The EQ scam exposed. Did you fall for it? (Part 1/3)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
  • ▶ MY FREE PLUGINS 🔗www.apmasterin...
    ▶ MIXING COURSES 🔗www.apmasterin...
    ▶ BEST RETAILER EU 🔗www.thomann.de...
    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?

КОМЕНТАРІ • 986

  • @APMastering
    @APMastering  3 місяці тому +1

    See this update video for quantified results with more plugins: ua-cam.com/video/h9OsUSXKiDg/v-deo.html

  • @maaudioplugins
    @maaudioplugins 3 місяці тому +316

    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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +65

      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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +7

      some typos, should be JUCE etc, you get the idea

    • @foruncolo74
      @foruncolo74 3 місяці тому +2

      "response" not "responce".

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      @@foruncolo74 huh?

    • @foruncolo74
      @foruncolo74 3 місяці тому

      answering to @maaudioplugins that keep writing "respomce" instead of "response" 🙂

  • @Fraend
    @Fraend 3 місяці тому +215

    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

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +33

      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

    • @Fraend
      @Fraend 3 місяці тому +5

      @@APMastering the reason why I switched to FL because as producer they give all you Need and more

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +21

      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

    • @rusj5273
      @rusj5273 3 місяці тому +5

      @@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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +9

      @@rusj5273 reaper has more than 100 built in plugins bundled with it, some of which are very good but all have ugly interfaces

  • @pelennorDSP
    @pelennorDSP 3 місяці тому +45

    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)

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +8

      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".

    • @pelennorDSP
      @pelennorDSP 3 місяці тому

      @@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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      @@pelennorDSP yeah this is a good idea. i could do this in another video. thanks for the tip!

    • @michelvondenhoff9673
      @michelvondenhoff9673 3 місяці тому

      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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +4

      @@michelvondenhoff9673 id love to see proof of the claims in your second paragraph

  • @stephanbuth8195
    @stephanbuth8195 3 місяці тому +13

    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.

    • @bennycole1257
      @bennycole1257 3 місяці тому +4

      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.

    • @anthonybrett
      @anthonybrett 3 місяці тому +3

      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.

    • @chrisegonmusic
      @chrisegonmusic 3 місяці тому

      People would probably be a lot happier if they were comfortable and accepting of these apparent cognitive dissonances.

  • @Cefshah
    @Cefshah 3 місяці тому +27

    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'.

    • @mirkomarkovic3438
      @mirkomarkovic3438 3 місяці тому

      Reaeq has major cramping issues, so i won't use that

  • @SlyceCaik
    @SlyceCaik 3 місяці тому +41

    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

    • @sumbodee3
      @sumbodee3 3 місяці тому +3

      hold on, difference between eq's is weird, but not all compressors/limiters/reverbs work the same

    • @SlyceCaik
      @SlyceCaik 3 місяці тому +2

      @@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

    • @MM-do5yx
      @MM-do5yx 2 місяці тому

      Me too!

  • @jaffrayburk1
    @jaffrayburk1 3 місяці тому +32

    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 :)

  • @captainshuffle
    @captainshuffle 3 місяці тому +34

    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.

    • @planetclay
      @planetclay 3 місяці тому

      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.

    • @AforismiDAutoreAD
      @AforismiDAutoreAD 3 місяці тому +2

      @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?

    • @bennycole1257
      @bennycole1257 3 місяці тому +4

      @@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.

    • @Joshua_Griffin
      @Joshua_Griffin 3 місяці тому

      ​@@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.

    • @AforismiDAutoreAD
      @AforismiDAutoreAD 3 місяці тому

      @@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.

  • @stefandoughty43
    @stefandoughty43 3 місяці тому +6

    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.

    • @canastraroyal
      @canastraroyal 2 місяці тому

      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.

  • @RodrigoVelizGTR
    @RodrigoVelizGTR 2 місяці тому +3

    I'm sticking to the default Reaper EQ after this.

  • @grahamtaylor6883
    @grahamtaylor6883 3 місяці тому +7

    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.

    • @alchemistrpm82
      @alchemistrpm82 3 місяці тому +1

      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

    • @allancerf9038
      @allancerf9038 3 місяці тому

      @@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.

  • @osulationhit2130
    @osulationhit2130 3 місяці тому +6

    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.

    • @iTrensharo
      @iTrensharo 3 місяці тому

      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.

  • @davidasher22
    @davidasher22 3 місяці тому +14

    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. 😊

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +3

      YES. Love it. There will be more stuff like this on my channel calling out audio industry bullshit. Stay tuned!

    • @davidasher22
      @davidasher22 3 місяці тому +1

      @@APMastering I’m in!

    • @hansmemling2311
      @hansmemling2311 3 місяці тому

      @@APMastering I'm in for the ride also!

    • @ABbruh
      @ABbruh 3 місяці тому

      @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).

    • @ABbruh
      @ABbruh 3 місяці тому

      *bitrates

  • @Featherlightstudio
    @Featherlightstudio 3 місяці тому +2

    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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +1

      many things were also popular because they were available at the time and worked well. i discuss this in my next video

  • @Trobblehobbs
    @Trobblehobbs 3 місяці тому +5

    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.

    • @planetclay
      @planetclay 3 місяці тому +1

      yeah that and its crazy price.

    • @Wolfy420
      @Wolfy420 3 місяці тому

      @@planetclay well, you can always set sail to the high seas...

  • @TheCraigAnderton
    @TheCraigAnderton 3 місяці тому +2

    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.

    • @frankymino8773
      @frankymino8773 2 місяці тому

      Well said. You touched on what I have recently posted within these comments.

  • @fernandoortegacomposer
    @fernandoortegacomposer 3 місяці тому +8

    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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +3

      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.

    • @jeremylarue4503
      @jeremylarue4503 3 місяці тому +2

      ​@@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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +2

      @@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

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +2

      @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.

    • @jeremylarue4503
      @jeremylarue4503 3 місяці тому

      @@APMastering Thanks for the explanation.

  • @rhemaman
    @rhemaman 3 місяці тому +2

    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.

    • @rhemaman
      @rhemaman 3 місяці тому

      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.

  • @JT-qc2nb
    @JT-qc2nb 3 місяці тому +4

    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.

  • @JohnSmith-pn2vl
    @JohnSmith-pn2vl 3 місяці тому +2

    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

  • @MichaelHart-t2h
    @MichaelHart-t2h 3 місяці тому +4

    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.

    • @APU658
      @APU658 3 місяці тому +1

      What is your point? They should steal and lie to pay their rent and feed their families?

    • @WhiteHeat-yd6zm
      @WhiteHeat-yd6zm 3 місяці тому

      Hope things pick up for you ol mate. It can be a lot newly world out there can't it.

  • @DenisVolga
    @DenisVolga 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @profoundsinger
    @profoundsinger 3 місяці тому +6

    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.

  • @mantrasoul
    @mantrasoul 3 місяці тому +3

    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

  • @zeno.y
    @zeno.y 3 місяці тому +8

    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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +1

      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.

    • @neurotransmi77Er
      @neurotransmi77Er 3 місяці тому +1

      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.

    • @pelennorDSP
      @pelennorDSP 3 місяці тому

      @@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?

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      @@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.

    • @pelennorDSP
      @pelennorDSP 3 місяці тому

      @@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?

  • @bennycole1257
    @bennycole1257 3 місяці тому +1

    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

  • @IshredGuitar
    @IshredGuitar 3 місяці тому +4

    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.

    • @apoplexiamusic
      @apoplexiamusic 3 місяці тому +2

      how many more Mesa 4x12 with V30's do we actually need?

    • @IshredGuitar
      @IshredGuitar 3 місяці тому

      @@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!

  • @JoshWiniberg
    @JoshWiniberg 3 місяці тому +2

    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.

    • @allancerf9038
      @allancerf9038 3 місяці тому +1

      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.

    • @JoshWiniberg
      @JoshWiniberg 3 місяці тому

      ​@@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.

  • @Captain-Obvious1
    @Captain-Obvious1 3 місяці тому +12

    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.

    • @ninaszeven6951
      @ninaszeven6951 3 місяці тому

      Agreed. Though TBH, 99.99% of "producers" online don't realize that music Producers are not Mix Engineers, Arrangers or Artists.

  • @MarkOffski
    @MarkOffski 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @ric8248
    @ric8248 3 місяці тому +9

    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.

    • @pedrobossio5440
      @pedrobossio5440 3 місяці тому +2

      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.

    • @ric8248
      @ric8248 3 місяці тому

      @@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.

    • @pedrobossio5440
      @pedrobossio5440 3 місяці тому +1

      ​@@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.

    • @ric8248
      @ric8248 3 місяці тому +1

      @@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.

  • @suga4all
    @suga4all 3 місяці тому +1

    "The hard truth is that most people just don't know how to use the gear that is already available to them."
    Fun fact: That is not only true for VSTs but also for hardware synths!

  • @rusj5273
    @rusj5273 3 місяці тому +3

    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.

  • @guilhermeruppert9662
    @guilhermeruppert9662 2 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @jriron1
    @jriron1 3 місяці тому +7

    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.

  • @Mansardian
    @Mansardian 3 місяці тому

    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

  • @bludrose
    @bludrose 3 місяці тому +5

    I'd say that if fancy analogue plugins make people actually finish their tracks, then there's no that big of a disadvantage :D

  • @keithferris9574
    @keithferris9574 3 місяці тому +2

    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.

  • @everybodyhasoul5438
    @everybodyhasoul5438 3 місяці тому +5

    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.

  • @alexdiplock71
    @alexdiplock71 3 місяці тому +2

    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

  • @Tommy_GG
    @Tommy_GG 3 місяці тому +4

    True story bro! Audio industry is full of lies

  • @BenedictRoffMarsh
    @BenedictRoffMarsh 3 місяці тому +1

    I've been saying this for decades. Esp with digital: A zero is a zero, a one is a one. While different plugins do appear different, it is mostly from the scaling/shaping of the knobs. Architecture can change things but once you get past that, the only difference is wallpaper or worse a sneaky db or two.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +1

      there are many such sneeky eq boosts if you analyse the plugins with plugin doctor etc

  • @mauromenegolli202
    @mauromenegolli202 3 місяці тому +4

    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😅😅.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +2

      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.

    • @Beatsbasteln
      @Beatsbasteln 3 місяці тому

      ​​@@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

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      @@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.

    • @Beatsbasteln
      @Beatsbasteln 3 місяці тому

      @@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

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      ​@@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.

  • @joesalyers
    @joesalyers 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @pw6002
    @pw6002 3 місяці тому +5

    Not convinced: there is an audible delta in each and every example you show.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +1

      sure there's some delta. i doubt you'd hear the difference in an ABX rest though

    • @keithferris9574
      @keithferris9574 3 місяці тому

      ​@@APMasteringThat's also true when comparing different high gain amps in most metal mixes. Doesn't meant Soldano and Mesa Boogie are scamming anyone.

  • @xanataph
    @xanataph 3 місяці тому +1

    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. :)

  • @norakat
    @norakat 3 місяці тому +3

    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?

    • @rexeditz88
      @rexeditz88 3 місяці тому

      His point is majority of eqs are the same

  • @TWEAKER01
    @TWEAKER01 2 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @RecordProducerRob
    @RecordProducerRob 3 місяці тому +27

    Pultec says hold my beer boys.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +8

      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.

    • @CreativeMindsAudio
      @CreativeMindsAudio 3 місяці тому +7

      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.

    • @gabrielthesingingpilot
      @gabrielthesingingpilot 3 місяці тому

      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

    • @ignacedhont9816
      @ignacedhont9816 3 місяці тому +6

      @@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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      @@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.

  • @Oliver-ty7xu
    @Oliver-ty7xu Місяць тому +1

    Love the Troutmask record in the right corner

  • @commodore74
    @commodore74 3 місяці тому +11

    Spot on! They're selling us "dog piss" in nice beer bottles! There is another UA-camr, 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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +3

      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.

    • @commodore74
      @commodore74 3 місяці тому +1

      @@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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +2

      @@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.

    • @NematicFifth
      @NematicFifth 3 місяці тому +1

      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.

    • @yevhenfedorets6509
      @yevhenfedorets6509 3 місяці тому +1

      What's the UA-camr's name?

  • @jackflynn-oakley1937
    @jackflynn-oakley1937 3 місяці тому +1

    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?!?

  • @SirKeefyKeef
    @SirKeefyKeef 3 місяці тому +13

    Excellent video. I am in agreement as an audio pro since 1981.
    Use your ears not your eyes.
    Love and Peace
    🙏👍😎

    • @SirKeefyKeef
      @SirKeefyKeef 3 місяці тому

      @@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….

  • @mynameismynameis666
    @mynameismynameis666 3 місяці тому +1

    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

    • @Joshua_Griffin
      @Joshua_Griffin 3 місяці тому +1

      For some.
      Curcuit modelled vsts are different.
      This waves stuff is cheap, of course you're going to get a mediocre result.

  • @mando3022
    @mando3022 3 місяці тому +3

    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.

  • @Streaky_com
    @Streaky_com Місяць тому

    Enjoyed that...which is weird as I never watch anybody else talking about Mastering :)

  • @PreschoolFightClub
    @PreschoolFightClub 3 місяці тому +4

    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.

    • @Joshua_Griffin
      @Joshua_Griffin 3 місяці тому +1

      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.

  • @JohnnyVbeats
    @JohnnyVbeats 2 місяці тому

    This is very true. People get fooled by shiny interfaces, and this is the case for many plugins. See companies such as Baby Audio - very average sounding DSP / far better sounding alternatives from other companies, but people fall for the shiny interface and marketing.

  • @sf6657
    @sf6657 3 місяці тому

    I agree with AP Mastering. If you know what you’re trying to achieve you can accomplish it with nearly any EQ available today. Having the skill to recognize what needs to happen to any given track is far more important than buying a new EQ because your favorite engineer talked about it.
    That said, regarding TDR Nova, yeah, although I literally have everything I need in Cubase Pro, I became familiar with TDR Nova a few years ago and really enjoy using it. Mainly because I didn’t have dynamic EQ at the time that I discovered it.
    There’s a LOT of snake oil in the music production world. I was a Beta tester for Sound Designer (great grandfather of Protools) and all the digital Audio platforms that emerged in the 80s & 90s. And the snake oil is not limited to software either. But I digress.
    Next up: Monster Cables!! My favorite conversation.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +2

      ha ha sounds like you have more experience than me with spotting snake oil over the years... ive written about cables before.... cables actually CAN make a difference normally in the way where the manufacturer is messing things up. Take speaker cable for example... if the impedance is too high because theres not enough copper in there and its too long, the speaker will literally be quieter. So a snake oil speaker salesman brings these shitty cables as the "before" and then swaps to his product for the "after" and WOW there really is a noticable difference... it sounds better!! Why? Because it was broken before and the $1000 cables were no better than lamp power chord.

  • @Joshua_Griffin
    @Joshua_Griffin 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      i discuss these points on my latest video

  • @s4ds4d
    @s4ds4d 3 місяці тому

    True 🙌 I'm a Sound Engineering graduate and make music full-time for a living, I have never needed to install another EQ, a good stock parametric does the job.
    Analog equipment having a feel is because its analog, the amount of variables compared to a digital 1:1 are so vast, if you want to give your music an analog vibe just use saturation or something, but always use the EQ you're most comfortable working with coz an EQ itself is not going to give your sound a "flavor", the settings will

  • @Serenade314
    @Serenade314 3 місяці тому +2

    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.

    • @iTrensharo
      @iTrensharo 3 місяці тому +1

      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.

  • @resington
    @resington 3 місяці тому +1

    Never bought an EQ, Compressor or saturation plugin. Not convinced by any of the marketing.

  • @pillowhead4000
    @pillowhead4000 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @Rhuggins
    @Rhuggins 3 місяці тому +2

    Love this, great way to shake up the audio community. Keep it coming!!

  • @MarcoTorrance
    @MarcoTorrance 2 місяці тому

    I got taught the same when I was studying audio engineering. Analog simulations are pure BS, especially with EQs.
    You will find out by yourself, when you got a chance to work on real analog gear.
    I only use one EQ. The FabFilter Q-3 covers everything you need.

  • @blackink9555
    @blackink9555 3 місяці тому

    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.

  • @JAYMEKING1
    @JAYMEKING1 3 місяці тому +2

    Best video ever tones of plugins won’t make a difference if you’re not talented 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

    • @rusj5273
      @rusj5273 3 місяці тому +1

      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...

    • @Joshua_Griffin
      @Joshua_Griffin 3 місяці тому +1

      Indeed, but a good plugin can inform and inspire musical choices!
      This is what I aim for in my plugins anyways : )

    • @rusj5273
      @rusj5273 3 місяці тому

      @@Joshua_Griffin Very true, hey that's a good strategy, or if someone that has a preference.

  • @pyratellamarecordingstudio1062
    @pyratellamarecordingstudio1062 3 місяці тому +1

    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

  • @robst247
    @robst247 3 місяці тому +1

    Luckily, back in the Cretaceous Era when I first started buying VST plugins, I quickly twigged that the notion of different EQs having different 'flavours' was a steaming, fetid heap of maggot-infested bovine excrement. 💩Thanks for confirming that.

  • @achook9474
    @achook9474 3 місяці тому +1

    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?

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      Currently filming part 2 with slate plugs

  • @symondealmeida9454
    @symondealmeida9454 3 місяці тому +1

    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

    • @Joshua_Griffin
      @Joshua_Griffin 3 місяці тому

      There certainly are coloured ones thoguh : ) circuit modelled eqs are a different case

  • @thegroove2000
    @thegroove2000 22 дні тому +1

    Got to have screws in the GUI and some rust to be authentic sounding.

  • @serratusx
    @serratusx 3 місяці тому +1

    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

  • @EvilBlakey
    @EvilBlakey 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @wynton765
    @wynton765 3 місяці тому

    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!

  • @zionjaymes4415
    @zionjaymes4415 3 місяці тому

    If you want your boring ol' parametric to sound like an analog EQ, all you have to do is turn the Q control down way low and boost/cut to your heart's content.
    With lower Q values, you can get away with more extreme EQ moves, because essentially: the lower the Q, the lower the resonance. So a lower Q tends to sound more "natural", even when boosting or cutting by quite a lot.

  • @MorenoJ1973
    @MorenoJ1973 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @TWEAKER01
    @TWEAKER01 2 місяці тому +1

    Never before in the entire history of recorded music have more people been listening with their eyes.

  • @juliana.2120
    @juliana.2120 3 місяці тому +1

    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

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      i respond to this kind of comment in the video i just published

  • @JustinHeronMusic
    @JustinHeronMusic 3 місяці тому

    This video is a classic case of "listen to me, don't listen to them". Clever, but transparent. Take a piano note for instance; play a single note, copy it, put an analog modeled equalizer, say the BX SSL 9000j channel strip plugin on the track, reverse the phase, and boom! According to this video, it should null. Well, it doesn't. Why doesn't it? Because non-linearities in plugins are real and measurable. Even with the THD turned off. Different plugins sound different. Let us not forget the actual workflow that these analog modeled plugins provide. Can I replicate an SSL equalizer curve with my stock pro tools equalizer? Probably. But honestly I like the workflow better with the SSL. I get to where I'm going much faster. I own Pro Q3, and I do not like the work flow at all. I've tried many times and just don't like it. I will almost always grab the stock pro tools equalizer for precise cuts, mostly because I was trained on Pro Tools and it's what I'm used to. But I am almost always using my analog modeled plugins for most things. The parameters at which they are set, for instance the frequency selections on an API, make mixing much faster and more pleasurable. I don't care if the plugin is completely transparent but looks like a Neve and uses Neve curves, it makes it more fun. Fun, not science, is the reason I got into this in the first place. I don't feel scammed, I don't feel fooled. Asking the question "Did you fall for it?" implies that people who've purchased these plugins have been fooled; this makes people second guess themselves and question their decisions, effectively sucking the fun out of the whole thing.

  • @FranckLarsen
    @FranckLarsen 3 місяці тому +1

    It's merely binary based math. Most of the uncomplicated plugins of similar type, will share the simplest straight forward formula. Why wouldn't they ?

  • @scotthopkins7279
    @scotthopkins7279 3 місяці тому +1

    But, but, but, what about my prized UAD Pultec Passive EQ Collection? The interface looks super old school vintage! Surely this has the special analog mojo. I buy the vintage looking gear because I want to cosplay audio engineer. Someone needs to shut this guy up. He is spoiling all the fun!

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      oops, sorry! next video will be brutal

  • @richeeeee
    @richeeeee 3 місяці тому +2

    lol, does null test and still has SMALL differences that are clearly audible to my fucked up ears. Differences are differences, but on the whole the main talking point is right: you don't need 50 different EQs.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      yep there is a small delta, some plugins more than others. but "small" is below the noise floor of a good tape machine, and no listener cares about that difference. But whether you care is up to you.

  • @TheHFB
    @TheHFB 3 місяці тому

    IMO, absolutely true video. However, some EQ control designs can get you closer to your desired effect more quickly because they give you a "short cut" to a specific EQ curve, saving time, effort and ear fatigue. A good example might be emulations of the Pultec EQP-1. You can easily replicate the curves it makes with a little effort, or you can utilise the simplified set of controls to reach the musical goal, taking advantage of the way they interact with each other which was found popular with analogue engineers. It's for this reason only that I have a selection of different EQ and compression plug-ins. However, when I couldn't afford them I probably just spent more time EQing and the results weren't noticeably worse at all.

  • @Buffysbuffet
    @Buffysbuffet 3 місяці тому

    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.

  • @Busbybeats
    @Busbybeats 3 місяці тому +1

    The best video about plugins I've seen in years, thank you.

  • @chrisdorsch9754
    @chrisdorsch9754 3 місяці тому

    The industry made up jargon called Stock. The companies that developed DAW software are way more advanced than most Plugin Makers. They know what their doing.

  • @Microblitz
    @Microblitz 3 місяці тому +1

    There is a case for Valve equipment creating resonances in 3rds and 5ths while transistors create Maj 2nd's.

  • @thejawshop-AdventureRecording
    @thejawshop-AdventureRecording 3 місяці тому +2

    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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +1

      stay tuned for my next vid on this topic!

  • @doubleaceprod
    @doubleaceprod 3 місяці тому +1

    Your section on EQs is on point. I use Nova and Fruity parametric EQ on almost everything. Very informational

  • @halukkurtoglu126
    @halukkurtoglu126 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому

      nice one. linear phase is overrated, i rarely use it

  • @maxterwel
    @maxterwel 3 місяці тому +1

    Exactly, that's why analog emulations are so counterproductive, if you have the target curve in your head why open an analog style EQ with their sluggish slow interfaces when you can do it faster in pro-Q, not only that but pro q gives access to curves that exist in analog EQs and ones you can create yourself that don't or never will.
    - Same goes for compressors and their different knee atk rls options.
    - For the saturation these emulations have, you can dial them easily with Saturn, it's modulation section can mimmick the behaviour of any gear and do much more.
    - At the end of the day, when the mix is done, no single mf audiophile or newbie with a hifi system or consumer products will ever be able to hear if you used an ssl g channel on you drum buss or your stick eq, better focus on the more important aspects of a mix and save time and energy.

  • @vadimmartynyuk
    @vadimmartynyuk 3 місяці тому +1

    Cubase has all the stock plugins that you will ever need for any kind of music

  • @MegaBadgeman
    @MegaBadgeman 3 місяці тому +1

    The way I saw it was the high end mixing desks costing the same as a sports car were priced because they had no character whatsoever. That was what you paid for. to go into a high end recording studio to mix a track then re record it somewhere else and get exactly the same result.

  • @directsoundrecords
    @directsoundrecords 3 місяці тому +2

    Finally, someone who knows the McGurk effect and how sight takes over the hearing. For the same reason, audio passionates buy big red audio cables believing they sound warm and with big basses! Keep up the good work, mate; well done!

    • @APMastering
      @APMastering  3 місяці тому +1

      Once upon a time I spent $2000 on golden plated power cables for my mastering studio. I did all the woo woo stuff and now I know better ha ha

  • @thestarwarscraft4005
    @thestarwarscraft4005 3 місяці тому

    4:18 this is why analog eq's sound better. Before finding out how wide analog eq's are, I would never use a q that wide on a digital eq. But yes, you're video is correct. I don't need those extra things fabfilter does, so I just use the stock pro tools eq. I also use the brainworx ssl e channel because it's eq is dead simple, and has compression built in.

  • @eeezdee5251
    @eeezdee5251 3 місяці тому

    Great video. I stopped buying eq plug-ins many years ago because like yourself I know there is no difference from different company's. If you're chasing an analogue sound buy/rent analogue gear.

  • @luduri3441
    @luduri3441 3 місяці тому +1

    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?

    • @luduri3441
      @luduri3441 3 місяці тому

      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