Prochannel "vintage" EQ is really different

The "vintage" style in the Prochannel EQ is really different to the other two. I'd not expected to be able to see visual differences in the tiny graph, but it sure shows up. Try setting the gain of the LMF to 10db, leaving all other controls at their default. Now toggle the various styles, from Pure to Vintage to Modern then to Pure again. You can see that the width of the EQ curve is much narrower for the Vintage setting, while there is no visible difference between Pure and Modern. It's like the Q is larger. You can actually decrease the Q (from 1.3 down to about 0.8) to look more like the other two, but I didn't think the style was going to make that sort of difference. It's not just a visual thing in the display, SPAN shows the same difference on pink noise. And it also shows virtually no difference between Pure and Modern (although there may be phase differences due to filter design - SPAN only shows amplitude).

As others have mentioned, it'd be nice to know the actual difference between the various styles in terms of filter design.

Cheers, Peter.

As Lindsey Buckingham from Fleetwood Mac once said. "I turn the dials until it sounds good."

I'll tell you what I know about the differences between the different ProChannel EQ modes. Each mode's Q behaves differently based on a the actual Q setting and the gain of that frequency.

If I am not mistaken it works like this ...

Pure ... The Q narrows with a higher level of boost or cut
Vintage ... The Q widens with a higher level of boost or cut
Modern ... The Q stays the same with any level of boost or cut

You can try this out by making a narrow Q and boosting and cutting to +/- 18db with each type. You will see each type's Q change accordingly as you boost and cut.

Thanks Seth!

 I am hoping to find out what the notch in "vintage" is meant to emulate.

 I remember reading something about that characteristic but it was a long time ago.

 Thanks for sharing what you have.

 best regards,
mike

If I were to take a stab at it, and this is by no means official, I would guess that the Vintage mode is similar how the Neve works, and the Pure mode is how the SSL works.

Also, check out the different notches related to Q setting when the bands are Shelves. IIRC the vintage notch does the opposite of the shelf's boost or cut while the other modes follow suit with boost or cut. This can make for a very drastic tonal change and can sweet when dialed in.

Another method: Using your ears and your eyes.

Have you ever read anything by Dave Moulton? He's very much into the idea that you can train yourself to have Golden Ears... if you inform yourself during the training period with facts and apply constant discipline to your craft.

Using your ears and your eyes, with humility, is an example of meta cognition.

Once someone makes a realization like that in the craft... the "I just use my ears" routine is [pun warning] short sighted. [/end pun warning].

Anyone who realizes this confronts the idea that, regrettably, there is not much you can learn from some one that prefers to employ superstitious habit rather than informed decision making.

very best regards,
mike

I've never met, worked for, or worked with a great artist who wasn't humble.

Maybe its an East Coast, West Coast thing? I'm not trying to be a wise guy. We obviously have had different experiences in this matter.

all the best,
mike

Sometimes you say the silliest things.

:-(

"If you have another method of mixing that produces top quality results which does not require your ears, please share with the group."

Apparently you can cut the whole album with your eyes closed.


I find the engineers that keep their eyes open have far better results.

Why is that not a surprise.

Middleman


Anyway, back to the topic.

So it appears from what you are saying Seth, that the behaviour of the EQ is more characteristic of the control approaches of standard, vintage and modern versus a sonic coloring applied as well. Would that be safe to conclude? Basically the same sonics with different approaches to Q in relation to boost/cut.

The description provided earlier today makes me wonder how the choices would differ from simply modifying the Q as needed to get the very same effect as desired.

It seems that if you understand that wide Q characteristics are from older designs while narrow characteristics are from newer designs, while constant width is considered "pure" (Ashley was making constant width designs back in the early 1980's so I guess it's hard to date) that one might be able to replicate the entire range of choices merely by combining a bit of knowledge and suitable taste. While listening of course.

The notch in the apogee of the vintage peak curve is still something to consider.

Also as I think you are suggesting... it would be great to know if any or what any type of coloring is included in each iteration of the PC EQ choices. Perhaps there is a light convolution treatment? Perhaps there is a mild distortion? Perhaps there is some purposeful phase smear in Vintage? Perhaps there is less phase smear in the modern because it uses nicer capacitors? Perhaps pure is linear phase EQ? Perhaps there is some light saturation? Perhaps there is some brownian noise from the old carbon comp resistors in Vintage?

We've already been told specifically that Gloss is nothing but a high boost... but, of course, several people enjoy telling themselves that they hear something extra special. It seems that if there was something special in Gloss that Cakewalk would brag about it.

The fact is, Cakewalk has specifically said it is just a top boost and only a top boost. It appears to be a top shelf with a really soft, or low value, Q.

It is perpetually interesting to me to observe how people can believe they hear stuff that they want to hear.

It is actually very helpful when mixing... because you learn to leverage preconceptions to create sonic illusions that fulfill the expectations of any intended audience.

Anyways, without any specific knowledge or a method to analyze Pro Channel EQ it will remain a tool that pleases some peoples' imagination while leaving other people wondering if one really nice EQ and a sensibility for mixing can not cover all the very same options.

I'd enjoy learning that each Pro Channel EQ has something special going on inside... it seems like it would be something for Cakewalk to brag about and take credit for.


best regards,
mike

I have been asking persistently for 2 months now and I usually get way laid by someone who tells me I'm a big pain in the tuckus.

I keep thanking the Cakewalk team for the info they offer... and persist in requesting more details.

I'm gonna keep searching my memory to figure which cool old EQ had that notch... I can almost recall reading an article about some subtle nuance in the real life circuit... but it's still not coming to top of mind.

I'm just the sort of guy that has to know some facts before I think I know even a little bit about something. :-)


Scott, thanks for the nice words about my website.

best regards,
mike

mike_mccue


In with you on that.

That notch is something about a particluar famous circuit... we'll figure it out! I just can't remember what it is... someday it will pop up to top of mind.


:-)

best regards,
mike

 
 
Fender Vari-Q perhaps?

I always thought Q was a constant; i.e. a Q of a particular setting would give a particular slope across all parametric  EQs. Aparently PC is not like that. But then one has to ask in the modeled older types in PC did the board it is modeled from have a Q setting. Was it a parametric EQ? If it wasn't then that would make some sense.