R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Reason In Audio => Topic started by: exit on April 30, 2004, 02:30:14 am

Title: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: exit on April 30, 2004, 02:30:14 am
I work in [Protools] every day. I have had a set way of doing things for a while now, but my EQ'ing has never pleased me like it would on the SSL. (Don't start the A vs. D thing pleez) I'm talking about vocals specifically. Keep in mind I do a lot of rap. When doing my ruff mixes I usually buss out each person to their own stereo Aux track. I always use the Waves DeEsser, Renaissance Comp, and Renaissance EQ 4. Sometimes the DeEsser is 1st, but lately I've been putting it last. As long as I've been working in Alsi I still haven't come to really LIKE the EQing I'm doing. I find myself looking at the graphic of the EQ when I shouldn't be. I'm paying more attention to what frequency or how much I'm tweaking then to how it sounds. I guess sometimes you gotta turn the monitor off so you can just listen! But anyways, my other big issue is DeEssing. Either it's too sibilant and I'm not working the deesser hard enough or it's working too hard and the ss's are smearing. I don't know if it has to do with everything going thru a stereo bus, but i don't like my Deessing. I'm usually deessing between 4237 and 4547.

Any bones you wanna throw would be great. I'm all for experimenting but we work on so many songs in a day that I never have time to play and try new things.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: kevin cubbins on April 30, 2004, 02:52:27 am
whew....
the waves deesser kinda stinks imo. sometimes it works. one of the best ways to de-ess in pro tools is to simply chop out the sibilance and use crossfades in and out, or use an audiosuite-plugin eq to process the sibilant portion of the word.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg on April 30, 2004, 05:33:16 am
exit wrote on Fri, 30 April 2004 01:30

I work in [Protools] every day. I have had a set way of doing things for a while now, but my EQ'ing has never pleased me like it would on the SSL. (Don't start the A vs. D thing pleez) I'm talking about vocals specifically. Keep in mind I do a lot of rap. When doing my ruff mixes I usually buss out each person to their own stereo Aux track. I always use the Waves DeEsser, Renaissance Comp, and Renaissance EQ 4. Sometimes the DeEsser is 1st, but lately I've been putting it last. As long as I've been working in Alsi I still haven't come to really LIKE the EQing I'm doing. I find myself looking at the graphic of the EQ when I shouldn't be. I'm paying more attention to what frequency or how much I'm tweaking then to how it sounds. I guess sometimes you gotta turn the monitor off so you can just listen! But anyways, my other big issue is DeEssing. Either it's too sibilant and I'm not working the deesser hard enough or it's working too hard and the ss's are smearing. I don't know if it has to do with everything going thru a stereo bus, but i don't like my Deessing. I'm usually deessing between 4237 and 4547.

Any bones you wanna throw would be great. I'm all for experimenting but we work on so many songs in a day that I never have time to play and try new things.



I don't have much hope that I'll change your mind about anything, but I can tell you that I disagree with the idea that you cannot make a good EQ in digital domain.  

I like well-designed analog EQ.  I also l use well-designed digital EQ.

On the other hand, if you like transparency, you'd never especially love anything about 4000E EQ's; at best they're crunchy in the mids/top.  I don't think that anyone expects digital EQ to sound like artifact-laden analog EQ...and that's good and proper.  But in my mind artifact-free (or relatively more free) EQ isn't in and of itself bad.

I would observe that "ess's" start slightly lower than you point out, and definitely go much higner.  But that doesn't matter...de-esser's in data domain work about as well as de-esser's anywhere, which is to say not very well (the de-esser in Pro Tools is especially maddening).  But they (the analog & the digital processors) seem not to work well in different ways.  Overall, I've found it best to use them only when necessary, switching them in and getting them out of circuit if I don't have something that especially needs attention.

Finally, I'd hope that you're comparing the latest double-precision EQ's and not the older stuff.  And it goes without saying that I hope none of us are using kracks.

George
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Peter Simonsen on April 30, 2004, 06:03:29 am
Mark,

I know that like everything in life..everybody has his/hers personal liking in audio. You and I seem to have experienced some of the same "problems". I have never been a fan of the waves stuff. For me..the only eq I have tried, and that actually works to my liking is the MDW EQ, and the Sony Oxford eq. Both these plug-ins changed my mind about digital eq forever. And that after many a "crying night" filled with frustration..I mean even the eq in a Soundcraft Ghost kills a lot of digital eqs I have "tried to get to work" over the last couple of years.

If I may suggest you to try the MDW, and Sony stuff before giving up on digital eqs

Kind regards

Peter
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Loco on April 30, 2004, 10:18:49 am
Use the C4 instead of the Deesser. Also, try switching positions between the EQ and the compressor. Last, don't deess on a stereo aux. You may get phasing issues.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: exit on April 30, 2004, 10:54:57 am
Unfortunately we don't have the Oxford stuff as of yet, but I've been dying to get it. I don't think we have the MDW either. The place I'm at daily has a rig that has been used and abused by countless incompetent engineers before me so we're missing a lot of plug-ins anyway! (Like long delay?!?! How do you lose that?)

I have worked on sessions from other studios that had good use of the C4 that I tried to make note of. These days if you're not careful you send out plug-in settings and ideas to other studios and other people bite the idea and use it! Not like the old days where certain engineers would cover the gear racks with cardboard so no one knew what they were using! Every plug-in setting I see that I like, I try my best to use it when it suits me. I'm gonna go back and give the C4 a shot today.

Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Waylon on April 30, 2004, 03:09:49 pm
exit wrote on Fri, 30 April 2004 09:54

....... The place I'm at daily has a rig that has been used and abused by countless incompetent engineers before me so we're missing a lot of plug-ins anyway! (Like long delay?!?! How do you lose that?)





With all due respect, one easy way you lose that by having people move your registered/legal plugs to another folder to install thier kracked plugs....
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Jan Folkson on April 30, 2004, 04:01:33 pm
The way that I de ess in PT is to grab the offending 's' with a bit of pre and post and use the gain plug and drop it by 6 or so db crossfade close to the 's' and you're ready for the next one.  It's not fast, it's not elegant but it's very effective.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg on April 30, 2004, 11:49:52 pm
Jan Folkson wrote on Fri, 30 April 2004 15:01

The way that I de ess in PT is to grab the offending 's' with a bit of pre and post and use the gain plug and drop it by 6 or so db crossfade close to the 's' and you're ready for the next one.  It's not fast, it's not elegant but it's very effective.



Actually, this is how I do most of my de-essing these days.  Take each offensive "ess" down exactly as much as you want it down (and they're all different).

There was this one other way we did it once.  On the Laura Turner that we did last Spring, I moved ALL of the esses from the main lead vocal track to a separate track, and i then could compress the "meat" of the vocal separately from the esses.  Very time-consuming.  Very elegant and infinitely controlable.

George
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: kevin cubbins on May 01, 2004, 03:14:50 am
Neat idea, George.
Lemme ask you this, did you need to crossfade the head and tail of each region as to avoid pops during playback?
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg on May 01, 2004, 06:36:11 am
kevin cubbins wrote on Sat, 01 May 2004 02:14

Neat idea, George.
Lemme ask you this, did you need to crossfade the head and tail of each region as to avoid pops during playback?


Yup.  And it wasn't automatic, either.  If you're going to compress that main track deeply, you often reach for a custom fade.

George
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Bobro on May 01, 2004, 07:00:20 am
This being the "reason in audio" forum, thought I might point out that the opening post seems to be more specific to Waves plugins than to "in the box" in general.

originally posted by GM
There was this one other way we did it once. On the Laura Turner that we did last Spring, I moved ALL of the esses from the main lead vocal track to a separate track, and i then could compress the "meat" of the vocal separately from the esses. Very time-consuming. Very elegant and infinitely controlable.

Tried this with some overblown "p"s on bass voice, with the boom eq'd off on the "p" track, but not heavily, so they're still "p"s and not some kind of clicky thing, worked nicely.

Doing "s"s or other consonants individually in Samplitude is very easy and relatively quick: customizable auto crossfade on, press a key to split a region, however small in, grab the little handle on the object for volume, or double click the new object if EQ is necessary for "p"s, etc; a box with all available built-in fx, crossfades, and available plugins, just for that new object, pops up.

Mixing a singer with a very sexy natural "ss-shh" thing going on, and IMO it would be criminal to de-ess it. Better some sibilance than reduce such a specific charm.

Strangely, my "f"s can be hairy even an arm's length from the mic. Maybe it's some kind of wino-frothing-at-the-mouth thing.

-Bobro


Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Rob Darling on May 01, 2004, 07:18:39 am
The de-essing thing makes you realize how much your tools are just that- tools.  They are useful but once improved upon, can sit forever.  DAW's simply let you do it better.  A little more initial work, but a much better result.

I'm with Bobro.  As a Nuendo user, nothing is easier than separating offending s's and p's into regions and trimming them down with the volume handle.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: David Schober on May 01, 2004, 09:42:24 am
Hello Gents,

Agreed on the idea of using A/S gain for de esser contol.  Sometimes a plugin works fine for most everything, but an nasty one needs the surgery.

Also, for p-pops (plosives) instead of using gain, I use the hi pass filter from the Filterbank plugins,  The 24dB/oct will get almost anything and clean enough for an acapella vocal.

One other idea...I've had times where a vocalist will be a loud breather, or someone compressed it so much that the breaths are as loud as the vocal.  I'll pull all the breaths onto an adjacent track and lower the gain of that track until it feels right.  And occasionally, even de-essing the newly created breath track if it's shreddy.  In any case, that allows me to compress and eq the main vocal track to my heart's content and it not affect the breaths.  And no, I usually don't need to create fade in and out fades on either track.  I found that as long as the region doesn't get slid it sounds fine.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Jan Folkson on May 01, 2004, 09:48:52 am
Plosive P usually get their own treatment.  Audiosuite eq with a low-cut filter adjusted to taste.  Taking the BOOM out leaves a gentle puff on the p sounding very natural.

Once again, not fast, not elegant, but very effective.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Ruairi O'Flaherty on May 01, 2004, 04:59:37 pm
exit wrote on Fri, 30 April 2004 07:30

I work in Alsihad every day.


First off - do we have to use that ridiculous nickname here, I understood that bs is to be restricted to MARSH.

I always use the Waves DeEsser, Renaissance Comp, and Renaissance EQ 4.

As others have said here the bar is a lot higher now for digital eq/comp with the introduction of the Sony Oxford plugs and the MDW eq.  These may be cleaner than you are used to but I personally would rather have clean and controlable eq and comp and then add my colour (probably necessary for Hip-hop) if desired using plugs like the Inflator, Lo-Fi, Analog channel, DUY Valve/Tape and the Cranesong Phoenix.  I don't think it is unfair to Waves to say that those plugs are compromising your vocal chain.


Any bones you wanna throw would be great. I'm all for experimenting but we work on so many songs in a day that I never have time to play and try new things.

I figure you are working far higher up the ladder than I but you simply have to make the time to demo the newer plugs, the difference is night and day and you will seriously regret not doing so sooner.

As for the ess problem the Waves De-esser (not Ren) can work acceptably on some singers but this is pretty rare.  I was de-essing manually for serious mixes in the fashion other have described but it was time consuming (I still de-pop manually - HPF OXFEQ).  Recently I took some time to experiment with a particularly essy vocalist and set up an OXF compressor last in the vocal chain.  I used the internal eq to eq the sidechain and finally arrived at a setting that was remarkably transparent.  The OXF allows very accurate and responsive control over attack, hold and release times which is the key to avoiding smearing.  Also as it is fullband compression you are avoiding unneccesary spliting of the signal as per the Waves De-esser.  

Those using the OXF DYN should try the above, it was a revelation for me and has allow me to add acceptable amounts of high end to dull but essy vocals,

cheers,
Ruairi
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Richard on May 01, 2004, 07:01:11 pm
Just a tiny bone.
Often the offending 's' 'f' 't' 'p' etc., at the beginning of a word, don't contain a lot of 'pitch' information.
I sometimes 'grab' a 'good' one and paste it in.
Richard
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: David Schober on May 01, 2004, 07:36:07 pm
First off - do we have to use that ridiculous nickname here, I understood that bs is to be restricted to MARSH.


I agree completely!  It's not professional.  It's pejorative and displays an agenda.  When criticism is needed, (name a DAW that doesn't) refraning from slang that invites a flaming threads can help rather than hurt the dialog....Something I hope this forum avoids!
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg on May 01, 2004, 11:37:19 pm
Ruairi O'Flaherty wrote on Sat, 01 May 2004 15:59

exit wrote on Fri, 30 April 2004 07:30

I work in [Protools] every day.


First off - do we have to use that ridiculous nickname here, I understood that bs is to be restricted to MARSH.

I always use the Waves DeEsser, Renaissance Comp, and Renaissance EQ 4.

[...]

cheers,
Ruairi



You know, you're right, Ruairi.  I never really knew the point in it.

George

p.s. Are you going to be in Berlin?
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Immanuel Kuhrt on May 02, 2004, 07:04:58 am
Total noob question:

Is Alsihad a nickname for ProTools?
I thought they where different systems?
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: sdevino on May 02, 2004, 10:14:55 am
Alsihad is short for "All's I Had"  whichis followed by Pro Tools.

Mixerman and his crew in the MARSH do not allow posters to mention "Pro Tools" by name.

Others in the MARSH do not seem to mind.
I also think it is time to give up this pointless practice outside of MM's forum (he is entitled to moderate his forum anyway he see's fit IMO).

Steve
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: exit on May 02, 2004, 12:05:53 pm
I will try the editing tricks when I do mixing, but for ruff mixing I gotta keep the vocal together. I tried the C4 as recommended early in the thread and that was very cool. You definitely gotta play with it a bit, but that seemed to help. We're installing a new rig soon so I'll look out for the EQ's yall mentioned here.

As far as using the term [editor has replaced an arbitrary term for Protools], don't you think you're being a little too anal? There was no malicious intent, just habit really. Maybe I am working in Nuendo everyday, maybe Logic. Maybe Protools. Who cares? If there's gonna be a R/E/P vs. Marsh thing going on PSW I won't ever return. I enjoy both sides, and I enjoy the place as a whole being laid back. Loosen up a little people.

But, in the spirit of being a team player, I will expose my DAW: GARAGEBAND! Yes, I'm working in Garageband daily. It rocks! It blows the doors off of any DAW out there. I can actually get 8 ins with my optical input! 8!?!  I finished my new solo acapella album "When Do the G5 Laptops Come Out" and it sounds better than Ricky Martin and 50 Cent! Engineer of the Year Grammy here I come!!!!!!

No love lost  Laughing
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Ruairi O'Flaherty on May 02, 2004, 01:54:41 pm
George Massenburg wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 04:37



p.s. Are you going to be in Berlin?


Hi George,

I am going to be in Berlin for all of the AES and then some, my wife and I are making an 8 day trip out of it.  I am really looking forward to it.  There is a Gearslutz dinner/meet on the Monday night, I'm sure anyone from this board would be welcome too.

BTW did you get any of my recent emails about the MDW issues?

cheers,
Ruairi
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Ruairi O'Flaherty on May 02, 2004, 02:05:50 pm
exit wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 17:05

 We're installing a new rig soon so I'll look out for the EQ's yall mentioned here.


Hey Mark,

you'll be amazed at the difference.  Not long after I switched to HD I had to remix an in the box track I had done with all Waves Q and RenEQ.  I replaced them all with the Sony OXFEQ and the mix was massively improved in almost every way.  BTW what direction are you going with the new rig?

Quote:

As far as using the term [editor has removed an arbitrary name for ProTools], don't you think you're being a little too anal? There was no malicious intent, just habit really. Maybe I am working in Nuendo everyday, maybe Logic. Maybe Protools. Who cares? If there's gonna be a R/E/P vs. Marsh thing going on PSW I won't ever return. I enjoy both sides, and I enjoy the place as a whole being laid back. Loosen up a little people.


Apologies if I came off a little heavy sounding and I definitely do not want to start a PSW vs R/E/P vibe.  I personally will not visit MARSH because of Mixerman's moderation there and I'd love to see the two boards remain very distinct in style and content.  I know that you did not mean anything by using the term Alsihad but unfortunately many others do and have used that and other tactics to cause flames, arguments and rants all over some of my favourite forums.

I can't wait to hear some of your Garageband tracks Razz

cheers,
Ruairi
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: exit on May 02, 2004, 04:48:59 pm
Ruairi O'Flaherty wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 14:05


BTW what direction are you going with the new rig?

Ruairi


Well, I'm getting an "A" room going for my main client. We're installing an SSL 6056 which we got for the low-low. Unfortunately I have been a bit handcuffed by budget so I'm not able to get the rig I want, but it will be a good working one. A new G5, PT HD Accel 2, 4 96 i/o's, Sync. After all the talk about Oxford and MDW up here I will be be trying to add that to my list of Plug-ins. I'm wondering if we've got some one-sided opinions about the MDW stuff???? Rolling Eyes Just kidding.

I'm also hoping to do one of two things soon also: 1) Build my own rig, 2) build my own studio. Right now neither is necessary tho cuz I work everyday in other places. It would be a waste of money!

But back to the original topic-My point about EQing in the box was this: on the console you just twist knobs and listen. On DAW's, you watch your mouse movements and look at the EQ curve, rather than listen. At least this is my little roadblock. I always go right at certain frequencies, I've got a mental stump here I'm trying to hop over. That's what I meant about turning the screen off!

exit
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Ruairi O'Flaherty on May 02, 2004, 05:15:52 pm
exit wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 21:48



Well, I'm getting an "A" room going for my main client. We're installing an SSL 6056 which we got for the low-low. Unfortunately I have been a bit handcuffed by budget so I'm not able to get the rig I want, but it will be a good working one. A new G5, PT HD Accel 2, 4 96 i/o's, Sync. After all the talk about Oxford and MDW up here I will be be trying to add that to my list of Plug-ins. I'm wondering if we've got some one-sided opinions about the MDW stuff???? Rolling Eyes Just kidding.




That all sounds cool, I'm on PT6.2.3/Dual G5/Accel and a 192i/o.  I have never heard the 96i/o, some say they are poor compared to the 192.  Of course some people wouldn't touch the 192 so I guess whatever works for you.


Quote:


But back to the original topic-My point about EQing in the box was this: on the console you just twist knobs and listen. On DAW's, you watch your mouse movements and look at the EQ curve, rather than listen. At least this is my little roadblock. I always go right at certain frequencies, I've got a mental stump here I'm trying to hop over. That's what I meant about turning the screen off!

exit


I agree with you totally on this.  I've been mixing in the box for about 2 years now and I still spend way too much time looking rather than listening.  The nature of the mouse interface means that you have to watch what you are doing and that is not a good thing IMHO.  I've investigated the idea of a touchscreen that I could mount flat in my desk next to the mouse.  I would open my plug-ins on that and simply slide my finger up and down until that band of eq sounds right, I think it would be more tactile and less visual.

Anyhow best of luck with the new studio,

cheers,
Ruairi
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: David Schober on May 02, 2004, 05:27:55 pm
Hi Mark,

Apologies from myself as well.  Ruairi perfectly expressed my views as to why our hackles get raised when things start to smell like the rants and flames from the past.  We're all looking for this fourm to be free from such antics that MM has seen fit to run his forum with.  (I guess it's not a free speech zone, literally or in spirit...you gotta toe the facist line)  But I digress....  Smile

As for you having difficulties with seeing a screen instead of using a knob, I understand.  However, I'm sure I'm not the only old school analog guy that will confess that they tend to eq...on any equalizer...the same frequencies.  I'll go so far as to say what really trips me up is that the MDW and the Filterbank eq graphs are pretty similar...and what I'm used to.  However when I go to the Oxford, the dB resolution is totally  different.  I have to be careful to look at the numbers and listen, not look.  It would perhaps be a good thing to standardize eq graphing screens.  I hate to admit it, but the Oxford GUI makes it less likely for me to use it.  The MDW and Filterbank push, pull buttons and sliders make much more sense than trying to rotate a knob with a mouse.  I know I shouldn't be predjudiced by the GUI, but I am. Listening only with one's ears is hard.

Anyway, as soon as I saw Garageband I predicted that within a year or so there will be a major hit done, at least in part with that program.

May yours be the first.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: exit on May 02, 2004, 10:48:15 pm
Guys-I was joking about Garageband. I haven't used it yet. I am  waiting on the G5 laptop tho! My G4 Titanium just busted a screen hinge. It's on it's last leg.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: David Schober on May 03, 2004, 11:45:49 am
ya got me...but I still stand by my prediction
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: MedicineDog on May 03, 2004, 02:49:34 pm
exit wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 13:48


But back to the original topic-My point about EQing in the box was this: on the console you just twist knobs and listen. On DAW's, you watch your mouse movements and look at the EQ curve, rather than listen. At least this is my little roadblock. I always go right at certain frequencies, I've got a mental stump here I'm trying to hop over. That's what I meant about turning the screen off!


One thing you might try is to bypass the EQ, make your best guess as to the tweak you need to make, adjust the EQ, and then put the EQ back in and compare.  This way, you're not watching the mouse move the EQ controls and looking at the resulting curve while you're trying to listen.  If your EQ has an A/B mode, that makes it all that much easier to compare changes between settings.


Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Jack Tors on May 05, 2004, 07:20:15 pm
exit wrote on Mon, 03 May 2004 03:48

Guys-I was joking about Garageband. I haven't used it yet. I am  waiting on the G5 laptop tho! My G4 Titanium just busted a screen hinge. It's on it's last leg.



Actually, Garageband is an amazing product, especially at the price point.  I can assure you that it is capable of making quite acceptable remixes, etc.  Now, I'm not saying that we should all ditch Reason, PT, DP, whatever.  What I am saying is that the product should NOT be underestimated.  It is fun and easy!  And FREE!

Dr. Jack
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Kenny Gioia on May 05, 2004, 08:46:59 pm
Ruairi O'Flaherty wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 14:05



Apologies if I came off a little heavy sounding and I definitely do not want to start a PSW vs R/E/P vibe.  I personally will not visit MARSH because of Mixerman's moderation there and I'd love to see the two boards remain very distinct in style and content.  I know that you did not mean anything by using the term Alsihad but unfortunately many others do and have used that and other tactics to cause flames, arguments and rants all over some of my favourite forums.

cheers,
Ruairi


The [euphemism for Protools replaced by editor, who has grown weary of the debate] term is all in good humor. Most of us over the MARSH do use Pro Tools. And like it. We like to have fun mixed in with our audio.

One of the great things about the MARSH is that it divided itself quite nicely from the Rec Pit. There hasn't even been any flame wars at all. (on our side anyway)

And my forum (EnGioia Recording) is just audio. No flames, no nonsense. The forums are very seperate for good reasons. Keep the info easily accessible. Alot of the guys at the MARSH may be a bit ruff around the edges and work blue Laughing but inside there is a lot of knowledge to be had.

And those of you who are a little too hoity toity might be missing out on some great discussions.

I for one will be hangin' at the REP to get to know you guys better and I hope some of you will return the favor.

Peace
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Mixerman on May 06, 2004, 05:09:55 am
sdevino wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 07:14

Alsihad is short for "All's I Had"  whichis followed by Pro Tools.


Alsihad does not stand for "All's I had." It never has, and it never will. Alsihad is a term derived from the word Alsihah, which is the name of a Shriners Lodge in Georgia. It is emblazoned upon a Fez owned by Fletcher. He has a forum here on REP. Alsihah is a person that operates Alsihad. I call myself a Luddite, which is one that generally shuns digital technology. There is nothing wrong with classifying ourselves for our likes and dislikes. It helps to establish certain preferences, and this makes it a little easier to understand our peer's position. Alsihad was designed to allow one to express their enjoyment or lack thereof. It has worked well in this capacity.

Contrary to popular belief, Alsihad, is not a negative term. If anything, it's a positive one. It is a name that I prefer to call it for expression of enjoyment. Obviously, GM prefers that poster's here, refer to Aslihad by its given name. Seeing as this is his forum, that's his prerogative. Personally, I think editing "Alsihad" in someone's post to read as "[Pro Tools]" is as absurd as my trying to edit all "Pro Tools" to read "[Alsihad]" in posts. I tried that once, a long time ago. It didn't work out very well.

Quote:


Mixerman and his crew in the MARSH do not allow posters to mention "Pro Tools" by name.


I'm not sure who my "crew" is but I can tell you that the above statement is completely false. We DO allow people to use the term Pro Tools on the MARSH, although I try to dissuade that words usage in the Womb. You see, I view Alsihad's given name as a dirty word. Further, I find said given name to be offensive. To me, the given name is the euphemism. Not my made up name, which is designed specifically to bring enjoyment or lack thereof.

But this is precisely my point. Let people call the box whatever they want. Alsihad, Pro Tools, we all understand these terms, and we all know what someone is talking about when they use either of these terms. Live and let live. What can I say? Some people come up with pet names for things. I don't see anyone complaining that I've dubbed control rooms as the Womb.

As an aside, I often work in multi-room complexes, and I hear other engineers referring to the box as Alsihad. I hear this term on an almost daily basis. The name Alsihad seems to have really caught on here in LA. I'd say that at this point, resistance is futile.

Quote:

Others in the MARSH do not seem to mind.
I also think it is time to give up this pointless practice outside of MM's forum (he is entitled to moderate his forum anyway he see's fit IMO).

Steve


Just because you don't see the point in my calling it Alsihad, doesn't mean that it's pointless. It just mean that you don't see the point.

I'm hoping GM won't edit out all the Alsihad's in this post (that could get rather confusing), as I'm merely trying to clear up several inaccurate statements, and to set the record straight. Nothing more, nothing less.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Fred Rogers on May 06, 2004, 08:20:30 am
exit wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 16:48

Ruairi O'Flaherty wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 14:05


BTW what direction are you going with the new rig?

Ruairi


But back to the original topic-My point about EQing in the box was this: on the console you just twist knobs and listen. On DAW's, you watch your mouse movements and look at the EQ curve, rather than listen. At least this is my little roadblock. I always go right at certain frequencies, I've got a mental stump here I'm trying to hop over. That's what I meant about turning the screen off!

exit


Exit,

I agree.  I honestly do not believe that staring at a screen while eq'ing is helpful.  That is why I feel that working on a control surface of some kind, whether it be Logic Control for Logic, all the way up to Icon for pro tools is helpful.  To me, it is a whole different game if you're using screen images to dictate what you're doing to the audio.  Listening is the important sense here!
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Skwaidu on May 06, 2004, 09:20:10 am
What troubles me is that when I'm mousing around the EQ's in Alsihad I still retain my ability to listen... Unlike others it seems! Very Happy

And yeah, I use Pro Tools, and I do get enjoyment from the term "Alsihad".
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: studiojimi on May 06, 2004, 10:57:14 am
[quote title=Ruairi O'Flaherty wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 17:15]
exit wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 21:48



That all sounds cool, I'm on PT6.2.3/Dual G5/Accel and a 192i/o.  I have never heard the 96i/o, some say they are poor compared to the 192.  Of course some people wouldn't touch the 192 so I guess whatever works for you.



it's ok to look and see with your eyes

god gave you both ears and eyes and a lot of other good stuff to use.

i use my eyes and my ears when i play live
why should that change in the studio.
FYI
i just did a classical guitar cd at 192
it just sounds pristine
the client is very happy
so much so he did the rest of his current catalog for the next cd

today we will begin a full rock CD at 96K  or 88.2
which should i use?

it will include a rock version of mozart's 40 symphony
i will produce and play drums.

happy summing brothers


Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: exit on May 06, 2004, 11:31:23 am
Thanks for contributing Jimi. I've yet to find the EQ's I'm 100% happy with. I haven't used the Oxford or Massenburg's yet, but I have ordered the MDW stuff for my new rig. I have a feeling that when I switch over to PT6.x that I'll be much happier with the sound of things.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Kenny Gioia on May 06, 2004, 11:51:26 am
Before the Oxford and GML plugins came out, Pro Tools was not a very pleasant place to apply EQ.

These Plugins are more than useable.

I still prefer Pultecs (not the knockoffs) and Neve's but I'm not afraid to use plugins anymore. For EQ anyway.

Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: maarvold on May 06, 2004, 12:28:33 pm
Regarding Mixerman's pet name for Pro Tools, I want to know: what did the Shriner that inspired Fletcher to purchase the hat look like?  Or, maybe more appropriately, what does Fletcher look like in the hat.  Obviously, this would be part of the inspiration for the pet name.  And, as the saying goes, "one picture is worth a thousand words".  

Rather than asking The Moderator to engage in censorship (forbidden by The Constitution, btw), I seem to remember an ignore list in the member preferences that [presumably] allows a forum member to block the display of posts from selected users.  Therefore, an end user could just choose for... well, for Mixerman, for example, not to exist in the world of their perception.  I've been wanting to use the word 'onus' lately, so here goes (and I hope I'm using it correctly):
This places the onus of non-flaming behavior on the poster who has potential-for-flaming.  For example, a forum member who had a real problem with the term Alsihad could--as is Mixerman's stated desire--derive pleasure from the term by using it as the impetus to remove Mixerman from his or her reality.  Think how gleeful they could be as they show their friends how Mixerman's posts don't even appear on his own forum (which also has an ignore list feature).  

But I personally feel that our feelings for Mixerman should be much like Hannibal Lechter's for Agent Starling: that the world is a more interesting place with him in it.  
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Zoesch on May 08, 2004, 10:17:27 pm
David Schober wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 09:36

First off - do we have to use that ridiculous nickname here, I understood that bs is to be restricted to MARSH.


I agree completely!  It's not professional.  It's pejorative and displays an agenda.  When criticism is needed, (name a DAW that doesn't) refraning from slang that invites a flaming threads can help rather than hurt the dialog....Something I hope this forum avoids!


Sometimes I wonder if a sense of humor is an optional DAW component... and why so many people seem to not have one installed.

If a pet name for your software of choice bothers you that much it might be time to evaluate the relationship between you and your gear.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: David Schober on May 09, 2004, 03:22:20 pm
[quote title=Zoesch wrote on Sat, 08 May 2004 21:17]

Sometimes I wonder if a sense of humor is an optional DAW component... and why so many people seem to not have one installed.

If a pet name for your software of choice bothers you that much it might be time to evaluate the relationship between you and your gear.


Stefan,

Maybe you missed what this comment was all about.  It has nothing to do with being offened at a nickname.  It's about the inane rants that were such a part of the previous forum.  Alsihad was a red herring, a poster child, of the innumerable posts that had nothing to do with professional recording, but chiildish rants about one system vs. another.  As far as I've seen it's only the minor players that get involved in that kind of thing.  

Call my system or whoever's system whatever you want.  But lets get to the issues what really makes the difference in our work.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Zoesch on May 10, 2004, 12:08:47 am
Oh yes seems I missed that part... I'm not interested in the flames either (Although they can end up being quite enlightening at times), but I do take exception of comments made in this thread about people which are quite childish and divisive.

Let's move on to more constructive things, no matter what they are called.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Mixerman on May 10, 2004, 02:48:50 am
David Schober wrote on Sun, 09 May 2004 12:22



Call my system or whoever's system whatever you want.  But lets get to the issues what really makes the difference in our work.



So let me see if I've got this straight. You don't think that a specific manufacturer building and selling a system designed to be both closed and obsolete in a predetermined amount of time makes a difference in our work?

That's an interesting perspective you've got there.

Mixerman
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: David Schober on May 10, 2004, 08:28:20 am
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 10 May 2004 01:48

David Schober wrote on Sun, 09 May 2004 12:22



Call my system or whoever's system whatever you want.  But lets get to the issues what really makes the difference in our work.



So let me see if I've got this straight. You don't think that a specific manufacturer building and selling a system designed to be both closed and obsolete in a predetermined amount of time makes a difference in our work?

That's an interesting perspective you've got there.

Mixerman



Okay.....I'm probably taking bait I shouldn't.

So here's some more that fit that bill IMHO.  All of the Sony digital tape line.  The Mitsubishi line as well.   In a sense they're really worse as the platform was abandoned by the manufacturer.  You know GM's unhappiness with his rather large investment of his console that can never be upgraded.  While they weren't created to be "obsolete in a predetermined amount of time" their fate is worse than an upgrage path....because there is none.

Hasn't this been discussed ad nasuem?
PT, DP, Logic, etc all by the nature of what they are will be obsolete in a few years every time something new comes out, for ex, the release of OSX.    But this stuff is only obsolete if you wanna have the newest thing.  If you want to always have the newest, you'll have to pony up.

But, I have plenty of friends making lots of money on an old version of PT they bought a couple of years ago.  In fact, one produced one of the biggest songs of the last couple of years, "I Can Only Imagine" on that "obsolete" system!  So much for that affecting his work.

I've got other things to do rather than go down this path...like the tracking session I'm heading off to do.  And the quality of work I do today, the sounds I get, the creativity I bring to the table make a heck of a lot more difference than what platform I'm on.   Maybe you see it differently, but for me that's the bigger picture that keeps me working.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: exit on May 10, 2004, 11:46:55 am
Yeah, Ok, how's eryone doing?

BACK ON TOPIC!

Hey Mixerman, are you EQing "in the box" yet? If so, what situation made you feel like you needed to use that particular tool? If you haven't, do you foresee yourself working "in the box" any time in the future? Not just Protools either, whatever box that is not a console strip!
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Mixerman on May 10, 2004, 01:39:02 pm
David Schober wrote on Mon, 10 May 2004 05:28

Mixerman wrote on Mon, 10 May 2004 01:48

David Schober wrote on Sun, 09 May 2004 12:22



Call my system or whoever's system whatever you want.  But lets get to the issues what really makes the difference in our work.



So let me see if I've got this straight. You don't think that a specific manufacturer building and selling a system designed to be both closed and obsolete in a predetermined amount of time makes a difference in our work?

That's an interesting perspective you've got there.

Mixerman



Okay.....I'm probably taking bait I shouldn't.

So here's some more that fit that bill IMHO.  All of the Sony digital tape line.  The Mitsubishi line as well.   In a sense they're really worse as the platform was abandoned by the manufacturer.  You know GM's unhappiness with his rather large investment of his console that can never be upgraded.  While they weren't created to be "obsolete in a predetermined amount of time" their fate is worse than an upgrage path....because there is none.

Hasn't this been discussed ad nasuem?
PT, DP, Logic, etc all by the nature of what they are will be obsolete in a few years every time something new comes out, for ex, the release of OSX.    But this stuff is only obsolete if you wanna have the newest thing.  If you want to always have the newest, you'll have to pony up.

But, I have plenty of friends making lots of money on an old version of PT they bought a couple of years ago.  In fact, one produced one of the biggest songs of the last couple of years, "I Can Only Imagine" on that "obsolete" system!  So much for that affecting his work.

I've got other things to do rather than go down this path...like the tracking session I'm heading off to do.  And the quality of work I do today, the sounds I get, the creativity I bring to the table make a heck of a lot more difference than what platform I'm on.   Maybe you see it differently, but for me that's the bigger picture that keeps me working.


And where have I ever said that one couldn't make a great record on Alsihad? Is that what you think I've been saying? Can you find a post anywhere in the countless record of posts on the Internet written by me, where I say that one can't be creative, or use an old system, or make a #1 hit, or make a great record with Alsihad? Because if I have, I'd be interested in reading that post.

According to your post, you're discounting my criticisms of a platform and its manufacturer as moot because in the bigger picture all that matters is creativity, working, and the making of hit records. If that's the case, then why discuss any gear at all? I mean, EQ in the box should be just fine and dandy since all that matters is that we're being creative and making future hit records (while working). Discussing the ramifications of sample rates such as 192, 96, 44.1, is unnecessary and irrelevant to our work. Be creative, work, make hit records, and you can use any and all of those sample rates. Has there been a hit at 192 yet? I'm just trying to figure out whether that particular sample rate has been validated yet.

I know, let's just all agree to disagree, and shut the place down. You make records your way with your gear. I make records my way with my gear. We have resolved all our issues here. Creativity, working, and hit records. This is all that matters. The gear is irrelevant. Let's move on now. Julie! OK, we can shut the place down now!

As much as I'm being somewhat sarcastic, I agree with you and what you're saying on a more global scale. What I don't agree with, is your use of this as an argument to discount my criticisms of the platform itself. These two concepts are mutually exclusive of one another. Back to the topic at hand.

This thread was about EQ in Alsihad. I use EQ in Alsihad on rare occasion. It works. When I turn up the highs, more highs come out of the speakers, when I turn up the lows, more lows come out of the speakers. The inverse happens when I cut these frequencies. If that's the level of listening that one is capable of, just about every EQ plug-in known to man is more than satisfactory. If you want something more in your working  life, or if you find yourself becoming a tad bit more discerning, while being creative and making hit records, then I contend there are better options.

The side note of this thread is the use of the term Alsihad. I posted here to correct several gross misrepresentations regarding this term. Nothing more, nothing less. Upon posting my corrections, there were a few snide posts that looked down on the use of my term - a term that for all intents and purposes is meant to be funny. Humorous. Enjoyable, even. Of course, to some extent, even the snide reactions and the expressed desire to eradicate the word from existence, all play in to the master plan of this terms' entertainment value. For that, I thank you.

Like I said before, many moons ago on my forum at the Recpit, I tried to remove all posts that used the term [Alsihad's given name] and replace them with [Alsihad]. I tired to insist that posters on my forum use the term Alsihad. The results were disastrous. To this day, there are some respected (here on these forums if no where else) engineers that refuse to post on my forum. Oops! Obviously, this was a learning experience. I learned that I can't really stop people from using terminology that I find distasteful. I learned that if I tried, I'd risk my own personal well being, as I was becoming unglued. Mad, even! Fortunately, I snapped out of my madness, and I came back to reality. I realized that I had to get over it. As a result [Alsihad's given name] is now allowed on my forum, regardless of my disdain for the term. I now embrace all terminology that relate to Alsihad. I feel I'm a better person for it.

Now, I too must get ready to go to work. (Although, contrary to popular belief, I DO have a computer at work).

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: johnnywiz on May 10, 2004, 03:52:15 pm
Quote:

I can't wait to hear some of your Garageband tracks Razz


Garageband = Po' Tools.  Laughing
ya heard it here 1st folks.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Loco on May 11, 2004, 08:28:31 pm
Every piece of hardware is obsolete the next day you start using it. there's something else already being developed or released that will outshine it. How to upgrade it? Via software or replacing the hardware. You just can't upgrade a transformer by pouring some elixir on top of it.

That's why most manufacturers have chosen the software way of doing things. It's easier and cheaper to be ahead of the rest. However, software can be only as good as the hardware it runs in.

And there's where the whole dabate starts over. Don't kill each other.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: wwittman on May 16, 2004, 09:00:44 pm
Not EVERY piece of hardware is instantly obsolete.
in fact, i would make the case that the truly great hardware of any era is far from obsoleted by new attempts.

I'd rather have a good U-47 than just about anything created afterward to do the same thing.
It's in way obsoleted by the next month's flavour of microphone.

If we're to avoid the trap of whinging to each other about how "digital sucks", then we need to EQUALLY avoid the pitfall of the "digital rules, and analogue is for the museums" nonsense.

on topic: I often find that my preconceptions about EQ have to be somewhat adjusted (if not discarded) when EQ'ing in ProTools.
That is, the 2.2 k I know I like on a guitar amp on the 8078 does not seem to do the same thing on the plug-in EQ.. so I have to really listen and NOT expect to "know" what I want ahead of time.
This seems to be the case irrespective of which plug-in EQ I use.
They just don't respond LIKE analogue EQ's.
And one cannot expect them to.

It's still my strong preference to leave some things to the analogue domain, and EQ remains one.
Unless of course, one has no choice for a given project.
In that respect, I have to say I still find the Focusrite F4 EQ to be a favourite, even though I don't much like their hardware equivalent!

Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Giovanni Speranza on May 31, 2004, 07:28:31 pm
My opinion is that you could use the best EQ in Pro Tools, but the mixing bus would steal the magic.
Digidesign is releasing a new 48 bit engine, i wonder if there is a change.

There is only one way to be happy with your DAW EQ: using the best EQ, in the best summing DAW. (i.e. i'm happy with Channel EQ, in Logic)
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg on May 31, 2004, 09:20:28 pm
Giovanni Speranza wrote on Mon, 31 May 2004 18:28

My opinion is that you could use the best EQ in Pro Tools, but the mixing bus would steal the magic.
Digidesign is releasing a new 48 bit engine, i wonder if there is a change.

There is only one way to be happy with your DAW EQ: using the best EQ, in the best summing DAW. (i.e. i'm happy with Channel EQ, in Logic)


Giovanni,

You'll note on this forum that I don't sell anything I build, but I should inform you of three things:

1. The current PT HD bus is definitely 48-bit straight through.
2. As far as I know, the basic Channel EQ in Logic is 24 bit, not 48 bit.
3. You should listen to the 48 bit EQ's in HD before you form a seemingly-concrete opinion.

George
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Level on May 31, 2004, 09:39:51 pm
Is not George's comments the truth!


I did some serious mixing this weekend...IF you want you mix to end up sounding like ass, simply do multitracking in the box (any rendering you can think of) at lower rez per track and watch them bunch up on you. Me and my artist simply compared it to:

A. A fine Fried egg, steak, french toast, Coffee and Orange Juice breakfast served in a nice setting...


WITH

B: All of the above, put in a blender, served in a glass and drank.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Giovanni Speranza on June 01, 2004, 09:43:02 am
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?
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Len on June 01, 2004, 02:09:46 pm
I would recommend that mixers in the box give the Sonalksis EQ a try.  It is incredibly smooth.  There is a 30 day full trial.

I ended up "having to" buy it, along with their Compressor.

Cheers

Leonard Ng
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg on June 01, 2004, 08:29:24 pm
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

Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg on June 01, 2004, 08:34:31 pm
Leonard Ng wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 13:09

I would recommend that mixers in the box give the Sonalksis EQ a try.  It is incredibly smooth.  There is a 30 day full trial.

I ended up "having to" buy it, along with their Compressor.

Cheers

Leonard Ng


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
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: J.J. Blair on June 01, 2004, 10:13:19 pm
I'm not married to any particular format.  Given my druthers, I would track drums and bass to 2" 16 track, then do everything else on 2" 24 trk. unless I needed to use PT for something.  But since it's difficult to get some people to master their instrument, let alone pay $160 for 17 minutes of tape, I wind up doing a lot of basics in PT.  I will avoid at all costs mixing in the box, but there have been records I engineered where somebody else was mixing in the box.  In those situations, I have found that I will EQ to disk where I would not EQ to tape, having to commit to a sound, so that I don't have to hope that the mixer is using a decent plug-in EQ.  It limits the ability to wait until hearing all the final tracks to EQ the frequency that I think best suits the mix, but a 10khz shelf from a Neve sounds better than any digital high end, any day of the week.

I will step up to the plate swinging and say all plug-in EQs sucked ass until the Sony Oxford came along.  The Oxford was the first plug-in EQ that did not create phasing problems for me in the areass that I was boosting or attenuating.  However, as much as I like the Oxford, it really lacks any of that character that an analog EQ will give.  But then I found the URS N series Neve type plug-in.  I did a whole shoot out with a 1073 that I'll probably post in the appropriate forum soon.  While it can't match a 1073 step for step, it's the closest thing in the digital world that I have heard yet.  And it's a good bit cheaper than the Oxford, which I think I spent $800 or so on.  I'm curious if any of you have used it and found it as impressive as I have.

As far as de-essing goes, I have really had no complaints with the Digi de-esser.  But if I understood what some of you have said, you put the sibilant noise on another track and ride that fader?  Unless somebody already suggested it and I missed it, how about leaving the esses in the normal vocal track, but copying them onto a separate track, reversing the phase and then automating the fades to cancel against any offending sibilance?  Or is that what you guys were talking about in the first place, and I was reading carelessly?
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: J.J. Blair on June 02, 2004, 01:43:53 am
OK. Duh.  I went back and read what George was talking about.  Moving the essing to another track so it wouldn't affect the compressor.  I need sleep!  Regardless, I decided to try the esses out of phase on another track writing in the apprpriate automation, and I liked the sound of gentle ess canceling better than writing a fader move on the vocal track around the essing.  It also sounded better than the de-esser.  It was extremely transparent.  I think, but I am not sure, it is through constructive and destructive phasing that the BSS DPR901 achieves the "compression" and "expansion" in their equivalent of a multiband compressor.  Maybe that's how all de-essers work too.  I don't know.  I just know when to use which gizmo and then turn the fucking knobs until it sounds right.

Note, that if for some bizarre reason you decide to try this time consuming method of de-essing, you should not have any plug-ins active on the channels, because the latency will ruin the perfect 180
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Greg Dixon on June 02, 2004, 01:48:03 am
Hi George,
I've been wondering for a while, if you ever 'mix in the box'? I've been using PT HD, for about 18 months and been very happy with the sound. I keep reading peoples opinions, that you can't get your mix to sound right, without going through 'analogue summing'. My guess is that they've never really used PT HD, but having never used an SSL or Neve to mix (I was using and still track with a Soundcraft Ghost), I was just curious as to what you think.

I got absolutely ripped to shreds, on another forum, for saying that I'd done an experiment, where I loaded some un mastered tracks I'd done, into PT along side ones that had been mastered in Australia's top mastering suites, by some of our best engineers, to see how close I could get with just plug-ins. I used your EQ, Waves and McDSP compressors and a little bit of Aphex exciter. Everybody that's heared them, agrees that the plug in versions sound just as good and in some cases better.
Thanks
Greg
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: jfrigo on June 02, 2004, 02:06:14 am
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 22:48


I got absolutely ripped to shreds, on another forum, for saying that I'd done an experiment, where I loaded some un mastered tracks I'd done, into PT along side ones that had been mastered in Australia's top mastering suites, by some of our best engineers, to see how close I could get with just plug-ins. I used your EQ, Waves and McDSP compressors and a little bit of Aphex exciter. Everybody that's heared them, agrees that the plug in versions sound just as good and in some cases better.



I don't know what forum or what they said, but I can see some room for criticism of what you seem to be concluding. That's not to say one can't acomplish quite a lot "in the box." It's a different world and things have come a long way in just the past 5 years. That's still rather different from what I think you're implying however.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Level 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.
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Len 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
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Giovanni Speranza on June 02, 2004, 07:07:39 am
Thanks George, i will in the meantime search the forum, and try to understand... Shocked
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: jfrigo 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.

Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg 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
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Tojo 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

Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg 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
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Giovanni Speranza on June 03, 2004, 05:06:39 am
What do you mean George?
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: George Massenburg 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
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: OlavB 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!
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: Arksun 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
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: CWHumphrey 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
Title: Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
Post by: i dig music 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.