and error and use different settings on the EQs every time to get them to null means that none of them are the same.
Yes you can get *Almost* the same result by messing with the settings run it through a spectrum analyzer, see where the differences are make some more tweaks try again and again until you get it to null but that is not the same thing at all as dialling in the same settings on every plug and immediately getting the same result.
So by his own testing he has actually proved that all of the EQs are bringing something else to the party aside from pure transparent EQ and that something else is what you are paying for with after market EQ Plugs because you have decided you like that extra je ne sais quoi and don't want to have to spend hours messing around with multiple plugs trying to get it almost right.


I *COULD* post the same times on a test track in a BMW as in a Ferrari IF i pulled out four plugs from the Ferrari to make it into an 8 cylinder and limited the engine so it can't go beyond 5000rpm and F*cked up the balance on the suspension and weight distribution and then rebored the BMWs engine, switched out the air filters and exhaust sytem, pulled out all of the extra weight, re mounted the engine in the center of the car, rebalanced the suspension after ballasting for even weight distribution.

Does that make a BMW the same as a Ferrari...HELL NO
Will I be buying a BMW anytime soon because with a lot of heavy modification it can be almost a crippled Ferrari......HELL NO

Wait...what are we taling about? Oh yeah EQ PLugs
Well the upshot of my whole rant is that I Don't think there's any reason for this guy in the article to try and make people out to be stupid for falling for after market plugs. I perhaps could get almost the sound of an SSL Channel strip plug in my daw by using the DAWS own native Compression, EQ, Desser, Gate, Expander and another third party harmonic exciter but if I can do it all slightly better and much more effectively without hours of messing with a million settings on tons of plugs multiplied by the number of tracks I want that sound on why not use the single channel strip.

 

[bozmillar]

I *COULD* post the same times on a test track in a BMW as in a Ferrari IF i pulled out four plugs from the Ferrari to make it into an 8 cylinder and limited the engine so it can't go beyond 5000rpm and F*cked up the balance on the suspension and weight distribution and then rebored the BMWs engine, switched out the air filters and exhaust sytem, pulled out all of the extra weight, re mounted the engine in the center of the car, rebalanced the suspension after ballasting for even weight distribution.

But this is not the same at all. You are talking here about gutting the physical properties of the ferrari to match the BMW. He didn't change any of the properties of these equalizers to make them equal. It's more like comparing a ferrari with the driver seat on the right vs a ferrari with the driver seat on the left. Some people feel more natural in one than the other, but physically, they perform the same.

 

[Bristol Posse]

But this is not the same at all. You are talking here about gutting the physical properties of the ferrari to match the BMW. He didn't change any of the properties of these equalizers to make them equal. It's more like comparing a ferrari with the driver seat on the right vs a ferrari with the driver seat on the left. Some people feel more natural in one than the other, but physically, they perform the same.

In the guys article he says If you take out the X factor all EQs are the same. I don't know how to take the X Factor out of any of my plug ins and even if I Did it would involve cracking them and recoding which would be illegal.
Unless he had acces to purely the algorithms that involve only EQ calculations from the manufacturers of those plugs what he is saying is more or less what I tongue in cheek described above that by modifying the settings between the plugs you can get almost the same result so I stand by my analogy

Also a right hand drive car vs a left hand drive car will perform fractionally differently because of the weight placement of the driver unless you compensate with additional ballast or suspension adjustments to "NULL" the effect but I'm splitting hairs

 

[Massive Master]

I think this link kind of showed the exact opposite of what you are saying here though. The only eq on there that was anything but "plain" was the waves SSL, which has an "analog on/off" button. All the rest were identical.

I probably AM saying exactly the opposite of the article (which I haven't read, for the record).

I can set the EQ in Samp, the AIR EQ and the PLar EQ all to the exact same settings and they won't even sound similar. No doubt, without question, the untrained ear would be able to tell the three apart easier than Coke, Pepsi and RC.

 

[bozmillar]

In the guys article he says If you take out the X factor all EQs are the same.

right. The X factor in all of this plugins though is not analog emulation stuff (except for the waves plug) its mapping "Q=2" to some value in the digital filter. One plugins Q=2 filter might have a wider bandwitdth than another plugins Q=2 filter, but that's a mapping issue, not a filter issue. If you find out where one filter's Q setting has the same bandwidth of another plugs Q=2, then they are identical. The only difference is the number that you see in the little box next to the Q option.

How about this one. One farrari's reacts differently than another with equal pressure on the gas pedal. It's like having a different taper on your gas pedal, but all else is the same.

 

[Bristol Posse]

Oooh I just thought of another one to sum up what the article said

All ice cream is the same except for the flavor. You're stupid to buy fancy flavored ice cream because it's exactly the same as plain unflavored ice cream except for the flavor. If you really want strawberry ice cream you should just get plain ice cream and then try adding all kinds of strawberryish ingredients that you have lying around to it until it tastes close to how a tub of strawberry ice cream tatses



Not much going on today, can you tell?

 

[bozmillar]

Oooh I just thought of another one to sum up what the article said

All ice cream is the same except for the flavor. You're stupid to buy fancy flavored ice cream because it's exactly the same as plain unflavored ice cream except for the flavor. If you really want strawberry ice cream you should just get plain ice cream and then try adding all kinds of strawberryish ingredients that you have lying around to it until it tastes close to how a tub of strawberry ice cream tatses



Not much going on today, can you tell?

Ha ha. No way. There's no way I can believe that you read and understood this article and still make this claim. There's no flavor being added to the different eqs here. The only difference here is the user interface. There's no other difference. The only difference is the way they look (numbers showed in the variable boxes are part of user inteface).

 

[Bristol Posse]

Ha ha. No way. There's no way I can believe that you read and understood this article and still make this claim. There's no flavor being added to the different eqs here. The only difference here is the user interface. There's no other difference. The only difference is the way they look (numbers showed in the variable boxes are part of user inteface).

Nah I read it
He said Emulations are hype and I quote:

"Digital emulations are marketing hype. If you use a fully variable PEQ like the one that comes native with your host & saturation plugins/tools. You will be able to recreate just about any classic console EQ you have heard."

I would disagree with this. I might get close but my DAW doesn't come with a saturator so I would have to try and find one and I know that the SSL Bundle is a combo of digital effect and emulated saturation. That is why I bought it. After I demoed it liked the combination and I wasn't able to get the sound I wanted that it provided from plain EQ and any compression and Free saturation I found on KVR (and neither was the author able to completely replicate the SSL bundle so he just disproved his own argument that you can emulate just aboout any console you have ever heard with a free EQ and saturator)
After trying numerous test configurations I decided it was not hype and bought the SSL Bundle and use a single channel strip

I liked this comment on the article too:

"so what you’re saying is; that instead of just using a Waves EQ and being done with it, you should get the sound you want with Waves, pan it to the left, then duplicate the track on the right and spend hours emulating the sound with various cheap/free plugs… just to prove a point? Sounds like you’ve got too much time on your hands!"

Ha that's great.

 

[mattr]

Haha, sounds like someone is in denial about spending lots of money on EQ plugins

I've spent ages reading through all these threads before, and its all fairly convincing stuff... can't argue with null tests. If I remember correctly, the 'analog emulation' on the Waves SSL strips just adds some very low level white noise!

On the other hand (if its any consolation), good compressor plugins and emulations do live a bit more up to the marketing hype.

 

[XLR]

I've read the article cited by the OP before. Most low-end min phase EQs I've used tend to sound very similar with similar settings. Higher end linear phase EQs though sound pretty different from one another. I haven't used high end min phase software EQs.

I probably AM saying exactly the opposite of the article (which I haven't read, for the record).

I can set the EQ in Samp, the AIR EQ and the PLar EQ all to the exact same settings and they won't even sound similar.

Similar experience here. In my use of the Waves linear phase EQ, any filter above 2 kHz casts a veil on the sound compared to the PLPar EQ in lin phase mode. No amount of tweaking can get them to sound even similar in that freq range.

 

[Bristol Posse]

Haha, sounds like someone is in denial about spending lots of money on EQ plugins

I've spent ages reading through all these threads before, and its all fairly convincing stuff... can't argue with null tests. If I remember correctly, the 'analog emulation' on the Waves SSL strips just adds some very low level white noise!

On the other hand (if its any consolation), good compressor plugins and emulations do live a bit more up to the marketing hype.

Nope not at all
Like I said I demoed the bundle and liked the sound and then after reading numerous articles like this one I spent 2 weeks messing with tons of other plugs I found on KVR I couldn't get that same sound so I bought it as much for the convenience of being able to get the sound I liked in a single plug and I have no buyers remorse

Now that said I haven't used the SSL EQ only plug and don't really give a sh!t if it by itself is the same as the one bundled with the DAW. I always use the channel strip because even bypassed the gate/expander and compressor on the channel strip add some noise that I like (as a consol would) and I like to keep things simple and have one sound as far as possible as opposed to different EQ compressor, Gate, reverb, exciter, saturater on every channel unless something is totally screaming for it.

The guys I know who do this for a living don't have an Allen Heath & a Sony & a Neve & SSL & Avid desk to work on just the one Sony one they picked when they built the studio and they don't have 30 different outboard EQs and compressors and saturators that they send every individual track to. They mix everything on the desk as far as possible with an occaisional outboard effect when needed.

I'm trying to emulate that and mix with as little clutter as possible rather than having 5+ plugs on every track


There are a million convincing articles on the net in both Pro and Con camps about this or any other subject to in this case I tested it and let my ears decide what worked best for me as opposed to worrying what someone I never heard of whose credentials are unknown thought about the subject

 

[bozmillar]

"so what you’re saying is; that instead of just using a Waves EQ and being done with it, you should get the sound you want with Waves, pan it to the left, then duplicate the track on the right and spend hours emulating the sound with various cheap/free plugs… just to prove a point? Sounds like you’ve got too much time on your hands!"

Ha that's great.

Or get the sound you like with the free plugin and spend hours trying to match it with the waves plugin. What makes the waves any more high quality? If it's not in the algorithm, it's in the user interface. All it's saying is that there is no such thing as a high quality eq, because they're all the same quality.

I'm not saying that anyone should ditch the plugins they use. I have certain eq plugins I like and that I use. It's not that any of them are any higher quality than the others, but I know how each one feels, and since each one sounds as good as the next, I find no reason to recalibrate myself to a new eq.

If one sounds more high quality to you, it's because it does what you expect it to do. There are times where I hear a track and think it should be cut at x frequency just to find out that cutting there didn't sound like I expected it to. That's not the eq's fault, it's my fault for thinking one thing and telling the eq to do something else.

 

[Bristol Posse]

Or get the sound you like with the free plugin and spend hours trying to match it with the waves plugin. What makes the waves any more high quality? If it's not in the algorithm, it's in the user interface. All it's saying is that there is no such thing as a high quality eq, because they're all the same quality.

I'm not saying that anyone should ditch the plugins they use. I have certain eq plugins I like and that I use. It's not that any of them are any higher quality than the others, but I know how each one feels, and since each one sounds as good as the next, I find no reason to recalibrate myself to a new eq.

If one sounds more high quality to you, it's because it does what you expect it to do. There are times where I hear a track and think it should be cut at x frequency just to find out that cutting there didn't sound like I expected it to. That's not the eq's fault, it's my fault for thinking one thing and telling the eq to do something else.

Yeah we're getting to the inevitable internet point where we say simillar things in different ways

I guess where I'm at is let your own ears and own workflow preference decide. If what you have is working don't worry about it and I think that's what you're saying too

The fact that some jackass on home recording (ie me) likes SSL plugs and says they sound good should be of no more concern than some jackass on a cakewalk forum who claims that he was able to null a couple of seconds of pink noise using abletons native plugs five out of six tries vs emulation plugs (although I may bear it in mind if I ever decide to release an album of pink noise (and yes he SAYS he was able to null music and drums too but all of the screenshots look suspiciously like pink noise waveforms to me)) Heck neither of us our even posting our real names, we could be anybody.

 

[bozmillar]

Ha ha. Certainly. There's nothing wrong about liking waves eq more than another eq. But this is extremely useful information to know that if you are in the market for an eq, that you are equally as likely to find the plugin that suits you best in some plugin that a high school kid wrote as you are in a $1000 "emulated" plugin.