Objectively rate EQ plugins

[DM1]

Is there any way to objectively compare the quality of different EQ plugins? Do the cheaper plugins degrade the sound in a specific way that can be measured? Or does the "which EQ is best" question only have subjective (i.e. personal opinion) answers?

I ask this because I just realized, I use the Waves EQ plugins within Sonar and never the built-in Sonitus EQ that's more integrated with the Sonar console. But I do this without thinking. I have no reason, other than the money I paid, to believe that the Waves stuff is actually better. And I can't hear a difference when I try.

So is there something I can do, some side-effect I can measure or artificat I can listen for, to determine which one actually is better?

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

I think you have to keep listening. I don't have Sonar, but I use Waves & UAD within Cubase. For example, if I boost the highs on the UAD Pultec, it usually sounds sweet and natural. If I try the same with the stock Cubase eq, it usually sounds brittle and unpleasant.

It may help to do some mixes with each and listen to them on other systems. Sometimes you need to get away from your monitoring environment for things like this to become apparent.

I dunno, there may be some scientific way to compare the performance of the eq's in terms of phase relationships or something, but that's not why people spend the money on expensive plugins. They hear them and say "this sounds better than what I have, I must have it".

Scientific performance and audio quality are often two different things. One example is that engineers and equipment developers spend a lot of effort trying to get theoretically perfect digital audio to sound like analog, which is quirky in a technical sense but sounds great.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

One can only objectively *measure* what an EQ does. Things like size, shape, and smoothness of the boost/cut curve, noise level, total bandwidth etc. can all be measured. But what meaning can be interpreted from those measurements is dubious, at best.

By definition, good or bad sound is in the ears of the listener. For that matter, what may sound good to you for one application in a particular song may sound bad for a different application in a different song. I won't mention names, I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a brand war, but I have one EQ that gets most of it's exercise on premastering the mixdown, but I rarely use it during tracking or mixing, but there's another EQ I use often during mixing which I rarely touch during mastering. One of them also works great on classic jazz but just doesn't cut it on rock anthems. And so on.

All that said, there is probably 99% agreement among engineers that a Manley Passive sounds light-years better than your average Alesis 2230. And those differences could probably be quantified via measurement somewhat. But there will always remain intangables that are just not found in lab test results that make different boxes sound different. And more to the point, there will always be different ears wired to different brains that make the subjective "good/bad" call for any given sound.

G.

 

[SonicAlbert]

I won't mention names, I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a brand war, but I have one EQ that gets most of it's exercise on premastering the mixdown, but I rarely use it during tracking or mixing, but there's another EQ I use often during mixing which I rarely touch during mastering. One of them also works great on classic jazz but just doesn't cut it on rock anthems. And so on.

SouthSIDE, I don't think that would create a brand war at all, at least I hope not. I'm certainly interested in specifics, and how you and others use your tools. I'd like to know what you use where, unless you consider it a "trade secret" or something like that.

But certainly the use of eq depends exclusively on the track. I've found I can use one eq for bass on one track (for example), and then on the next song the same eq will not work for the same instrument.

It's hard to say there are "objective" rules, it's such an ear thing and so much depends on the sound you are going for.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

SouthSIDE, I don't think that would create a brand war at all, at least I hope not. I'm certainly interested in specifics, and how you and others use your tools. I'd like to know what you use where, unless you consider it a "trade secret" or something like that.

No trade secrets . Just a combination of - as you alluded to yourself - there are no hard and fast rules, and a reminder caused by an excellent point that Fletcher made recently in a totally different thread (though he was referring to monitors, the principle holds in other gear too) that mentioning of specific brands or models is pulling on a very subjective thread.

This is a bit OT for the thread, but since you asked, I'll answer the limited examples I had in mind when I wrote that. There are exceptions to what I'm about to say all over the board, but in VERY GENERAL terms...

I tend to gravitate towards using a dbx2215 when needed on tracking and sometines for some final polish on premastering.

During mixing I use all sorts of stuff depening on the needs, but I find myself using Elemental Audio's Eqium as a go-to quite a bit; it's flexibility and customizability are well-suited for track modeling and for working differing tracks to fit like jigsaw pieces, IMHO.

But when I move to polishing the mixdown I like something a bit gentler and warmer than the Eqium; sometimes the 2215 for general shaping and for solid-sounding bass correction, or Voxengo's EssEQ for mid and upper-mid taming or adding some 15k air.

I have a large inventory of other EQ plugs from most ofl the usual suspects, plus a couple of old outboard graphics other than the 2215; each has it's own sound that has it own use. And of course if I'm working for hire in a real studio outside of my paltry project setup, I'll take advantage of whatever they have available. I mentioned the Manley Passive for a reason; I *love* that thing when I have the rare access to it in one of the local barns. I also like some of the Drawmer stuff that I have used; I rather enjoy the 1961 for having very flexible and forgiving sound.

But the point - and the question - was what EQs were I specifically thinking of in my original post. Hence my answer here. I really don't want to get into a "my choice for EQ is better than your choice for EQ" pissing contest with anyone here.

G.

P.S. BTW, Albie, thanks for the PM note. Real life happened here in January and kept me way busy and therefore off the boards for a couple of weeks. I may have to take another short hiatus starting in a day or two to clear out a couple of project logjams.

 

[pingu]

Each process has a negative side affect on the signal, some more than

others.

It just so happens that this side affect is desirable.

If you have good monitors and good ears you will soon learn which eq boosts

or cuts the signal with the least amount of unwanted colouration.

It wouldnt hurt to download psp master Q and apply some broad strokes to a

mixdown and then do the same with the standard plugs that come free with a

DAW or try to find some cheap and nasty eq recommendations.

Try and do this on a reasonably clean source signal and you should hear the

difference.

 

[LeeRosario]

Use your ears and try alot of different EQs. That's the easiest explination I can come up with right now.