The EQ scam exposed. Did you fall for it?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2024
- 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?
LINKS
www.alainpaul.de
/ alainpaulmastering
See this update video for quantified results with more plugins: ua-cam.com/video/h9OsUSXKiDg/v-deo.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
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.
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 :)
Never before in the entire history of recorded music have more people been listening with their eyes.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
For a while, I was into getting a ton of plugins, but over time I would default to the same plugins. It was mostly amp sims that I was collecting, but now I basically just use 1. Usually when I'm looking for a plugin, it's because I'm missing a specific feature.
i think distortion is the thing with the most potential for flavour, along with reverb
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!
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
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.
Alain! So glad to have stumbled upon your channel, l’m a big fan of your work. Quick question: how to save a kick that only has the click at the front and a boomy sub tail, but without a solid punchy body? Or is it not savable at all except putting it in a sampler and messing around with its pitch envelope? This is sth I’ve been struggling for a long long time, I just find it difficult to hear that oomph right after the initial click
You could try Waves RBass. It’s a bass generator and it can create a note based on what you select. Helps give the bass drums (and snares) have more body without using samples.
Either find a different sample if it's sample based, or try a different drum or recording setup if it's live.
Doesn't help you for existing projects but it's better to have the right sound to begin with.
Try transient shaper!
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
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.
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?
Analog Vst effects units for music can indeed distort the signal and add a certain "warmth" to it. This type of sound alteration is often referred to as "analog warmth." This effect arises from several aspects of analog technology:
Saturation: Analog devices like tape machines and tube amplifiers can saturate the signal. This saturation occurs when the signal exceeds the device's maximum capacity, leading to gentle compression and a slightly distorted, warm sound.
Harmonic Distortion: Analog devices tend to add additional harmonic content to the original signal, especially when the signal is amplified or overdriven. These harmonic distortions contribute to the perceived warmth and richness of the sound.
Non-linear Distortions: These occur when the device's response to the incoming signal is not exactly proportional, leading to subtle changes in sound.
"Analog warmth" is often appreciated and perceived as pleasing, especially in a digital music production environment, which can sometimes be viewed as too "clean" or "sterile." For this reason, there are also many digital plugins designed to replicate these characteristics of analog hardware.
ChatGPT wrote this comment.
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
True story bro! Audio industry is full of lies
👍
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.
The one thing I notice in my own work flow of late is, that I mix using fewer plugins. I go to what works, what I know, and realize there are many shiny things that claim things that can sidetrack you. I arrive at a happy place with my Pultecs, Fairchild, graphic eq from logic, Abbey Road saturator and my Shepps Omni channel. I do experiment with compressors and verb, but mainly its old school stuff. It ends up being faster as well. Find the problem areas, fix it, and move on.
Does this apply to clippers? I've been using Sir Standard Clip and it's probably the best $18 I've ever spent on a plugin (got a newsletter discount). But I'm curious to try Gold Clip. Ryan seems like a cool dude and also in Philly so I might buy it anyway to support
Bro, standard clip is top notch despite the price
I'd say that if fancy analogue plugins make people actually finish their tracks, then there's no that big of a disadvantage :D
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 UA-camr's name?
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.
"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!
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.
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….
Rarely use anything other than stock Reaper plug-ins, with their glorious shonky interfaces. Great vid dude!
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
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
Agree with you! i got in that trap in both worlds ended buying a lot of plugins and few analog expensive equipment then when i learned how to mix and master i ended getting the same results no matter what i used ,analog equipment or mixing in the box .you need to know what you want in a mix and know to get the most of your plugins or analog equipment. i got tired of that and ended selling the expensive analog hardware keep on the box and no one have notice any difference in my projects since,its have been the opposite my mixes and mastering are improving each time no matter what plugins i use because now i am understanding how thinks works that's the key. i do not listen those "elites" engineers anymore ,those to tell you that you will never achieve a profesional mix or mastering until you have a expensive unit.i let them live their world and i live mine, i continue to do good music. Thanks For the video and the unbiased advice!
I have Pro Q3 and Frequalizer. I like the presets on Pro Q3 for rough/early mixes. I prefer the interface of Frequalizer for fine tuning later on. Gonna take a look at that Nova one you suggested. Cheers. Subscribed.
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.
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.
Does this also apply to compression, or is this more complicated? What about reverb? I'd appreciate your opinion on this
its more complex with compression..., similar story but less dramatic. reverb is much more varied and id say its worth having a few different ones, but theres a bunch of great free ones like the TAL one for example.
It very much depends.
This video is just saying that these EQs are the same.
You can definitely find EQs that are not the same. Curcuit modelling / neural network based filters.
Comoressors all have different behaviour. Mostly in the the processing they do to the input sidechain that the compressor reacts to, as well as tubes / valves / diodes / transfomers if it's that kind of plugin.
So, would you make the same argument for other forms of audio processing… such as a limiter or compressor? Or is this strictly for EQ purposes?
similar for EQ but its more difficult to prove. limiter no. most limiters sound horrible. theres only a few good ones
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.
Thanks for this affirmation of a long-standing suspicion I've had. Regrettably, I have succumbed to the allure of "the buzz" but after spending my hard-earned and been constantly underwhelmed, I am convinced the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side.
Growing up in a music family in the 80's , our setup was just our amps, mics and whatever through a pa mixer with eq and compression to the tape recorder. Besides that just some effects racks for the guitars , and whatever a friend brings over. Few years into using reaper and I discovered that the stock eq is enough for me with some vintage fx from Arturia
I understand this concept after watching UA-camr Yuri Wong create some of the most recognizable opening themes of shows like Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Stranger Things etc just using Logic Pro and no outside instrument and plugins.
Love this, great way to shake up the audio community. Keep it coming!!
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
I had time during the 2020 Pandemic to really dig into my plugin arsenal. As a mix engineer, I have to work fast and have templates with the plugins I use in every mix, but I decided to see what all those other "sub bundle's" EQs were like. With very, very little exception and by matching curves exactly, the clean EQs all nulled. Those that didn't were the EQs with noise, and/or the EQs with cramping and/or ripples at the corners of the bells, which nulled close enough that it didn't matter (below the noise floor)
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
I use Reaper & Bitwig in my studio. I went thru a stage, early in my learning, where I tried many plugins from various well-known vendors, for precisely the reasons you mentioned in the video. As my learning progressed, I started realizing I could regain a lot of valuable CPU capacity by simply using the built-in plugins, and that my ears couldn't tell the difference. Nowadays, I use a tiny handful of plugins, typically no more than EQ + Compressor on a track. l use stock Reaper or Bitwig plugins for almost everything. There are some notable exceptions that fill specific needs, like Valhalla Supermassive. VCV Rack, and Superior Drummer 3. There's no doubt that Reaper's VST controls are not visually appealing, but they are extremely responsive, consistent, mappable, and tend to use far fewer CPU resources than 3rd-party VST's. Bitwig has the additional perk of a built-in modular patching system, giving me the ability to create new sounds & FX, so now I don't see the point in buying most plugins when I can just build one to my own specs in modular if I need to.
Holy crap man. You've struck YT gold. Your subs have doubled since last night and you've received about 20k views since then too. Congrats! QUESTION: What about all the emulation plugins that are introducing harmonic and phase-relation differences, unique to the hardware they're emulating? One can pull SSL's Native 4K B and E plugins into, say, PluginDoctor and see different harmonic profiles being generated by each. Isn't it plausible that an engineer could "like" the "sound" of one of these plugins over another? Conversely, wouldn't be implausible that an engineer wouldn't like one over the other? And, while I'm sure any of us could eventually recreate these complicated harmonic and phase responses, none of us actually wants to do that work-when we can just load-in that SSL plug and get the response we like. 🤔
Genuinely curious, as I'm delving into this issue too. Most importantly, I agree that the real danger/issue is the bonkers marketing from publishers, trying to tell young producers and engineers that "this EQ will give you THAT sound!" when the sound really always comes from the talent of the engineers involved-not the EQ type. Great vid! Congrats on your virality
PRO Q is the only eq needed, that and a few Acustica Audio eq's for help with their pre amps. Ivory, Green, Gold and the free Eminence are amazing additions to ProQ.
Ohhh, thank you so much!!! Amen!
I mostly just use waves req in my mixes, as this is the first plugin eq i bought. I think I instinctively realised early on that there wasn't much difference in eqs. More importantly i got used to the req interface and the Q curves so i could get the results i needed quickly. I do use other stuff - mostly pultec style EQ - but this is more because i know how a pultec works with its interface and i can get results quickly. There's also the boost + attenuate trick on a pultec, which whilst i might be able to recreate the curve that creates in another EQ, why would I bother when i can get it done quicker. Other than that, i guess it's just differences with whatever saturation and other 'mojo' different EQ's are implementing. I still use a focusrite liquid mix because i like whatever it is it is doing with some of the EQ's it has. Totally get your general point though, i try not to buy many plugins any more as you really don't need that many to do a great mix and it gets to the point where they're all just doing the same thing pretty much.
I get the point, i also watched a video called “why i deleted 80% of my plug-ins”-ish and i agree we don’t have to be plug-in addicts. I only started my journey on mixing, but i felt a difference on a Manley massive passive plug in when i put it in stereo out or i think some of you call it master bus? What is that it seperates from other eqs? It is not just the knobs. Could you do a comparison video on it?
I can't speak for that exact plugin but a lot of developers have an across the board gain boost in their plugins, to trick you into thinking it sounds better (when in reality it's just a dB or two louder).
You could try gain staging and see if the delta remains the same with levels are exactly the same.
@@JoshWiniberg i have tried it, but the switch from another mastering EQ vs Manley felt like when i switch from transistor amp to tube amp. I agree with the topic of not have to have lots of plug-ins and that is kind of a scam, but i can't help not to say with Manley, i love Manley massive passive 🔥
@@hobbygrg-eudaimoniastudio Definitely, it's a really musical sounding EQ. Not sure how much of that is modelling and how much is just the baked in EQ curves but it does get good results
There is a case for Valve equipment creating resonances in 3rds and 5ths while transistors create Maj 2nd's.
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.
there are many such sneeky eq boosts if you analyse the plugins with plugin doctor etc
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.
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
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
My favourite approach is
Graphic eq for surgical cuts or roll offs
SSL style eq for more musical/ tonal moves
(My favourite one is SSQ by analog obsession , it’s free / by donation)
I used an eq spectrum analyzer to find out the eq bell shapes of various eqs. There are different bell shapes.
For example a 1073 is a fairly wide Bell for its mid band.
This matters because I would then start to think of analog eq plugins more like a preset bank for quick musical moves . Where as a graphic eq could lend it self to more experimentation and time wasting if you’re trying to achieve the same idea.
For example Eqing a raw snare drum . I prefer ssl eq because it’s faster but you could still get the job done on a graphic eq
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.
I agree for the most part. I think the advantage of a having a limited variety eq selections based on purpose is wise. Having something like the fab filter is a great surgical eq for fixing a track. Others are good going after a certain sound quickly. Their "color" could be replicated with other eq's, but it would take time to make the presets, and their interface would be a bit distracting for quick work. I'm not about buying a ton of different eq's. I think people should choose a few that have specific purposes, and limit themselves to that.
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 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.
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.
I hope your channel grows exponentially because you are providing quality content! Thank you for your efforts!
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.
Reminds me of sample libraries and fruit loop producers. I won't use the colloquial words we used to apply to those people. Less is more and like this chap said , when you know what you're doing , you see through the scam. The shoot-outs have been done as well.. no one can tell (with a plug in) that it's a XYZ rare as hens teeth 1950s compressor graphical interface and 'sound modelling'.... but you can tell with the HARDWARE counterpart . Interesting how that works.
I got clickbaited into clicking this from the title and UA-cam suggestions. From the minute you started talking to when you finished, I agreed 100% with what you said. Wild that a plugin developer showed up in the comments to deny this even after you showed the delta proof.
lol yeah, in my most recent video I mentioned how people prefer their feelings over scientific fact
So true! I even think that a linear phase EQ is a gadget nobody really needs - it comes with the side effect of preringing which I personally would want to avoid at any cost.
100%, rarely use it
Linear Phase EQ is extremely useful for Mastering. Those professionals need them, and DAWs that have a focus on the mastering niche usually include an EQ that can work in Linear Phase mode - like the EQ116 in Samplitude Pro X/Sequoia; it's a stock plug-in, there. People who need a Linear Phase EQ -often- don't have to buy one. They are already using a DAW that includes one, because that product was designed specifically for the market segment that has a high need for that tool.
For MUSIC PRODUCTION, LP-EQ is not /as/ necessary. It is more of a bonus for specific scenarios with uncommon challenges.
@@iTrensharo im a pro ME and dont use LP much
It's irreplaceable. You need linear phase for multiband processing without phase artifacts.
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
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.
Agreed to some extent - for EQ's I agree (you mentioned dynamic EQ's that indeed do function differently than traditional EQ's), but for effects like reverbs and delays there are a lot of different flavours out there with a lot of different sound palettes. So yeah, as with everything else these days people tend to wanna sell as much stuff as possible - I don't think all plugin-producers are scammers though. BUT interestingly enough I have found some of the coolest plug-ins to be legally free of charge.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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 😅
This is true in a lot of circumstances. However, when I used the new Kush EQ Q.632, it was a game changer. The sound difference was remarkable, probably b/c of proper handling of phasing that can happen with a lot of plug-in EQs. I still shoot it out time to time with other EQs and the difference is amazing.