cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 1/18/2004
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
EQ CITY
What is the difference bewtween an FFT filter, Linear Phase Eq and lets say...the standard FX EQ that comes with Sonar? Why would you want to use one instead of the other?
< Message edited by cmusicmaker -- 7/29/2004 2:02:05 PM >
|
tonyd
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 222
- Joined: 7/14/2004
- Location: Toronto
- Status: offline
Well, if you are interested in the math, it is here. The sound wave may be represented in the time domain (and the digitized version of that is the very wave you see in the audio clips), or, equivalently in the frequency domain, obtained by taking the Fourier transform of the original wave. In the math world, the Fourier transform is reversible: you can recover the original function exactly. In the digitized world, going back and forth is a bit lossy. What any FFT filter does is, it morphs the Fourier image before transforming it back (adding dips, shelves, notches, etc. at various frequencies.) The proble is as soon as you mess with the frequency domain, you will affect the time domain. For example, the sharp edges of a square wave are shaped by high frequencies. If you chop them off, the square will become smoother, but if you think of what happens at the bottom of the square, because of the smearing, there is suddenly signal ahead of the original one (a pre-echo). Obviously, this can ruin the original signal. That's where not all EQ's are created equal. The carefully guarded secrets are essentially the algorithms that minimize the perceived impact of the frequency domain filtering (that is, the precise shapes of the notches, etc). It's not just the math, it's what our ears/brains like, can detect, etc. For a linear equalizer, the phase of the Fourier image is a linear function of the frequency. The "phase" is related to the delay caused by the equalizer, as a function of frequency. Now, it turns out that if the phase is proportional to the frequency, the delay of the processed signal does not depend on the frequency. The delay is constant and equal to the proportionality coefficient. Hence, no time-domain smearing, no pre-echoes, and that's what we want. Other equalizers try to emulate the sound of the old analogue (vintage) equalizers. They smear, distort, and what not, however, we like their characteristics simply because we grew up listening to that sound ;-). One rule might be that if all you want to do is remove a very narrow band (high Q cut) (e.g. the 60Hz AC) you probably don't want to color the sound at the same time. So the digital linear phase EQ is porobably the better choice.
|
spinner
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 191
- Joined: 1/13/2004
- Location: Lynnwood, WA
- Status: offline
I believe the linear phase EQ is used in higher end mastering EQs and is much more transparent than your normal band type and parametrics that most of us use.
|
jsaras
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2642
- Joined: 12/7/2003
- Location: Pasadena, CA-The Center of the Universe!
- Status: offline
Whew, that's a great technical explanation!
A linear phase EQ hypothetically should be transparent and is "colorless". The reality of linear phase EQs is that they often sound "windy" with narrow Qs and high gains. They are useful for "surgical" purposes.
I'm a huge fan of real analog EQs. There's a depth, smoothness and dimension that has yet to be duplicated in the software realm.
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 1/18/2004
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: tonyd
Well, if you are interested in the math, it is here. Great link! The sound wave may be represented in the time domain (and the digitized version of that is the very wave you see in the audio clips), or, equivalently in the frequency domain, obtained by taking the Fourier transform of the original wave. In the math world, the Fourier transform is reversible: you can recover the original function exactly. In the digitized world, going back and forth is a bit lossy.
What any FFT filter does is, it morphs the Fourier image before transforming it back (adding dips, shelves, notches, etc. at various frequencies.)
The proble is as soon as you mess with the frequency domain, you will affect the time domain. For example, the sharp edges of a square wave are shaped by high frequencies. If you chop them off, the square will become smoother, but if you think of what happens at the bottom of the square, because of the smearing, there is suddenly signal ahead of the original one (a pre-echo).
Obviously, this can ruin the original signal. Are you saying then that an FFT filter is to be avoided...as Samplitude has this type of filter...? (I use a version of it as my wave editor accessible from the tools menu in Sonar) That's where not all EQ's are created equal. The carefully guarded secrets are essentially the algorithms that minimize the perceived impact of the frequency domain filtering (that is, the precise shapes of the notches, etc). It's not just the math, it's what our ears/brains like, can detect, etc. I assume the alogorithms are what separates the Waves Plugs form the MDA plugs...? For a linear equalizer, the phase of the Fourier image is a linear function of the frequency. The "phase" is related to the delay caused by the equalizer, as a function of frequency. Now, it turns out that if the phase is proportional to the frequency, the delay of the processed signal does not depend on the frequency. The delay is constant and equal to the proportionality coefficient. Hence, no time-domain smearing, no pre-echoes, and that's what we want. Why is there so little mention of Linear Phase Eq's then? Your explanation seems very clear and concise, is it that the accurate digital sound is not what *we* all like to hear? A bit like the argument about programming drums with a drum grid...they do not sound natural enough? Other equalizers try to emulate the sound of the old analogue (vintage) equalizers. They smear, distort, and what not, however, we like their characteristics simply because we grew up listening to that sound ;-). So most EQ's I would guess are not Linear phase EQ's even though the sound is not digitally accurate?  One rule might be that if all you want to do is remove a very narrow band (high Q cut) (e.g. the 60Hz AC) you probably don't want to color the sound at the same time. So the digital linear phase EQ is porobably the better choice.
I think Equim or Firium is a Linear phase EQ as well as the free Ess EQ from Voxengo. I have been trying out another a free one...LinearPhaseGraphic EQ2..it does sound different to say the Nyquist EQ maybe thinner or granier for want of a better way to describe it. I have heard that Linear Phase Eq's can cause latency issues and affect transients is this true? spinner:I believe the linear phase EQ is used in higher end mastering EQs and is much more transparent than your normal band type and parametrics that most of us use So the best type is Linear phase then not for instance the Sontus EQ or the Sonar DSP FX EQ? jsaras:A linear phase EQ hypothetically should be transparent and is "colorless". The reality of linear phase EQs is that they often sound "windy" with narrow Qs and high gains. They are useful for "surgical" purposes.
I'm a huge fan of real analog EQs. There's a depth, smoothness and dimension that has yet to be duplicated in the software realm. Aha! So it is a case of sound over digital accuracy then? Going by what we hear rather than what is digitally accurate? ...I have no preference either way and want to pick up some tips from those that know.  Thanks for taking the time to give your views guys!
|
jsaras
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2642
- Joined: 12/7/2003
- Location: Pasadena, CA-The Center of the Universe!
- Status: offline
Not all linear phase EQs are created equal. Firium is a pretty nice linear phase EQ as is Voxengo's Curve EQ and Ozone's EQ in digital mode. One of my favorite software EQs, NyquistEQ, is free. It's a 3-band paragraphic EQ which can be found here: NyquistEQ. The interface is a little quirky (look at the photo on the web site for about 20 seconds and you'll get the gist pretty quickly). It has some of the most gorgeous filtering I've ever heard in the software realm.
|
tonyd
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 222
- Joined: 7/14/2004
- Location: Toronto
- Status: offline
cmusicmaker:
Are you saying then that an FFT filter is to be avoided...as Samplitude has this type of filter...? (I use a version of it as my wave editor accessible from the tools menu in Sonar)
Sorry, I was not very clear. I believe that FFT filter is just a generic name for anything that messes with the spectrum of the signal. Maybe other people use the term differently. So every digital EQ would be a kind of FFT filter. Why is there so little mention of Linear Phase Eq's then? Your explanation seems very clear and concise, is it that the accurate digital sound is not what *we* all like to hear? A bit like the argument about programming drums with a drum grid...they do not sound natural enough?
It is one thing to derive theoretically that if the phase is linear, the delay does not depend on the frequency. It is another matter to actually design the filter such that its phase response is linear. As a result, the underlying algorithms took time and resources to develop, and the companies who invested in the research price their products accordingly (Weiss). The math they used is not published anywhere, so you can't have a bunch of guys in a garage hack together a plugin and price it for a hundred bucks or so ;-) I have heard that Linear Phase Eq's can cause latency issues and affect transients is this true?
Fourier transform is funny, and far from intuitive. You can do a dip on your equalizer (linear phase or whatever), and the processed signal will suddenly have spikes that may clip! Pulling certain frequencies down may indeed increase levels for some transients. The overall energy (RMS) is down of course. The latency is unavoidable for any complex processing. Anything that any hardware processor does could be done in software, in principle. The problem is, the really advanced algorithms would be uselessly slow. In the video/image processing community, offline rendering is a fact of life, because it is still way easier and arguably more creative than drawing cartoons by hand. The music community, on the other hand, won't tolerate not being able to hear the results immediately. Either we get used to offline rendering (not likely), or the computers get way faster (the algorithms will also get more sophisticated); no matter what hardware processors will always beat software plugins in speed. Thanks for taking the time to give your views guys!
I have learned on this forum so much myself. Amazing community.
|
SteveD
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2831
- Joined: 11/7/2003
- Location: NJ
- Status: offline
I'm surprised there's been no mention of the Waves Linear Phase EQ.
Jonas... I've "heard" you say you like it for mastering... but how would you compare it to your latest recommendation of the Nyquist EQ?
I like the Waves gold bundle Q10 EQ over the Sonitus EQ.
Anyone else agree?
|
daverich
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3418
- Joined: 11/6/2003
- Location: south west uk
- Status: offline
voxengo curve eq.
THE bomb when it comes to plugin mastering eq.
I've not seen anything so versatile and so effective.
Kind regards
Dave Rich.
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 1/18/2004
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: jsaras
Not all linear phase EQs are created equal. Firium is a pretty nice linear phase EQ as is Voxengo's Curve EQ and Ozone's EQ in digital mode.
One of my favorite software EQs, NyquistEQ, is free. It's a 3-band paragraphic EQ which can be found here: NyquistEQ. The interface is a little quirky (look at the photo on the web site for about 20 seconds and you'll get the gist pretty quickly). It has some of the most gorgeous filtering I've ever heard in the software realm.
I have tried this plug and it does sound good..I just miss the numerical information that you get with other EQ's as I am still on an EQ learning curve..no pun intended. I do have Ozone though and it does have a very high quality EQ.
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 1/18/2004
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: tonyd
Sorry, I was not very clear. I believe that FFT filter is just a generic name for anything that messes with the spectrum of the signal. Maybe other people use the term differently. So every digital EQ would be a kind of FFT filter. Ahh...no sorry I misunderstood you! It is one thing to derive theoretically that if the phase is linear, the delay does not depend on the frequency. It is another matter to actually design the filter such that its phase response is linear. As a result, the underlying algorithms took time and resources to develop, and the companies who invested in the research price their products accordingly (Weiss). The math they used is not published anywhere, so you can't have a bunch of guys in a garage hack together a plugin and price it for a hundred bucks or so ;-) That makes Aleksey a genious then! (Voxengo) Fourier transform is funny, and far from intuitive. You can do a dip on your equalizer (linear phase or whatever), and the processed signal will suddenly have spikes that may clip! Pulling certain frequencies down may indeed increase levels for some transients. The overall energy (RMS) is down of course.
The latency is unavoidable for any complex processing.
Anything that any hardware processor does could be done in software, in principle. The problem is, the really advanced algorithms would be uselessly slow. This seems to be true of high end plugs like Waves and others in this category they are probably not very CPU friendly because of the calculations they have to make. Any Waves users care to verify this? In the video/image processing community, offline rendering is a fact of life, because it is still way easier and arguably more creative than drawing cartoons by hand. The music community, on the other hand, won't tolerate not being able to hear the results immediately. . Agreed and thanks for the level of detail on your responses... So what does tonyd use then...? Can I get a snapshot of your mastering set up?
< Message edited by cmusicmaker -- 7/30/2004 1:50:10 PM >
|
tonyd
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 222
- Joined: 7/14/2004
- Location: Toronto
- Status: offline
So what does tonyd use then...? Can I get a snapshot of your mastering set up?
Look, I know the math, I make the living doing it. Music is just what I enjoy, something I used to do much more before the kids were born, something I am desperately trying to do more again now that they have grown up a bit, but that's it. It's just late nights and weekends. I am happy to answer some theoretical questions, but what the "real guys" use for mastering I only know mostly from books and this very forum ;-) The magic of music is one can totally suck at it but it is still so much fun! Anyway, in addition to the Sonitus that comes with S3PE, I also like and use the Ozone EQ, I am totally fascinated by SIR and impulse modeller (I second that Alexey is a genius). I am quite happy with my Audiophile 2496, and I just got a pair of KRK RP-8 (thanks, jonas) and that was probably the single the most transformative investment I ever made. Like when you finally get a pair of stronger glasses after resisting the realities of aging for six months ;-)
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 1/18/2004
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: tonyd
So what does tonyd use then...? Can I get a snapshot of your mastering set up?
Look, I know the math, I make the living doing it. Music is just what I enjoy, something I used to do much more before the kids were born, something I am desperately trying to do more again now that they have grown up a bit, but that's it. It's just late nights and weekends. I am happy to answer some theoretical questions, but what the "real guys" use for mastering I only know mostly from books and this very forum ;-) The magic of music is one can totally suck at it but it is still so much fun!
Anyway, in addition to the Sonitus that comes with S3PE, I also like and use the Ozone EQ, I am totally fascinated by SIR and impulse modeller (I second that Alexey is a genius). I am quite happy with my Audiophile 2496, and I just got a pair of KRK RP-8 (thanks, jonas) and that was probably the single the most transformative investment I ever made. Like when you finally get a pair of stronger glasses after resisting the realities of aging for six months ;-)
Thanks tonyd I did not mean to pry. I also use Ozone with a pair of Samson resolve 80 a's I also use the M audio Firewire audiophile..thanks again.
|
Paul G
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2334
- Joined: 3/17/2004
- Location: Florida
- Status: offline
Thanks for the look into the mathematical world of EQ, Tonyd. Geez! Like I don't have enough to study as it is! 
|
jsaras
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2642
- Joined: 12/7/2003
- Location: Pasadena, CA-The Center of the Universe!
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: SteveD
I'm surprised there's been no mention of the Waves Linear Phase EQ.
Jonas... I've "heard" you say you like it for mastering... but how would you compare it to your latest recommendation of the Nyquist EQ?
I'm not a huge fan of Waves Linear Phase EQ. It sounds fine but the interface is too much work. I've used a variety of EQs depending on what I'm trying to accomplish. Up until recently 90% of the work was done with a Manley Massive Passive. I'm now using a combo of software EQs which include Sonitus ,Gliss EQ and Nyquist EQ for track EQs and UAD's Pultec Pro and Cambridge EQ and Voxengo' Curve EQ for mastering purposes. At times I may use several different EQs chained together to get the results I'm looking for. The Q10 is indeed a great EQ. Combined with the S-1 it can do some m/s tricks that come in handy for "problem" mixes.
|
cAPSLOCK
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1071
- Joined: 11/28/2003
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: jsaras
One of my favorite software EQs, NyquistEQ, is free.
Man I have loved this thing since the moment you first brought our attention to it (thanks). It really is a smooth sounding filter. But I cant use it yet. :( It seems to have one deal-killer bug for me. When I use it in a project it seems to faithfully 'forget' the settings I make for it between saves. It just loads back up flat. I hope Mangus fixes this bug. Did anyone notice that there are all kinds of hidden settings for it too? Like the ability to turn off the compensation per band as well as change the EQ 'type'. They can be found under automation or by using the vanilla VST interface. cAPS
< Message edited by cAPSLOCK -- 7/31/2004 2:02:45 AM >
"We da da sahw pe paw fidlily-doobee afidlily-dooten-bweebee!" -Shooby
|
SteveD
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2831
- Joined: 11/7/2003
- Location: NJ
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: cAPSLOCK
ORIGINAL: jsaras
One of my favorite software EQs, NyquistEQ, is free.
Man I have loved this thing since the moment you first brought our attention to it (thanks). It really is a smooth sounding filter.
But I cant use it yet. :( It seems to have one deal-killer bug for me. When I use it in a project it seems to faithfully 'forget' the settings I make for it between saves. It just loads back up flat. I hope Mangus fixes this bug.
Wow... that IS deal breaker! I haven't tried it yet... but based the reviews here I will. Can't believe everyone is living with it this way. Did you try reinstalling it?
|
jsaras
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2642
- Joined: 12/7/2003
- Location: Pasadena, CA-The Center of the Universe!
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: cAPSLOCK
Did anyone notice that there are all kinds of hidden settings for it too? Like the ability to turn off the compensation per band as well as change the EQ 'type'. They can be found under automation or by using the vanilla VST interface.
How is that done from the VST interface? The ability to turn off the compensation will probably turn this into my "go to" EQ for tracking. One workaround for the settings being lost is to save your settings as a preset. A bit of a pain but whaddaya want for nuttin'!
|
cAPSLOCK
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1071
- Joined: 11/28/2003
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Status: offline
ORIGINAL: jsaras
How is that done from the VST interface? The ability to turn off the compensation will probably turn this into my "go to" EQ for tracking.
One workaround for the settings being lost is to save your settings as a preset. A bit of a pain but whaddaya want for nuttin'!
I thought about this workaround... but I am afraid I am too absentminded to actually pull it off. ;) As to the hidden controls. I do not know a way to expose them unless you were to use another wrapper that allows this. You know... I *think* the VST Adapter used to allow you to check a box that selected a generic GUI some time ago. But I am not sure. Anyway, the way to get to them in Sonar is via automation envelopes. What's good about this is you can use a hidden control, but still have the regular GUI for the main stuff instead of one of those horrible little generic ones. cAPS
"We da da sahw pe paw fidlily-doobee afidlily-dooten-bweebee!" -Shooby
|
midimal
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 97
- Joined: 11/9/2003
- Location: Lost in space!
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 02, 04 7:46 PM
(permalink)
I've used a variety of EQs depending on what I'm trying to accomplish. Up until recently 90% of the work was done with a Manley Massive Passive. I'm now using a combo of software EQs which include Sonitus ,Gliss EQ and Nyquist EQ for track EQs and UAD's Pultec Pro and Cambridge EQ and Voxengo' Curve EQ for mastering purposes. At times I may use several different EQs chained together to get the results I'm looking for.
HI! Since you own UAD-EQs and Voxengo EQs - so I just wanted to ask one thing. I own UAD ("only" with Pultec) ,Voxengo GlissEQ and Waves Platinium Edition. Is it really worth for me to get Cambridge EQ? Is it really SOOOO much better than Voxengo EQs (or Waves?) Same question on Fairchild. Thanks a lot :)
|
jsaras
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2642
- Joined: 12/7/2003
- Location: Pasadena, CA-The Center of the Universe!
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 04, 04 1:43 PM
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: midimal
HI! Since you own UAD-EQs and Voxengo EQs - so I just wanted to ask one thing. I own UAD ("only" with Pultec) ,Voxengo GlissEQ and Waves Platinium Edition. Is it really worth for me to get Cambridge EQ? Is it really SOOOO much better than Voxengo EQs (or Waves?)
Same question on Fairchild.
The Cambridge EQ is 96% the same as their Channel Strip EQ. It's the same software code just dressed up differently. The only substantive difference is the high shelf in the Cambridge, which has a lot of options (and sounds better as a result) and its user interface. If you feel that you can't get the kind of EQ cuts you want to hear in the treble using the Channel Strip or the Pultec you may want to get it. Otherwise it's a pass. The Fairchild is absolutely worth getting. It takes a while to properly wrap your mind around it (the presets are useless) but once it's dialed in correctly it's magic. Regards, Jonas
|
midimal
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 97
- Joined: 11/9/2003
- Location: Lost in space!
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 04, 04 3:15 PM
(permalink)
The Cambridge EQ is 96% the same as their Channel Strip EQ. It's the same software code just dressed up differently. The only substantive difference is the high shelf in the Cambridge, which has a lot of options (and sounds better as a result) and its user interface. Hi Jonas! Where did you get those infos from? I am completely shocked ! :) So Cambridge is no go for me then! Probably same story is with the dreamverb!!! (RevPro + 130Usd? LOL) I will get Fairchild "only" then. And for my Powercore the VirusPlugIn (btw. it sounds fantastic!) Unfortunately i cant afford the Sony plug-ins! :((((((( Especially Oxford-EQ, Inflator and Oxford Dynamics for TC Powercore:((((( <-- that are the bad news! The good news are: The demo of Sony plugs run for 40sec before they quit for 2-3sec. I already have an idea how could I benefit from this mistake! 
< Message edited by midimal -- 8/4/2004 6:16:53 PM >
|
SteveD
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2831
- Joined: 11/7/2003
- Location: NJ
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 04, 04 3:35 PM
(permalink)
|
midimal
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 97
- Joined: 11/9/2003
- Location: Lost in space!
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 08, 04 4:53 AM
(permalink)
i got fairchirld - and its great :)
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 1/18/2004
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 08, 04 5:54 AM
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jsaras
At times I may use several different EQs chained together to get the results I'm looking for.
Thanks for the tip...I initially thought using more than one EQ was a bit excessive but your right. After trying it myself it really can make a difference in certain situations.
|
robnotbob
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 126
- Joined: 5/8/2004
- Location: larryville, ks
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 08, 04 1:00 PM
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: cmusicmaker
ORIGINAL: jsaras
At times I may use several different EQs chained together to get the results I'm looking for.
Thanks for the tip...I initially thought using more than one EQ was a bit excessive but your right. After trying it myself it really can make a difference in certain situations.
By "chained" do you mean more than one EQ in the same bus, or an EQ in one bus run out to another bus, etc.? Thanks, rob
It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes. - Agent Rogersz
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 1/18/2004
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 10, 04 5:27 AM
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: robnotbob
ORIGINAL: cmusicmaker
ORIGINAL: jsaras
At times I may use several different EQs chained together to get the results I'm looking for.
Thanks for the tip...I initially thought using more than one EQ was a bit excessive but your right. After trying it myself it really can make a difference in certain situations.
By "chained" do you mean more than one EQ in the same bus, or an EQ in one bus run out to another bus, etc.?
Thanks,
rob
I cannot speak for Jsaras but my understanding of his comments were that you can do any of the following... 1. Use Eq's in series on a track. As you said... 2. More than one EQ in the same bus. 3.An EQ in one bus run out to another bus. I do not think there is any hard and fast rule as such but I used two or three to get a particular sound and it worked for me. But Jsaras can tell you for sure, exactly what he meant.
< Message edited by cmusicmaker -- 8/10/2004 5:28:43 AM >
|
jsaras
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2642
- Joined: 12/7/2003
- Location: Pasadena, CA-The Center of the Universe!
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 10, 04 10:53 AM
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: cmusicmaker
I cannot speak for Jsaras but my understanding of his comments were that you can do any of the following...
1. Use Eq's in series on a track.
As you said...
2. More than one EQ in the same bus.
3.An EQ in one bus run out to another bus.
All of the above can certainly work, especially if you're working with 24-bit files. Mastering engineers have been doing this type of thing with various analog EQs for a long time.
|
robnotbob
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 126
- Joined: 5/8/2004
- Location: larryville, ks
- Status: offline
RE: EQ CITY
August 10, 04 11:03 AM
(permalink)
Thanks to both of you!
- rob
It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes. - Agent Rogersz
|