Hey folks,
 
Some of you may be familiar with AOM and their Invisible Limiter, which has garnered rave reviews.  Now they've come out with a new EQ plugin.  I know -- yawn, yet another EQ.  Well, you may want to check this out anyway.  The GUI alone makes it worth a demo -- large and clear, with very smooth control action.  It's a joy to use.  And the sound?  Also very smooth and natural -- no harshness or unwanted coloration of the input signal here.  True to its name, it's transparent.  Probably more so than any other EQ I've tried.
 
http://aom-factory.jp/en/products/tranquilizr/
 
In a thread on GS, one user compared this favorably to the new DMG Equilibrium.  I haven't tried that one yet, since it still seems to be undergoing refinement, but it's one of the most raved-about plugins around.  If the AOM EQ offers similar performance, it's a bargain, even at its lifetime license price of $99.  But, as with the limiter, you can purchase a year-long license for $25 and upgrade later if you wish.  Enjoy!
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 

I naturally start by comparing an EQ's features against what I'm using now, which is FabFilter Pro-Q. So here are some comparisons between the two, in no particular order or organization, based solely on AOM's published feature list and photo...I haven't demoed it yet.

AOM wins on appearance, as it is very pretty. OTOH, Pro-Q's UI is much less cluttered. Ergonomically, it comes down to whether you want to see all controls for all bands all the time, or not. There are pros and cons for either approach.

Both do M/S, which is probably going to be a standard feature for equalizers going forward. AOM appears to be limited to 8 bands. Pro-Q can have up to 24, but in practice 8 is more than enough.

There is no mention of AOM providing filter shapes other than shelf and bell. Pro-Q does more types, but fewer than some EQs (e.g. GlissEQ). Truth is you can get by just fine with just those two types, and although I use Pro-Q's low-cut filter on almost every track you can get nearly-identical behavior from a bell-shaped parametric filter. 

AOM supports up to 24db cut/boost; Pro-Q goes to 48db. Both have 6, 12, 24 and 30db scales. Both have a band-solo feature. 

Differences...AOM offers gain compensation, which Pro-Q does not (although I'd probably turn it off if it did). Pro-Q does either linear- or minimum-phase; AOM makes no mention of a linear-phase mode. Pro-Q has a spectral overlay, but AOM apparently does not. Pro-Q uses your GPU for efficiency, something only FabFilter plugins do AFAIK. Pro-Q offers separate mono and stereo versions; AOM makes no mention of that - that's a critical feature and potential deal-breaker, assuming they didn't just neglect to mention it.

Anyhow, that's about all I can divine from the feature list alone. On a feature-by-feature tally I'd have to say Pro-Q wins overall, except for one factor: it's more expensive. Next step is to demo the AOM and see how it feels in actual use.

It'll be interesting to hear how you like the AOM vs. the Pro-Q.  I demoed that a while ago and loved it, but couldn't justify the expense when I already had so many EQ plugins.  But the AOM is one that might compel me to buy ... the $25 deal, natch.
 
Regarding mono vs. stereo, there's only one version of the plugin that I'm aware of, but it works equally well in both modes.  Not sure why you'd want two separate versions, unless you're trying to save CPU.  Which brings up a potential issue:  at its highest quality setting (16x oversampling), there is a noticeable CPU hit.  Those with slow machines, take note.  Also, there's no linear phase mode.  If that's a must, look elsewhere.  But you can do low- and high-pass filtering just fine, at various slopes.
 
Anyway, the main criteria for me is the sound quality, which I think is pretty fantastic.  Once you hear something like this, you really notice other plugins' coloration of the sound.  Sometimes that's what you want, but when you don't, there are few options.  This would be one of them.  Have fun!
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 
 

bought it !  love it.   I can see it :)  yea that was a dig at the pro channel .  It does it's job , takes away what is needed ,
   and it liked the hi end too when boosting.   I like the payment option as well.  this may take the place of PLPar EQ3 ,
     one of my favorites.

Eddie, the reason you'd want separate mono and stereo versions is that one outputs mono and the other outputs stereo - regardless of whether it's on a mono or a stereo track. This can have implications for the next effect in the chain, especially if it expects a mono input. This is why FabFilter, and many other high-end vendors such as Waves, offer separate mono and stereo versions of all their plugins.

As for coloring, I consider all high-quality equalizers equal in that regard. A well-written EQ will not impose any coloration that you didn't ask for. When it comes to equalizers, it's really about ergonomics: which one lets you dial in the proper setting most quickly and conveniently. Truth is, with patience you can achieve any effect with the Sonitus EQ that you can with Pro-Q or any other boutique equalizer. I've just found that I spend less time fiddling with Pro-Q.

I've downloaded the plugin but haven't had time to demo it yet. I also plan to take another look at the limiter while I'm at it.

Bit, good point about mono vs. stereo ... I hadn't thought of that.  To satisfy my curiosity about how this EQ behaves in this regard, I tried feeding it both mono and stereo signals and checking what was output to a succeeding plugin.  If I set my test up right, it looks to me like the AOM EQ outputs mono if fed mono, stereo if fed stereo.  That's how I would expect any plugin to work, at least those which aren't meant to convert from one mode to another. 
 
One more comment about "coloring" ... many plugins I have, including highly regarded EQs, to my ears do impose a distinct sonic character on the signal.  It may be a kind of harshness, grit, or dullness.  Usually it's a dead giveaway that what you're hearing is output from a plugin, not real hardware.  I do not hear that kind of thing with the AOM.  YMMV.
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 

AOM vs. Pro-Q, continued...

I've now spent a little time with the plugin, and I have to say it's quite nice. Dialing in settings is pretty quick and logical, very much like Pro-Q.
There are a few ergonomic quirks that aren't as slick as Pro-Q. The mouse wheel controls gain by default, while in Pro-Q it controls Q. AOM does allow you to also use the wheel to adjust frequency or Q by holding down the CTL and ALT keys. I'd prefer Q to be the default action, and don't really see any benefit to using the scroll wheel for frequency or gain since those are more easily and precisely changed by moving the mouse pointer. A minor gripe, though.

Also, AOM's mouse wheel action is kinda goofy: if you scroll too far, the node handle loses focus and stops moving, requiring you to move the mouse to get control back. This may just be a bug, though.

I like Pro-Q's band solo feature much better, especially coupled with the scrollwheel action for bandwidth. I like that with Pro-Q I can solo a band within the graphical display without having to go down to the knob section. In fact, with Pro-Q you could hide the knobs and buttons altogether and still do almost everything within the graphic.

Pro-Q's graphical display is vertically larger, even though the total screen real-estate used is less than AOM's. This is because of all the knobs on the AOM, which dictates the size of the UI. All those knobs are unnecessary with Pro-Q because you can do most things within the graphic area.

AOM's CPU usage is quite a bit higher than Pro-Q's, even at the lowest quality setting. At the highest quality setting, my (already large) project froze with the addition of a single instance of the AOM EQ (although you should never need to use that setting!). Although equalizers aren't usually the biggest CPU-eaters in a project, you tend to have more of them than any other class of plugin, so even a modest increase in CPU usage can be a killer when multiplied times 30 or 40. In my case CPU usage on core 1 increased by a whopping 23% with no oversampling.

AOM has peak-level meters, Pro-Q does not. That would be a plus, except that the meters aren't particularly useful, having no scaling or peak-hold options. It would be nice if they could be hidden to allow a wider spectrum display. I'm not sure what use level meters are on an equalizer in the first place. But it's the only feature I've identified that AOM offers and Pro-Q doesn't have.

Trivial difference: Pro-Q can do narrower notches and broader filters. Not a big deal to me, though. Extremely narrow bandstops should be avoided anyway, and filters wider than 10 octaves seem superfluous. 

One of AOM's un-obvious features is its three models. Their online product description says "Three equalizer types of different sound characters". This is not only confusing, it's disturbing. I don't WANT my equalizer to impose "character". Well, the documentation sheds some light by identifying the three types as "minimum phase", "maximum phase" and "conventional biquad". What the difference between "minimum phase" and "conventional biquad" is, they don't say. "Maximum phase" means getting the worst of both minimum- and linear-phase equalizers, but Ozone offers it so it must have some value.

I am also troubled by the top feature listed on their page: "unique transparent sound". This is the kind of nonsense you'd expect to read on the {redacted for politeness} website. It simply cannot be unique AND transparent at the same time. I'm not even sure what it means to be a transparent EQ. Clearly, if I put on an equalizer I'm expecting it to have an audible effect, not be transparent. Maybe it means the plugin does not inject harmonic distortion - I'd accept that definition, but it's hardly a unique feature. But I will not deduct points for marketing hyperbole, as it's just expected.

No documentation is included with the plugin. All I got was a copy of the EULA telling me that I can only use the plugin on one computer at a time, maximum of 5 computers total, and that it is not resellable (score another point for FabFilter: their products are transferrable). (Note that I did not quote the EULA here, as that would be a violation of said EULA.)

There is, however, documentation available online. Most of it is terse, but it does explain things like what the "quality" settings actually are. They're 5 oversampling multipliers, but aren't labeled as such because the multipliers depend on your project's sample rate. (They are 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x and 32x for 44.1KHz.)

Summary: this seems to me to be an excellent product. Compared with Pro-Q it deserves to be in the same league, but Pro-Q is still the champ.


 

Nice writeup, Bit.  Glad to hear you thought the AOM was in the same class as Pro-Q.  Always good to have less expensive alternatives to pricey plugins.
 
You aren't kidding about the CPU requirements ... no way I'm using this on every single track in a large project at 88 or 96kHz.  Same goes for the limiter.  I'm finding these plugins very useful for mastering, though.  Er, make that pseudo-mastering, in my case.  :-)
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 

This is one of the strengths of FabFilter products that people often forget to mention in their praise: they are very CPU-efficient. I recently had a brief fling with the TDR Feedback Compressor, which works really well and offers an interesting spin on dynamics control. I found a great setting for vocal leveling and decided to replace every instance of Pro-C on vocals with the TDR compressor, in a project that had many vocal tracks. It was sounding pretty good, too. Right up until the project stopped playing back because my CPU usage had gone from 40% to 95%.

bitflipper


This is one of the strengths of FabFilter products that people often forget to mention in their praise: they are very CPU-efficient. I recently had a brief fling with the TDR Feedback Compressor, which works really well and offers an interesting spin on dynamics control. I found a great setting for vocal leveling and decided to replace every instance of Pro-C on vocals with the TDR compressor, in a project that had many vocal tracks. It was sounding pretty good, too. Right up until the project stopped playing back because my CPU usage had gone from 40% to 95%.

Time for a CPU upgrade, Bit man!  :-)
 
Seriously, quite a few of the newer plugins are CPU-hungry.  I guess devs are assuming that more of us are on faster machines nowadays -- why not exploit the power?  And I've found in a lot cases, the results are worth the extra cycles.  Not that there's always a correlation.
 
BTW, if you wouldn't mind sharing that vocal setting for the TDR comp, I'd be interested!
 
Cheers,
Eddie