Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ged Leitch]

Oh, forgot to mention, Steve Hoffman once said about when EQ'ing on his Sontec or GML9500...

He always uses Q's of 1.00, (6 on his Sontec Equivalent)

never narrower, never broader

[dave-G]

NoWo wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 02:49

Okay, but why do you think the Waves Q10 starts with Q = 7 default values on all bands if it sounds unnatural? Norbert

The Q10 is actually useful for notching at mixdown, but .. well ..  anyway, I think the Q labelling on that thing is a representation of the percentage of its Q-range, and not actually the Q -- hell, it goes to 100 at its tightest!

-dave

[Ronny]

dcollins wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 00:22

I can't remember the last time I used a Q of more than say, 3 or 4.   Very rare. Most of the time it's between 0.4 and 1.  Maybe 2 for boosting bottom end. Shelf, just about never.  Unless with a HPF. Better to try a wide Q, imo. Tight Q's sound unnatural, have more of that demon phase-shift, and are best avoided, imo. Rare to have a mix where 2k is fine but 2k2 is a problem.......... DC

I'll have to remember that the next time that I get some material where the guitar player was performing inside the EMI field and using single coil pu's and an amp that's outputting -30dB of 60 cycle hum, with a transition bandwith of only a few Hertz, or maybe I'll prefer the demon phasing over the loud ass hum and not want to effect half the spectrum to attenuate only 5 Hertz surrounding the 60Hz "noise".

All material is different and requires different eq curves. No eq size fits all. EQ's are fix it tools, not just enhancement tools.

[dcollins]

Ronny wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 08:16

I'll have to remember that the next time that I get some material where the guitar player was performing inside the EMI field and using single coil pu's and an amp that's outputting -30dB of 60 cycle hum, with a transition bandwith of only a few Hertz, or maybe I'll prefer the demon phasing over the loud ass hum and not want to effect half the spectrum to attenuate only 5 Hertz surrounding the 60Hz "noise".

That's a salvage job, I'm talking about typical settings.

It's funny when I hear about super high Q's like 50 or 100 as you would have very hard time making analog do it........

DC

[OTR-jkl]

dcollins wrote on Fri, 14 July 2006 23:22

I can't remember the last time I used a Q of more than say, 3 or 4.   Very rare. Most of the time it's between 0.4 and 1.  Maybe 2 for boosting bottom end. Shelf, just about never.  Unless with a HPF. Better to try a wide Q, imo. Tight Q's sound unnatural, have more of that demon phase-shift, and are best avoided, imo. Rare to have a mix where 2k is fine but 2k2 is a problem.......... DC

Just tried using wider Qs on a project that I was having some trouble dialing in and it helped alot. I did notice the difference you are talking about (more natural sounding).


What about setting Q on shelving? Many DEQs have Q adjustments for the shelf as well. What's the theory behind that?

[NoWo]

Hi,

I often use higher values on the Waves Q 10, my normal range is from 3 to 12, but also higher values are still sounding good.

To Q in general:
When I first started to work with vst eq plugs I did some research on the sound of various EQs. I found out that at the same values they sounded unhealthy different, and sometimes I had to tweak a lot on the Q to get a similar aural experience from different EQs.

As Brad is using his Sontec with no more than a Q of 1 it seems that this special piece of hardware is much more effective than any vst eq plug no matter what brand it is.

Norbert

P.S.: It makes me sick that nearly every vst eq comes with a different Q value as default. That means that before I touch the gain I always have to look for the Q first. That is sick!

[OTR-jkl]

NoWo wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 17:33

P.S.: It makes me sick that nearly every vst eq comes with a different Q value as default. That means that before I touch the gain I always have to look for the Q first. That is sick!

I always look at the Q first...

[minister]

NoWo wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 17:33

P.S.: It makes me sick that nearly every vst eq comes with a different Q value as default. That means that before I touch the gain I always have to look for the Q first. That is sick!

are the EQ's for mastering?  mixing?  a little of both?  how should Plug-In manufacturers standardize it?  .. can't you see that that would be a problem?

why not just have a default setting of your own?  pull up your favorite EQ, call up your customized setting and be done with it.

[NoWo]

minister wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 00:07

NoWo wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 17:33 P.S.: It makes me sick that nearly every vst eq comes with a different Q value as default. That means that before I touch the gain I always have to look for the Q first. That is sick! are the EQ's for mastering?  mixing?  a little of both?  how should Plug-In manufacturers standardize it?  .. can't you see that that would be a problem?

Good argument, I have not thought of this.
But some more standardisation would be cool. I think that the Q default value of the URS Mix EQ with 1.6 fits in 8 out of 10 situations as a quick startup, wheres the Q value of the standard UAD eq (plug) is wrong in 9 out of 10 situations ( although I do not remember the exact value at the moment ).

Seems to be difficult...

Norbert

[lagerfeldt]

The Q10 from Waves doesn't sound good IMO. Not for mixing, not for mastering.

I usually have Qs around 0.7 to a maximum of 3 in severe cases. I mostly hover around Q=1 to Q=2.5

Of course a really problematic mix with a distinct noise or error and where a remix is not an option - that might require going to extremes with high Q values.

I like the Q=0.4 Freq=18 kHz trick instead of high shelving, but apart from that I don't usually go below 0.7

Q in conjunction with shelves really sets the slope in some cases (as with a low cut, although not entirely the same of course), and in other cases it might introduce resonance too.

Also a lot of EQs are asymmetrical, so there is no way of knowing how the Quality should be perceived as a standard between different EQs - especially when cutting.

Anyway, check this out, a very nice online converter (many other great calculators on this page) http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-bandwidth.htm

[NoWo]

OTR-jkl wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 23:56

NoWo wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 17:33 P.S.: It makes me sick that nearly every vst eq comes with a different Q value as default. That means that before I touch the gain I always have to look for the Q first. That is sick! I always look at the Q first...

Well I am forced to do this too, but that does not mean I am happy with it  

Norbert

[NoWo]

lagerfeldt wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 00:24

The Q10 from Waves doesn't sound good IMO. Not for mixing, not for mastering. I usually have Qs around 0.7 to a maximum of 3 in severe cases. Of course a really problematic mix with a distinct noise or error and where a remix is not an option - that might require going to extremes with high Q values. I like the Q=0.4 Freq=18 kHz trick, but apart from that I don't usually go below 0.7

Okay.

But what do you lucky guy who seem to own and buy everything what is hot and cool would recommend else for mixing and/or mastering?  

Norbert

[lagerfeldt]

Software & Native?

I would recommend Sonalksis SV-517/DQ-1 and/or Waves Linear Phase.

You will find the sound in Sonalksis much more pleasant in terms of phase distortion, and simply better than most other native EQs (especially the Q10). The SV-517 is not a completely transparent EQ, but very nice with a distinct "analogue" character (ok, hit me).

The Waves LP is very usable for low cuts (I always use it in low ripple mode) or other stuff that require linear phase adjustment. Can be a very useful tool, although I find it best for cutting and not boosting.

The Sonalksis DQ-1 is a dynamic EQ (sort of like multiband compression but not quite) that can also be used as a normal equalizer. The DQ-1 is not linear phase but so called "minimum phase". Very sweet package.

I found an interesting way of working with the DQ-1 is to approach it as a normal equalizer and do your equalizing. Once that's done, try introducing the dynamic element in the same band, and see what it does. Sometimes it works better, sometimes it doesn't.

There's a 30 day trial from www.sonalksis.com on all plug-ins.

[NoWo]

Thanks a lot Holger  
Will give the DQ a try.

Norbert

[UnderTow]

I am no fan of the Waves Linear phase EQs. I find that nearly all other LP EQs I have tried sound better and are more flexible. (Voxengo CurveEQ, PSP MasterQ/Neon, R.A.L. PLParEQ, Algorythmix Red/Orange).

I havn't tried the Sonalksis plugs yet. I should download the demos. Then again, I can't afford any new plugs now so I shouldn't punish myself uneccessarily.

Voxengo Gliss EQ is also nice. (Another Dynamic EQ).
Voxengo HarmoniEQ is also nice. (Harmonic EQ. It doesn't affect the basic tone, it adds harmonics instead. Can be very nice sometimes).

Alistair