EQ + Spectrum analyzer in one?

Hi All-

I've been experimenting with different EQ plugins. I understand that you can get basically the same results with all of them, although I'm sure there are differences of opinion re which is the most "transparent", etc. I have a humble home studio, so the *really* fine differences will be lost on me, I'm afraid...

What's most useful for me for right now (still learning, reading) is an EQ with an interface that includes a spectrum analyzer so I get immediate visual as well as auditory feedback. I'd rather not run 2 separate plugins for this (eg., Sonitus EQ plus Cakewalk Analyzer).

The easiest for me to work with so far by a wide margin is EQUO (included with FL Studio), but that can only run as a VST in another host if purchased bundled with the Image-Line FX "Juice Pack", which is $99 USD. (I wish I could purchase it separately, since I don't really need any of the other included FX.) You can just draw the frequency response(s) you want with a single gesture, or pinpoint and adjust frequencies, etc.

The Linear EQ included with S7 in Curve Mode comes closest in terms of ease of use, but it "stutters" or doesn't sound at all when I'm making adjustments, even with a simple test project with only one audio track.

I'm also checking out Voxengo's GlissEQ. That might be the best way to go, but am I missing something in SPE7 that would do something similar, or do I need to insert an EQ plus an analyzer in each track so I can hear & see what I'm doing at the same time?

Thanks-

-Susan

Another vote for the Gliss EQ and SPAN.

Mike

I've moved over to Logic and I've found the stock channel eq (with spectrum analyzer) to be excellent. But I guess it's totally irrelevant in this Sonar-context. :)

I just bought the Wave Arts Trackplug (also with spectrum analyzer), and it's great! I think it costed $200. I mixed my last project with it almost exclusively. Sounds great. Nice eq, nice, transparent compressor and the best software gate I've heard. Highly recommended.

http://www.wavearts.com/TrackPlug5.html

Another vote for Gliss EQ.

Also, if you're going to install the Timeworks EQ & Comp from S2XL, you'll need to dl and run the DirectXUtility.

HTH

There is'nt any lack of scathing responses ( especially on mastering forums!) about the usage if FFT analysers whilst mixing : " Oh , look at that mix!!" , " use your earballs !!ect. ect .

I personally think it's good to develop a little ear/eye coordination!! That said , it's always a good Idea to close your eyes and not become transfixed with all the cool stuff happening in the display!


The things I have learned in my travels that can help are ; The FFT process is filled with compromise, always remeber that you are almost always dealing with data that has been averaged in some manner because of computational limitations and realities. lower block sizes are more accurate in the time domain, but don't display long wave frequency amplitudes well. If you increase the Block size you will be able to observe bass and lower midrange frequency amplitudes better , but at the cost of slower time display accuracy (which leads us back to trusting your ears because there could be cognitive dissonance when you are trying to coordinate two senses and the data recieved by the both of them is not in synch!!).

These tools can help you to track down rouge resonationg frequencies pretty fast , but not subtle masking within adjacent one third octave bands.


I guess what I'm getting at is by all means experiment and develop your own methods , but try to be aware of all thats going on. The devil is in Details

ORIGINAL: plectrumpusher

The FFT process is filled with compromise, always remeber that you are almost always dealing with data that has been averaged in some manner because of computational limitations and realities. lower block sizes are more accurate in the time domain, but don't display long wave frequency amplitudes well. If you increase the Block size you will be able to observe bass and lower midrange frequency amplitudes better , but at the cost of slower time display accuracy (which leads us back to trusting your ears because there could be cognitive dissonance when you are trying to coordinate two senses and the data recieved by the both of them is not in synch!!).

That's not correct. The efficient FFT algorithm was "invented" in the 70's (or 60's?) and is quite simple in the digital domain. I don't think computer power is an issue.

I'm not saying that a FF transform is'nt accurate , But you do have some choices to make when you implement it .

Susan , I'm glad you did'nt interprate my post as wagging my finger disapprovingly ; not at all my intention . I've seen some pretty big shouting matches about using freq analyzers! I use them all the time .
Just thinking out loud abit.

Cheers

+1 for Voxengo Curve EQ or GlissEQ

Hi-

Susan , I'm glad you did'nt interprate my post as wagging my finger disapprovingly

Not at all; not to worry, but thanks!

I'm still inclined to go with the Image-Line Juice Pack. Granted it's $20 USD more than GlissEQ, but EQUO is so easy to work with, and there are a bunch of other FXs included.

Does anyone else here have experience with EQUO? It's just silly easy to draw an EQ curve with it.

Still on the fence-

Thanks-

-Susan

ORIGINAL: Susan G

Hi Dan-

I do still have the Timeworks plugins, so I'll re-install them and check those out as well.

I also have Voxengo's SPAN -- curious though why you prefer it to CW's Analyzer, which just seems very simple and direct to me, plus you can record the output as envelope data. I don't know if you can do that with SPAN, nor do I know at this point if I'd need/want to, but hey, you can!

Thanks much-

-Susan

I just found the CW Analyzer to be a bit garish...and I'd already become comfortable with SPAN...and it seems to me to be more flexible.

Hi Dan-

I just found the CW Analyzer to be a bit garish...and I'd already become comfortable with SPAN...and it seems to me to be more flexible

Thanks. I dunno, but the Voxengo plugins, as much as I like their sound, look very "quilted" or padded, and weird to me. That's only a comment on the GUIs, though.

Thanks-

-Susan

funny about this.. i've posted the same sort of thing 2 weeks ago on the propellerheads site for reason

even if you haven't got an amazing setup , you notice the difference in the eq.. depends on the sounds your using though.

I use a lot of harsh / heavy sounds, that fill up the frequencies, so they clash and when you eq cut certain ranges on certain sounds, you notice a big difference, same with side chaining, for me it's a must the kick drum is more prominant, so it's very punchy.

computer music mag, sometimes has a PDF file of frequencies, that show the area's where you can cut and the muddy area's say for vocals , piano etc.

Hi, Susan,

Although it's a stand alone program, not a plug-in, you may want to check out Har-Bal, which has the features that you were asking about along with some really cool and useful extras for a pretty reasonable price. I recently bought it and am currently experimenting with it. So far, I'm happy with it, it's definitely worth a look!

Bob

Hi All-

The first window that comes up when I try to install from the 2XL CD says the DirectX utility has to be installed. I don't get to say I just want to install components. Only the MIDI FX are broken out.

I still have the Sonic Timeworks folder available and I looked at the install log. I wonder if I can cheat and use the registry settings from my old PC? Or should I just let it install DirectX 8.1? Can't hurt, right?

Thanks-

-Susan

P.S. Bob: Thanks, I have Har-Bal and I like it a lot, but what I'm looking for here is a channel plug-in.