The EQ scam exposed. Did you fall for it? (Part 1)
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2024
- My website: www.apmasterin...
There is a lot of marketing hype around EQ plugins sounding different, with different flavours and characters. But is this really true? If you know how to use one full featured digital EQ, do you really need a whole bunch of different analogue modelling EQs for different kinds of instruments? Or is one single digital EQ enough?
See this update video for quantified results with more plugins: czcams.com/video/h9OsUSXKiDg/video.html
As a plugin developer (who does it as a hobby) I can say that if different EQ developers used the same filter algorithm, they would sound the same. Different digital EQs may sound different if they use different filter types (FIR, IIR, State variable), but most of them probably use one of those types, because of it's advantages (I'm not sure which one, but you can probably find that information somewhere). Analog emulations do sound similar in some cases, because most of the analog gear probably uses those same algorithms, but the circuit components have some kind of a "flavour". They can't have very precise values in most cases or maybe a component is broken or really old, so it produces a different sound. There are two ways of doing analog emulations. The first one is to look at the scematic or the actual gear and emulate all of the individual components. The second way is to record an impulse or frequency responce of the gear and create a plugin which has the same responce (usually it's not 100% perfect, but it's really close). Those plugins will sound different from your stock EQ. They will have their "flavour", because they are going to sound like analog gear. Some people are really into that analog sound and that's why they buy those plugins. If you want to simply produce music and don't care about such small differences, do it! You don't need to make conspiracy theories up, just use the EQ you like and that's it. If analog emulations are not for you, just don't use them.
Hey, I appreciate your comment. There's a few things to sort out here.
Firstly, I demonstrate right in this video that an analog emulation EQ (by waves, attempting to emulate a Neve) is identical to fabfilter in terms of the bells, and later in the video I discuss the shelves.
I'm aware of the different filter design approaches as I also code and many years ago I wrote my university thesis on a type of DSP. I also have built analog EQ by hand with a soldering iron. So I understand both analog and digital principles when it comes to EQ, and how a value could be off, or an electrolytic cap could have leaked etc and then then values are slightly wrong.
Also I don't know where you think I'm saying that all developers use the same code. I know for a fact that many developers DO use libraries, you'll probably know that yourself. Maybe you work with the JUICE framework to do your plugs? But lets assume every developer reinvents the wheel and uses zero libraries, well, whether you achieve equalisation through analog, digital or even acoustic means, there is an underlying reality to the process. Remember, stuff which we take for granted as digital computer based stuff like FFTs are not computer age things mathematically. The FFT predates computers by quite a margin seeing as Joseph Fourier was born in 1768. The general principles and effects of EQ are old. No matter how you implement them, they are an ABSTRACT theoretical ideal and not a format dependent ideal.
This has the result that, regardless of your approach, you will more or less reach the same result (as I demonstrate here with bells), or as I demonstrate with shelves, if you do not shoot for the theoretical optimum but use IRs, you end up with some kind of weird wonky shelf which is influenced by your measuring equipment, and i the case of the neve, even influenced by the position of the desk in the room due to electrical interference, but even then you can easily get the delta to be extremely quiet, so even with IR based processing there isn't a different flavour but merely a different EQ shape, which you can easily recreate with fabfilter or another good EQ.
I LP EQ at the end, but I'm guessing you didn't watch that far.
some typos, should be JUCE etc, you get the idea
"response" not "responce".
@@foruncolo74 huh?
answering to @maaudioplugins that keep writing "respomce" instead of "response" 🙂
i can't stress enough, if graphic designers on Reaper had created some cool graphics plugins maybe today most of producers will use reaper ahahah
100%. However, reaper's workflow is aimed at people who know what they are doing. Dont forget, many people who make music may not be that technical which is why software like fruity loops really did well
@@APMastering the reason why I switched to FL because as producer they give all you Need and more
exactly. Reaper is actually the best DAW for mastering and mixing by quite a wide margin but for midi and composition, FL is probably actually cooler tbh
@@APMastering I Learned quite a bit from Mike Senior, he was using Reaper and the tool that was on there was mind blowing very simple and effective. Forget the pretty interface I need that LOL.
@@rusj5273 reaper has more than 100 built in plugins bundled with it, some of which are very good but all have ugly interfaces
for a long time i thought it was so weird there were so many different EQs, compressors, reverbs, etc. glad to know im not going bonkers
hold on, difference between eq's is weird, but not all compressors/limiters/reverbs work the same
@@sumbodee3 yes im aware of that, but since theres basically a metric fuckton of them out there nowadays i personally feel theres bound to be some form of repetition among some. i could still be wrong tho
Me too!
Whilst you're right about the EQ section of a channel strip emulation plugin, I think what people mean when they're talking about analog warmth in that context is the saturation introduced by another section( that is usually switched on by default)
100% agree. however, I wanted to demonstrate that the EQ itself is not the analog vibe monster people think it is. 100% agree the type and amount of distortion (and hiss, and other nonlinearities) will be a much more meaningful influence on the sound in the direction of "analogue".
@@APMastering That's fair enough! The other thought I had was demonstrating what the plugins are doing visually via Bertom EQ analyser or Plugin Doctor if you have it might be a good way to visually show they are doing much the same thing.
@@pelennorDSP yeah this is a good idea. i could do this in another video. thanks for the tip!
Analog can have desired artifacts, often times regarded as imperfections...
Analog can be less analytical and considerated more "musical". And with no or less listening fatigue.
@@michelvondenhoff9673 id love to see proof of the claims in your second paragraph
Yep. The plugins may be the same in certain respects. But still... the interfaces, slewing of controls, colors, contrast, tech support etc. ... can make a difference to the user overall.
For sure... if I picked a desert island plugin... I could narrow it down to one. But since I can own a few different ones, I can get plugins which allow me to have some varied approaches of my choosing. (Serendipity is still a thing.)
And with the modeling capabilities that some companies are implementing... some plugins are definitely worth the attention. For me... GUI's make a big difference, as to how I get from point A to B. It may mostly be a matter of preference... but it is nice to have 'options'.
Reaeq has major cramping issues, so i won't use that
The sound is of course the most important thing, but:
for me it's important that a plugin or instrument also offers eyecandy, so
that I'm inspired to work on it for hours.
Nowadays we buy instruments and effects online and usually even without packaging and printed instructions.
One click and it ends up in our virtual 19-inch rack.
For me, that has zero soul and zero feeling for the value of the "devices".
I valued a real device much more and usually spend more time with it.
If the look of a plugin isn't nice, I don't want to work with it for long.
This is a bold admission on the internet, and you’re likely to get hate, but you’re absolutely right.
I have a certain muscle memory involved with my 1176, 2a, and API eq, among others. I remember 20 years ago, manually inputting values on the stock plugins of my first PC… it was not inspiring at all.
The UI guides the way a person mixes, and nobody can deny that. I see a good-looking Neve emulation and I know what to do. The muscle memory kicks in.
I have a big window in my studio and a lava lamp on my desk. One arguably reduces sound quality, and the other does absolutely nothing. If being able to look outside and experience actual sunlight helps me mix for longer, it’s worth it.
I don’t think plugin graphics are any different in this respect.
I would agree to this. I'm well aware that a computer can emulate ANY analog signal. But I sill love using analog gear simply because of the way it looks and the feel. But if you blindfolded me, I wouldn't know what "plugin" I was listening to, or the difference between a Juno 60 synth or the Roland emulation.
People would probably be a lot happier if they were comfortable and accepting of these apparent cognitive dissonances.
Nope. Not accurate. Nonlinearity has a lot more to it than a specific frequency response. To mimick the frequency response of an original hardware unit with true analog precision requires knowing what settings give you that Q and then learn how the approach and departure are non linear. Meaning that the Q tgat you identified is only a snapshot of its nonlinearity in a specific set of parameters. This nonlinearity is very unique in every case for its ability to behave differently as you turn the knows. Some people insist that the digital computer in the box domain makes it impossible to replicate some of these characteristics accurately. I tend to agree because of the headroom used in those units being in a louder volume set than what we use the saturation has to be reproduced or faked if you will. But the only thing being faked even closely is the color or q of the saturation. Even if you copy thid three dimensionally with multiple curve vectors within different parameters, it's still only a clone or copy with no way to produce the original saturation which is quite unique to every component and signal path. Earlier analog is the worst because of its induction and resistance changing in almost what seems to be random ways with the touch of one knob. With behavioral dependencies far too complicated to reproduce.
The importance of this software plugin market is that it fills the gaps in our library of those tried and true known quantities that have worked so well in the past. I mean, why call it tape saturation if there's no tape needed to make it any more? So we all know what to expect.
Everything you said in this video is objectively correct, but I still think there is something good to be said about these products.
I think most people that work professionally in the audio industry don't use these tools "because i need a neve in my computer ". It's more about getting results fast with stuff we are familiar with.
If you know a how a Helios EQ sounds on guitars, it will take you 10 seconds to get a good sound. Same thing with a Pultec on bass, etc etc.
You can obviously recreate the exact same sound with a FFPQ3 or a Nova and save yourself 30-60$ on each analog EQ.
Heck you could even recreate the saturation curve/behavior with saturn. With a good ear and these 2 plugins you could recreate ANY analog EQ plugin.
But
I don't think many of us have the time to recreate all of those curves. I bet you could recreate the whole catalog of waves and UAD on fabfilter. Find out the Q and slope of each bell/shelf/Filter of your preferred analog eq. save those settings on a preset and repeat for all other modeled EQs. You'd save hundreds of dollars, but do you have time to do that? Time to do it on every single mix?
Even the Kirchoff EQ, which I love because it has all of the things i mentioned above, isn't necessarily the one stop shop for EQ (it gets pretty close tho). simply because its faster for most people to get a good sound using a good UI.
If you like to work fast, work with your ears and not your eyes, and a snake oil plugin lets you work faster, then thats THE BEST plugin you can use.
If you want full precision and control, have ample time in your hands, and you can honestly say that your ears are not affected by what you see, then go for a FF or Nova or Kirchoff.
I know what i'd choose personally idk about yall.
i own and love the Kirchoff EQ..oddly enough i rarely use it. but i enjoyed acquiring it at an incredible price....and just knowing that it's there and not FabFilter EQ because it's NEVER at an incredible price.
@captainshuffle What you say, however, does not justify the price at which they are sold. Plugins are just codes, they have no power, they have no physical materials, they have no circuitry, and they have no material costs. So why exaggerate with prices that exceed hundreds of dollars, euros?
@@AforismiDAutoreAD Somebody had to write those codes. Things are worth whatever they are worth to you. I like being able to toss 40 1176s across my tracks if that’s what is needed. Being able to finish a mix in an hour and get paid is worth the price of admission to me; it may not be for you, and that’s okay.
I’ve made enough money in time saved using analog-modeled plugins that the cost is justified for me. Workflow is king. I mixed for years using stock plugins, and I’ll never hate.
There are bundles, there are sales… I have never paid full price for a UAD plugin. Just gotta know when to pull the trigger. I’m happy with my investments.
@@AforismiDAutoreAD😅 unfortunately you're not correct there.
He didnt show any in the video, but there are plenty of 'circuit modelled' vsts.
He probably didn't show them because tney cost a lot more.
These plugins run emulations of electrical circuits.
They are an entire voltage simulation and the output you get comes from the real time simulation of different components sending voltage through each other.
Watch the audio plugin development confrence and you will get an idea of what goes into good plugins.
This video was a bit misleading.
He showed like one cheap ancient waves 'analog' eq lol.
@@Joshua_Griffin In my opinion, a plugin cannot cost more than hundreds of dollars. Since it has no material production costs, it does not use wires and circuits, no implementation of transformers and transistors, no power cables, no use of valves (tube). Although there is a cost for production, the same cost will be spread over the number of consumers who purchase it. Once the code has been written there is not a serial reproduction chain, but just a copy of it. If you think that for example a compressor has factory costs and serial production costs then you will understand that there is a huge difference. A plugin that costs from 150 to 300 dollars means playing dirty to the detriment of the consumer, and spending 150 to 300 dollars for a plugin is not worth it, at this point it is better to buy hardware. Some plugin houses have understood this, like Waves (and lately it is the policy that UAD is also adopting), otherwise don't be fooled.
Why does my music suck...? It must be the samples/instruments - it must be the plug-ins - it must be my mixing - it must be my mastering... Maybe it's your composition/arrangement? No, no, no :)
You just EARNED my subscription. I've been on this mission for a long time. So much of my time wasted by plugin hype in the era that I started just to learn I can get by with stock EQ. I use pro-q 3 just because interface and linear phase, but I could've saved myself so much heartache so long ago with this knowledge.
If you are used to a specific tool, once you change it, the results might change as well. But there is no 'magic sauce' indeed.
I'm sticking to the default Reaper EQ after this.
One argument for using an analog modeled EQ over something like fabfilter pro Q3 is the exact effect you mentioned on how sight effects our hearing. There’s no spectrum analyzer built into most of those so you have to rely on your ears instead of noticing all the visible peaks which may or may not need addressing.
yeah that and its crazy price.
@@planetclay well, you can always set sail to the high seas...
i tested TDR nova for the first time, i'm astonished how polished the plugin it is, and immediately purchase the GE version, and its really worth for how advance this plugin can be.
TDR Nova is a waste of money if your DAW already ships with a nice Dynamic EQ... Cubase, Digital Performer, and others. You have to make sure you are not wasting money on redundant plug-ins. Otherwise, you haven't paid attention to what this video is talkign about. IMO, I think he should have mentioned that some DAWs do render some of these third party plug-ins largely redundant, and people need to make sure they do a proper comparison and make sure what they are buying is something they /actually/ need.
There are lots of hobbyists in the market now who are buying things simply because they are popular and have seen other creators or users pushing it.
DAWs, plug-ins, synths, virtual instruments, etc. This is happening everywhere.
I have many options of various EQ's to choose from, but 95% of the time, I use Fab Filter because it's so versatile and fast. And let's face it, it can replicate pretty much any EQ and the difference where it can't is absolutely irrelevant.
I say the same about Kirchhoff. The whole point of the video was that it virtually doesn’t matter which eq you use. The differences practically all lie in the workflow
@@alchemistrpm82 Agree with the caveat is that there is at the same price as good stuff, some real shit out there to be avoided like plague.
Totally agree that most EQ's use similar algorithms and/or controls to produce similar results. However, there is one thing that sets most gear ( software or hardware ) apart and that's it's 'use case' scenario.
Just as an La2a may be capable of producing the same result as a Vari-Mu, the interface of a Neve 1073 will likely produce a different result when you first grab ahold of it, then say the stock Reaper EQ will. Not because they are fundamentally different but, because the design of the tool itself is different.
The knobs and sliders all have different linear behaviors which affect the immediate result of the physical tool being used. That's why hardware tools like an DBX 160 or a Neve EQ were so popular. Not because they all sounded radically different but, because the design of the tool itself made a faster or more musical result based on its unique arrangement of controls.
many things were also popular because they were available at the time and worked well. i discuss this in my next video
One word: CONGRATS!!!!! I respect people like you that go deep in the technical knowledge and don't just buy those marketing pseudo-technical BS that the industry creates and people just blindly replicates. Tks for the video.
Those are null tests using 4 eq's that don't introduce any harmonic content whatsoever (the Schepes does if you use the drive function). Try to null test with an eq emulation that generates harmonic distortion.
which EQ plugin would you suggest as your best example of something which generates harmonic distortion as a direct product of its EQ? IE, there is -inf delta with flat EQ, and then boosting 1k 6db yields significant THD, such that you can null the EQ and hear only the harmonics? I mean, I'm sure there are such EQs, I could easily code one myself in an afternoon, but the distortion would not be a direct product of the EQ but rather an additional saturation that increased with gain, and I'm not aware of any that exhibit this behaviour.
@@APMasteringI'm nosing in here, but I believe Wavesfactory spectre and fabfilter Volcano do this. Though they're not analog models, they were made specifically to do this.
@@jeremylarue4503 AFAIK volcano just has additional saturation built in but I dont know the spectre one, im downloading it now and will have a look, thanks for your input
@jeremylarue4503 OK, I've had a play with it and it's a REALLY cool plugin. I like it. But it's not actually even an EQ. It's essentially a filter bank multiband distortion which is intended to be used in parallel. The saturation seems to be a discrete process unrelated to the EQ. What I'm hearing is, when on 100% wet, a "bell" is not a bell but a band pass filter and the gain is not the gain of the bell but the overall level of the filtered signal which is sent into the selected distortion processing. It's something I do all the time in my own music with a bunch of plugins and filters.... I guess there are a few things which do this already in one plugin like izotope trash or whatever, but this is the first time I've seen it depicted as a boost only EQ. Nice one.
@@APMastering Thanks for the explanation.
Yeah dude! You know what’s up. AB comparisons, null tests and level matching has saved me so much money over the years. lol. I always feel like a prick though trying to explain this stuff to people. Just today I had to explain why adding dither to a mix isn’t going to make the midrange sound better. SMH. The guy actually said, “Maybe you won’t hear it but you can feel it”. So I said.. “ Listen Mr McGurk McGurkins, (that was his real name) if you can pick out the dithered mix 9 out of 10 times in a blind test I’ll personally mail you an official “2024 Golden Ears” certificate. But until then.. please just stop. 😊
YES. Love it. There will be more stuff like this on my channel calling out audio industry bullshit. Stay tuned!
@@APMastering I’m in!
@@APMastering I'm in for the ride also!
@davidasher22 hey guys great convo, but I didn’t wanna jump in about the dither part because I just saw a conversation between Dave Pensado and Andrew Scheppes (sp?) about this very topic. Dithering at lower nitrates can actually bring out the midrange, but it’s highly content dependent. They explained the logic behind it (I don’t remember tbh).
*bitrates
The ending about feelings, facts and people arguing 'about all sorts of things in the Internet these days' killed me 😂
Well...yes and no. There are different EQ designs, like Constant-Q. Also differences can relate to workflow. Some EQs emulate vintage EQ with stepped frequencies or other settings. These can make it easier to dial in a sound quickly, because those frequencies were chosen by engineers back in the days when studio time was expensive. Tilt EQ is similar. So while it's possible to emulate those curves with something like Fabfilter, you might not want to take the time to do so. Other EQs (e.g., Pultec) have quirks that are possible to reproduce with other EQs, but you can't dial them in within seconds. Most of the time I used a DAW's bundled EQ for the reasons outlined in the video, but most of the time is not all of the time. Giving people choices is not a scam, it's up to users to evaluate which tools serve their needs best. Those considerations often involve workflow, not just technical accuracy.
Well said. You touched on what I have recently posted within these comments.
for eq's i will definitely agree, dynamics also in a way but having to combine/stack multiple compressors to get the same attack/release curves is tedious. Some things just do what you want with a few turns of a knob, and that's just handy. On the other hand, everything that imparts a very obvious alteration to sound, such as distortion, coloured delays, all that sound mangling stuff, there are vast differences which are very audible and there it does make sense to have options
Totally agree on nearly everything....Most of the time, even if it's an analog, people won't notice a difference in whatever medium they're using to listen to it.
That said, I do like having a Pultec to get those dips/curves quickly--even if you can do it with Q3. I like having a Bax as well (even easier--but go ahead, call me lazy ;) ) . The rest is not needed.
I saw Disclosure do a video of one of their songs with stock Logic plugins. Again, no one will notice a difference if the music is recorded and mixed properly.
Yeah try equilibrium it has all the curves and q behaviours of most of the popular analog units.. of course you can dial these into any good digital eq by hand but having these ready to go makes things quicker and is probably the biggest selling point for all these plugins as some people know how they will roughly behave
first: nobody ever said you have to buy more plugins
second: yes, completely equal sounding plugins can and will deliver different results
there are many, many reasons why a plugin gets you better sound, the placement of the controls, how you can control them, how it is layed out, this changes everything.
even completely copy paste algos deliver totally different results because they are implemented differently.
Ableton is a good example at genius ratios on knobs, placements and when to use a knob vs a fader vs a button etc
it is all way more complex than ppl think
I like the sound of my Pre Amp and the EQ section, It has a raw sound I can't get by Plugins. I think that's more than enough for what I'm trying to achieve with vocals, other then that no one going to tell the difference on your plugins your using anyways, I will say that RX Izotope is a godsend for cleaning up poor recordings or cheap microphones. I hear some Pros say to stuck with the plugins that you love and know like the back of your hand that way you would need other marketing plugins. Honestly the only thing that we need in a plugin is the options and flexibility so we don't have to use another plugin there's other tracks that need to be worked on also CPU standpoint. I Love Your/The True. Keep The Good News Coming.
Totally agree! Not only plug-ins but these manipulation with IR's is all to make more money for you to purchase IR packs! Total greed and manipulation when they should have put in the quality professional cabs. The whole audio engineering people developing guitar modelers and these plug-ins sometime around 2014-2016 got together and decided, lets turn up our greed meters and get as much money as we can out of these clueless musician's! After all they're not near as smart as all us audio engineers.
how many more Mesa 4x12 with V30's do we actually need?
@@apoplexiamusic Right On Brother! I'm easy really as all I want is a solid stand alone hardware guitar modeler with 2 -powerful dual DSPs, 1ms latency and few solid metal amps like the 5150, Krank Revo-1, Marshall and Soldano a small selection of killer distortion pedals like the Boss DS-1, Metal Zone, YJM signature, DOD overdrive etc and about 3-4 pro cabs, few delay choices like vintage digital, Ping pong and reverb plate and room and I'm a happy shredder dude in my own little world in my bedroom!
Love this, great way to shake up the audio community. Keep it coming!!
One area where EQs can differ sonically is series vs parallel architecture in the filters and interactivity.
Also usability with stepped controls, where limitations can be a *good* thing as it forces choice making. Just as with many classic analog boxes.
I'm not sure I'd describe it as a scam. People want to buy plugins and people have to pay their rent and feed their families. The plugin industry, likely, employs lots of people. And, let's face it, monetizing music in more traditional ways is shrinking for many that try. That said, thanks for the post.
What is your point? They should steal and lie to pay their rent and feed their families?
Hope things pick up for you ol mate. It can be a lot newly world out there can't it.
FINALLY someone is speaking the truth!!! Most of the basic plugins included in all DAWS are fine. Only plugins I buy are specific effects I need that aren’t already in Logic.
I would love for you to explain how Joe Carroll takes three different Lindell channel strips across a mix, set the eq's as close as possible, or identically if available, and all three mixes sound completely different, and totally akin to the tonality of the consoles they are emulating. Maybe that's not the argument you're making, but they absolutely do sound different. Just taking the proportional Q in an API EQ ves the curves on a Neve makes thing like bass or snare drums sound completely different, and it's absolutely not just a clean frequency difference. There's a completely different flavor and feel.
I have way too many plugins. I got them “by hook or by crook” when i started recording. Now almost all of them are ‘naping’ while still taking lots of memory on computer. Why? Because, after trying the functions and sounds, i just go to plugins that i am familiar and comfortable with (parameters, options, sound, design); and it is just a very small portion of what i have: Nomad, Blue Cat, TRS, Analog Obsession … Yes, getting plugins is an obsession and obsessions are not healthy, good.
This is a great lesson to be learned by anyone producing music. As a plugin coder myself l know that a lot of the algorithms used for EQ, compression, reverb, etc. are pretty standard and even predate the audio plugin era. The part about the UI is true as well, a plugin with fancy UI (or even a downright photo of a vintage console) will go a long way into convincing you that the sound is better, or "analogue" when it is not. My advice would be to use your stock plugins as much as you can, and if you need to buy a commercial one, then go for a highly specialised one, but certainly not EQ, or compression, etc.
The true test of a valuable plugin is against the actual unit being emulated. Specially if it's a legendary one. Example: I own an Avalon VT-737 and also the UAD version. I invite anyone to listen to a vocal track recorded on the physical pre and compare to the UAD version processed track. Don't tell them which is which, have them recognize it.
@@pedrobossio5440 l don't think that's important at all. Let's suppose they try to emulate it but they don't get it right, it can still sound good, or even better than the otiginal. But plugins don't need to emulate analogue gear to be great, l was actually thinking about plugins like Gullfoss or Spectre.
@@ric8248you're right in that a plugin doesn't need to emulate analogue gear. Anyone who knows what he's listening to can achieve a pro result recording, mixing or even mastering using stock DAW or free plugins. I know I can. However, not all plugins are created equal. Some plugins emulate unique properties of the hardware, with acuracy and it's a matter of choice rather than need, preference. I've been mixing and producing for over five decades (yea, Im an old fart, 70) and Im used the summing of large format consoles, SSL, Focusrite ISA, Neve. I find that the channel strips from Pluging Alliance, with their TMC Technology closely emulate the suming of a 72 channel console which is almost impossible to get today otherwise, for a fraction of the price. I own a Shadow Hills Class A Mastering compressor (12k!!!!) And have A-Bd a track, same settings in software as on the unit to a very acurate result. 12K? or $200? For more than 90% accuracy? For me that's a great value.
I can't say all plugins are a scam. Plugins have a use and it's a matter of preference rather than need.
@@pedrobossio5440 Oh ok, l understand you. So for you a plugin that emulates a hardware with which you have a long familiarity would not only save you money but also a lot of time and effort and facilitate your workflow. That is a fair point. My guess is that this video is probably aimed at people who are entering the mixing world and are overwhelmed by the amount of plugins and their promises, and assume that they need them in order to achieve a certain sound.
Analog EQ plugins are emulations of curves+saturation+non-linear behaviours. It's a package. It's not fair to say they're scams just because the digital EQ can make the same curve.
We wouldn't say a burger is scam because everyone could just get beef, bun, tomato, veg and cheese. The combination makes it a burger, and different combinations make different style of burgers although the ingredients are pretty simple.
I agree that people shouldn't need a lot of plugins tho, but it's not fair to call the analog emulations scams.
Peace.
I'm not hating on emulation plugs... the thing I'm saying is a scam is the lie that there are different EQ flavours that will dramatically change the sound of your mix and you need a bunch of different EQs for different sound sources. I actually really appreciate combination plugins and want to develop one myself for mastering for the convenience of having everything in one place.
I like the analogy, in that case I would consider buying the sauce that makes the flavor of my so called favorite burger and reuse it in maybe other places or tweak it. Better to break it down and use the actual building blocks in turn would add a color to my palette.
@@APMastering Interesting .. there's been a few attempts at "one stop shop" mastering plugins, and they have been somewhat, underwhelming shall we say? What kind of functionality are you thinking?
@@pelennorDSP I want to have a branded mastering plugin which has dynamic EQ and a limiter. Ideally I'd take Nova and add a limiter to it with various customisations. I've written to the developer of TDR Nova and he didnt get back. I dont think I have enough social media clout yet to convince developers to work with me as I only started social a few weeks ago.
@@APMastering So kind of like a combination of TDR Nova and Limiter No 6? Interesting .. I was expecting more different functions in one. Other than a small increase in efficiency, how would you anticipate that improving on a separate dynamic EQ and limiter in combination?
Love the Troutmask record in the right corner
With analogue modelled EQs that introduce non-linearity, you are essentially paying for a distortion-preset and pre-made EQ curves, and for slightly limited options in terms of freq and Q (sometimes having fewer options is a good thing). But if those all help you to get to where you need quicker, helping to guide your process towards a sound that works for you, it's totally legitimate in my opinion.
But in terms of non-modelled EQ, or some "clean" modelled EQ like SSL put out, you really don't ever need more than one. And whichever one has the most features is probably going to be best here. Imo Pro Q 3 is objectively better than an SSL plugin which uses the exact same algorithms but with a faux-analogue interface with no additional options.
But there may well be times where it's actually better to reach for a modelled plugin instead of Pro Q 3 if it helps your workflow.
All true. The issue is "which one?" Because there is some real garbage out there that costs as much as the good stuff. A modest variety of plug-ins is probably pretty harmless. Then there are things that come with DAW's that work but are a pain the ass. 'Echo' in Ableton (the DAW I use) works, but it's such a drag to use, that, while a third party plug-in might not sound better, is infinitely easier to use. Not picking on Ableton in particular - they have some excellent built in stuff, along with their garbage.
@@allancerf9038for sure, not all modelled plugins will be equal, although even then they might be useful for different purposes. I just stick to UAD supplemented with AO for now.
Funny you say about Ableton. I haven't used it really since 2020 when I moved to Reaper for post work, but the thing I miss about it most is the native effects and instruments. I found them very easy to work with. But I did use them for over a decade so no surprise I guess.
But.. what about plugins that sample hardware curves ?, preamps, outputs..etc.. dynamically with different volumes, different samples...etc.. the curve will give a "flavor" similar to the hardware.
It’s not bullshit at all - I use these EQs and they do have a different way they EQ with different behaviors. Are you saying a SSL G series EQ and Pultec sound the same?
His point is majority of eqs are the same
There are 2 types of digital filters IIR and FIR. Linear Phase is a variation on these 2 basic algorithms. The distortion algorithms in analog modeled EQs are based on the distortion algorithms in the modeling software so incomplete simple soft or hard clipping. So Matlab has a limited amount of distortion types it can used and 90% of companies use Matlab for analog modeling. Juce is another popular plugin building tool, as well as the oldest of them all Cabbage Audio. All plugin companies use 1 of these 3 options except for Waves who developed their own in house software but its just another spin they built themselves. Now the one difference would be over all curve shapes. So the Pro Q 3 can't really give you strong de-normaled curves of something like a Trident EQ as an example in a single band, where the bell leans one way or another but in a mix of 10 sounds or more an approximation with a basic EQ will get you in the ballpark and be satisfactory for the final product. But if you want too see if an EQ offers something new grab Bertom's free EQ analyzer and look at it to see for yourself.
the scham is that the charateristics and harmonic responses which can be easily switched out in theory as a preset are being sold as single plugins. it's pretty much the same with most effects which claim to color the sound. they just sell you a harmonic response curve for a vanilla fx with a nicely designed GUI
For some.
Curcuit modelled vsts are different.
This waves stuff is cheap, of course you're going to get a mediocre result.
Not convinced: there is an audible delta in each and every example you show.
sure there's some delta. i doubt you'd hear the difference in an ABX rest though
@@APMasteringThat's also true when comparing different high gain amps in most metal mixes. Doesn't meant Soldano and Mesa Boogie are scamming anyone.
True story bro! Audio industry is full of lies
👍
these are my regular plugins that have never been out of all my productions and will remain in the future unless there is an upgrade from the same company.
My Fabfilter Pro Q 3, fabfilter pro.c2 since I have it more than 5 years. ,
vps delay, valhalla delay, reverb's use all the time.
The rest is varied and almost not used, I have plugins that I have years not used anymore.
You need just few good quality plugins and creativity in your mind and good ears.
Think about it, with hardware.
So that's means that you must buy 10 difference hardware EQ to archief?
That'ts means that you must have a big money on your bank account.
I don’t disagree in concept. You’re correct. You can technically get the same sound with stock plugins if you know what you’re doing.
The variable Q, unique filter shapes, as well as the saturation could all technically be emulated. But I don’t always have time for that when I need to get mixes off.
I know what a Neve EQ sounds like on my kick and I can get there in a few seconds with an emulation. Same with a 76-style compressor. Personally, I’m not trying to fuck around. It improves my workflow, which is worth more to me.
Give me a ProQ-3 and stock compressor and I can still do my job. If money was tight, I would. But I’ve been lucky enough to be able to put money from sessions back into plugins that expedite my process.
Quicker mixes = mo’ money
Well, the big difference comes if you use them in zero latency mode, linear phase, minimum phase and so on.. they have different "flavors" in terms of aliasing, pre-ringing and so on😅😅.
well I talk about linear phase later in the video being the only "true flavour". however there is no such thing as actual zero latency, only low latency and this is generally the same thing as minimum phase when it comes to EQ design.
@@APMasteringit's zero latency because the filters are based on an IIR topology. the filter uses feedback, infinitely long. the concept of latency wouldn't make sense on those
@@Beatsbasteln it can be based on various different principles but either way, zero latency means that the plugin performs its processing in 0ms. This is not possible since all calculations require a nonzero amount of time compute so zero latency is trivially impossible. Zero latency normally means a latency below 2ms or something very small which you cant really hear. Even zero latency antelope plugins have nonzero latency.
@@APMastering but that must be for other reasons than the filters, cause just like i said the filter has no clear length. it is infinitely long by design. it's the opposite to linear phase filters, which are based on the FIR topology, or convolution. there the filter has a finite length and the center is your exact latency
@@Beatsbasteln any code which executes in exactly 0ms is incompatible with the laws of our universe. No code executes in 0ms. This is an inarguable scientific fact and there is no discussion to be had there.
I reach for analog eq plugins when I want the modeled saturation that comes with it or sometimes the “air” frequencies sound a little different (but still pretty close). I think there’s something to be said for having the workflows of older gear easily recreated, for example the stepped tiers of a specific console. It’s faster than figuring it out in a graphic eq.
I don't like ReaEQ because it cramps on highs I think. I just use the default cubase EQ haha. It has mid/side, dynamic EQ with threshold, linear phase, etc. Only time I use a different one I guess is OneKnob Filter because it's easy to automate. Neutron is also good for the sidechaining EQ bands and the masking highlighter. I'm not very pro at mixing though.
Can you get any sound out of any eq? Yeah, sure. The reason I prefer "themed" eq's for broadband toneshaping and "digital" eq's for surgical correction is because of the workflow. I don't want to boost 3.9dB at exactly 612Hz with a Q of 0.69, I want to turn up the mids till it sounds good.
I'd say that if fancy analogue plugins make people actually finish their tracks, then there's no that big of a disadvantage :D
99.99% of "producers" do NOT use their ears to evaluate sound objectively. They SWEAR they do, but they don't. And then, they use perception bias. I know a guy who's actually pretty good and has a professional career (as do I), but falls for EVERY plugin con going.
Agreed. Though TBH, 99.99% of "producers" online don't realize that music Producers are not Mix Engineers, Arrangers or Artists.
It seems like they are just reinventing the wheel now. There are endless new EQs and compressors which you MUST HAVE, not like 20 years ago when a new plugin was actually exciting to try. That and plugins that just do what you could already do yourself if you understood how to use the plugins you already own. I guess experience eventually teaches you but for newbies it must be very confusing and also expensive
Is this also true with compressor plugins?
Could you please do a similar video to this one for Compressor plugins?
coming soon
@@APMastering Thank you! 🙏
Pultec says hold my beer boys.
hardware pultecs are cool because of the raw circuitry and the boost and attenuate knobs which have a really interesting effect on the mids when they are both turned up. Despite them being cool, you can do the same thing with pro Q and a distortion plugin.
Sure you could get the same thing with a lot of digital plugins and making a chain, but the point is speed and workflow. I hear how things react different and if i wanna get a quick color by going straight to it with the emulation i know how it’ll function vs trying to get a similar thing in raw digital EQ then yeah it’s worth it.
I love my Waves Scheps 73. Slight 12k boost (3db), slight 3khz bump, roll off some 200hz and an 80db HPF. Lately it's my only eq aside from Deessing. But I do have probably 3 or 4 paid EQ such a fab filter Pro 3 ha ha.. you can't have enough flavors at your disposal
@@APMastering I like your video, but you can definitely do not equal a hardware pultec with a pro Q and distortion.. I speak from experience ;). There is still an audible difference between most hardware and plugins if you let them work hard.
@@CreativeMindsAudio pultec plugin is a digital EQ. Or do you mean a parametric EQ? Because it's the same, just with different controls plus some unspecified mystery distortion which you cannot control. I prefer having control over my distortion.
Excellent video. I am in agreement as an audio pro since 1981.
Use your ears not your eyes.
Love and Peace
🙏👍😎
@@Trackformers well you know, I have albums out on Sony, EMI, Phonogram, Beggers Banquet, Go Discs!, One Little Indian, 4AD, Island, WEA and others, so far so good, so what….
The only instance where things are actually different from everything else is the stuff from Freakshow. They have traditional type of VSTs, they do however work a tad differently. For instance, Mishby is a tape plugin, but it has different features to make the sound not only distort, but be entire mangled. If I want a basic lo-fi sound for a track, I will use Chow Tape Model. If I want something on the more distressing side, I will use Mishby.
its not only the sound but also the workflow and inspiration that comes with some imo. i'd still use a graphical EQ different than a parametric one even if the bands behave the same
i respond to this kind of comment in the video i just published
I love videos exposing BS in industries and this one is just as satisfying as the rest. ☕️
I’m glad this one popped off and I hope this brings more attention to you channel. I watched some of your other videos and they’re pretty informative. Looking forward to see what else you do in the future.
I'm not really convinced.
I think there are some generic products, but these are all different companies trying to create their best models.
Most arent good at it, but I don't think its a scam. I created a circuit modelled filter yesterday.
It's been done before but it took me a year to figure out how to accurately represent a cascade of vacuum tubes.
Doesnt mean im trying to scam you by creating something unoriginal.
Everyone doesnt release music in a completely new never before heard genre each time. They iterate. Some works are better than others.
there are many artists trying to make EDM. Songs can turn out simialr. It doesn't mean EDM is a scam.
Spot on! They're selling us "dog piss" in nice beer bottles! There is another CZcamsr, if I can call him that, were he did a comparison with guitar amplifiers and manage to recreate "the valve" sound just with a DAW EQ connecting a guitar direct to his interface (no fancy preamps) and tbh there was no difference in sound after a few tweaks. So definitely if you know how to use an EQ, no matter which one, you can achieve you desired goal sonically.
Yeah often you can emulate expensive stuff with simple tools. Maybe the amp was class A and then it could be emulated with EQ and light distortion but if it were class AB there would also be sag and some more complex things to model to get it to sound spot on. But I don't want to hate on expensive gear too much, I don't just sit in my room with free plugins. There's something real nice about playing an expensive guitar through an expensive tube amp loud with a spring reverb, even if you can model that digitally nowadays.
@@APMastering Definitely agree with you on that one! Yeah I'm not implying for people not to value a well made instrument or any other top-notch compressor or any other equipment, or toss the one's they've got for that matter. I have a 1974 Silverface Twin Reverb which I love, and probably I'll never sell it since it gets the the job done on the go with very little post-production tweaking! But I think the take-away form your video is that we shouldn't be deceived by expensive vst emulators just because they have a nice design or so and so say they're like the "real thing" and charge you hundreds of pounds or dollars, you might as well buy the real thing, at the end of the day at least you can sell it whilst plugins probably not.
@@commodore74 yeah exactly. I've played a more recent twin reverb and I remember trying to "crank it" on clean to see what's its made of but it just got hilariously loud and remained pretty clean, which was impressive. It was just like "you want jet plane takeoff loudness? OK, no problem, here's you go" without breaking a sweat. Probably my fav head is selmer treble n bass 50.
which youtuber did that with the daw EQ? I've seen the insane country music guy make 3 amp simulations out of overdrive pedals and EQ pedals, but not in the daw.
What's the CZcamsr's name?
Mate, I do agree with the what you are going with here, one decent EQ is definitely enough, however some of the null tests were still audible, therefore they were different. Only if there was No audio at all passing through would that be 100 percent true.
When I got into research to figuring out how to create my own plugins. I concluded that most plugins might being using the same effects when coding while using a different user interface to present it. After that discovery, I kind of loss interest into wanting to create a plugin because I didn't have anything new or special to present out to the world and creating plugins is hard without knowing the proper available tools. (Btw I am not much of a coder, but I am a graphic designer. I couldn't get passed all the errors with coding. lol) Learning about plugins also changed my perspective about having so many at a time. The extra clutter kind of confused me anyways. So, for now I'm sticking with fl studio for it's basic stock plugins and a few free ones.
I just developed a compressor plugin. I think there is still more to offer because a lot of people want to create plugins that are easy to use rather than powerful
If you don’t hear a difference then use one plugin. I clearly can hear differences with e.g. MAAT Santa Cruz EQ that I personally use. I can’t tell you what it does though. And they don’t say it neither. Probably some oversampling and transient separation - my guess. And yes there is a plugin industry and I’m sure there is code being used and repeated over and over several times in different “tools”. And totally agree they want your money.
Some programmers like Analog Obsession who clearly is not in the money making game usually explains quite well what and how he’s doing it. And his EQs and compressors do sound different because of the design of the code. Not just curves and bells and dBs of gain but component modeling, preamp modeling and even sometimes separate saturation settings and modeling (like GrapHack) and input/output stage modeling. That’s what creates nuances that most people unfortunately can’t really hear.
curious what you think of the outboard eq's like the waves Pultec and VEQ4 for example, and if there are similar qualities [or lack there of] in the modelling between different plugins. I hear a difference for sure, but I might as you state, being manipulated by the fancy graphics.
stay tuned for my next vid on this topic!
Enjoyed that...which is weird as I never watch anybody else talking about Mastering :)
I've always suspected this was the case, especially with Waves plugins. Many specifically tailered EQs like a bass specific EQ most likely would just focus on the low end of the frequency range. You could do the same thing on a full EQ.
Subscribed!
I have a question. The delta is very low in those examples but it's still audible, if you were using lets say 40 EQs in a project, wouldn't they add up until the difference is noticeable?
Cheers!
there's so many variables there, but the delta is the difference between one signal and another... that could just be random nonsense and probably isnt "magic analogue warmth spice". So probably not. But in some extreme scenario, maybe. But even in the extreme scenario, you can better control this unspecified noise/distortion if you use a specific plugin.
@@APMastering That makes sense. It'd be nice to see a video of your favorite saturation plugins :). cheers!
I've been saying that since ages...
some EQs even got some DB+ in some of the frequencies for when you activate on your track then you will notice a diference and will think that the EQ has some "flavor"
when all it did is having pre-built in saturation or boost in frequencies
There certainly are coloured ones thoguh : ) circuit modelled eqs are a different case
It comes down to "better the devil you know". Knowing exactly how a few plug-ins *really* work is better than having a bunch of stuff you are not familiar with. I kind of like it when I find crude looking plug-ins that do a really cool sound. Yet, I prefer a Pultec to look like one. There is something about them that is different. Yes, you can emulate it with other EQs and saturation, but there is something cool about dialling in the Pultec. :)
Can you do the same for compressors?
yes. coming soon
Best video ever tones of plugins won’t make a difference if you’re not talented 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
LOL For sure, people don't understand how much work really goes on behind the scene and expect us to work magic when there stuff isn't good to began with...
Indeed, but a good plugin can inform and inspire musical choices!
This is what I aim for in my plugins anyways : )
@@Joshua_Griffin Very true, hey that's a good strategy, or if someone that has a preference.
Pretty accurate but not totally. For something like me a pultec tube eq, the good plugins will have some tube sounding saturation on top. But for just the technical eq technology you’re mostly right that 99% of plugins are using the same methods. There are some like airwindows that really thinks out of the box. Lately he’s been using stock market algorithms to do some interesting stuff. In fact if I was telling a beginner what plugins to buy I would say don’t, just use airwindows. And that Tokyo dawn dynamic eq is great, I use it occasionally. Unfortunately almost all plug-in eq’s will have aliasing, cramping or pre ringing, so analog is still better. But most people probably won’t hear a big difference
none of these examples actually passed the null test...
idk what would the magic eq do drastically different than stock eq? if it did have huge difference, than it would be broken, not usable, because it wouldn't do what it's supposed to.
a lot of things in music production are subtle 1% increases that add up and with this test you just showed that all these EQs have different sound or "flavours".
and shelving example is quite drastic... what do you mean it's just this weird shape? first of all it didn't null, but it would be hard to null it and that "it's just a weird shape" comment is what people reach this eq for. what would even analog mojo people talk about be rather than that weird eq shape that analog gear has compared to perfect digital shape?
I agree you don't need analog emulations and you can do great mixes with stock eq alone, but I think your arguments and examples are wrong
I only have 3 EQs 2 sock standard ones that came with my DAW and a dynamic EQ for when I can't be bothered automating the stock EQs.
Your section on EQs is on point. I use Nova and Fruity parametric EQ on almost everything. Very informational
Never bought an EQ, Compressor or saturation plugin. Not convinced by any of the marketing.
The only thing you confirmed was waves plugging are false advertising which coming from analog I knew this 20 years ago. Now slate digital has said they have recreated the harmonics and tones of older gear is this true?
Currently filming part 2 with slate plugs
The best video about plugins I've seen in years, thank you.
So it’s just eq’s then? Plug-ins is too broad a terminology for this video then. What about synths? Or specialized FX? Those can be very valuable for their unique functionalities or intuitive GUI.
What about the difference between a Linear Phase EQ & a Minimum Phase EQ? The differecnes are clearly audible
Dude, those null test examples killed my ear drums! You could have warned me it will get lout.
Ohhh, thank you so much!!! Amen!
There is a case for Valve equipment creating resonances in 3rds and 5ths while transistors create Maj 2nd's.
Great video but you'll need a follow-up because detractors will say yeah, but what about the harmonics - analog modelled EQs typically have subtle saturation, which, when combined with the custom filter shapes, is where the different flavours really come from. You're gonna have to show that stock soft-clip and basic waveshaping can cover that too. At that point they might say yeah but the harmonics aren't static, they are frequency dependent/dynamic, like the "transformer" in a Neve plugin only saturates the low end. Etc etc.
Do I sound like one of these 'whatabout' detractors? How do I know what they might say? Because I used to be one 😅
In every creative industry, Carpentry/Engineering/Artistry etc, multiple tools to do the same job is normal practice.
I don't see it as a "Scam" to provide different tools to do the same job, and unlike industries that require physical tools, the creative music industry has the advantage of the "Free Tool" option.
All that being said i agree with you, you don't "Need" the latest phone to make phone calls, or the latest TV to watch a TV program, but we live in an age where "want" mostly overrides "need", and any good salesman will always play on that fact to make his money.
Is this true for saturators and compressors too? Are you able to emulate the behavior of a UAD 1176 with a regular digital compressor for instance? can you recreate the harmonic content and reaction of a 1073 preamp in the digital domain? or is it all bullshit just like the EQs? Do you believe plugins can emulate curves, harmonic distortion, non-linearities of hardware and create a near-zero mathematical difference in delta when it comes to the digital domain? So buying hardware is essentially bullshit? I'd love to hear more about this.
I don't like Acustica , but I do have to begrudgingly admit that they are the class leader at using fairly advanced tech to capture and emulate real hardware. STL also does a take on the same thing with ControlHub.
And in guitar amp land, there's Neural Amp Modeller, and it's extremely common for captures done by a skilled user to have a near zero ESR, which is a measure of the "error" between the capture and the real amp being captured.
Coding a vst compressor since 15 mars 2023. There is 365 parameters. Can emulate lots of compressors/saturator, but you will never get perfect delta. Vari-mu's are the most difficult to emulate. Most of acustica compressors seems to have modeled the transfer curve, but the enveloppes followers seems more basic/digital than real hardware.
Cubase has all the stock plugins that you will ever need for any kind of music
Something to think about for sure. I think a lot of these companies do keep making a lot of useless plugins for people to buy. What im trying to wrap my head around is your stating that every eq plugin flat out just sounds the same, on every source, any vocal, any instrument, recorded different, with different mics, different lines, different rooms etc. I just dont see how thats possible. I hear what your saying, and your showing proof, but can that really be the case for every musicial situation? When your spending hours mixing everyday, using plugins you really know well, critically listening and making decisions, I find it hard to believe that there is no trivial difference. This is why i think its so important to just use your ears. We get caught up in so much science and data that were forgetting the art form which is enhancing music. But i see your point. And i definitely dont think someone needs tons of different types of plugins. Ive used the waves f6 for years now, and ive bought the pro q3 and the sonible smart eq. When mixing, i serioisly dont hear a difference between them. Its those analog emulations where i hear differences in how those eqs work. But I seriously doubt a 2A by waves, and a 2A by UA sound sooo different that its worth spending 100 on UA, vs 30 on waves. Regardless, great video!
Hi, this is what I've been preaching all along. Not only this, but also why there have been so many different EQs back then.
It just wasn't possible to build ONE analogue EQ that would provide EVERY shape you possibly could ever want. So Neve decided this shape and frequency would sound nice, Altec decided that shelf would sound nice, API thought those curves would work... And you, as an engineer, had to decide which opinion you agree with.
Then came digital and suddenly you could get whatever you have dreamt of. Without any noise!! Whoaa!
Basically, that is where the story of EQ could have ended One model, one size fits all. But then the industry realised that a whole branche would dry out and die. So they invented the miracle of "magic behind the panel" which had to be caught by emulating the analogue compromises. And there we are right now.
It is a different story with compressors, though.
With compressors you have so many factors come into play that you would need a very, very sophisticated allround plugin to emulate them all, and if given the option, in a quick. uncomplicated way
Idk I like the “classic” style eq’s for their presets, just to try out a couple things. And it’s nice to have some set frequencies so I don’t have too many options and get lost in trying to make everything perfect. I use a pro-Q3 mostly for cutting frequencies and then a Pultec and Maag EQ4 to boost. I have a Max4Live plugin called gradient which lets you load 4 presets and puts them in an XY pad and I just scroll around till it sounds good, usually the middle setting between 2 eq presets. I also like not having a lot of functions per plugin, just like with synth plugins. If I’m gonna eq an 808 I know the pultec eqp1 will do the pultec punch trick with a preset, If I need an airy vocal I’m gonna use the Maag Eq4 which is made for that. It’s easier for me if those things are compartmentalized. In the same way I’ll use a Lexicon type reverb if I want an 80s sound and a EMT type reverb if I want a 70s sound, yeah there’s reverb plugins that to them both but it’s easier to grab something that has 1 purpose instead of having a more convoluted interface
Absolutely love this video! Glad watching enough White Sea & Dan Worrall put you into my algorithm!
I do have a question, though:
The curves very much so can be replicated especially with modern “match” buttons built into plugins.
However, how about plugins that have a good amount of nonlinear aspects?
The Lindell API has an input drive section, the TRacks stuff as that “preamp” drive (which doesn’t affect individual eq filter nonlinearity, it’s just input saturation), would be interesting to see a comparison of just those parts of the snake oil stuff - how does the TRack API, Neve, SSL, etc drive compare to the Lindell vs the waves vs the UA.
Course looks very interesting too! Since you’re going into circuits, I assume stuff like poles/db/octave stuff is gonna be covered as well?
Alain,
Thanks a lot. Finally there is someone who speaks the truth and has the guts to make a video about it.People are hypnotised and think there is a difference. When I tell them the look to me like I'm an alien.😄 I'm always using only one eq for all situations and thanks for the tip I will check out Tdr nova because it's a dynamic eq.
And to be honest I don't really believe in oversampling used in plug-ins and sometimes even not in linear phase eq but that's just me. Regards.
nice one. linear phase is overrated, i rarely use it
I luckily felt never into that. I use two EQ's only. Most of the times the Fabfilter and sometimes i use the waves SSL. But i dont use the SSL because it sounds better. I use it only because i dont see what i am doing and i have to trust my ears. Thats the only reason i switch between them.
What we perceive with our eyes + a couple of db increase in the volume always makes us feel something is good. I recently uninstalled tones of plugins and kept a very few, and it works well to work fast. Having a few tools that gives you almost all the features is more than enough to get a professional mix. If you can't get a professional sounding mix with stock plugins, stop searching for new plugins and start learning and practicing.
Yes but there is also workflow, for example using an API plug in with proportional q makes you work differently than with ProQ3
Hey there Alain,
thank you for absolutely brilliant videos! good to get a little reality check :)
I was wondering , could you explain for me/us what you meant when you were talking about the missing time constant in dynamic feature of pro eq3?
would love to hear more and learn about that.
cheers to you!
thanks! last time i used Q3 there were no attack / release knobs for the dynamic EQ functionality. I emailed the company about this, giving my feedback that not having this renders it useless for precision work (like mastering, and im a mastering engineer) and that I would not upgrade from Q2 unless it has time constants because without them, its just Q2 plus a broken feature I would never use. They replied just saying basically "well dan worrall thinks its fine without these knobs". 🤷♂️
I generally agree with your points, though I disagree with a few things. 1 - Whilst I do believe that FabFilter will probably expand on compression settings in PRO-Q4, the default dynamic times in PRO-Q3 just *work* 90% of the time. Very rarely am I ever saying to myself ‘man, I wish I could change the release time there’ and if I get to that point, it’s time to draw for another tool anyway. If I’m sidechaining for example, I wouldn’t use PRO-Q anyway, regardless of expanded dynamic settings or not. So whilst, yes I do believe they will (the basically have to at this point) implement expanded dynamic features, I really don’t that think it’s that big an issue that they haven’t yet; the ones it comes with by default are more than fine.
2 - Linear phase is only useful in the highs?!?
Take a circuit modelled tube eq and there will certainly be a difference in sound : )
Do not forget that saturation builds up over tracks.
Have 40 tracks with the channels on.
Overall good points though.
Thete are plenty of 'analog' rip offs.
But equally there are many incredible models.
i discuss these points on my latest video
Loved the video and already commented. Seeing as you understand dsp could you do a video about phasing around filter slopes. From a dsp point of view. That would be dope. Maybe later dsp with reverb algos
the next video i upload will mention EQ phase but the main thing to realise is that the human ear doesnt really hear phase. we hear phase only IN RELATION to another signal. This is why if you do a high pass filter or some wonky eq setting on a doubled track in the mix, it might cancel out at certain unexpected frequencies or otherwise sound weird. You can powerfully change the phase character of something by adding an all pass filter. All passes are often used in reverbs actually, so that might be related to your question. not sure ill make a whole deep dive video on it though because its a bit too much for the majority of people here I think but I will have more of a discussion of phase in my EQ course which is on preorder as of this evening
@@APMastering awesome thanks for the reply, yeah totally agree with you. I notice that if I high pass a kick for a breakdown there seems to be some type of sneaky resonance it adds. If you use a gentler slope it seems to go away. I’m not sure if you have Bitwig but eq+ in Bitwig does something really funny where you can hear the difference when you add it to the channel. I don’t know if it’s a phase thing but have a look if you can. I have been messing with all pass filters in Bitwig and they sound awesome. I’m not sure how the slopes work but you say those are used in reverbs. Thanks for the content man.
I agree with you to certain extend. Honestly, I do not hear any difference in the EQ's or certain compressors. Fabfilter just has a very sexy and responsive UI that speeds up my workflow.
EQs/Filters like FabFilter and Shade are useful for being able to be very surgical with the EQ due to the massive number of filter shapes they support. That is useful, especially in mastering when you are applying EQ to entire tracks - not just individual channels.
Bro please can explain how the dynamic mode isn't useful because of the lack of "time constants"???
i explain in detail in my eq course
@@APMastering lol ok