R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box  (Read 18830 times)

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2004, 03:08:14 am »

G Massenburg said...

Quote:

And what they're promoting about "Analogue characteristics" is complete and utter bullshit. And you're welcome to forward this to them should they wish to debate this.

I hate this. This kind of shitty marketting has ruined audio.





Either it is analog or it is not analog.

Simple truth.

Digital is not analog.

Cannot be, never will be. Each with their specific warts. Personally, I dig using an analog EQ FOR its ability to phase shift whan needed.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

Len

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #61 on: June 02, 2004, 05:37:46 am »

Quote:

You know Leonard, it's really hard for me to stand by and see Sonalksis promoted over something I know is better. My read on this is that they're promoting a new filter topology - "state space" - that has nothing in and of itself to do with the sound of an EQ (it's strength is in balancing processing across nodes, as far as I can tell).

And what they're promoting about "Analogue characteristics" is complete and utter bullshit. And you're welcome to forward this to them should they wish to debate this.

I hate this. This kind of shitty marketting has ruined audio.

George


Hi George - as I'm always happy to learn - which EQ plug would you recommend, bearing in mind that I'm not on PT/TDM and do not use Powercore (so Oxford and MDW is out)?  I guess you must have heard the Sonalkis EQ to make that statement so I'm curious.  Naturally I am always on the lookout for good EQs/plugs in general.

Many thanks

Leonard

Giovanni Speranza

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 240
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #62 on: June 02, 2004, 07:07:39 am »

Thanks George, i will in the meantime search the forum, and try to understand... Shocked

jfrigo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1029
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #63 on: June 02, 2004, 03:52:03 pm »

Level wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 00:08

Personally, I dig using an analog EQ FOR its ability to phase shift whan needed.


Digital IIR EQ (the kind most common used in plug-ins and such) is accomplished with phase shift as well, so maybe what you're after is the nonlinearities of an analog design? I think I know what you are getting at - the "imperfection" that comes with some analog designs is often creatively desirable. The "phase shift" thing isn't necessarily the best way to put it however.

Logged

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #64 on: June 02, 2004, 05:04:31 pm »

Level wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 02:08


[...]
Digital is not analog.

Cannot be, never will be. Each with their specific warts. Personally, I dig using an analog EQ FOR its ability to phase shift whan needed.


Dear Bill,

Sorry to nitpick, but for the traditional EQ methodologies in either data (a.k.a. Digital) or linear (a.k.a. Analog) domain, the phase shift we can expect from one technology is very nearly indistinguishable from the other.

It's only when we apply special methods to analog (like loads of all-pass stages) or digital (like using constant phase forms such as FIR's) do we change phase performance.

Oh, and also I am not in the group that is going to tell you that the phase of the active EQ'ing stage in and of itself is the "sound" of a particular equalizer, although certainly there are corrupt elements in either domain (transformers in analog, bad filters in digital).

George
Logged

Tojo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #65 on: June 02, 2004, 05:30:13 pm »

George Massenburg wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 19:29

Giovanni Speranza wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 08:43

Channel EQ is real 32 bit floating point, Logic bus is straight 32 bit float, so George i don't know how to compare 32 bit floating point with 48 fixed, may i ask you to explain it?


Hi Giovanni,

There are plenty of explanations out there (and it runs into some amount of detail, if you aren't already familiar with exponential arithmetic), and as much as I hate to do so, I'm going to ask that you be patient while I look for a reference.

But suffice it to say 32 float (with 24bit mantissa) is in my mind roughly comparable to 48bit fixed across an average audio dynamic range.

George





Here's James Moorer's take on it:

http://www.jamminpower.com/PDF/48-bit%20Audio.htm

If you have trouble reading the equations via your web browser, you may DL the article, "48-BIT INTEGER PROCESSING BEATS 32-BIT FLOATING POINT FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDIO APPLICATIONS" here:

http://www.jamminpower.com/main/articles.jsp

Logged
Tojo

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #66 on: June 02, 2004, 06:15:50 pm »

Thanks, that's exactly the article that should be quoted.

Maybe I disagree a little that 48bit fixed is a dramatic improvement over 32bit float...

George
Logged

Giovanni Speranza

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 240
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2004, 05:06:39 am »

What do you mean George?

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #68 on: June 03, 2004, 09:52:08 am »

I mean they're pretty hard to tell apart for all intents and purposes.  Most objective evaluators in supervised listening tests would be hard pressed to identify the difference directly.

George
Logged

OlavB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #69 on: July 13, 2004, 08:25:35 am »

Pffff, I can hardly believe the math approach to the matter on this thread. Does anyone even care to use their EARS for a change?
Every software EQ on the market has its pros and cons. Some will sound better to you but worse to me. Some will feel better than the other. What's the use of the thread anyway..?
Maybe for some here it's about time to realise the knobturning days are over by now.
And for some others to ditch their f*ckin EGO!
Logged

Arksun

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2004, 06:55:33 pm »

Quote:


You know Leonard, it's really hard for me to stand by and see Sonalksis promoted over something I know is better. My read on this is that they're promoting a new filter topology - "state space" - that has nothing in and of itself to do with the sound of an EQ (it's strength is in balancing processing across nodes, as far as I can tell).

And what they're promoting about "Analogue characteristics" is complete and utter bullshit. And you're welcome to forward this to them should they wish to debate this.

I hate this. This kind of shitty marketting has ruined audio.


I do agree with you George with regards to the way the words 'analogue' and 'mastering' have been used and abused by soo many products out there. It's got to the point where all amatuer producers expect their mixes to sound fantastic by just using some magic mastering processor that does it all for them. Never mind that this should really be seen as post-production for the producer, people are forgetting how to produce!, prevention is always better than cure.

Same with the word 'analogue' being slapped to all these plug-ins regardless of how good they actually sound. At the end of the day that really is all that counts.

HOWEVER,  that's also why i'm equally annoyed with your rather arrogant post George. I'm sorry, but your post is equally misleading too into leading people to believe that the sonalksis plugs aren't very good. I know these aren't the exact words you used but it was certainly the overall impression given.

The way you write 'I know' almost as if you don't even need to hear it to know it's not as good, because of the promotional blurge, well quite frankly that is just arrogance. The promotional text may or may not be bullshit, but the Sonalksis EQ   IS a bloody good plug-in and by far the best VST plug-in eq out there that offers really good quality sound.

If you'd actually taken the time to use the Sonalksis EQ you would realise this too and alter your post.  If you have indeed tried it then perhaps you could give your opinion to it's sound quality and explain your reasons behind it, at least have the decency to do that when making such forward posts.

Thank you

Arksun
Logged

CWHumphrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 914
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2004, 11:41:55 pm »

Howdy,

There's a battle over brewing over 32 bit floating point vs. 48 bit fixed and we have heard nothing from Bob Katz?  Go figure.  

And J.J.... my man.  I've mixed some of those tracks J.J. recorded.  What was the topic?  Oh yeah, EQ's!

Luv that Channelstrip!

Cheers,

Carter William Humphrey
Logged
Carter William Humphrey

"Indeed...oh three named one!" -Terry Manning
"Or you can just have Carter do the recording, because he's Humphrey."-J.J. Blair

i dig music

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #72 on: August 07, 2004, 12:36:52 am »

exit, maybe this will make you happy.

index.php/fa/165/0/



http://www.ursplugins.com/


I've got every plug under the sun, including GM's. They all have a place in my mixes depending on what kind of music I'm working on.

This plug right out of the shoot felt,

well, kinda real world and very natural.

Warm, not digital.
Logged
R. Steele
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up