I have never really spent much time trying to compare different EQs. I've always just grabbed Sonitus and used it. So I just had a quick play around with ProChan EQ, Sonitus, LP64 and Cakewalk Para-Q on a simple, clean electric guitar part. I think I can finally hear a difference!

On that material, Sonitus and Cakewalk Para-Q didn't sound too much different to me. Sonitus definitely was a bit better though and seemed to affect the frequencies a little more. Para-Q seemed maybe less precise, like it wasn't quite sure what it was trying to do?

LP64 sounded much brighter and clearer than the other two. They sounded kinda muddy and there seemed to be a loss in clarity compared to the LP64. I'm wondering if this is the linear phase I'm hearing? It kinda sounded like it could be. The frequencies just sounded more in line. Tighter. Sharper image. But there was something a bit almost robotic and digital about it. It sounded technically better, but maybe not musically better.

My favourite was the ProChannel EQ. It seemed to have all the tight qualities of the LP64 with a clear, distinct brightness to it, but sounded a bit smoother. Maybe less harsh? It didn't sound a huge bit different, but I think it was still better for that piece of material. I 'think' I kinda understand the whole 'ProChannel EQ sound musical' concept. I think I get that..


Anywho, that was my Lab Experiment (as Danny would say) for the evening. I was excited to hear this differences and thought I'd share and maybe encourage others to try and report back on their findings too, if you haven't done so already!

Why do you think they sounded different?

There may be some specific reason.

For example; Does the text readout in the "Q" box indicate that the actual mathematical "Q" that you are hearing is the same for the respective EQs?

It doesn't... and once you consider this you may decide that the only appreciable difference in sound is caused by comparing settings that are not actually like to like... even when they seem to be.

That may seem obvious... that's how hardware works. The labels rarely are accurate enough to take very seriously.

What may not seem obvious is that, if the difference you hear can be attributed to a difference in how the labels on the Q are displayed then you can leverage that idea to realize just about any dsp EQ can sound like any other... all you have to do is set it to sound just like you want. It's easier that loading up another EQ.






The point is; What ever dsp EQ you choose is a great choice.









This is a easy to use tool that can help discern difference when testing audio samples:

http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

It's easier to just flip phase in SONAR. I was thinking I could recall the name of a similar tool that had a data readout... I mistakenly posted this link thinking it was the other and then realized the mistake.


best regards,
mike

Hi Matt,

Thanks for sharing that. Yeah it's amazing how eq's can sound totally different and change things up. One thing to remember about the PC eq is it's starting point Q is more broad at 1.3 than say a Sonitus that starts mostly default at 4.9. The larger the Q, the more the frequencies are affected as you know.

I've been using the PC eq quite a bit myself these days on certain things. The good thing about most of my projects is they don't need much eq at all, so I can get away with using the PC. For things that may not be mine or even when I may be looking for a specific sound in something of mine, I have to use something with more bands. That's the only thing I wish the PC had...more custom ability or the ability to add more bands to it. There are just certain situations where I need more and something like the Sonitus or the Waves Q-10 may be the better choice. This is another reason I wish the PC module allowed for us to use the Sonitus right in it like we used to be able to do. I know we can just add one in the effects bin and create templates etc...but it's nice having certain things built right in for my particular use.

Then of course there are the UAD eq's that are pretty nifty for certain things. But it's cool you like the PC eq. It does sound good and gives us a few nice options. It's also sort of realistic with working on a console. You had your bands, you tweaked them, you were done instead of messing with 6-10 bands of frequencies like Sonitus or Waves.

Another cool thing about the PC eq to me is the starting point/default eq numbers. You can basically load anything up and tweak the frequencies they give you without changing them. Just alter the Q and the level and you get fast results. I kinda wish it had one more band though as a default or the ability to add more like I mentioned.

This is what I love about the Roger Nichols eq's that I use. You can literally custom build them from the ground up telling each module how many bands you want in and what types of controls you want. I use the Uniquelizer like crazy and think it's one of the best and most under-rated eq's ever made. It not only sounds great, but the options are limitless. :) Check out a video on it by the man himself...God rest his soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W51YqRXt1go

-Danny

I've been looking at a few EQ's myself...need to keep the R.Nichols ones in mind...

Software EQs are mostly the same. Some ways where they can sound different are:

1. The Q stuff already mentioned, plus sometimes they may adjust the Q behind your back as the boost/cut level is changed. This is a big one.

2. Harmonic enhancement. Some are emulating hardware non-linear effects, and that can make them sound somewhat different, depending on how obvious the effect is.

3. Filter ring. This is what on synths is called filter resonance. The cutoff frequency for high/low shelf/cut filters have a hump. Sometimes boost/cut filters have a hump on either side. Some hardware EQs do this, and some software EQs emulate it. It can be a nice effect and can make the EQ sound different, though you could emulate it with extra filters if the EQ has enough of them.


Ultimately, one flexible software EQ could sound like basically every other software EQ. But most just implement some combination of these things, and you pick a given one because it's basically an EQ preset in a box. It just has the sort of combination of these characteristics that you want for a particular need.

An EQ like the old Kjaerhus one could emulate most other software EQs, with four different filter profiles (each one had different Q width and filter ring characteristics.)

Oh yes I'm well aware of the Q stuff. None of my Qs were set the same. I set pretty big boosts though (to help me hear a difference), 12dB at 6kHz was my main reference point. I set that with each unit. But the Q I matched each one individually to make them all sound as similar as possible before comparing. I understand each one might have a different slope regardless, but I don't think that's what I was hearing. I will note though, at least visually, the LP64 slope is vastly different to the others - as in the difference between the frequencies affected below, vs the frequencies affected above the set frequency. At 6k, a lot more low frequencies are being affected, at least visually, than the ones above. Other eqs indicate it's pretty balanced. Visually, at least. Whether or not that accurately translates into sonically, I wasn't really listening for. I was just going for the overall feel.

It would be interesting to do the test with say only 3dB boost. The differences may so small it doesn't even matter.

I remember many years ago I was mixing a piano in a friend's song. His piano needed to cut through more so I was boosting around 3-4k to try and achieve this. I was using sonitus. But no matter what settings I used, it just wouldn't work. I couldn't get it to do what I wanted. I then tried another eq (no idea what it was, can't remember) and I instantly got the result I wanted. It suddenly cut through beautifully. I went back and forth between it and sonitus, and no matter what I did, sonitus didn't work, and this other one was perfect every time.

R.Nichols' Uniquilizer - WOW. That was cool.

Dean, maybe it was harmonic enhancement I was hearing then, I don't know. But there was something going on! I swear the sonitus and para-q sound more 'smudged' and less distinct and clear than LP64 and ProChan. Harmonic enhancement could do this I guess, but I did have the gloss button switched 'off' on ProChan and I would imagine that's the only enhancement they have on it..

Certainly need to do more testing, but this was very interesting to hear. Even my girlfriend (who rarely hears what I'm talking about when I compare stuff to her) heard every single thing I said in my first post.

I love the sound of the LP64 but, for me, it's too glitchy to use.

mattplaysguitarDean, maybe it was harmonic enhancement I was hearing then, I don't know. But there was something going on! I swear the sonitus and para-q sound more 'smudged' and less distinct and clear than LP64 and ProChan. Harmonic enhancement could do this I guess, but I did have the gloss button switched 'off' on ProChan and I would imagine that's the only enhancement they have on it..

Certainly need to do more testing, but this was very interesting to hear. Even my girlfriend (who rarely hears what I'm talking about when I compare stuff to her) heard every single thing I said in my first post.

 
 
If LP means Linear Phase, then yeh, it would sound different. A linear phase EQ is based on a different sort of filter (from most software EQs and from hardware EQs.) It's a much more CPU intensive process as well, and therefore has more latency.

Yeah, LP64 is linear phase. Just thought it was funny how ProChan sounded to me much closer to LP64 than to a typical minimum phase eq like Sonitus, even though it's not linear phase. At least from that experiment, ProChan seems the best of all worlds AND is nicely integrated. Now it just needs a volume output control!!!

I use 3 different EQ's and each has it's own flavour.  The Pultec from UAD is amazing and you def notice the difference when you slap that bad boy across the track.  The program material seems to get a bump in the low-mids without even touching a knob.

The Sonitus is excellent for slapping across the master buss and rolling off the bottom end at around 40Hz, I like it because I use it as step EQ.  I tend to set 4 Hi-Pass filters up all at 40hz and then use the Q to create a shape that suits the music if that makes any sense.

Then the Pro Channel EQ's are rather good.

I've tried a couple more of the UAD EQ's including the Harrison and the Manley and wasn't overly impressed.

Peace Ben