The plugin scam exposed. Did you fall for it?

D

drtechno

Active member
I have known for a long time most plugins are the same thing with a different skin, but may have the controls in a different calibration. Nice to see others figuring this out.
 
He does qualify the statement in the beginning by saying "almost". Most EQ is modelled after analog EQ which we perceive as being sonically pleasant. Back in the early 90's, Sony came out with the Oxford console which changed things up a bit. We had considered one for the studio before deciding on ProTools with the control surface implementation we went with. The processing for the time was a big factor in consideration. From what I recall at the time it is Infinite vs Finite impulse response filtering. The console spawned plugin's and EQ's that worked in the frequency domain without phase shift you get with analog modelled EQ. Analog filters tend to do more in the time domain (phase) than frequency. Like anything painted with a broad brush there are exceptions. I don't have a ton of EQ plugin outside of stock but that is not to say there are not ones I'd like. Just not a heavy EQ guy. There is a lot more to this than this click bait video would have you believe.
 
I dunno if it’s true or bs. But I’ll say this, I’ve never had any need for any plugins outside of the stock plugs that came with PT10. They seem to work just fine for me.
 
Well, he’s not full of bs, but NONE of this is new. Hes presenting it like people have been claiming to have been vlaiming theirs actually invents something, but they are all using the same theory, and what you are getting is new implementations. With analogue filters, we have three component combinations, L, C and R to fiddle with that produces a filter. The simplest version produces a high pass, or a low pass, or a volume adjustment. All the development has been on variations of this. When we went digital, they designed a new electronic method of doing this with maths. Again, the basic starting point was the same. What we pay for with antique analogue or modern digital is the implementations. Nicer starting points, repeatability, control.

A cheap eq, designed in a teenagers bedroom and coded is nothing the same as one designed by one of the big companies, but could be really nice sounding, because how he used the building blocks was novel.

That cancellation thing is also suspect, because differences in some areas will mean that they are down near the noise floor. You can null out two signals passing through totally different devices quite simply, try it, start to dial in time delays, and initially nothing happens, then, the difference appears and very quickly becomes cancellation over a short range.

The guy is telling you physics, as if its magic. Its 100% correct and 100% hyperbole. Nothing new, nobody getting ripped off, no scullduggery. All filters have frequency, depth and width. I asked my teacher at college in the 70s, why is the width called Q? He thought for a moment, and said because it means quality. The snag is, we dont know what quality actually is?
 
Rob, it is funny you mentioned quality. Having done manufacturing for all of my career, the word quality is one of the most misused/misunderstood words today. Technically, quality is measured by a predetermined outcome. Depending on how the key measure points are against the target values determines its quality. Grade v quality are often thought to be the same, which they are not.

I was going to write a long diatribe but decided no one really cares. But the point to support you statement "we dont know what quality actually is" because it must first be defined, then measured and that is rarely, if ever, done.
 
rob aylestone said:
The guy is telling you physics, as if its magic. Its 100% correct and 100% hyperbole. Nothing new, nobody getting ripped off, no scullduggery. All filters have frequency, depth and width. I asked my teacher at college in the 70s, why is the width called Q? He thought for a moment, and said because it means quality. The snag is, we dont know what quality actually is?
Click to expand...
I can see someone that didn't come from an electronics background not be able to explain Q factor or the ratio loss of filter resonance.
 
No - clearly you've never had formal teaching training. Let's just say learning requires adjustment of the rules to get key concepts acoss. The best example I've ever seen is explaining harmony that Jacob Collier does - from kids to Herbie Hancock. The child version is ultras simplified to match their existing stage of development, and at the Herbie Hancock end, I understood so little - one guy with differentiation.

You don't teach ratio loss, because it's not required, but every EQ has a Q knob, so how do you explain it simply? Do what my engineering teacher did - when I was in college, things like the resonance forumulii were on the edge of my understanding. I still remember them, but doing the things now would stretch me a bit.
 
I don't fall for most of that crap but I think some do. I honestly would rather not have a fancy interface because those graphics use resources and screen space. When I find something that works I stick with it. Yes, years ago I was always on the lookout for the next best thing but it didn't take long to figure out that what I already had was getting the job done.
 
DM60 said:
Rob, it is funny you mentioned quality. Having done manufacturing for all of my career, the word quality is one of the most misused/misunderstood words today. Technically, quality is measured by a predetermined outcome. Depending on how the key measure points are against the target values determines its quality. Grade v quality are often thought to be the same, which they are not.

I was going to write a long diatribe but decided no one really cares. But the point to support you statement "we dont know what quality actually is" because it must first be defined, then measured and that is rarely, if ever, done.
Click to expand...
I'm with you DM. I worked also worked in an industrial setting where quality was measured by a set of specifications and how well we met those specs. I've often said that the problem with audio is that people are dealing with perception, not specifications. If you are into racing, then the criteria is how fast you can do a lap. Winning an losing is measured in milliseconds. If you're building a house, then you can measure the how square, how big, how solid things are. With audio we can do measurements of THD, IM, noise phase, jitter, etc. However, some people will say that is all meaningless because we can't measure what really matters. I think that's a cop-out.

I recently watched a video about AD/DA converters. The person ran the signal through the process hundreds of times to get a measurable change. Then the comments that "see, it degrades the signal" start coming. I would have said run the signal through a tape deck 5 times and see how much it is degraded. Yet using tape was supposedly the preferred path because it's "analog and doesn't get contaminated by the digital process". Objectively the digital process is massively more consistent and accurate than the tape process.

Unfortunately sound and music are a bit like food. Some people like sweet, some like spicy, some like sour and bitter. There's no absolute right or wrong. It's merely a matter of like and dislike, or preference for a or b. So the arguments will continue.

I don't have lots of plugins that do the same thing, so I can't test his hypothesis. Apparently for the few systems he's testing, his conclusions seen to be accurate. There are multiple ways to solve a quadratic equation, but regardless of the method, the answer should be the same. How someone codes a plugin may have no bearing on the end result if the "answer" is the same, except maybe in the efficiency of the computation.
 
rob aylestone said:
No - clearly you've never had formal teaching training. Let's just say learning requires adjustment of the rules to get key concepts acoss. The best example I've ever seen is explaining harmony that Jacob Collier does - from kids to Herbie Hancock. The child version is ultras simplified to match their existing stage of development, and at the Herbie Hancock end, I understood so little - one guy with differentiation.

You don't teach ratio loss, because it's not required, but every EQ has a Q knob, so how do you explain it simply? Do what my engineering teacher did - when I was in college, things like the resonance forumulii were on the edge of my understanding. I still remember them, but doing the things now would stretch me a bit.
Click to expand...

lol, that is why the operator teacher's answer is 'quality'.
I have an electronics degree not a communications degree. I got stuck doing audio engineering like every other sax player did in bar bands. Even though through the years I have met a few of them and even befriended some more famous ones. I really don't know why your teacher would walk you through resonance and q factor ratio calculations if you were not building an EQ with adjustable Q. Its almost meaningless without working with a circuit. I would figure some sort of ear training thing like I did myself when I wanted to know how it relates to adjusting it.

They would probably use the Q factor definition as: the ratio of center frequency to bandwidth. Even though a Q ratio control is only in adjustable bandwidth eqs. But you are correct, any time you have an eq point you have a q factor. Even a graphic EQ.
 
Last edited:
TalismanRich said:
I recently watched a video about AD/DA converters. The person ran the signal through the process hundreds of times to get a measurable change. Then the comments that "see, it degrades the signal" start coming. I would have said run the signal through a tape deck 5 times and see how much it is degraded. Yet using tape was supposedly the preferred path because it's "analog and doesn't get contaminated by the digital process". Objectively the digital process is massively more consistent and accurate than the tape process.
Click to expand...
I remember making others mad when I point out how much of the degradation came from the analog line stage instead of the converter because the op amps having poorer signal to noise than the converter.

There are two places a converter has loss 1. at the AD conversion where there is signal to noise loss that is varied by signal amplitude and 2. at the DAC where loss of slew rate causes poor voltage acceleration that you observe as poor transient response.
 
drtechno said:
I remember making others mad when I point out how much of the degradation came from the analog line stage instead of the converter because the op amps having poorer signal to noise than the converter.

There are two places a converter has loss 1. at the AD conversion where there is signal to noise loss that is varied by signal amplitude and 2. at the DAC where loss of slew rate causes poor voltage acceleration that you observe as poor transient response.
Click to expand...
Theoretically that might be true, but practically, it's probably not even a factor. If you have to run thru a process hundreds of times to get measurable degradation, then a single pass is likely to be totally imperceptible. Unless you're using external analog processors, the DA process really only occurs once at the end. It won't be cumulative.
 
Yeah, I agree and disagree with him. But then I already landed on the FabFilter eq as my go to when needed. So he isn't selling me anything really.

A stock or integrated eq on channel in Cubase is usually all that is needed for simple adjustments. High pass or notching out something. If I need to dissect or work on a tone, then I will pull out a better EQ.

That being said, have I been rused into purchasing a bunch of other EQ's in the past Yep I was fooled into marketing. I have a bunch of products that I haven't used in years that I payed for. Like the PSP series of EQ's. The Noble Qex was my fave for a while because of the 'Pultec' style shelf low end thing, but that soon wore off as a gimmick. Its funny how over time you just realize that good tone in is better than fixing...

But then, I also bought a Waves bundle like many of us thought we needed to. I use only two of those plugins ever now. The API 2500 eq for paralell drum smashing and the H Verb. Likely those because they just worked the first time and I quit trying to find better. And got used to how easy the GUI was to work with. Not sure it sounds any better than stock plugins.

Oh wait, the Waves MaxxVolume is awesome on snare! LOL Forgot I just bought that...

So, when it comes to other plugins besides EQ? Well there are always some that are amazing, some that I have buyers remorse for purchasing. But that is kind of the fun part of spending money.

I would say as advice from this, buy the Fabfilter EQ and move on to other things like playing good music! :)
 
TalismanRich said:
Theoretically that might be true, but practically, it's probably not even a factor. If you have to run thru a process hundreds of times to get measurable degradation, then a single pass is likely to be totally imperceptible. Unless you're using external analog processors, the DA process really only occurs once at the end. It won't be cumulative.
Click to expand...
Oh it is true, but its not as a bad flaw like FM modulation recording that goes on in a VCR and within a few times you get video mixer noise in the video from copying a copy that was copied. But all flaws accumulate, but compared to tape hiss and a 60 db signal to noise ratio of typical analog summing, I don't think audio engineers really need to worry about it. No recording system is going to be absolutely perfect.

But DA issues are more predominate in consumer electronics especially where they deviated from the suggested circuit in chip datasheets that keeps these flaws to a minimum.
 
Side tracking a bit, but for what I do work wise, I'm often bringing in video into Cubase, that I'm very comfy with, sorting audio issues and exporting it back into the editor. I use premiere as an editor and it has the facility to export from the timeline into audition, or photoshop for tweaking. when you finish, it automatically updates the audio or the video in premiere. BUT - I still do a proper file export sometimes and edit that in cubase, and as long as I don't mess with the clip length I replace the old with the new manually in premiere. This topic made me wonder. All this in the box or outside the box in and out I'm doing, I never noticed any differences in the audio or the video, depending on what I'm doing - yet the data streams seem intact. With audio we know that with error connection many errors are transparent but this becomes obvious when it gets beyond OK in picture and sound - but if these errors can't be spotted, any gentle mangling in poor coding for EQ and audio plugins will be hidden too? Odd, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top