Just saw this. Interesting experiment.

http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=361

I guess I'm undecided. The tests I have done do show a difference say between quad curve and sonitus for example amongst others. Anywho, not really looking for a debate. Just thought I'd share as I found it interesting!

Hi Matt,

 With all do respect... if the tests aren't prepared properly... they aren't actually tests.


 Rhythminmymind does a pretty good job of setting up and describing how he sets up his tests.

 

 Most of the time someone finds an actual difference in the sound of a digital EQ there is a very apparent reason why the difference is audible.

 It can be the result of a different filter or a different order or now a days it can be the addition of a Impulse Response that emulates some distortion.

 The underlying math on digital EQs is more similar unit to unit than it was in the age of analog EQS... so when tests are set up for fair comparison you will see that it is very hard to discern a difference unless a difference was purposely interjected as an after thought.

 It would be very helpful to customers if we could learn what the explicit differences are in the dsp we are offered so we can collect a nice range of designs but it seems as if the industry at large estimates that it can sell more units by implying there are differences even when it may or may not be something that can be substantiated by empirical experience.

 That's a great article about EQ.

 Thanks for posting the link.


 best regards,
mike



 

Parametric EQ is the best to me.

Whenever I find an EQ which seems to work better for me, I try and go back to my bundled EQ and replicate the results. Most of the time, it CAN be done, either by using more than one filter or such.

That being said, certain EQs narrow down your options a bit, which can be a good thing. And the ergonomics also come into play.

For example, for electric guitars, using a SSL G type of EQ always seems to make it easier for me to intuitively cut and boost in all the right places, whereas w/ a generic parametric EQ, it'll be a lot more work.

However, once I nailed that sound, if I go back to my generic EQ, it's fairly easy to replicate the results. But for the sake of efficiency, it's easy to justify having a SSL type EQ in my toolbox.

All that may be good and well.....BUT!

As I see it, I have favorites when it comes to EQ. Some are just easier to work with and make adjustments and yeah.... to my ears, they sound different too.... maybe it's my ears fooling me...

That's my unscientific observation. 

Guitarhacker


All that may be good and well.....BUT!

As I see it, I have favorites when it comes to EQ. Some are just easier to work with and make adjustments and yeah.... to my ears, they sound different too.... maybe it's my ears fooling me...

That's my unscientific observation. 

To my ears they do sound different too. I compared QuadCurve with Sonitus with the Cake ParaEQ and they all sounded different. I of course adjusted the settings based on listening rather than the actual numbers on the knobs. Adjusted them till they sounded as similar as I could get. To me, the ParaEQ sounded harsh and pretty bleh. The Sonitus and QuadCurve sounded very similar but the QuadCurve just sounded that little bit more musical to me and slightly less 'scientific' or something like that than what I heard from Sonitus. Also checked the LP64 which again was different. Less musical, but very 'perfect' and 'accurate' sounding. But it's also a different eq altogether. Maybe they just use different curve shapes or there is some sort of saturation or harmonic change going on in the Quad (Gloss turned off, of course), I don't know. But I like it. Would be interesting to experiment with some null tests and see if my ears are just deceiving me or not.

I think for the biggest part, if you know the type of filters they use, it can get you a long way in matching results. 

The example I always mention is how unhappy I was w/ Logic's EQ for low cut filtering - no matter what kind of apparently extreme slope I was using, there was just no way to achieve similar results as I got using, say, Studio One's EQ.

I couldn't see a reason for that until someone explained that this was due to the type of filtering.  So the alternative is to use a second band to further cut the low end. But this also means extra steps and using 2 bands to do what 1 band can accomplish. So matching them and getting them to sound similar isn't impossible, but it just isn't as intuitive as using the right tool. 

For example, my favorite native EQ is McDSP's Filterbank: it sounds incredibly sweet, it's actually hard to dial something that sounds ugly w/ this one. The exact opposite of your basic surgical EQ. Now, no doubt that a generic EQ could be tweaked to sound somewhat similar, but you have to hunt for those sweet spot.

No..  I do not believe this at all.

1.  You have a bunch of people making vst plugins as a hobby.

2.  You have a bunch of people making software that is absolute crap, and selling it.

3. You have professionals, engineering things, that are unique and different.

I think the ProChannel Quad Curve is an example of an eq that is different.  Its very nuanced..  You need a really developed ear to hear it.  The gloss function, the pure button...   

A whole bunch of thing..   anyways..

I agree that I think there just might be something different going on, but to counter some of those things, Linear Phase - the gloss button is just a harmonic exciter (I believe) which is mentioned in the article. That is, the processing goes EQ+Saturation etc. That's what I think is happening here. You could get the same result just using the eq then adding your own exciter.

As for the pure, and vintage etc buttons, I believe these are just curves and how they behave with Q and gain. For the same Q setting, pure will have the same bandwidth for both gains and cuts and it's linear. For others, it might be effectively a narrower Q when you cut but wider when you boost. And some also get wider the more you boost, whist others might just stay the same, or maybe even get more narrow (don't know why you'd want that though). So each of the four options (or three in X1) are for different workflows. They can all sound the same if tweaked, but behave differently. So as has been mentioned before, each one can allow you to get to the result you want faster. I think this might be the key thing here. Some curves might tend to just sit well with things like a kick, others sit better for a bass. Others better designed for a vocal or acoustic etc. Doesn't mean another eq can't be used to get the same or very similar result, just that one eq gets there faster. Supposedly!


At the end of all that though, I swear I can still here something different going on between some eqs, so who knows!!! I do think the what I said above about the quad curve is true. Correct me if I am wrong. But comparing some cheaper eqs to the quad really does sound different. At the end of the day, whatever works works!


Pultec emulations are just nuts. They do something to the bass that I can't get with any other eq. Not even close. So thick and punchy. But hey, maybe it's just a simple saturator and harmonic exciter that does it alongside a reqular eq! Don't know. All I know is it sounds good instantly with a tweak of a button, so that's good enough for me! No need to go screwing round with 3 different plugs to get the same result in just one button move.

@ mattplaysguitar,

That's really interesting.  There is a lot there to respond too, but I kind of have to make sure I conform to some other commitments.  Hopefully the thread gets some more responses, and I will return in a while, with a some stuff to add.
That's really cool though

Cheers