are eq plugins dif from one another

  • Thread starter Thread starter djclueveli
  • Start date Start date
pingu said:
No ADC sucks majorly.
Click to expand...
indeed it does

I noticed this when I got mcdsp filterbank EQs they made my cymbals sound 'orrible but my toms, kick & snare (top side) sounded great

I've just got Q4 & 10 as well as the rennaisence EQs

The Joe Meek is whacky as well, sort of growls if you crank the low end

Slidey :D

PS. Pingu.........don't ya luv me no more :(
 
LeeRosario said:
In PT, you can physically see if there are any offsets (in samples), so that's kina helpful, but not that it applies to things like Nuendo or Cubase.
Click to expand...
You can in fact see the delay amount, in samples, that each plugin requires in Cubase and Nuendo. With the latest versions compensating for the FX busses as well though, this is more for satisfying curiosity than anything else :)
 
can someone explain what latency or delay does like what does it do to the sound?
 
OK, this slays me! I've been arguing for a long time that different DAW software sounds..... different. This argument has been against a seemingly majority opinion who say "it's bits in - bits out, which software you use doesn't make a difference." So.... different EQ plugins sound different (of course they do), but different DAW programs don't? Hilarious! :p
 
Robert D said:
OK, this slays me! I've been arguing for a long time that different DAW software sounds..... different. This argument has been against a seemingly majority opinion who say "it's bits in - bits out, which software you use doesn't make a difference." So.... different EQ plugins sound different (of course they do), but different DAW programs don't? Hilarious! :p
Click to expand...
Some DAW titles do indeed sound different. They shouln't. I don't quite get it. But they do.

G.
 
Robert D said:
OK, this slays me! I've been arguing for a long time that different DAW software sounds..... different. This argument has been against a seemingly majority opinion who say "it's bits in - bits out, which software you use doesn't make a difference." So.... different EQ plugins sound different (of course they do), but different DAW programs don't? Hilarious! :p
Click to expand...

If you sum ITB, then the different summing algorythms are of course gonna sound different. If you use any of the other audio "features" they will sound different. However, if you are simply sending tracks out to your converters raw, they should sound the same....
 
NL5 said:
The full blown PT rigs have delay compensation? I thought none of them had it. Seems like without that, mixing would be mighty difficult.
Click to expand...

Yes, HD systems have plug in delay compensation and LE does not as of right now.

It really isn't that big of an issue if you know what you are doing with your plug ins. Most of the plugs that I ran into that induce a lot of delay are the mastering and phase accurate ones. Most of those are supposted to be insterted on your master fader, not on individual tracks.
 
NL5 said:
If you sum ITB, then the different summing algorythms are of course gonna sound different. If you use any of the other audio "features" they will sound different. However, if you are simply sending tracks out to your converters raw, they should sound the same....
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I agree......but people have distorted that very limited concept, track in/track out, into the idea that the whole DAW app sounds the same, app to app, which is just wrong. That only works for the small minority of DAW users who use their DAW strictly as a tape machine. It's mostly another case of parroting.......someone said "bits in/bits out, and people just repeat it, only they apply it incorrectly to the application as a whole, EQs and all.
 
Robert D said:
OK, this slays me! I've been arguing for a long time that different DAW software sounds..... different. This argument has been against a seemingly majority opinion who say "it's bits in - bits out, which software you use doesn't make a difference." So.... different EQ plugins sound different (of course they do), but different DAW programs don't? Hilarious! :p
Click to expand...


Yeah but that's kinda like apples and oranges. DAWs rely on mics all the way thru conversion so the differences can be more prevalent. That's just my opinion though.
 
NL5 said:
If you sum ITB, then the different summing algorythms are of course gonna sound different.
Click to expand...
No summing, just playing back a raw WAV file; no signal chain, no extra processing, no panning.

I have Cakewalk Guitar Tracks 2, Adobe Audition 1.5, Sound Forge 6, Steinberg Wavelab Lite, Sonic Foundry Vegas 4 and and Steinberg Nuendo 3 on my system (I haven't bothered uninstalling the legacy apps ;), and I can tell you I and others can definitely hear a difference between many of them.

The Sonic Foundry stuff sounds the same, as does the Steinberg stuff; this makes complete sense, they are surely using the same core playback engines. I will even say that to my ears the Sonic stuff sounds the same as the Steinberg stuff.

However, the Adobe Audition definitely sounds slightly different than the SF/Steinberg stuff, and the Cakewalk GT sounds different from any of them.

Again, this is just playback of a single unretouched WAV file in the timeline.

I have no good technical explanation for it. Frankly if someone else on this board told me this exact same thing and I didn't hear it for myself, I'd tell them to lay off the peyote. But I will swear on a stack of anthing you want me to swear upon that the difference *is* there. It's subtle, but it's there.

G.
 
I agree with ya there SSG.

You should give Saw Studio a run around the block. To me its hands down champion.

One thing i love about saw, when you pan an instrument, you can clearly hear it with pin point accuracy at the panned location specified.
It use integer math for its summing not floating point.
 
pingu said:
I agree with ya there SSG.

You should give Saw Studio a run around the block. To me its hands down champion.

One thing i love about saw, when you pan an instrument, you can clearly hear it with pin point accuracy at the panned location specified.
It use integer math for its summing not floating point.
Click to expand...

Interesting!

Would you say SAW has better sound-quality than PT-LE 6.7's engine?
 
Yes.

I will never mix through protools again.

Saw really is amzing.

You have to see it and hear it to believe it.

Its set up like a huge console with high quality effects on each channel.

Eq Compressor Gate, they are of very high quality and very cpu efficient.

But the best thing is how easily one can gain access to these effects as they are built in to each channel.

Press the f2 key and all of these processors pop up in your face for easy tweaking.

Plus mono/stereo switch. Aux sends really is awesome.


Just by buying the software alone and using only the onboard processors i gaurantee it will mince any mix you do in Pt Le with all the damn third party plugs you can poke a stick at.

Its an up hill battle with Pt Le, and some other DAWs for sure.

Plus Pt Le does not have ADC which is a joke.

That is really damaging on a big mix,,, dynamics processing especially.


Go to the site and have a look at the videos.

The mix engine is for sure the best thing about Saw.
 
I see you say saw was some swell software...

How much does that go for these days?
 
I tried out SAW Studio and Sequoia ...definitely sound different. I went with Sequoia, because it burned everything else usunder by a big margin for transparency, audio engine, ease of use.....quality...features.....for EQ I am trying out Algorithmix "RED" LP EQ...really love it so far. Love everything by Algorithmix really. Most transparent EQ I have heard. Most of the engineers I know(especially acoustic/classical!) prefer Sequoia as well....it is the @#()@(#

SAW goes for about 3g I think. good program, but second (in my book) to Sequoia.
 
Does Sequoia use the same mix engine as Samplitude?


I find Saw to be superior in sound than Samplitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top