What do you think, everyone? I'm sure everyone has their fave analog EQs! I just wonder how much we can really hear the difference in a mix with good mixing practices? Let me know what you think below!
@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf Ozone has a bit smoother and fuller sounding mids and highs than Pro-Q3. If you use it on a mix bus you'll be able to tell the difference. Ozone sounds more similar to linear phase mode in Pro-Q3 (more solid, smoother, feels like there's more low mid focus on a sound). It's a mild difference but it's there. On individual tracks it won't matter as much and you can use whatever you want but on the mix bus there's a reason to use Ozone eq if you want a bit more low mid focus in a sound and high end smoothness.
I’m somewhere in the middle on this. I fully agree that you can use plugin doctor to match eq curves and no one can tell the difference. And the clean digital version will be preferable over some Waves aliasing mess. However, I would never spend that time in a mix to stick a Pultec and Q3 into plugin doctor to match in the first place. If I want a Pultec smile on my 2 bus (well I have the hardware, but I digress) I’ll add the UAD and move on to the next thing. If I hear a resonance poking in the guitar track I’ll grab Q3 and clean it up. Sometimes the “color” EQs are less about the technical aspects and more about a feeling you get by using it. Sometimes it’s okay to trick your brain into thinking it’s working on an old API 550b because it sets a creative mood. To me, the real comparisons shouldn’t be “can you tell which is the Pultec vs the matched curve” but instead: do a full mix with only analog emulation style EQs, and without referencing, make another mix with only digital parametric. Then see if your decision making was any different
Honestly I don't share your view here. It's not just about the sound, it's also about the workflow. If I choose to go with an AMEK 200 style EQ, I get a features both visual and in terms of resolution to achieve a specific goal. Some EQs feature more specific curves and styles of behaviour like the SPL stereo vitaliser. Also I honestly have never seen somebody have such conservative track EQ. If I need more click on a kick, I regularly boost 3k like 7dB, or if you need some really nice high end boost 20k on a vocal 15dB easy - those kind of moves don't sound good on any EQ, although they do sound good on digital EQs like the fab filter, but especially when doing larger moves the analog modeling aspect of the tool can really change the outcome.
I agree. I still use Waves SSL E-Channel because of the workflow (and it doesn't hurt that it uses essentially 0 cpu power). The frequency bands, default Q settings and Q behavior through boosts and cuts were developed and perfected by great electronic engineers over decades to be musical. Digital EQs, especially ones with frequency analyzers, have an effect how how you choose to process things. And to your comment about how conservative the EQ curves shown in the video were, it's almost like some people are scared to turn the virtual knob.
That’s a good point, and I did try to mention that I will go with bigger EQ moves on things like drums, but I find myself doing less EQ these days. I will say I’d be reluctant to add 15dB @20k…you can also get a brighter vocal by rolling off high end, without raising the noise floor. I’m actually moving more into using just shelving filters first to roll off highs or lows to make room, then reaching for bells when I need more. It’s liberating! Cheers! Thanks for commenting.
@@palebluedotstudios yeah sure there are many ways to achieve similar goals it depends. I mean 15dB is quite extreme but if singer is not that close to the mic and the signal is clean, and you're going into a compressor with a strongly emphasised high end, youre gonna get a very satisfying compression curve a lot of the time
@@joost3783 I hear you. Not uncommon to have big boosts on your lead vocal. Like I said in my video, I prefer exciters if I'm going for a really bright vocal, but man: if it sounds good, is IS good! haha. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios you meant rolling of low end for a brighter vocal. Great video btw. I had the plugin addiction for a while but would go to ReaEq stock plugin because it just works. The GUI is what fools us. It's more fun to look at beautiful plugins with knobs and believe you're adding something "special". It feels like owning gear. I have to say that there are differences in character between channel strips because of the saturation and/or non-linearities but, in the end, nobody will ask you what plugin you used on that sweet kick.
Console 1 is a totally different beast that obviates my argument: you're working with a controller that gives you the tactile input that these analog EQs were designed for. Or any plugin! You could probably mix with your eyes closed for awhile, so that's great (actually kinda envious, haha). Thanks so much for watching! Cheers.
The music test ! first one was tiny and bright ! 2nd one sounded more tamed down and not tiny and harsh brightness, was i right ? 5:306:01 but i find the first more clear and open compared to the 2nd 5:30 seemed like CD and 6:01 sounded like cassette tape ! Now I'm starting to think the other way around i don't know ? because i heard good tape compression recordings to digital recordings so ? beside's i still own 4 track recorder's so i know the difference between playing tape and a sample from my Roland vs-2480
@@palebluedotstudios LOL ! no worries thats funny ! not that its going to make a difference anyway today HA-HA ! music is dead apparently now ? But i will always still make it regardless ! if you were interested in hearing one of my songs ? i let Sina drums use her drumming skills a while back she did great ! ua-cam.com/video/n14l7ZLeM0E/v-deo.html
Several of my singles are in the radio and I use the in the meantime free Tone Booster EQ v3. I paid 20 Euro many years ago for it being part of a bundle. I have several analog emulations, but it's the one I use the most
Genius! I came to this conclusion too. After a long time and a lot of money spent on plugins, I've decided my only two EQ plugins are Pro-Q 3 and Wavesfactory Spectre, which I use when I need to add colour or saturation. I'm now in the process of reducing my plugins list. This video really helps me go even further! About the SSL console plugins, I think it only makes sense to use them if you have the plugin controller, so you end up using a lot of muscle memory and have a very fast workflow. Thanks for the great content, as usual.
Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed it. I totally agree: I think the more experienced we get, the less we're looking for that elusive "cool" solution, and we realize mixing is mostly about...volume, which is all EQ really is at the end of the day. And I agree about the SSL notion: all my complaints about analog-modelled GUIs go out the window when you have a controller in the picture. Then we're moving away from the mouse/keyboard paradigm that most of us operate under. Great point! Cheers!
@@BeridotSegas Yes, I know exactly what Spectre does. That's why I said that I use it only when I need to add color/saturation. I still have it in my EQ folder and use it with the same concept as additive EQ.
I think the first one was the digital eq, the second one the analog plugin one. Most likely because I'm listening through laptop speakers. I can hear more body on the low end from B, usually brought by the saturation and phasing of the analog emulation. I might be wrong, but A and B sound different. And I chose to not put my headphones on, exactly because I wanted to see if I could see differences from consumer speakers, the ones where 90% of the population will hear your mix. In any case, it is important to consider though that two digital filter are not the same as two analog ones are not (even just considering the type and not going into the components or settings used). It is not only about curves with EQs since you are using filters... so even if you can recreate the curve it does not mean that you recreated the plugin response, as you are not considering the different phasing introduced by the filter and how it behaves on the harmonics... I do agree that sometimes it is only graphic, but not always and that is what makes some plug-ins stand out in a sea of analog emulations. But even if it was just graphic or limitation in how you can shape the curve, it is important to consider that this will make an impact on the decision you make. So, even if two filter are identical in response, one digital with endless possibilities, one with an analog emulating interface with limited decisions, everybody would mix totally different the same instrument, for best and worst, sometimes being constrained allows you to make better and faster decisions.
Yep, you got the A/B right. Good call. And I agree: when you take in things like phase, they EQs will sound different. Enough to really change a mix? I don't know. I think I'll follow this up from a phase-based angle. Stay tuned. Thanks so much for watching and commenting! Cheers.
A phase video would be great since kick drum vs bass timing seems not to be part of this video “mix”. And a saturation video would be great since some vst instruments would benefit from saturation, but using what tool(s) and at what workflow costs?
I spent years working with algorithmic EQs, started producing and mixing in the early 2000. I couldn't get the sound I wanted and I spent hours and hours trying. Every little change on a digital EQ would shift the phase and I could hear it. I annoyed me a lot and I did not even know why back then. Phase shift is the real problem with algorithmic EQs (not the curves), so they need to be used surgically (narrow bands, small db changes) and as little as possible. My dad had a modular hi-fi and whenever I used the EQ on the preamp I was blown away. I could not understand why it sounded so musical. Every change I would made it sounded good! Then I started investigating more and learnt about phase shifts, linear EQs etc. My problem was eventually solved by using convolution EQs for broad changes, shaping the sound generally and then using an algorithmic EQ to do surgical changes. This approach reduces phase shits and artifacts and it is as close to hardware EQs which don't suffer from the same problems as algorithmic EQs. However, this does not always apply to time based plugins. Algorithmic compressors/limiters/clippers are more accurate than convolution emulations and are easier to use. There is no reason to use convolution emus on time based plugins like compressors or delays. For reverbs it does make a difference and I again find convolution emu reverbs superior, they sound more natural and less harsh. One point I agree though is that we are being served the same plugins with different clothes. So, fewer plugins, knowing them well is far more important than anything else.
Mmm, good points. I want to do a deeper dive on phase, and the things you discussed. I'm curious what you use for convolution EQ? I assume Acustica, but Waves Q-Clone is the only other one that comes to mind, which I found pretty clunky.
Acustica's Opal (although it is a mastering EQ and consumes a lot of CPU) is a favorite of mine. AA Salt is also top and probably the best choice for tracking as it is modeled after 3 very popular consoles and you can mix and match parameters. Most importantly Salt is highly CPU optimized. Again, I do use convolution EQs in combination with algorithmic EQs (Pro Q3) the way i described it above. You don't need a ton of plugins, just a couple and know their sonic characteristics well. Another important thing is that I use the EQs with a hardware controller that is always linked from the get-go when loading the plugin, so the experience is as close to using a console. I am using the MP Controller from MP MIDI
I could agree in the case of "algorithmic" eqs, but what about convolution? Not only what the eq does in terms of frequency response, but some of those models have an effect in terms of imaging and "size". Have you tried boosting the highs in Acustica Audio´s Azure, and doing the same in Fabfilter? I partially agree in the merchandising and hype thing about channel strips, "analog" (not so analog) eqs and all that in general, being the convolution a domain which, in my opinion, remains different.
I generally avoid Acustica because I found them buggy and heavy as hell, but that was many years ago. So you're talking about stereo imaging and/or phase? Acustica is interesting because they use that proprietary dynamic-convolution tech...I'll have to test them out again. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I guess the term is something between imaging and depth, unfortunately my english is quite fuzzy so I can´t express myself correctly. I mean, this happens also with actual analog units; for instance, I use a Tegeler Creme RC for my bus compression and, as soon as you insert it, you notice your sound gets "bigger", spatially and also in terms of depth, though I can´t say what physical magnitude is utterly responsible for this effect. Some Acustica Audio plugins have the same effect for me
@@rodericogarcia Your english is perfect! Yes, that makes perfect sense! Now I'm really curious about Acustica. I should really dive back in with them, do some reviews. Thanks for your advice!
For EQs I think how quickly can I dial in a desired sound. I think you underestimate how important pulling up a vst and turning one knob to achieve your results is vs loading a blank slate and considering bandwith and curve shape etc. The fact one can replicate the other is irrelevant. For people who use controllers, the standardised surface mappings will be much simpler and more immediate with the analog vsts vs q3
Great point, and I agree. If you get a controller like Console 1 that works seamlessly with analog-modelled controls, then that obviates at least one of my objections! Cheers.
At best I use "analog" emulations as a "preset". Since with the pultec e.g. the Q's and freq is already set it saves me some time by just adjusting the boost/dip. Worth the money? Not sure about that but some are harder to replicate like the Knif Audio Soma eq.
True. Some of those models are impossible to match perfectly, so you’d need to take time to make them. For me, I found I simply moved on to doing all my own EQ-ing, and I can do the “Push/Pull” trick easily on any EQ. Cheers!
it seems like we want to know what analog saturation we might rely on digitally cause you couldn't find any that can get that analog. great subjects to discuss
I'm curious as to the answer to the A/B you did as see no-one else has mentioned it - The first (A) has more heft on the kick and the snare transients seem slightly softened so I would guess it is the SSL?
@@palebluedotstudios Ah okay, I don't have either plugin so it was a guess as the SSL's usually have that bit of saturation. Definitely prefer A in this instance though. I love blindtests and do a lot myself especially when demoing (NuGen AB Assist 2/HOFA Blindtest + Letimix GainMatch) which is why I was interested. Most interesting was once between Pro-Q, Kirchhoff, EQ4, Weiss and SlickEQ M - after a while I was able to reliably tell which was which, but think I may have had an aneurysm in the process haha It has also saved me a fortune in new plugins over the years. I do use the Hammerstein in PD though when comparing curves/curve-matching anything with harmonics or non-linearities as the Linear can actually be totally out which obviously then really skews any tests. Found that out quite recently when I was looking at preamp emulations - some showed quite interesting curves, when in actuality they were totally flat and it was the harmonics skewing the test.
@@Lewis_Emblack I love blindtests too! Haha. Yeah, if the plugin has non-linearities, then you'll see a more dynamic curve, making matching trickier or impossible. Question: what's "Hammerstein in PD"? 🤔
@@palebluedotstudios I meant the Hammerstein tab in Plugin Doctor which shows up to 7th order harmonics across frequencies/amplitude as opposed to the total amplitude and number of harmonics on the HarmonicAnalysis tab. It is essentially the same as the LinearAnalysis tab but also showing the curves of the harmonics. If you were to match a linear EQ with the fundamental of a coloured emulation (I always zoom in so the scales are the same as the other tab to make it easier) you will have an accurate representation of the differences as opposed to potentially boosting the linear more to compensate for the added saturation as you would in the LinearAnalysis. It is interesting that you can tell which have actually modelled the transformers too as those will have the prominent 3rd which will also usually be higher in the lower frequencies, hence the "warmth" that transformers provide. I never see people using the Hammerstein tab on here which I can only assume is due to there not being much in the way of resources explaining what you are looking at, but it makes the differences between linear and coloured/emulated EQ's a lot more obvious when accurately matched. *edit* Obviously the LinearAnalysis is perfectly fine with "emulated" EQ's that are just the curves like some of the Waves, Kirchhoff, IK EQual, etc. and also those you can disable the "analog", "THD" or "pres" of, such as Acustica and some of the Plugin Alliance EQ's. Personally, if possible I prefer turning them off, matching in Linear, and turning back on for listening tests, but for the ones I can't get totally clean the Hammerstein or Fundamental Sweep setting in HarmonicAnalysis is the way to go. (Apologies if you knew all of this and were just querying the abbreviation, but had my nerd hat on haha)
I like using Console 1 eqs like BCA or SSL 9k for example because they impart some nice sounding saturation depending on which band you use and also the bands interaction makes it way faster to achieve the sound you want. BCA sounds very crispy whike 9k is more mellow, darker (adds less harmonics). Also the Q behaviour is very different than a standard digital eq. If you boost more with 9k it becomes narrower so you get more of the exact frequency you was aiming for while BCA changes the eq shape when you change the frequency without doing anything with the gain of that band. It lets you add or subtract mids or change the presence boost from highs mids to highs or air frequencies very easily once you get used to it. It's a muscle memory with a hardware controller and a very specific sound you get that way. When I'm mixing with something like Pro-Q3 I have setup the default preset into 4 bands - 2 wide shelves and 2 very wide bell filters (0.5Q for bells and 0.3Q for shelves) but actually it takes me more time to find the proper setting. Boosting highs on for example on BCA reduces some lows at the same time so you get results quicker. Also the sound of low mid boost on 9k has a certain character which I can't get with any other plugin. Pro-Q3 sounds clean and warm/a bit dull on the high end so usually you need to add another plugin to compensate for the lack of any saturation to smooth out the sound and make it a bit richer. Mixing with something that already adds some saturation makes you use less plugins and keep your project looking cleaner and is faster to get to the finish line. That's my 2 cents. But I like the sound of Pro-Q3 and now I use it more for fixing some specific narrow resonances (when something audibly sticks out and I can't fix it with a normal tone-shaping eq). But I could mix only with Pro-Q3 also without a problem. I just chose to use emulations because I get results faster
That's really interesting. So I'm genuinely curious: if you inserted a standard EQ and boosted 6dB @9k, then inserted BCA or SSL with the same setting, you'd say it's noticeably more crispy or darker? I might try this out myself.
@@palebluedotstudios in both cases it would be crispier sounding on C1 eqs but way more on BCA than SSL 9k. But BCA doesn't have 9k, it has 7.2k bell or 10k shelf
You're absolutely right! It's just that sometimes we are attracted to beautiful buttons and twirlers :-) But, I did not hear the name of the equalizer at the end of your video. You said "... I would take it better FabFilter Pro Q3 or Ozone or ..." What is the third one? Thanks!
I'll briefly take your clickbait! The "Why I Don't..." is fine, the "... and You Shouldn't Either" is B.S. Like your previous 'I hate channel-strips' video, you seem to be insisting on presenting your preference as objective reality. My perspective is this: To me, Mixing is a performance, as much art as science. The Analog Console was an Instrument for that performance. While the computer can re-create the sound and function of nearly Everything we can hear coming out of speakers, nobody is telling the Concert Pianist that she's stupid for not just using a Midi Keyboard, or worse yet a Mouse. If you've ever Played an SSL, API, or Neve, with the same set of multitracks you would end up with very different mixes, just due to the Instrument that you mixed it on. Today, Everyone has access to those instruments, or Emulations of them, and can Perform on whichever they choose, without the six-figure price tag. Or they can use stock plugins if that's how they approach music. Not only do each of the emulations Sound different, they were all Designed with a different Workflow and mixing philosophy in mind. Neve and API have Fixed Frequencies in their EQs, CHOSEN for specific reasons, SSLs are fully Parametric allowing much more freedom, but they all have Finite functionality, and again, an intended use and workflow. There are obviously no Magic Ones & Zeros. Every 'Analog Emulation' is happening within the digital domain. But the whole point is that these Emulations will react to your input as the DUT would have. And while in many ways that is Limiting the Unlimited possibilities within the digital domain, it isn't Arbitrarily Handicapping yourself so much as using Rupert Neve's judgment to guide you along the journey. Does anyone NEED analog emulations or channel strips? Of course not. But you also don't Need to be making music. You could use that mouse and keyboard to produce a spreadsheet. Or another UA-cam video.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I will say that I do not intend to present my subjective experience as objective. One could argue that nulling EQs is objective, but I wasn't even going for a full null with this video. My main question was: can you really tell the difference in a full mix, if you're following good mixing practices? But I do really take your point on how API, et al., are designed with much careful intention. And look: if you or anyone enjoys using them-who am I to judge that? I'm all for it. This is based off my personal experience, and I do want younger viewers to maybe think twice before shelling out money for an analog EQ plugin, when it may not be necessary. Thanks so much for watching and commenting! Cheers.
While I don't disagree broadly, the aliasing bit was a weird inclusion. Just use an analog-modelled EQ with proper oversampling so that it doesn't alias. You said you could just use your own saturator after the EQ, but then you'll get aliasing from that too if you don't use one with oversampling.
That's a good point: I didn't mention oversampling when i suggested "use your own saturation", and I think what was implicit in my point was: "you can choose your own favourite saturation that has options like oversampling, so you can still mix at 48k and not worry about aliasing". You could also choose to mix at 96k or higher; not as much of a burden these days. Great point! Cheers!
@@tangente00 That's a good question. I would say "yes", if there's a lot of aliasing going on. It can be hard to put your finger on, but you'd hit that point where you're like "why is it getting so hard for instruments to stand out?", because frequency masking is building up, due to aliased content filtering back in. But, I should do a test one day. Great idea for a video! Cheers!
Each person has his own handwriting (with which he writes with a pen on paper). Imagine that you buy a different pen and your handwriting becomes different. There are as many pens as there are handwritings that you can choose depending on your mood. This is exactly what happens with plug-ins that emulate analog devices. Can the Pro Q3 be set to sound like an analog EQ? - I think so. But is it easy and quick to do it? I think not (like learning to write in a different handwriting). Moreover, how will you be able to turn up the sound like the Neve1073, if you don't have this plug-in? With what will you compare? And if you already have a Neve1073, why waste time playing it with the Pro Q3?
That's an interesting analogy and point. We are lucky that we live in an ear where all these emulations are readily available-there a free and paid Neve clones, and you can download demos, if one wishes to copy-but I see the more realistic point: why spend hours painstakingly modelling an EQ in Pro-Q when you can reach for one that does it already? And that's valid. For me, and what I was trying to demonstrate with the video is that: even without trying to carefully match the EQ curves or high and low rolloffs of the emu EQs, I didn't hear an amazing difference between a digital EQ or a modelled one. Nothing that would really affect a mix in the long run. But since I'm aware of things like the Pultec push-pull trick, that's easy to set up in any EQ. But if you really like certain filters that are already set up on a Neve clone, then it's all good: it's something that doesn't stand in the way of achieving a mix. Cheers1
@@palebluedotstudios I totally understand what you're talking about. And it's not the first time I've seen such videos. But, using this logic, you can make a video, for example, about the fact that you should not buy and use any compressor at all, because with the help of volume automation you can achieve the same result :) (and it's true!) It's a matter of time. And equalizers are really very different. I advise you to investigate, for example, Manley Massive Passive EQ: what happens there when the upper shelf is raised (at some point, the middle frequencies begin to decrease). When using the Pro Q3, you may simply not come up with such a combination yourself. Development engineers once spent a lot of time to save you that time.
I use digital EQs and analog emulations also. My favorite EQs are the Fab Filter Pro-Q3, Universal Audio Pultec EQP-1A, and the Eventide Split EQ. Split EQ and Pro-Q3 are almost always going to be expensive (around 150) unless you get them on Black Friday, and they’re worth every dime. The Pultec you can usually find pretty cheap, like around 30-50. The variances in the 2 types of EQ will manifest mostly in recorded material and not some test tone being fed into a computer. My ears tell me what sounds right not some science box spitting out values. Use what works for you. Thanks for the video.
Oh yes, in the end: please ignore all science and use what you enjoy, and what leads to great mixes! It's just in my nature: I like to question the foundations. Cheers!
Only 2 I care to use are carve EQ and or fab Q. the emu's just limit for no good reason or add something I didn't ask for. which is a pain when dealing with tonal balance. It's all a headache for precision
Is it? I'm curious why. The harmonic distortion-if it's there at all-is very, very quiet, and might actually be introducing bad harmonics into the signal, unless you're using oversampling or a high sample rate. Personally, I prefer to add my own saturation. Cheers!
Great call! It’s almost impossible to list all the features of Pro-Q! I’ve been using it for 10 Years and I’m still learning tricks. Great suggestion. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios if people are curious as to how to do it you set the sidechain just as you would for a compressor or anything else. inside of proq3 setting a band that isnt a cut to dynamic will unlock the gain knov for it. click the auto button above it then click the sidechain icon to the top right of the gain knob once it appears. now that band is running on the sidechain as a trigger let me know if i made any mistakes explaining it
@@machinemademan Thanks for the detailed instructions! One thing that bugs me about Pro-Q is how tiny and hidden some of those controls are. But a minor concern.
@@palebluedotstudios id have gone my whole life without finding it if it weren't for some random tutorial i was watching about something totally unrelated. i have not seen it mentioned ever anywhere
My sense (and experience) is that it depends a lot on who makes it/how they create them. If there are emulations out there for preamps, transformers, output amplifiers, and other (ideally transparent?) stages of a hardware box's signal chain, it stands to reason that a good programmer would build similar variances and design peculiarities into a proper emulation. EQs don't all sound the same, and thank golly they don't all look the same - I'm with those who mentioned workflow as well. Thank you for the video.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments! I think, if the developers meticulously model the entire path, then there may be small nuances that circulate through the whole mix. But then again, if they're using saturation, and you're mixing at, say, 48k, then you're guaranteed getting enharmonic content in your mix. Presumably at very small levels, but we're talking about small differences here. So I find that intriguing too. Mostly, i just need any decent EQ to clear room for instruments in the mix, at this point. Cheers! Thanks for your comments and watching!
Good video! I'm the opposite where I still use analog style EQs because I like the workflow, but I saw a video once-it was one of those where a real life doctor talks about medical scenes in films and TV shows, and while talking about the movie Dead Ringers, she mentioned that it's common for surgeons to have instruments custom made to fit their hands-and that's how I feel about any discourse about whether people should use analog or digital style EQs: it's whatever fits in your hand. Though, for a beginner looking for the analog workflow, I would recommend free stuff like Analog Obsession over paying a bunch of moneys.
Thanks! I love the Dead Ringer analogy (Cronenberg rules)! Yeah, that's a really good point; I like that. My brother said exactly what you said: he likes the workflow, and I would never attack that. And my video is mostly from my perspective, while also guarding younger musicians from spending too much on gimmicky analog stuff before learning their craft-as you point out! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I noticed you were Canadian, so I hoped you might appreciate a Cronenberg reference. 😁 To expound a bit, I saw a video just today that articulated something else I've noticed, it's by Heron Island Studio called "Why Multiple Console Plugins are Essential for 21st Century Mixing," and it's by older guy who came up in the analog world showing how the limitations of console channel strips and their sonic signatures guide one, as a mixer, to subtly different sounds. And it's nothing one cannot do in Pro-Q3, of course, but I think there is something to knowing where and how to use those tools-not a better or worse way to go about it, just different. Like the old saying goes: all that matters is what's coming out of the speakers. I'm glad we can have civil discussion on this topic. A certain other UA-camr recently made a similar video to yours which has been making the rounds, and imo they've been unnecessarily rude and condescending to those whom do not share their opinion. I'm not naming them so as to not cause drama, but I mention it because it's emblematic of how people (especially in these niche online circles) can get way too animated about really trivial stuff. I've seen people have very heated arguments about whether to pan drums in audience or drummer perspective, and it's like, ugh, whatever!
I completely agree with everything. However my main reason for analog moddled eq's is workflow. Tho I'm really interested to check out that blindfold eq.
I love Blindfold EQ. It's often said that we mix with our eyes too much, in the digital EQ world. So it's really refreshing to be forced to work with your ears. AirEQ was doing this about 15 years ago, and I was all for it. Cheers!
right at the beginning so idk if you’re gonna discuss this, but IF a filter is linear (within a reasonable standard, this includes very high quality analog gear, and floating point on computers which isn’t continuous), time-invariant (so no dynamic eq), and has the same curve (cramping or cramping mitigation makes it different), and processing the same inputs, it will have the same output. break any condition and that falls apart. (at least for IIR, so analog) linear and time invariant are kinda mutually involved, it can’t be one but not the other. (well time invariant matters based on how the time variance timings relate to the ring out time, slower than some speed for a given filter, or a FIR filter applying sums of impulses rather than an impulse summed over the inputs, will allow for breaking this) source: i’ve been working on a nonlinear eq for a while, hopefully eventually i run out of problems to get in my way and tech stack to reinvent lmao. it’s not emulating anything, so the nonlinearity can be cranked to levels that make it more of a distortion plugin (but most of that comes from the other nonlinear elements, rather than the nonlinear filters), or dialed to just the right point that it’s audible. i invented my own nonlinear mid/side conversion, im not BSing this lol, it does actually affect the sound.
i think a lot of why i think mine is better than these others is that i’m not modeling anything, in fact i hesitate to label it analog modeling, so i can make the nonlinearity as obvious as i want, and do things that sound good, rather than matching some piece of old gear that was trying to be linear. i dislike these sorts of plugins because it’s all hype and magical gear fallacy/syndrome/etc. too focused on accuracy to make it sound good.
Wow, I think you should release this plugin IMMEDIATELY! This sounds very cool. Seriously, let me know if you want beta-testers. So I'm glad to hear from someone who really knows their EQ DSP shit. I realize that, as soon as you move away from linear processing, then, yes, you're going to get differences in sound. And looks like you may have an answer as to why a non-linear EQ may be "better'... I love the idea of a purpose-built, non-linear EQ that can be pushed creatively. This reminds me of a long-gone plugin I used to use...I think it was called trackQ, and it was all about "not so clean" EQs, but was a very well-made IIR equalizer. Anyway, I'd love to know if you release that EQ. Cheers!
Damn! This one hurt me to my core 😅. I needed this tho because trying to learn music all I hear from people Im learning from is “YOU GOTTA GET THIS PLUGIN” and it’s mostly based on hype.
Yeah man! Watch out for the hype. By all means, if you love working with an analog "style" of plugin, go for it. I just feel like it's never going to save anyone's mixes. Learn your craft well and you'll be good with any decent EQ plugin (just watch out for cramped EQs, but those are few and far between now)! Thanks so much for watching! Cheers.
Stock plugins will set you free, 80% of my songs and production is stock plugins, there are a few select pro bits i'd buy but it's a list of say like 10-20 plugins and they aren't required.
I realised this for not too long ago, and looking at my methods, I had done the "right thing" anyway. I use a Neve channelstrip called VoosteQ and stock parametric and kirchoff most of the time, but add the UAD putlec sometimes. I also EQ with UAD a800 and use the tilt on the softube Tape as well. All those are very colourful and the channelstrip eq saves me from using another EQ. But I know everyone has a sound. They aren't the puigfailed that is failed in comparison. Even the three different EQ modules in the VoosteQ Modell N are different in pass through. It's convenient to change the curve as you are there, but the different colours actually are part of what I choose. But I do turn to maybe a solid state pultec emulation or api 550B or 560 10-band just for the curves of them. I don't really know those curves. As Dan Worrall says in his similar video, the low-end pultec trick is something you learn with two knobs and is still most convenient with two knobs. The 10 band of the 560 are also fed out to my 9 physical faders (and one knob) which is a whole other game. I have every plugin mapped out there but find it unnecessary most of the time to use them, but fighting to get the good stuff out something odd, those 10 bands at my 10 fingers are great. I also like the bettermaker eq-plugin for just the curves. It's like the handling of a car and if driving was an art, you'd maybe like the handling of a 90s outdated mazda sports car. Or maybe that's what you learned. So I think you overemphasize, but I absolutely agree with the core of the issue, which is marketing making people spend. It's a problem. I just triggered the Neural DSP community over these last few weeks for pointing out how good Neural makes spend; make people archetype collectors, while softube wasn't as smart giving a good update in 2023 to make much more covered range for just 2 collections (9 corner stone amp heads with beyond that in cabs). Softube are smarter now and launch Engl Suite and I'm sure more specific stuff is coming our way now. I was beat hard at for saying this truth, so stay strong.
There is a reason to buy these EQ emulation plugins, and that is, you like how they look or you like working with them. They absolutely do not have a magic sound, as proven by the hundreds of null tests that have been run against them, which you can find all over youtube. No, they don’t sound “better” or even “analog”. But if you vibe with it, good for you. I like the workflow of the AMEK EQ by Plugin Alliance for example (you can solo each band while you’re working, make big moves then pull them all down by a percent). But I could easily get stock DAW eq to sound identical.
Oh yes. If you like the workflow, all the power to you. I just want people to know that at the end of the day, analog EQ emulations don't offer much discernible difference when you close your eyes. I'm less partial to twisting analog-style knobs, I will admit that. Cheers!
For the most part it’s true, ProQ3 is m general workhorse eq, but there do exist alternatives that really do impart something very different. Non linear harmonic eqs like acusticas stuff. Acustica gold does stuff to signal I can’t even get remotely close to with proq
That's interesting. I've had a lot of bad experiences with Acustica; I know they're very well-respected, but I found most of their stuff buggy and unexceptional. But it's been years since I tried them out, I realize they have their own quasi-dynamic-convolution process...which EQ/plugin should I try out?
@@palebluedotstudios makes sense-- their anti piracy tactics were literal gigabytes worth of bloatware. they finally got bullied into removing it, so luckily the product is less absurd, and I hear they do sound great.
I don't have time to test it right now, but Maag seems to be just a standard high shelf, so I'm sure you could replicate it with Nova. Heck, you could even make it dynamic with Nova! Great suggestion. Cheers!
Not at all! Think about it: hardware compressors are dynamic processors whose timing and characteristics can be carefully analyzed and modelled, and cannot be nulled by a stock compressor. Then it’s just a matter of taste whether you think it matches up to the original, or there are plenty of digital-only compressors that are better than hardware now! Cheers!
My friend, you nailed it. My thoughts exactly. It's relatively easy to get an "warm" or analog sound, so I don't really need my track EQ to provide that. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I understand that sometimes, using a different EQ or analog modeled one is for workflow preferences. If one feels good about turning knobs with a mouse, why not... but it still doesn't mean that you need dozens of different ones.
@@uncle-ed I dont think so. Can't imagine needing more than 2-3 track EQs. But EQ collectors may argue, especially if they believe they're that unique.
Your right and yes I think most producers know this. I own and use three third-party eq plugins on a almost daily basis. ProQ3, Eventides Split EQ and recently acquired scaler EQ. All have a purpose in my productions and I use them all on any given project. Split EQ and scaler EQ perform very specific tasks that you would struggle doing with a standard proQ3 plugin. I have never bought a analog modelled EQ but do have some that were given to me. I never use them.
Word, well said. You know, I never had a chance to sit down with Split EQ (looks amazing), and I have a review copy of Scaler EQ that I'm going to review soon. How are you using Split EQ?
@@palebluedotstudios So I predominantly use split EQ when I have to boost audio in some way. Having the tone and transient separate gives nice control. The only negative I have on split EQ is it's latenancy. So I use it to render files down not as a insert that I would leave on a chanel during production due to the delay it causes. With scaler EQ I find cuting no harmonic material on the side Chanel's works super nice for me.
@@obiraf Cool, thanks. I wasn't expecting that plugin to introduce a lot of latency. Good to be aware of that if you don't want latency during mixing. I'll have to try it out soon, do a review. It caused a bit of a stir when it came out, but now Ozone EQ can do something similar for free!
@@palebluedotstudios Yeh Split EQ is best used to process a sample or you can mix with it but you looking at around 50ms of latenancy give ot take a bit depending on what algorithm you use. I don't see it as a problem for mixing as it's fairly common for mix and mastering plugins to cause latenancy grater then split EQ does. Even ozone 10 gives me more latenancy depending what I use in it in most mastering sessions. I did actually make a mistake, I do use another EQ and that's smart EQ by sonible. I only use it on my buses though. Again a decent EQ that does something the others don't do so well.
@@obiraf Right, Smart:EQ is a whole different beast! I love it and use it frequently, done a few reviews here (I need to do smart:EQ 4, come to think of it...). Yes, a bit of latency is totally fine for mixing; I usually crank up my buffers (which makes for a speedier bounce too). It's like readers to be aware of it, because if you do a lot of mixing/writing on the fly, like in Ableton, latency might dampen the vibe. Cheers!
You can totally do that! I love this: great-in, great-out! I agree. When I started out, honestly, I was mostly just levelling things, and I marvel at some of my mixes from the 90s on a SoundBlaster. Why? Because I was just working with what I had, and working with mostly gain, and my ears. Cheers!
I think one thing to note is some EQ's cramp at 20k and others Don't. Also ''Analog EQ's'' tend to add some sort of saturation and noise. Sure with a pro-q 3 and saturn you would probably be able to get very close to most Analog EQ's But I guess one of the draws of analog is how quickly you can get a desired sound. So they do come in handy in some situations and I admittedly own a few softube and UAD plugins, but that's mainly because I own the Console 1 and like the feel of been hands on compared to using a mouse. Are they needed? Well...Not really but can come in handy sometimes and companies like Analog Obsession offer them for free so why not? However with most companies its all smoke and Mirrors(marketing) to get you to think you need them in order to sound like the ''PRO's''
There are no equalizers that give saturation, they are all clean. This is shown by the tests in REW. Only if the saturation is output with a separate knob, other equalizers produce harmonics at a level below the audibility of the human ear. Plugins from AO for the most part do not coincide in behavior with real hardware or plugins of Waves, Uad, etc.
Yep, if you've got a Console 1, then that does away with part of my argument about the GUIs-you're now using those controls the way they were designed. Again, if you like certain analog modelled EQs, and they get the sound you want quickly, then who am I to argue? I just find myself wondering how audible the difference is between a -6dB cut of a standard EQ and a -6dB cut with a fancy "analog" EQ. My guess? No one would know the difference. Great food for thought, thanks! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I dont' disagree with what you are saying at all and yes I'm aware that saturation doesnt happen in the equalizing itself but is often added post e.q. all though with the old units its probably the tubes or whatever adding something to them but i'm not really clued up on how the hardware units work. most of the time I will use pro-q 3 because its clean, can do surgical eq and has other nice features but if im totally honest 99% of what I do could be achieved with a DAW's stock EQ
@@StevenSmethurst Agreed, no reason you can't do a great mix with stock effects. Good ol' limitations (mind you, stock DAW effects are killer these days...) Cheers!
I agree, you're absolutely right. BUT I like to use analog emulations because they don't confuse me with beeing too analytical. Also I have the SSL UC1 so I rarely "look" at what Im doing. You are right that sometimes I get to struggle when I need more destinct EQ on the low end and I just have no band left on the E channel for example. In the end I like to use my hardware UC1 and channelstrips a lot, but when it comes to a certain problem I use highly precise EQing in the digital realm. For my workflow it is pretty cool to work in Cubase like I work on a console.
Right, yes, if you have a controller like UC1, then that obviates my GUI complaint: you're using the plugins at they were intended. I'd love to get into a controller, but I've had trouble finding one that I like and stick with. Cheers!
Sure, but we're talking about a lot more than just track EQs. We've got preamps, compressors, saturation and crosstalk to consider. And then it's really debatable if any of these console emus actually live up to the hype. Maybe I'll do that next...cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios sure , I guess I am late to the game with SSL and wish i knew about it earlier - I have found using the ssl racks its easy to get a ssl type sound and before my eq and comp just didnt do it - it is v snappy - right now nfuse is the best one for me
@@justinb9387 I haven't tried NFuse yet, I'll have to check it out. I use SSL's Bus Compressor 2, and I like it quite a lot. I've just never been crazy about using that EQ design as my main EQ. Cheers!
I find it interesting how people justify their purchases, believing it will help them create better sound. However, everything starts with musicality, not with claims like “this plugin adds a bit more air to the pluck sound.”
Agreed. I've grown tired of flowery marketing language, especially with analog EQs. They won't save your mixes. I remember reading an interview with Donald Fagen's engineer in Mix magazine 20 years ago, and he was like, "Man, the EQ in Nuendo is AMAZING; the best I've ever heard!"-and that was a bog standard, digital EQ with cramping. And he happily mixed many records with that. So, just shows to go...cheers!
6 місяців тому+2
Here's why I don't: because TDR Slick EQ is free. But for real, I do like its non graphic interface for non-surgical things. And enabling the eq saturation makes me feel better haha
AMEN to this. I have a few outboard EQ's I love to use (like the LinkAudioDesign SSL 242 500 series clones) - but EQ is handled so much better in DSP. Voxengo Curve is amazing and there's no way you could build an analog circuit that could do it. That said, compression is something I still like hardware for.
I hear you. It took a long time for digital to catch up to analog compressors (it's still debatable), but there are also amazing digital compressors that do original things that their analog counterparts couldn't do, or it was difficult to do. I sold my 500 series EQ awhile ago, I just wasn't using it. But I do miss outboard sometimes...cheers!
I don't have the Pultec right now (used to, when I had the hardware), but I imagine it would be much the same: typical digital filters tuned to act like the original, with maybe some unremarkable saturation in there somewhere. But I'll have to test it out sometime. Cheers!
More than 15 years ago I was a beginner audio engineer playing around with my arsenal of cracked plugins... and even than I remember thinking "what the hell are all these analog eq's, can't I just use this very flexible digital one and recreate anything than these analog ones do"... and it turned out that yes, yes I can.
So true! I remember the Holy Grail days of yore, yearning for this or that analog EQ or channel strip. Now, I don't think about it much. Analog compressor emus, sure! Cheers!
The reason I don't use "analog" EQ plugins is simple. They aren't actual analog, yet still have all the downsides to outboard gear. They most often LACK the surgical visual displays that tell you EXACTLY what's happening. You know, one of the primary advantages to using a DAW? Taking the guess work out of sound, because you can SEE wtf is going on? I know a lot of old schoolers like to incentivize themselves to "mix by ear" but having done that for years on actual analog gear, I found it constantly way more efficient to actually SEE what's going on and let your ears THEN train by association of what you are seeing first. Analog plugins to me, kinda fall into the same category as "simulated" studio plugins. Bringing back all the joys of visually inaccessible wire messes that the invention of Logic Pro saved me from. I just don't see the point to analog interfaces in a digital DAW. It's like deciding to edit linearly, just to make your life more difficult. It defeats the purpose and advantages of the DAW. No thanks.
I largely agree with that. The older I've gotten, the less I care about these "analog" references, and I just want to get on with mixing. I stopped using Reason a long time ago because of its belaboured analog "patchbay" visual metaphors. Give me the advantages of modern digital mixing, not the curses of the past. Cheers!
I agree 100%. I have collected hundreds of plugins over the years. But more often I grab the standard EQ in cubase because its fast and does the job right. Only some plugins with special functionality (btw. Sonible, Sound Radix, Melodyne Studio) I pull out and use in some cases.
Well said, my friend! Yes, there are exciting, innovative products (like you noted) that I reach for because they're really unique and serve a purpose. Mixing is less stressful these days, as I feel confident in using the basics and the specialized tools. Cheers!
Thanks so much! Yeah, I actually should’ve mentioned that now we have things like Analog Obsession and so many more; why pay for Waves, et al.? Cheers!
I use any Tool that has the most option to start with and add a Vintage Vibe to the track so I don't get bog down with the technical stuff and fix later if needed. I understand what you're saying in the video and can get similar results with Digital EQs, the end of the day it's what works for you. If a certain "Vintage EQ" get you there without having a hundred options to try and look for problems that are not there or makes the source sound worst rather then a couple of knobs I'd go for it, but all-in-all it's really doesn't matter what you use, I payed for the plugins and I'm going to use them. I always use the Fabfilter Pro Q3 no matter what other plugin I have. Pro Q3 Hands Down A Must Have. I will say though if you want Vintage Vibe get an external EQ.
That's a great response. I agree with all of that, except maybe your final statement. Do you really get "Vintage Vibe" from a single instance of analog-modelled EQ, or is that an aesthetic you bring to your entire mix, with every decision, from instruments, to arrangement, to DSP and EQ? I personally think EQ is too subtle for most of us to say, "this one EQ curves is the reason I have an analog-sounding mix."; but that's my take on it. But I super-agree with everything you said-especially "If it works for you, then it IS good"! Cheers!
I’d be interested to see you recreate the sound from Clariphonic by House of Kush. There is definitely some magic there that would take you a few minutes to copy. And my other comment is about those virtual knobs in these fake EQs. Some of them might be doing some weird stuff with the curves that we just can’t do even in Kirchoff. That is, we can copy a static curve, but not a sweep because we don't know what the shape is doing as we turn the “knob”. No, I'm not really talking about automating the curves - but I guess you could do that for creative effects- but I mean when we are searching for a sound or how to fix a sound, sometimes the way these EQ curves interact with each other lets us find the right sound quicker than drawing them in a parametric like using Adobe Illustrator.
House of Kush is great, they really know their stuff. I checked out Clariphonic quickly and looks like a couple of fixed frequencies with slopes that can be modified. And he adds heavy oversampling to prevent aliasing, so that may explain some of the "smoothness" too. As for your second point, it's an interesting thought. I do think, however, because we're still talking about static EQ curves, that we can copy the sweep, unless the developers program some kind of interpolation or crosstalk between bands. Cheers!
Two master engineers out there 1 who uses not a single plugin but in his video he uses a native EQ. That video was misleading and then there's the other mastering engineer who got rid of all his analog equipment and went solely ITB or as I like to call it mixed everything only in his Music software. I do understand this video in a sense ...for those who are on a budget yes you can try to achieve same thing in the tools that you already have for those who are Grammy winners it's plugins out there that cost big bucks but will help you achieve that sound with just a few clicks. Final Note. At the end of the day. The listener does not care what plugging the mastering engineer used. Nobody is ever at their favorite artist concert and yell out " why did y'all use only one brand of eqs.". No never in history has that ever happened
You make a strong case for why you don’t want to use so called analog eq, which of course, they are not. But personally I don’t love fabfilter or that style of EQ because its distracting to me. While its visually impressive in its own way, I find it aesthetically on the clinical side. I don’t feel that ‘analogue’ EQ plugins are especially right either, but the workflow is better for me. The Pultec is very easy to manipulate with a mouse although I also link it to a controller, and the SSL Native Channel, when you get used to it, is super fast because essentially you do pretty much the same thing on all tracks and only have to shift the dial a little when you know what it does. Thats what I most appreciate, I’ll typically hi pass upto 90hz, cut a few db on the low end, a couple of db on the 2.5 and then some 8k on most tracks to get the feel of what I’m after, and only if its obvious that something needs to stand out or hide more do I worry about tinkering with the detail. Different horses/courses as we say in the UK but as clumsy as ‘analogue’ plugins can be, once you learn them I find them to be more intuitive and faster to work with.
I hear you. And if you have a controller, then that changes everything; now you’ve got tactile input that’s more in-line with the original intent. At the end of the day, even though it’s probably just a standard digital parametric EQ, If you like working that way, then that’s wonderful. Great points all round, sounds like you know your kit! Cheers. 🥂
As others have said. It's about workflow. I know how to achieve what looking for with a pultec very quickly. By turning a few knobs. Instead of wasting time fiddling with Eq curves etc.
For sure, I hear you. For me, I like to do the Pultec EQ-trick with preset curves in FabFilter. Then I can adjust the Qs to further intensify the effect. But I totally get having it set to a fixed setting. A LOT to be said for that. Cheers!
I’m lucky enough to have a real Chandler Limited Curve Bender. I also have the UAD plugin. I use the hardware on mix downs and the plugin on individual tracks. The plugin is actually pretty close. I am familiar with the way it works. I also use Pro Q3 and other similar eq’s because that visual is very helpful.
Good call. I think we have to make room for professionals who are experienced with hardware. If you're used to that paradigm and response, then a well-made emulation makes so much sense. I started off in the analog world, but my career only really took off once I was in the digital world, so I do have to admit to a probably bias there. But I have spent a lot of money on analog EQs over the years, and I wanted to muse on why I don't do that anymore. Thanks for the thoughtful response-and now I want to test out the Chandler Limited Curve Bender! I've never had the pleasure. Cheers!
Thank you so much! That's "Beautifully Troubled" from my band Arkana. I'm just finishing up remixing/remastering and I'll make an announcement video when it's back up on streaming! Cheers!
I believe "analog warmth" to be snake oil so I'm definitely with you there. I also agree that modern parametric EQ plugins are able to achieve everything you need. That being said, the EQs that I always reach for first are an SSL channel strip or Pultec emulation because they generally get the sound I want faster and with less hassle. I believe everyone should use the plugins that work best for them to achieve the sound that they are after. Sure, the dude could have used a Pro-Q 3 at the end of his chain for his high shelving but he likes what's the Puigtec is doing so what's the problem?
All good points, and no, it’s not a big problem that he liked the sound of the Puigtech (although I thought there was a little bit of over-processing being done, but whatever). If you like an EQ and it works for you, then go nuts! I just find myself never reaching for analog emus, and I wanted to reflect on that. And chip away at the hype. Cheers!
My take: 1) workflow. Use the emulations a lot to get things done quicker. If you work as quick with ProQ or something like that: good for you. 2) "Bad harmonics" (aliasing) are also present in other simpler EQs. ProQ too.. that is what proper oversampling fixes (to the audible level) 3) if it sounds good it is good 4) mouse reacts to quick: settings are often capable of setting the mouse movements to NOT go crazy so you can finetune with the mouse. You sound a bit like: hey! Someone moved my cheese ;-) That said I also use a lot of ProQ and the like, but also a lot of analog emulations. Fast, works, sounds good (using reaper I have no aliasing/oversampling issues cause it does it for me properly ). But I DO agree that many buy to many expensive plugins that do little or nothing for the sound/mix! And simpler plugins will often do it as well or better if you know how to use them.
Good points, all. And why did they move my cheese??? I would say that you do not need oversampling at all for standard equalizing. You'll only hit real phase issues with huge boosts, and even then, oversampling won't address things like transient smearing. You'd be better off switching to linear phase in that case. Cheers!
I use a lot of analog hardware when I mix. I also use digital plug-ins. When I have the same of both, it’s easy to hear the difference. Sometimes the plugins offer useful sounds. But much of the time, I find that analog hardware glues the mix much better. More importantly, when I mix, the mix process is much faster when analog hardware is used.
I hear you: I miss analog gear a lot sometimes; the way you have to take more time and thought into connections and levels, and the immediacy of faders and knobs. If you have the real deal, then it's just easier to dial things in by hand, as opposed to twiddling with a mouse. It's more of a performance. Cheers! Thanks so much for watching an commenting!
@@palebluedotstudios, You are right about the highs. No offense, brother, but after hearing it again, I realize that testing it for a few seconds like this is not a good test. One may not feel it for a few seconds, but the SSL mix is much more comfortable for extended listening periods and will prevent ear fatigue, especially with earphones; thank you for the comparison; I learned a lot from you.
Very much depends. I use several hw eq's, and while i can get the curves equal, it's how the circuits respond that also make the sound. Same goes for good emulations. There are indeed quite a few vst where i have doubts. Don't get me wrong, absolute fan of Kirchoff. Then things like aliasing saturation, on my site a lot nightly builds etc. Just post them for the fun. You hear a lot of errors, and the most common is because of the idiotic time frame they are made. Aliasing might not be heared on one track, but in the mix then thru hardware and you have nasty surprises. Just eq and saturation when in the box doesn't always give the same result, these are not the only factors that make the sound. But true, at a point there are enough and there are certainly "analog emulations" that are (almost?) fraudulent. But there are also very good ones on the market. But certainly, Kirchoff or stock EQ perfect. Even when using hardware, clean digital eq is so beautiful. Anyway, my 50ct, go hybrid.... And then a last note, doing all these mock ups last year, many times to play with new gear...just to use it..the biggest problem with eq is actually using it to much... digital or hardware...or emulations...
I don’t understand this at all. To me those version with analog modeled plugins sound clearly different, they are: a) a little darker and duller b) they have a little amount of compression to them caused by modeled harmonics/saturation c) due to these two features they sound denser and thus ”sit” in the mix in a more musical way. Pro-Q is obviously clearer and more transparent, but it feels like you have to add something else to that in order to get that ”sit” in the mix.
That's fair! You clearly have good ears. An issue to look out for is phase affecting transients-but ONLY with large boosts-more modest boosts/cuts are fine. So my second example with the kick & snare would probably be where you'd hear that most. Good call! Cheers.
@@palebluedotstudios You are absolutely correct with that, I agree that transients do sound way much more articulate in those fabfilter boosts 👍 very interesting video comparing trade offs with these two approaches :)
I completely understand your point of view and it is totally valid...for audio scientists like yourself....but for simple humans that like to work with audio like me and are also on a budget....my reason for not wanting to go this way is like in a comment below mentions the workflow/ simplicity of performing the task and in the budget area let's see.... Fabfilter Pro Q3 = $169 against Waves Puigtec = $29.99. I don't know about others but I will go with the $29.99 and just turn the knobs I need than to have to go through all the science class Lol...nevertheless, awesome video and explanation.
Oh thanks! I'm so glad you enjoyed the video, even if I'm a big science nerd, haha. And I hear you! By all means, ignore any audio theory bullshit and just mix with something cheap, that you like. I mean, one of the main points I'm trying to make is: you don't even have to spend money for an EQ plugin: your DAW's stock EQ is the same as a Pultec; it's just been programmed differently. And there are plenty of great free EQs out there (TDR SlickEQ or ZL Equalizer come to mind). As always: if it works for you, it IS good! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I also understand that and I think in the end is just a matter of personal preference. By the way I don't think that your audio theory is bullshit by any means and I totally admire what you do. If I didn't find it interesting or didn't think that it is great I wouldn't have watched the whole video, which I did. I am just a mere musician that mixes his own stuff and could never compare to masters of the craft like you. Keep up the magnificent work and blessings always.
While I do agree that all Digital clones are just 1s and 0s, I do believe that the saturation and the signal flow of said saturation is partially helpful in getting a closer sound to the hardware. Also you use the Puigtec EQP 1A (and I see a lot of people use this as an example). It's a horrible example because Waves has been busted by the likes of Dan Worrall and Paul Third for it's EQ cramping and lack of sonic characteristics that make it similar to the hardware. I recently got into a heated debate with AP Mastering on this exact topic, and referenced a few videos where this is actually debunked. If you're gonna form an opinion based on one brand, I'd definitely try other brands such as Noiseash and UAD for their amazing emulations (which actually do have differences).
Well, AP Mastering is bit of a sophist. Good for you for debating him, I'm not crazy about his approach or attitude. I guess it got him some views (shrug). As for EQ plugin saturation, well, I felt like a addressed it in my video: sure, bx or SSL can add a flavour of saturation to their EQ, but...is that saturation really that special? Couldn't we add our own-with oversampling? But I'm sure many devs take the time to carefully model these non-linearities, but to me, it doesn't move the needle much for me: do you really HEAR these things across a full mix? Or does that aliasing saturation/non-linearity build up over time in your mix, and you wonder why things are not coming together like they should? Just a thought. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios very true. There is this to also take into consideration. The end user may find it easier to use something like a Pultec or 1073 in their mixes for workflow purposes rather than just sound alone. When I was at uni, I got a few of these plugins so that I was better able to utilise the hardware versions they had, which was crucial for me being visually impaired. So to put it simply I think it's just a matter of circumstance and taste. Don't get me wrong, I use Pro Q 3 a ton for more meticulous tasks, but when I need something on the fly, I tend to reach for either the UAD Pultec, BX SSL 4000 E, or the Maag EQ 2.
@@kidsonicofficial That's a very interesting point about using the plugin to aid in using the hardware with an impairment. Glad that option was available to you. All we had when I went to audio school was Pro Tools stock plugins, haha. But I did get to experience the classic hardware units in pre-digital studios.
@@palebluedotstudios thanks for checking. Yeah I love Journey. I have watched them live twice and it'll be a third as soon as the opportunity comes. How do you know?
Wow, tough topic. I think in the end it really comes down to personal preference. There's absolutely no point in telling anyone what to use and what not :D Personally I use both - I mostly rely on channel strips and/or Console 1 to get the basic mix done (which works way faster to me with actual knobs), mainly because they give you all the necessary tools in one package and can be the only thing you ever need to do a full mix. In fact I even prefer those that are a bit more limited, like only giving you a certain set of frequencies instead of the full spectrum, simply because these limitations speed up the process a lot. You dial everything in and make decisions quickly rather than endlessly looking for the perfect frequency. Once everything is done I often reach for Ozone or Neutron EQs for more surgical tasks like ironing out resonances or masking issues, which those absolutely excel at. It's a bit like using two sets of brushes to me - first the broad strokes to get the sound where you want it and then the smaller ones to define the details. There's great use cases for both and no point for me in generally preferring one over the other.
I've gotten so many comments from Console 1 users, and man, I'm sure you guys have a much more positive experience than I have-because you have a controller designed to work with these channel strips! I'm planning on picking up a Console 1 soon. I'll report back and do a review. Cheers!
What it comes down to is a trained ear, we have now so many free plugins that do a great job, at the end of the day the computer is handling '0''s and '1''s if you have a computer that can handle very high res audio comfortably and you have a good pair of pro headphones to check the audio against the speakers, your good to go.
Darn you for being so right!🤬 Plugin publishers would love to tell producers that this EQ or that will save their mixes! The important part for young producers is to train the ears. Any of our mix-gods we look up to could make a world-class mix with stock EQs if they had to. (I still have my fave knob EQs and channel strips and I'm training myself to get used to SSL's 4K strips in preparation for getting one of the UF controllers so I can mix head-down and mouseless one day soon).
Oh man, if you get that controller...that's a powerful workflow with the SSL 360 system. I do not begrudge the analog, tactile world at all, and I'm sure your mixes will benefit from that human connection. Let me know how it goes! I might have to dive in (if they'll sponsor me, lol). Cheers!
Absolutely fantastic video! Glad people like you and Dan Worrall are really shedding light on the snake oil and hype of the industry, especially the buzz words like warm, glassy etc. lol!
Thanks so much, that means a lot! After years of mixing, i’ve grown tired of those terms and just rely on getting the best recording possible, and using simple, proven mixing techniques to get a solid mix, quickly. Thanks so much for watching!
Back in 2010-2011 I mixed a lot of proyects with just Waves Qclone using my Mackie 32-8 mixer Eqs. I also used Cubase stock plugs and very few mid level outboard fxs. It sounded FUCKING AMAZING. Nowadays anyone can find a Mackie for just about 1k or even less
Wow, Waves Q Clone...I haven't thought about that plugin in yeeeaarrrrs. I remember using that for awhile, but I have to admit I got a little tired of picking EQ settings from a dropdown menu. Anyway, that does sound like a really great way of mixing. I was thinking yesterday about testing out running things through my little mixer first...see how it sounds. Think'll I'll do a video on that-stay tuned! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios back in the day I wasnt to fond with eq plugins and the ones in the Mackie mixer sounded very good, once I mixed everything throut Mackie is was kinda easy to use Qclone to save the sound in the box. It was an experiment that worked fine. Anyway right now I use only plugins
@@danyavilaoficial I like that. I experimented heavily with IR back in the day, but I find I don't use it much these days, apart from amp sims. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios since I work solely in music production, mixing and mastering for about 35 years, after all this time anyone learn that it’s all about eq curves and saturation. I started experimenting with the most basic eq plug-ins of my daw, I downloaded Burten eq curve plugin (its free) and use it to match my expensive UAD plugs. It’s really amazing how close even indistinguishable difference one over the other. My conclusion is this= in my particular case with Mackie mixer it make it easy and even fun to use the knobs while listening to get to the point. Digital eq are amazing to substract offensive frequencies. Talking about compressors I solely work in the box, in my Mackie mixing years I had 2 Alesis 3630 for parallel drums compression and that was it. Also, and this was something I discover by merely coincide, I hooked a BBE sonic maximizer in the Buss, about 10-15% processing and voilà…magic mix. I hope 🤞 this info help someone
Great! I'm not saying they're exactly the same-I never got a null-but my point is: is it really that big a difference? Is it worth paying for, and using outdated architecture? But as always, if it works for you, that is totally cool. Cheers!
I'll make it simple... people making a living at mixing don't need to buy gear unless it's a industry expected ... people that don't make a living at mixing need something need to feel they are doing something... buying plugin ins is one of those things...
You make a good point there. Even as a professional, I find myself getting in modes of ennui where I'm looking for a "solution" or some endorphine, instead of using my skills and established effects. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I think you're missing the point... not all people will be professionals... that's called reality... but people still want to keep the dream alive... so they need to at least pretend ... buying a new whatever helps them get through the day without blowing their brains out...
Thanks for bringing that up. I didn't specifically mention phase in this video, because I was trying to focus on listening alone. Every EQ adds phase, and sure: some EQ phases are different-but do we really hear that across many tracks in a mix? I'm not convinced. But this is definitely a worthy subject that I think I may tackle in part 3...stay tuned...cheers!
Pale Blue you do realise I have left you a very intelligently-profound comment. Please recognise it, and read it so that I don't think that you're a charlatan. I thank you in advance.
Hey there! Which comment do you mean? I missed a few, I wasn't getting email notifications. I assure you I am not a charlatan! Just an old audio engineer. :)
@@palebluedotstudios Not an old engineer, "genius". I'm one who has studied the game meticulously; that's all, friend-o. Sort via "Sort by" Newest first, and then go back 8-9 days, and then you should see it.
I agree, you only really need one versatile eq to do any mix, and stock eq of your daw would also work. In the recent time I don't bother with different eq's, because using something like Q3 is very fast. But I also think there are reasons to have some other eq's, and why I use them from time to time. The most differing factor for me is the UI / band freq and curves selection. Sometimes you want to do some basic eq on a common instument, like a kick drum, and for example ssl style eq is convenient, because the bands are right where I want them to be. Or you want to add top and bottom, it's very easy to use pultec style eq. But you certanely don't need them, and with time I use them less and less. The second reason is eq curves. There are some 'analog modeling' eq's, that freature very wide filters, that will be difficult to replicate with pro q 3, you would need several bands, and it will look unnatural (so you probably won't try to make them). But they sound great in some cases, like on groups and master. So I think that's a good idea to have an eq in this style. And the third reason - all digital eq's sound very close to each other, but not exactly. And if you are something like a mastering engineer, it's a good idea to compare the best digital eq's and choose what do you think sounds best (If you could hear the difference). I tried, found that I like Crave eq in transparent phase mode 3% better than fabfilter. But for me I value the convinience and speed more, so I choose the latter. So in conclusion I use something that sounds good (which are most eq's really) but most importantly the fastest to work with.
I see the good modelers more like amp simulators (same goes for mic emulation). I use these for a familiar sound…like reaching for a Strat & Marshal to sound like Hendrix. Sometimes I’d rather make these modelers work even when Fabfilter might be better, simply because I want to tip my hat to certain eras.
Right, so it's like a stylistic choice. Amp sims and mic emulators are a different beast, but if that keeps you in the zone, then that's great! Cheers!
Naw, its not that you shouldn't, but just knowing when you should, and why. Most wont make much difference, some will, and even then only in certain situations.
Very true. Again, if someone just LOVES their analog EQ emu for workflow, etc, I won't deny that. But knowing your trade is the most important thing. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios Naw, again, lol. Not bashing. The tools, and ones selection of tools, is just as "important" and equal to any knowledge in the trade. In fact proper tool choice will directly effect the quality of the end result, regardless of any amount of "knowledge" Its also what usually separates the common hacks in the trade from the tradesman. Now this is in general, to all trades, and not specific to the analog eq emu. vid.
Glad to hear it! Cubase was the first DAW to have EQ on every channel, blew my MIND back in 1999! I tend to use it a bit less these days, only because it's too easy to make big, excessive moves in that small window. But I still use it a lot, especially for quick shelving. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios recently i have tryed to test their new online mastering and i was declined with explanation that their group has sanctioned my country even we are not officaly under any economic or political sanctions. I have googl it and i have find out that their users cant use plugins when they travel in countrys that are sanctioned by their group.
a commercial that spends time tearing down other products is just a commercial for a bad product.. spend the energy HIGHLIGHTING the product you're trying to sell
YT keeps recommending these EQ videos... I took the time in 2020 when everything was shut down, downloaded as many demos of EQs as possible and spent hours and hours nulling plugin EQs. My conclusion and opinion...EQs boil down to 2 things: Workflow, and whether they are serial or parallel. Any Detla between EQs required turning my monitor controller nearly all the way up to maximum volume. To each their own. If people want to spend money on plugins--more power to them! I tell ya, the level of "Audiophile" mentality that is now prevalent in the "pro" audio community (especially at the purple place) is just mind boggling, along with confirmation bias.
I hear you. I certainly do not want to come across as a snobby audiophile. I mean, I care about details, but I essentially want to interrogate why I don't care about analog EQ emulations anymore. They were like GOLD back in the 00s, I desperately wanted a better, more analog, more PRO EQ, but I've grown out of it. But if someone enjoys buying them, then it's fine! I just want to remind everyone that you can get to a good mix with standard fare. Cheers!
Ozone is amazing and has been a game changer for me. I use it on everything from mixes to radio broadcasting etc etc. I agree it feels and works like it was built for the digital age.
I put it off for too long! I used to stockpile EQs as well, but now I’m just kinda over it, you know? You just need tools to carve out space in a mix, and I don’t see a big difference between an SSL shelf and a stock EQ shelf @6dB, when it comes down to it. Cheers!
Exactly my doubts about plugins in general these days, and then the analog fans review them wearing headphones and telling you not to wear headphones while mixing. In short, it's a world of hypes and it's hard to pull yourself out of it. We all also like shiny diamonds.
I came to the same conclusion quite some time ago as most of the plugin market is snake oil aside from some of the utility products. Fab Filter Pro Q3 or the like is all you need. Queue it up in Plugin Doctor to match the curves, send the signal as an effect to Saturn 2 for saturation of "analog vibe" and Bob's your uncle. I would say get the UAD Pultec dirt cheap just because and that takes care of everything just be aware of the 2 db volume boost and dial it back. I agree about channel strips to a degree. I only use two by SSL since I have their control surface.
Thanks for sharing. For me, the video is a little bit biased and lacks some perspective and balance. Here’s why : you encourage the use of plugins like Ozone and Kirchoff but they both try to replicate guess what ? Analog EQ curves (Baxandall, Pultec, Neve, etc). There’s a reason. And this is kind of funny and ironic. You also don’t talk about the workflow advantage (you only talk about the disadvantages of some GUI). To replicate some analog EQ curves, you can have a hard time with a digital EQ. For example, You’ll have to use two or three nodes to make what you can do with a single knob in a Pultec. This is where some good analog EQ can speed your workflow. That said, i can see your point : there’s a lot of marketing and hype in the industry and sometimes, it is good to know you can have some very good results with just your digital tools. Totally true. Thanks.
Great points! I definitely take that on board, and I've heard a similar sentiment from many viewers who want to quickly grab that classic EQ curve that they know and love-and that's fine! What I will counter with is this: yes, I do have to fiddle with 3 EQ filters to approximate the Puigtech, but that's what is already going on in the background to make that Pultec shape. I have to physically add nodes to make that shape with my parametric EQ, but the programmers match the original shapes with their filters, then just assign all that to one control. It's still stylized ones and zeroes. I doubt there's anything particularly special about some of these filters, although many viewers have pushed back on phase and stereo image (although I didn't see much to extoll in my tests), and I think I will follow up this video soon. Thanks for this thought-provoking post! Please stick around and keep watching/commenting! Cheers.
Great to read both comment and reply here! Essentially either one/multi knob analogue with hidden additional processing or a more complex eq display without hidden processing
In essence EQ uses phase to manipulate frequencies, good luck replicating that and the phase relations between bands. In practical terms you would be spending all your time replicating curves and phase relation instead of mixing. SOLUTION: You could try memorize all band and phase curves of all analog EQs.
So you’re saying you should be familiar with the phase of your track EQ? Not a bad idea. And you’re right; I didn’t speak about phase much in my video, because I want to rely on mostly good old listening. Cheers!
Well, you only have to (re)create something once, and then you save it as a macro or multiparameter, or whatever you tools call it. Phase relations between bands IS the eq curve.
Whatever. I won't buy ridiculously expensive plugins. But there is a ridiculously good analog style plugins... EQ included... That are great for workflow and get you the sound you want that you know how to use and just work
Simply put: if it works for you, it IS good, and don't listen to me. I just wanted to question if there really is any difference across a mix between EQ plugins, if you're doing just what's needed to do to get a good mix. Thanks for your thoughts!
@@palebluedotstudios I totally agree with that. And I appreciate you steering people away from, greedy, shadily marketed, overly hyped... Plug-in developers They want to sell you the secret sauce for $$$$.... But that doesn't mean I'll developers are like that.... There's some great really inexpensive plugins... Hello there's some great free or patreon supported developers... Like analog obsession or Chris from Airwindows. NAM Is an incredible open source machine learning amp sim. If you know what you're doing with EQ and saturation you certainly don't need an analog EQ plug-in.... But there definitely some that really work for many people... Did I certainly do not consider a ripoff
@@ramspencer5492 Yes, I want to be clear: I don't consider plugin developers to be ripoff artists (I'm not that Mastering guy who's yelling at everyone!). Love AirWindows and Analog Obsession! You don't have to spend a lot of money on analog modelling anymore, which is cool.
You shouldn't buy them becaus Analog Obsessions has a ton for free, and they're (IMO) better and more suitable to working in a modern DAW than most paid analog emulations.
I think the waves plugins are ass, so seeing the aliasing is no surprise to me. There are other reasons to get better analog eqs like the ones from make believe studios, tone projects, or some of the UAD ones. Sure you could sit there and set up the bells to match in proq3 while looking at plugin dr, Pull up a similar distortion, and build it out from there, but sometimes you just want to have something to pull up and just use without thinking about it.
Yes, it definitely is a matter of taste. For me, I kind of prefer "rolling my own" Pultec push/pull filters, but to each their own. Funny, in my last video about analog compressors, I feel like you do: I like how simple they are, and I know what to expect from, say, and 1176 clone. But I think EQ and compressor modelling are different beasts. Cheers!
I do think that is an advantage of an eq like the kirchhoff. At the end of the day it's about dsp resource management while balancing sound quality and ease of use. I should also say part of the sound quality thing for me is matching the era the music is trying to evoke, and with some genres the lack of precision is a plus. As a side note I wish computer keyboards came standard with a row of knobs and a big fader, because I also agree the interface issue is a problem.
@@JazzyFizzleDrummers Matching the era is important, and lack of precision is welcome too! I tried to advocate for limitations, and I tend to use even Pro-Q simply. But that's the cool thing about Kirchoff: it's got those analog models as presets, if you really need them. Kirchoff is on my to-get list for sure. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I like it more than I thought I would. It totally saved some dead toms with the dynamic eq. Having that in the same spot as the analog stuff is a major plus. My only gripe is that it is fairly cpu intensive when you are fullu taking advantage of its features
What do you think, everyone? I'm sure everyone has their fave analog EQs! I just wonder how much we can really hear the difference in a mix with good mixing practices? Let me know what you think below!
I agree. When it comes to EQ I’ve never been able to really tell a difference. Stock Live EQs, Fab Filter’s, and Ozone’s are the only ones I use.
@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf Perfect. Yeah, the only thing I use different are specialized EQs, like Smart EQ, etc.
@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf Ozone has a bit smoother and fuller sounding mids and highs than Pro-Q3. If you use it on a mix bus you'll be able to tell the difference. Ozone sounds more similar to linear phase mode in Pro-Q3 (more solid, smoother, feels like there's more low mid focus on a sound). It's a mild difference but it's there. On individual tracks it won't matter as much and you can use whatever you want but on the mix bus there's a reason to use Ozone eq if you want a bit more low mid focus in a sound and high end smoothness.
Thanks for sharing your in depth and technical opinion, Hubert! Have a great weekend, all.
@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf Hubert! Thanks for watching! Cheers
I’m somewhere in the middle on this. I fully agree that you can use plugin doctor to match eq curves and no one can tell the difference. And the clean digital version will be preferable over some Waves aliasing mess.
However, I would never spend that time in a mix to stick a Pultec and Q3 into plugin doctor to match in the first place. If I want a Pultec smile on my 2 bus (well I have the hardware, but I digress) I’ll add the UAD and move on to the next thing. If I hear a resonance poking in the guitar track I’ll grab Q3 and clean it up. Sometimes the “color” EQs are less about the technical aspects and more about a feeling you get by using it. Sometimes it’s okay to trick your brain into thinking it’s working on an old API 550b because it sets a creative mood.
To me, the real comparisons shouldn’t be “can you tell which is the Pultec vs the matched curve” but instead: do a full mix with only analog emulation style EQs, and without referencing, make another mix with only digital parametric. Then see if your decision making was any different
I like that idea. I may follow up with a dual-mix like that. Or maybe that would be a good livestream; do the mix in real-time. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios Yes the idea is that analog emulations give you a different working process that changes the way you do mixing.
Honestly I don't share your view here. It's not just about the sound, it's also about the workflow. If I choose to go with an AMEK 200 style EQ, I get a features both visual and in terms of resolution to achieve a specific goal. Some EQs feature more specific curves and styles of behaviour like the SPL stereo vitaliser. Also I honestly have never seen somebody have such conservative track EQ. If I need more click on a kick, I regularly boost 3k like 7dB, or if you need some really nice high end boost 20k on a vocal 15dB easy - those kind of moves don't sound good on any EQ, although they do sound good on digital EQs like the fab filter, but especially when doing larger moves the analog modeling aspect of the tool can really change the outcome.
I agree. I still use Waves SSL E-Channel because of the workflow (and it doesn't hurt that it uses essentially 0 cpu power). The frequency bands, default Q settings and Q behavior through boosts and cuts were developed and perfected by great electronic engineers over decades to be musical. Digital EQs, especially ones with frequency analyzers, have an effect how how you choose to process things. And to your comment about how conservative the EQ curves shown in the video were, it's almost like some people are scared to turn the virtual knob.
That’s a good point, and I did try to mention that I will go with bigger EQ moves on things like drums, but I find myself doing less EQ these days. I will say I’d be reluctant to add 15dB @20k…you can also get a brighter vocal by rolling off high end, without raising the noise floor.
I’m actually moving more into using just shelving filters first to roll off highs or lows to make room, then reaching for bells when I need more. It’s liberating! Cheers! Thanks for commenting.
@@palebluedotstudios yeah sure there are many ways to achieve similar goals it depends. I mean 15dB is quite extreme but if singer is not that close to the mic and the signal is clean, and you're going into a compressor with a strongly emphasised high end, youre gonna get a very satisfying compression curve a lot of the time
@@joost3783 I hear you. Not uncommon to have big boosts on your lead vocal. Like I said in my video, I prefer exciters if I'm going for a really bright vocal, but man: if it sounds good, is IS good! haha. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios you meant rolling of low end for a brighter vocal. Great video btw. I had the plugin addiction for a while but would go to ReaEq stock plugin because it just works. The GUI is what fools us. It's more fun to look at beautiful plugins with knobs and believe you're adding something "special". It feels like owning gear. I have to say that there are differences in character between channel strips because of the saturation and/or non-linearities but, in the end, nobody will ask you what plugin you used on that sweet kick.
Still enjoy the workflow of console1. I’m definitely enjoying that they did add fabfilter compatibility.
Console 1 is a totally different beast that obviates my argument: you're working with a controller that gives you the tactile input that these analog EQs were designed for. Or any plugin! You could probably mix with your eyes closed for awhile, so that's great (actually kinda envious, haha). Thanks so much for watching! Cheers.
The music test ! first one was tiny and bright ! 2nd one sounded more tamed down and not tiny and harsh brightness, was i right ? 5:30 6:01 but i find the first more clear and open compared to the 2nd 5:30 seemed like CD and 6:01 sounded like cassette tape ! Now I'm starting to think the other way around i don't know ? because i heard good tape compression recordings to digital recordings so ? beside's i still own 4 track recorder's so i know the difference between playing tape and a sample from my Roland vs-2480
True fact: it's been awhile, and I've forgotten which is which, haha. I believe FabFilter is the 2nd one. Let me check on that...
@@palebluedotstudios LOL ! no worries thats funny ! not that its going to make a difference anyway today HA-HA ! music is dead apparently now ? But i will always still make it regardless ! if you were interested in hearing one of my songs ? i let Sina drums use her drumming skills a while back she did great ! ua-cam.com/video/n14l7ZLeM0E/v-deo.html
Several of my singles are in the radio and I use the in the meantime free Tone Booster EQ v3. I paid 20 Euro many years ago for it being part of a bundle. I have several analog emulations, but it's the one I use the most
Toneboosters RULES. Hands-down one of the most underrated developers out there. Plus you get endless demos! I should profile them soon. Cheers!
Genius! I came to this conclusion too. After a long time and a lot of money spent on plugins, I've decided my only two EQ plugins are Pro-Q 3 and Wavesfactory Spectre, which I use when I need to add colour or saturation. I'm now in the process of reducing my plugins list. This video really helps me go even further!
About the SSL console plugins, I think it only makes sense to use them if you have the plugin controller, so you end up using a lot of muscle memory and have a very fast workflow.
Thanks for the great content, as usual.
Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed it. I totally agree: I think the more experienced we get, the less we're looking for that elusive "cool" solution, and we realize mixing is mostly about...volume, which is all EQ really is at the end of the day.
And I agree about the SSL notion: all my complaints about analog-modelled GUIs go out the window when you have a controller in the picture. Then we're moving away from the mouse/keyboard paradigm that most of us operate under. Great point! Cheers!
Spectre is NOT an eq plugin, you are not eqing at all, you are adding frequency specific saturation..
@@BeridotSegas I don't recall mentioning Spectre, but you're correct.
@@BeridotSegas Yes, I know exactly what Spectre does. That's why I said that I use it only when I need to add color/saturation. I still have it in my EQ folder and use it with the same concept as additive EQ.
I think the first one was the digital eq, the second one the analog plugin one. Most likely because I'm listening through laptop speakers. I can hear more body on the low end from B, usually brought by the saturation and phasing of the analog emulation. I might be wrong, but A and B sound different. And I chose to not put my headphones on, exactly because I wanted to see if I could see differences from consumer speakers, the ones where 90% of the population will hear your mix.
In any case, it is important to consider though that two digital filter are not the same as two analog ones are not (even just considering the type and not going into the components or settings used). It is not only about curves with EQs since you are using filters... so even if you can recreate the curve it does not mean that you recreated the plugin response, as you are not considering the different phasing introduced by the filter and how it behaves on the harmonics...
I do agree that sometimes it is only graphic, but not always and that is what makes some plug-ins stand out in a sea of analog emulations. But even if it was just graphic or limitation in how you can shape the curve, it is important to consider that this will make an impact on the decision you make. So, even if two filter are identical in response, one digital with endless possibilities, one with an analog emulating interface with limited decisions, everybody would mix totally different the same instrument, for best and worst, sometimes being constrained allows you to make better and faster decisions.
Yep, you got the A/B right. Good call. And I agree: when you take in things like phase, they EQs will sound different. Enough to really change a mix? I don't know. I think I'll follow this up from a phase-based angle. Stay tuned. Thanks so much for watching and commenting! Cheers.
A phase video would be great since kick drum vs bass timing seems not to be part of this video “mix”. And a saturation video would be great since some vst instruments would benefit from saturation, but using what tool(s) and at what workflow costs?
I spent years working with algorithmic EQs, started producing and mixing in the early 2000. I couldn't get the sound I wanted and I spent hours and hours trying. Every little change on a digital EQ would shift the phase and I could hear it. I annoyed me a lot and I did not even know why back then. Phase shift is the real problem with algorithmic EQs (not the curves), so they need to be used surgically (narrow bands, small db changes) and as little as possible. My dad had a modular hi-fi and whenever I used the EQ on the preamp I was blown away. I could not understand why it sounded so musical. Every change I would made it sounded good! Then I started investigating more and learnt about phase shifts, linear EQs etc. My problem was eventually solved by using convolution EQs for broad changes, shaping the sound generally and then using an algorithmic EQ to do surgical changes. This approach reduces phase shits and artifacts and it is as close to hardware EQs which don't suffer from the same problems as algorithmic EQs. However, this does not always apply to time based plugins. Algorithmic compressors/limiters/clippers are more accurate than convolution emulations and are easier to use. There is no reason to use convolution emus on time based plugins like compressors or delays. For reverbs it does make a difference and I again find convolution emu reverbs superior, they sound more natural and less harsh. One point I agree though is that we are being served the same plugins with different clothes. So, fewer plugins, knowing them well is far more important than anything else.
Mmm, good points. I want to do a deeper dive on phase, and the things you discussed. I'm curious what you use for convolution EQ? I assume Acustica, but Waves Q-Clone is the only other one that comes to mind, which I found pretty clunky.
Acustica's Opal (although it is a mastering EQ and consumes a lot of CPU) is a favorite of mine. AA Salt is also top and probably the best choice for tracking as it is modeled after 3 very popular consoles and you can mix and match parameters. Most importantly Salt is highly CPU optimized. Again, I do use convolution EQs in combination with algorithmic EQs (Pro Q3) the way i described it above. You don't need a ton of plugins, just a couple and know their sonic characteristics well. Another important thing is that I use the EQs with a hardware controller that is always linked from the get-go when loading the plugin, so the experience is as close to using a console. I am using the MP Controller from MP MIDI
I could agree in the case of "algorithmic" eqs, but what about convolution? Not only what the eq does in terms of frequency response, but some of those models have an effect in terms of imaging and "size". Have you tried boosting the highs in Acustica Audio´s Azure, and doing the same in Fabfilter? I partially agree in the merchandising and hype thing about channel strips, "analog" (not so analog) eqs and all that in general, being the convolution a domain which, in my opinion, remains different.
I generally avoid Acustica because I found them buggy and heavy as hell, but that was many years ago. So you're talking about stereo imaging and/or phase? Acustica is interesting because they use that proprietary dynamic-convolution tech...I'll have to test them out again. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I guess the term is something between imaging and depth, unfortunately my english is quite fuzzy so I can´t express myself correctly. I mean, this happens also with actual analog units; for instance, I use a Tegeler Creme RC for my bus compression and, as soon as you insert it, you notice your sound gets "bigger", spatially and also in terms of depth, though I can´t say what physical magnitude is utterly responsible for this effect. Some Acustica Audio plugins have the same effect for me
@@rodericogarcia Your english is perfect! Yes, that makes perfect sense! Now I'm really curious about Acustica. I should really dive back in with them, do some reviews. Thanks for your advice!
@@palebluedotstudios please do, cause I ditched them also because of buggy plugins and WAY to much CPU use.
@@HR2635 I got it on my idea list! Cheers!
For EQs I think how quickly can I dial in a desired sound. I think you underestimate how important pulling up a vst and turning one knob to achieve your results is vs loading a blank slate and considering bandwith and curve shape etc. The fact one can replicate the other is irrelevant. For people who use controllers, the standardised surface mappings will be much simpler and more immediate with the analog vsts vs q3
Great point, and I agree. If you get a controller like Console 1 that works seamlessly with analog-modelled controls, then that obviates at least one of my objections! Cheers.
At best I use "analog" emulations as a "preset". Since with the pultec e.g. the Q's and freq is already set it saves me some time by just adjusting the boost/dip. Worth the money? Not sure about that but some are harder to replicate like the Knif Audio Soma eq.
True. Some of those models are impossible to match perfectly, so you’d need to take time to make them. For me, I found I simply moved on to doing all my own EQ-ing, and I can do the “Push/Pull” trick easily on any EQ. Cheers!
it seems like we want to know what analog saturation we might rely on digitally cause you couldn't find any that can get that analog. great subjects to discuss
Agreed. Cheers, thanks so much for watching!
I'm curious as to the answer to the A/B you did as see no-one else has mentioned it - The first (A) has more heft on the kick and the snare transients seem slightly softened so I would guess it is the SSL?
(A) was the Pro-Q! I really liked the kick on that one too (so much for small EQ moves, haha).
@@palebluedotstudios Ah okay, I don't have either plugin so it was a guess as the SSL's usually have that bit of saturation. Definitely prefer A in this instance though.
I love blindtests and do a lot myself especially when demoing (NuGen AB Assist 2/HOFA Blindtest + Letimix GainMatch) which is why I was interested. Most interesting was once between Pro-Q, Kirchhoff, EQ4, Weiss and SlickEQ M - after a while I was able to reliably tell which was which, but think I may have had an aneurysm in the process haha It has also saved me a fortune in new plugins over the years.
I do use the Hammerstein in PD though when comparing curves/curve-matching anything with harmonics or non-linearities as the Linear can actually be totally out which obviously then really skews any tests. Found that out quite recently when I was looking at preamp emulations - some showed quite interesting curves, when in actuality they were totally flat and it was the harmonics skewing the test.
@@Lewis_Emblack I love blindtests too! Haha. Yeah, if the plugin has non-linearities, then you'll see a more dynamic curve, making matching trickier or impossible. Question: what's "Hammerstein in PD"? 🤔
@@palebluedotstudios I meant the Hammerstein tab in Plugin Doctor which shows up to 7th order harmonics across frequencies/amplitude as opposed to the total amplitude and number of harmonics on the HarmonicAnalysis tab. It is essentially the same as the LinearAnalysis tab but also showing the curves of the harmonics. If you were to match a linear EQ with the fundamental of a coloured emulation (I always zoom in so the scales are the same as the other tab to make it easier) you will have an accurate representation of the differences as opposed to potentially boosting the linear more to compensate for the added saturation as you would in the LinearAnalysis. It is interesting that you can tell which have actually modelled the transformers too as those will have the prominent 3rd which will also usually be higher in the lower frequencies, hence the "warmth" that transformers provide. I never see people using the Hammerstein tab on here which I can only assume is due to there not being much in the way of resources explaining what you are looking at, but it makes the differences between linear and coloured/emulated EQ's a lot more obvious when accurately matched.
*edit* Obviously the LinearAnalysis is perfectly fine with "emulated" EQ's that are just the curves like some of the Waves, Kirchhoff, IK EQual, etc. and also those you can disable the "analog", "THD" or "pres" of, such as Acustica and some of the Plugin Alliance EQ's. Personally, if possible I prefer turning them off, matching in Linear, and turning back on for listening tests, but for the ones I can't get totally clean the Hammerstein or Fundamental Sweep setting in HarmonicAnalysis is the way to go.
(Apologies if you knew all of this and were just querying the abbreviation, but had my nerd hat on haha)
I like using Console 1 eqs like BCA or SSL 9k for example because they impart some nice sounding saturation depending on which band you use and also the bands interaction makes it way faster to achieve the sound you want. BCA sounds very crispy whike 9k is more mellow, darker (adds less harmonics). Also the Q behaviour is very different than a standard digital eq. If you boost more with 9k it becomes narrower so you get more of the exact frequency you was aiming for while BCA changes the eq shape when you change the frequency without doing anything with the gain of that band. It lets you add or subtract mids or change the presence boost from highs mids to highs or air frequencies very easily once you get used to it. It's a muscle memory with a hardware controller and a very specific sound you get that way. When I'm mixing with something like Pro-Q3 I have setup the default preset into 4 bands - 2 wide shelves and 2 very wide bell filters (0.5Q for bells and 0.3Q for shelves) but actually it takes me more time to find the proper setting. Boosting highs on for example on BCA reduces some lows at the same time so you get results quicker. Also the sound of low mid boost on 9k has a certain character which I can't get with any other plugin. Pro-Q3 sounds clean and warm/a bit dull on the high end so usually you need to add another plugin to compensate for the lack of any saturation to smooth out the sound and make it a bit richer. Mixing with something that already adds some saturation makes you use less plugins and keep your project looking cleaner and is faster to get to the finish line. That's my 2 cents. But I like the sound of Pro-Q3 and now I use it more for fixing some specific narrow resonances (when something audibly sticks out and I can't fix it with a normal tone-shaping eq). But I could mix only with Pro-Q3 also without a problem. I just chose to use emulations because I get results faster
That's really interesting. So I'm genuinely curious: if you inserted a standard EQ and boosted 6dB @9k, then inserted BCA or SSL with the same setting, you'd say it's noticeably more crispy or darker? I might try this out myself.
@@palebluedotstudios in both cases it would be crispier sounding on C1 eqs but way more on BCA than SSL 9k. But BCA doesn't have 9k, it has 7.2k bell or 10k shelf
@@huberttorzewski I'd have to try it out.
You're absolutely right! It's just that sometimes we are attracted to beautiful buttons and twirlers :-) But, I did not hear the name of the equalizer at the end of your video. You said "... I would take it better FabFilter Pro Q3 or Ozone or ..." What is the third one? Thanks!
Kirchhoff-EQ
@@GavaskarAvinash Oh! Yes! 👍
Thanks!
I personally use TDR Nova GE
@@nedring987 Always a great choice. Love the resonance tools on that!
I'll briefly take your clickbait!
The "Why I Don't..." is fine, the "... and You Shouldn't Either" is B.S.
Like your previous 'I hate channel-strips' video, you seem to be insisting on presenting your preference as objective reality.
My perspective is this:
To me, Mixing is a performance, as much art as science.
The Analog Console was an Instrument for that performance.
While the computer can re-create the sound and function of nearly Everything we can hear coming out of speakers, nobody is telling the Concert Pianist that she's stupid for not just using a Midi Keyboard, or worse yet a Mouse.
If you've ever Played an SSL, API, or Neve, with the same set of multitracks you would end up with very different mixes, just due to the Instrument that you mixed it on.
Today, Everyone has access to those instruments, or Emulations of them, and can Perform on whichever they choose, without the six-figure price tag. Or they can use stock plugins if that's how they approach music.
Not only do each of the emulations Sound different, they were all Designed with a different Workflow and mixing philosophy in mind. Neve and API have Fixed Frequencies in their EQs, CHOSEN for specific reasons, SSLs are fully Parametric allowing much more freedom, but they all have Finite functionality, and again, an intended use and workflow.
There are obviously no Magic Ones & Zeros. Every 'Analog Emulation' is happening within the digital domain.
But the whole point is that these Emulations will react to your input as the DUT would have.
And while in many ways that is Limiting the Unlimited possibilities within the digital domain, it isn't Arbitrarily Handicapping yourself so much as using Rupert Neve's judgment to guide you along the journey.
Does anyone NEED analog emulations or channel strips?
Of course not.
But you also don't Need to be making music.
You could use that mouse and keyboard to produce a spreadsheet.
Or another UA-cam video.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I will say that I do not intend to present my subjective experience as objective. One could argue that nulling EQs is objective, but I wasn't even going for a full null with this video. My main question was: can you really tell the difference in a full mix, if you're following good mixing practices?
But I do really take your point on how API, et al., are designed with much careful intention. And look: if you or anyone enjoys using them-who am I to judge that? I'm all for it. This is based off my personal experience, and I do want younger viewers to maybe think twice before shelling out money for an analog EQ plugin, when it may not be necessary.
Thanks so much for watching and commenting! Cheers.
While I don't disagree broadly, the aliasing bit was a weird inclusion. Just use an analog-modelled EQ with proper oversampling so that it doesn't alias. You said you could just use your own saturator after the EQ, but then you'll get aliasing from that too if you don't use one with oversampling.
That's a good point: I didn't mention oversampling when i suggested "use your own saturation", and I think what was implicit in my point was: "you can choose your own favourite saturation that has options like oversampling, so you can still mix at 48k and not worry about aliasing". You could also choose to mix at 96k or higher; not as much of a burden these days. Great point! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios Isn't this 96k/oversampling also useless? Would you ever hear the difference in a mix?
@@tangente00 That's a good question. I would say "yes", if there's a lot of aliasing going on. It can be hard to put your finger on, but you'd hit that point where you're like "why is it getting so hard for instruments to stand out?", because frequency masking is building up, due to aliased content filtering back in. But, I should do a test one day. Great idea for a video! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios Would love to see such a test.
@@tangente00 Duly noted! Adding to my idea list!
Each person has his own handwriting (with which he writes with a pen on paper). Imagine that you buy a different pen and your handwriting becomes different. There are as many pens as there are handwritings that you can choose depending on your mood. This is exactly what happens with plug-ins that emulate analog devices. Can the Pro Q3 be set to sound like an analog EQ? - I think so. But is it easy and quick to do it? I think not (like learning to write in a different handwriting). Moreover, how will you be able to turn up the sound like the Neve1073, if you don't have this plug-in? With what will you compare? And if you already have a Neve1073, why waste time playing it with the Pro Q3?
That's an interesting analogy and point. We are lucky that we live in an ear where all these emulations are readily available-there a free and paid Neve clones, and you can download demos, if one wishes to copy-but I see the more realistic point: why spend hours painstakingly modelling an EQ in Pro-Q when you can reach for one that does it already? And that's valid. For me, and what I was trying to demonstrate with the video is that: even without trying to carefully match the EQ curves or high and low rolloffs of the emu EQs, I didn't hear an amazing difference between a digital EQ or a modelled one. Nothing that would really affect a mix in the long run. But since I'm aware of things like the Pultec push-pull trick, that's easy to set up in any EQ. But if you really like certain filters that are already set up on a Neve clone, then it's all good: it's something that doesn't stand in the way of achieving a mix. Cheers1
@@palebluedotstudios I totally understand what you're talking about. And it's not the first time I've seen such videos. But, using this logic, you can make a video, for example, about the fact that you should not buy and use any compressor at all, because with the help of volume automation you can achieve the same result :) (and it's true!) It's a matter of time.
And equalizers are really very different. I advise you to investigate, for example, Manley Massive Passive EQ: what happens there when the upper shelf is raised (at some point, the middle frequencies begin to decrease). When using the Pro Q3, you may simply not come up with such a combination yourself. Development engineers once spent a lot of time to save you that time.
I use digital EQs and analog emulations also.
My favorite EQs are the Fab Filter Pro-Q3, Universal Audio Pultec EQP-1A, and the Eventide Split EQ.
Split EQ and Pro-Q3 are almost always going to be expensive (around 150) unless you get them on Black Friday, and they’re worth every dime. The Pultec you can usually find pretty cheap, like around 30-50.
The variances in the 2 types of EQ will manifest mostly in recorded material and not some test tone being fed into a computer.
My ears tell me what sounds right not some science box spitting out values. Use what works for you.
Thanks for the video.
Oh yes, in the end: please ignore all science and use what you enjoy, and what leads to great mixes! It's just in my nature: I like to question the foundations. Cheers!
Only 2 I care to use are carve EQ and or fab Q. the emu's just limit for no good reason or add something I didn't ask for. which is a pain when dealing with tonal balance.
It's all a headache for precision
I agree. I’d rather add my own mojo, if desired. Cheers!
Why do these standard eq tests vs analog emulatuons never talk about the harmonic distortion? Thats my main reason for using these.
He covers that later in the video
Is it? I'm curious why. The harmonic distortion-if it's there at all-is very, very quiet, and might actually be introducing bad harmonics into the signal, unless you're using oversampling or a high sample rate. Personally, I prefer to add my own saturation. Cheers!
you can sidechain dynamic bands in a proq3 too which is the final nail for other eq aside from stuff like smart eq4
Great call! It’s almost impossible to list all the features of Pro-Q! I’ve been using it for 10 Years and I’m still learning tricks. Great suggestion. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios if people are curious as to how to do it you set the sidechain just as you would for a compressor or anything else. inside of proq3 setting a band that isnt a cut to dynamic will unlock the gain knov for it. click the auto button above it then click the sidechain icon to the top right of the gain knob once it appears. now that band is running on the sidechain as a trigger
let me know if i made any mistakes explaining it
@@machinemademan Thanks for the detailed instructions! One thing that bugs me about Pro-Q is how tiny and hidden some of those controls are. But a minor concern.
@@palebluedotstudios id have gone my whole life without finding it if it weren't for some random tutorial i was watching about something totally unrelated. i have not seen it mentioned ever anywhere
My sense (and experience) is that it depends a lot on who makes it/how they create them. If there are emulations out there for preamps, transformers, output amplifiers, and other (ideally transparent?) stages of a hardware box's signal chain, it stands to reason that a good programmer would build similar variances and design peculiarities into a proper emulation. EQs don't all sound the same, and thank golly they don't all look the same - I'm with those who mentioned workflow as well. Thank you for the video.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments! I think, if the developers meticulously model the entire path, then there may be small nuances that circulate through the whole mix. But then again, if they're using saturation, and you're mixing at, say, 48k, then you're guaranteed getting enharmonic content in your mix. Presumably at very small levels, but we're talking about small differences here. So I find that intriguing too. Mostly, i just need any decent EQ to clear room for instruments in the mix, at this point. Cheers! Thanks for your comments and watching!
Good video! I'm the opposite where I still use analog style EQs because I like the workflow, but I saw a video once-it was one of those where a real life doctor talks about medical scenes in films and TV shows, and while talking about the movie Dead Ringers, she mentioned that it's common for surgeons to have instruments custom made to fit their hands-and that's how I feel about any discourse about whether people should use analog or digital style EQs: it's whatever fits in your hand.
Though, for a beginner looking for the analog workflow, I would recommend free stuff like Analog Obsession over paying a bunch of moneys.
Thanks! I love the Dead Ringer analogy (Cronenberg rules)! Yeah, that's a really good point; I like that. My brother said exactly what you said: he likes the workflow, and I would never attack that. And my video is mostly from my perspective, while also guarding younger musicians from spending too much on gimmicky analog stuff before learning their craft-as you point out! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I noticed you were Canadian, so I hoped you might appreciate a Cronenberg reference. 😁 To expound a bit, I saw a video just today that articulated something else I've noticed, it's by Heron Island Studio called "Why Multiple Console Plugins are Essential for 21st Century Mixing," and it's by older guy who came up in the analog world showing how the limitations of console channel strips and their sonic signatures guide one, as a mixer, to subtly different sounds. And it's nothing one cannot do in Pro-Q3, of course, but I think there is something to knowing where and how to use those tools-not a better or worse way to go about it, just different. Like the old saying goes: all that matters is what's coming out of the speakers.
I'm glad we can have civil discussion on this topic. A certain other UA-camr recently made a similar video to yours which has been making the rounds, and imo they've been unnecessarily rude and condescending to those whom do not share their opinion. I'm not naming them so as to not cause drama, but I mention it because it's emblematic of how people (especially in these niche online circles) can get way too animated about really trivial stuff. I've seen people have very heated arguments about whether to pan drums in audience or drummer perspective, and it's like, ugh, whatever!
I completely agree with everything. However my main reason for analog moddled eq's is workflow. Tho I'm really interested to check out that blindfold eq.
I love Blindfold EQ. It's often said that we mix with our eyes too much, in the digital EQ world. So it's really refreshing to be forced to work with your ears. AirEQ was doing this about 15 years ago, and I was all for it. Cheers!
right at the beginning so idk if you’re gonna discuss this, but IF a filter is linear (within a reasonable standard, this includes very high quality analog gear, and floating point on computers which isn’t continuous), time-invariant (so no dynamic eq), and has the same curve (cramping or cramping mitigation makes it different), and processing the same inputs, it will have the same output. break any condition and that falls apart.
(at least for IIR, so analog) linear and time invariant are kinda mutually involved, it can’t be one but not the other. (well time invariant matters based on how the time variance timings relate to the ring out time, slower than some speed for a given filter, or a FIR filter applying sums of impulses rather than an impulse summed over the inputs, will allow for breaking this)
source: i’ve been working on a nonlinear eq for a while, hopefully eventually i run out of problems to get in my way and tech stack to reinvent lmao. it’s not emulating anything, so the nonlinearity can be cranked to levels that make it more of a distortion plugin (but most of that comes from the other nonlinear elements, rather than the nonlinear filters), or dialed to just the right point that it’s audible. i invented my own nonlinear mid/side conversion, im not BSing this lol, it does actually affect the sound.
i think a lot of why i think mine is better than these others is that i’m not modeling anything, in fact i hesitate to label it analog modeling, so i can make the nonlinearity as obvious as i want, and do things that sound good, rather than matching some piece of old gear that was trying to be linear. i dislike these sorts of plugins because it’s all hype and magical gear fallacy/syndrome/etc. too focused on accuracy to make it sound good.
Wow, I think you should release this plugin IMMEDIATELY! This sounds very cool. Seriously, let me know if you want beta-testers.
So I'm glad to hear from someone who really knows their EQ DSP shit. I realize that, as soon as you move away from linear processing, then, yes, you're going to get differences in sound. And looks like you may have an answer as to why a non-linear EQ may be "better'...
I love the idea of a purpose-built, non-linear EQ that can be pushed creatively. This reminds me of a long-gone plugin I used to use...I think it was called trackQ, and it was all about "not so clean" EQs, but was a very well-made IIR equalizer.
Anyway, I'd love to know if you release that EQ. Cheers!
I think this, and most plugins, are really just a preference of workflow. Personally, Pro-Q 3 all the way. The new Kirchhoff eq may replace it tho 😂
Super-agreed (see my earlier reply)! I definitely have my eyes on Kirchoff, a very cool EQ. But not cheap! Give me a review copy! hahahah!
When Kirchhoff is $29 I’ll get it
Yes looks fantastic
@@geraldgoodiii6993 Does iit ever go on sale for that cheap? 😃
Damn! This one hurt me to my core 😅. I needed this tho because trying to learn music all I hear from people Im learning from is “YOU GOTTA GET THIS PLUGIN” and it’s mostly based on hype.
Yeah man! Watch out for the hype. By all means, if you love working with an analog "style" of plugin, go for it. I just feel like it's never going to save anyone's mixes. Learn your craft well and you'll be good with any decent EQ plugin (just watch out for cramped EQs, but those are few and far between now)! Thanks so much for watching! Cheers.
Stock plugins will set you free, 80% of my songs and production is stock plugins, there are a few select pro bits i'd buy but it's a list of say like 10-20 plugins and they aren't required.
@@RYANLEWIS-pd7zs Agreed. Yes, even most (all?) stock EQs don't cramp anymore, so they're perfectly good. Cheers!
Simply use the KSHR Chain plugin and oversample it to eliminate aliasing when you push the levels too high.
Good call! Yes, you can use wrappers to achieve oversampling in plugins. Cheers!
Ummm pbd, can you pls look for free realistic brass plug-ins with presets and articulations (VSTi or works with the free Kontakt Player)
I'd love to, thanks! You're looking for orchestral brass? Pop? Jazz?
@palebluedotstudios All!!!!!
@@palebluedotstudios Alll!
@@palebluedotstudios everything!
I realised this for not too long ago, and looking at my methods, I had done the "right thing" anyway. I use a Neve channelstrip called VoosteQ and stock parametric and kirchoff most of the time, but add the UAD putlec sometimes. I also EQ with UAD a800 and use the tilt on the softube Tape as well. All those are very colourful and the channelstrip eq saves me from using another EQ. But I know everyone has a sound. They aren't the puigfailed that is failed in comparison. Even the three different EQ modules in the VoosteQ Modell N are different in pass through. It's convenient to change the curve as you are there, but the different colours actually are part of what I choose.
But I do turn to maybe a solid state pultec emulation or api 550B or 560 10-band just for the curves of them. I don't really know those curves. As Dan Worrall says in his similar video, the low-end pultec trick is something you learn with two knobs and is still most convenient with two knobs. The 10 band of the 560 are also fed out to my 9 physical faders (and one knob) which is a whole other game. I have every plugin mapped out there but find it unnecessary most of the time to use them, but fighting to get the good stuff out something odd, those 10 bands at my 10 fingers are great. I also like the bettermaker eq-plugin for just the curves.
It's like the handling of a car and if driving was an art, you'd maybe like the handling of a 90s outdated mazda sports car. Or maybe that's what you learned.
So I think you overemphasize, but I absolutely agree with the core of the issue, which is marketing making people spend. It's a problem. I just triggered the Neural DSP community over these last few weeks for pointing out how good Neural makes spend; make people archetype collectors, while softube wasn't as smart giving a good update in 2023 to make much more covered range for just 2 collections (9 corner stone amp heads with beyond that in cabs). Softube are smarter now and launch Engl Suite and I'm sure more specific stuff is coming our way now. I was beat hard at for saying this truth, so stay strong.
There is a reason to buy these EQ emulation plugins, and that is, you like how they look or you like working with them. They absolutely do not have a magic sound, as proven by the hundreds of null tests that have been run against them, which you can find all over youtube. No, they don’t sound “better” or even “analog”. But if you vibe with it, good for you. I like the workflow of the AMEK EQ by Plugin Alliance for example (you can solo each band while you’re working, make big moves then pull them all down by a percent). But I could easily get stock DAW eq to sound identical.
Oh yes. If you like the workflow, all the power to you. I just want people to know that at the end of the day, analog EQ emulations don't offer much discernible difference when you close your eyes. I'm less partial to twisting analog-style knobs, I will admit that. Cheers!
That's what I love about the kirchkhhoff eq, you have very good eq and on top you still have the analog eq curves if you want them
It's so flexible. Love it!
1) Get the SSL 4000 E from Plugin Alliance
2) Boost 6dB at 1kHz with the LMF bell
3) Profit: you get a 4.5dB boost at 600Hz.
"True analog emulation"
Hahaha, that's hilarious! 👍
For the most part it’s true, ProQ3 is m general workhorse eq, but there do exist alternatives that really do impart something very different. Non linear harmonic eqs like acusticas stuff. Acustica gold does stuff to signal I can’t even get remotely close to with proq
That's interesting. I've had a lot of bad experiences with Acustica; I know they're very well-respected, but I found most of their stuff buggy and unexceptional. But it's been years since I tried them out, I realize they have their own quasi-dynamic-convolution process...which EQ/plugin should I try out?
@@palebluedotstudios Their stuff has always been pretty solid for me on windows/cubase. I'd check out their Gold 5 which is their Neve clones
@@palebluedotstudios makes sense-- their anti piracy tactics were literal gigabytes worth of bloatware. they finally got bullied into removing it, so luckily the product is less absurd, and I hear they do sound great.
@@danielburns4483 Ooh, I forgot about that! I'm definitely going to check some of their stuff out. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios Checkout the Gold 5 eq's, there's something really special going on with those :)
Whats a good alternative for Maag's air band?
Luftikus
You can also simulate it with TDR Nova if I'm not mistaken
I'd check out Bertom's Air Shelf. It's pretty much the same thing. bertomaudio.com/air-shelf.html
Great suggestion!
I don't have time to test it right now, but Maag seems to be just a standard high shelf, so I'm sure you could replicate it with Nova. Heck, you could even make it dynamic with Nova! Great suggestion. Cheers!
Good insight. Would you say the same about analogue compressor plugins too?
Not at all! Think about it: hardware compressors are dynamic processors whose timing and characteristics can be carefully analyzed and modelled, and cannot be nulled by a stock compressor. Then it’s just a matter of taste whether you think it matches up to the original, or there are plenty of digital-only compressors that are better than hardware now! Cheers!
I use only one digital EQ. But I have lots and lots of different saturation options. I like to be in control of the "analog illusion" I give my mixes.
My friend, you nailed it. My thoughts exactly. It's relatively easy to get an "warm" or analog sound, so I don't really need my track EQ to provide that. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I understand that sometimes, using a different EQ or analog modeled one is for workflow preferences. If one feels good about turning knobs with a mouse, why not... but it still doesn't mean that you need dozens of different ones.
@@uncle-ed I dont think so. Can't imagine needing more than 2-3 track EQs. But EQ collectors may argue, especially if they believe they're that unique.
@@palebluedotstudios Haaa... the power of marketing, huh? "If I just get THAT EQ, my mixes will sound as if Alan Meyerson mixed them!"
@@uncle-ed Exactly! Now I know why I'm a failure...😂
Your right and yes I think most producers know this. I own and use three third-party eq plugins on a almost daily basis. ProQ3, Eventides Split EQ and recently acquired scaler EQ. All have a purpose in my productions and I use them all on any given project. Split EQ and scaler EQ perform very specific tasks that you would struggle doing with a standard proQ3 plugin. I have never bought a analog modelled EQ but do have some that were given to me. I never use them.
Word, well said. You know, I never had a chance to sit down with Split EQ (looks amazing), and I have a review copy of Scaler EQ that I'm going to review soon. How are you using Split EQ?
@@palebluedotstudios So I predominantly use split EQ when I have to boost audio in some way. Having the tone and transient separate gives nice control. The only negative I have on split EQ is it's latenancy. So I use it to render files down not as a insert that I would leave on a chanel during production due to the delay it causes. With scaler EQ I find cuting no harmonic material on the side Chanel's works super nice for me.
@@obiraf Cool, thanks. I wasn't expecting that plugin to introduce a lot of latency. Good to be aware of that if you don't want latency during mixing. I'll have to try it out soon, do a review. It caused a bit of a stir when it came out, but now Ozone EQ can do something similar for free!
@@palebluedotstudios Yeh Split EQ is best used to process a sample or you can mix with it but you looking at around 50ms of latenancy give ot take a bit depending on what algorithm you use. I don't see it as a problem for mixing as it's fairly common for mix and mastering plugins to cause latenancy grater then split EQ does. Even ozone 10 gives me more latenancy depending what I use in it in most mastering sessions.
I did actually make a mistake, I do use another EQ and that's smart EQ by sonible. I only use it on my buses though. Again a decent EQ that does something the others don't do so well.
@@obiraf Right, Smart:EQ is a whole different beast! I love it and use it frequently, done a few reviews here (I need to do smart:EQ 4, come to think of it...).
Yes, a bit of latency is totally fine for mixing; I usually crank up my buffers (which makes for a speedier bounce too). It's like readers to be aware of it, because if you do a lot of mixing/writing on the fly, like in Ableton, latency might dampen the vibe. Cheers!
i tend to work on getting my source material recorded as close to mix-level as possible.
i may high pass and/or low pass, but typically i don't EQ
You can totally do that! I love this: great-in, great-out! I agree. When I started out, honestly, I was mostly just levelling things, and I marvel at some of my mixes from the 90s on a SoundBlaster. Why? Because I was just working with what I had, and working with mostly gain, and my ears. Cheers!
I think one thing to note is some EQ's cramp at 20k and others Don't.
Also ''Analog EQ's'' tend to add some sort of saturation and noise.
Sure with a pro-q 3 and saturn you would probably be able to get very close to most Analog EQ's But I guess one of the draws of analog is how quickly you can get a desired sound.
So they do come in handy in some situations and I admittedly own a few softube and UAD plugins, but that's mainly because I own the Console 1 and like the feel of been hands on compared to using a mouse.
Are they needed? Well...Not really but can come in handy sometimes and companies like Analog Obsession offer them for free so why not?
However with most companies its all smoke and Mirrors(marketing) to get you to think you need them in order to sound like the ''PRO's''
There are no equalizers that give saturation, they are all clean. This is shown by the tests in REW. Only if the saturation is output with a separate knob, other equalizers produce harmonics at a level below the audibility of the human ear. Plugins from AO for the most part do not coincide in behavior with real hardware or plugins of Waves, Uad, etc.
Yes, that's right: all EQs cause phase shift, but none cause saturation intrinsically. That's added by the developers later. :)
Yep, if you've got a Console 1, then that does away with part of my argument about the GUIs-you're now using those controls the way they were designed. Again, if you like certain analog modelled EQs, and they get the sound you want quickly, then who am I to argue? I just find myself wondering how audible the difference is between a -6dB cut of a standard EQ and a -6dB cut with a fancy "analog" EQ. My guess? No one would know the difference. Great food for thought, thanks! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I dont' disagree with what you are saying at all and yes I'm aware that saturation doesnt happen in the equalizing itself but is often added post e.q. all though with the old units its probably the tubes or whatever adding something to them but i'm not really clued up on how the hardware units work. most of the time I will use pro-q 3 because its clean, can do surgical eq and has other nice features but if im totally honest 99% of what I do could be achieved with a DAW's stock EQ
@@StevenSmethurst Agreed, no reason you can't do a great mix with stock effects. Good ol' limitations (mind you, stock DAW effects are killer these days...) Cheers!
I agree, you're absolutely right. BUT I like to use analog emulations because they don't confuse me with beeing too analytical. Also I have the SSL UC1 so I rarely "look" at what Im doing. You are right that sometimes I get to struggle when I need more destinct EQ on the low end and I just have no band left on the E channel for example.
In the end I like to use my hardware UC1 and channelstrips a lot, but when it comes to a certain problem I use highly precise EQing in the digital realm. For my workflow it is pretty cool to work in Cubase like I work on a console.
Right, yes, if you have a controller like UC1, then that obviates my GUI complaint: you're using the plugins at they were intended. I'd love to get into a controller, but I've had trouble finding one that I like and stick with. Cheers!
but you do a mix with a SSL console and it has 'that' sound ... you need the SSL console to do it - fab filter will not do it
Sure, but we're talking about a lot more than just track EQs. We've got preamps, compressors, saturation and crosstalk to consider. And then it's really debatable if any of these console emus actually live up to the hype. Maybe I'll do that next...cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios sure , I guess I am late to the game with SSL and wish i knew about it earlier - I have found using the ssl racks its easy to get a ssl type sound and before my eq and comp just didnt do it - it is v snappy - right now nfuse is the best one for me
@@justinb9387 I haven't tried NFuse yet, I'll have to check it out. I use SSL's Bus Compressor 2, and I like it quite a lot. I've just never been crazy about using that EQ design as my main EQ. Cheers!
I find it interesting how people justify their purchases, believing it will help them create better sound. However, everything starts with musicality, not with claims like “this plugin adds a bit more air to the pluck sound.”
Agreed. I've grown tired of flowery marketing language, especially with analog EQs. They won't save your mixes. I remember reading an interview with Donald Fagen's engineer in Mix magazine 20 years ago, and he was like, "Man, the EQ in Nuendo is AMAZING; the best I've ever heard!"-and that was a bog standard, digital EQ with cramping. And he happily mixed many records with that. So, just shows to go...cheers!
Here's why I don't: because TDR Slick EQ is free.
But for real, I do like its non graphic interface for non-surgical things. And enabling the eq saturation makes me feel better haha
Haha, well, if it makes you feel better...TDR Slick EQ is great. I love those guys.
thanks for the great video, just when i think i need an analog eq. save me a ton.
Cheers, my friend! Glad to be of any help. I'm just kind of over analog EQ hype at this point. Cheers!
AMEN to this. I have a few outboard EQ's I love to use (like the LinkAudioDesign SSL 242 500 series clones) - but EQ is handled so much better in DSP. Voxengo Curve is amazing and there's no way you could build an analog circuit that could do it. That said, compression is something I still like hardware for.
I hear you. It took a long time for digital to catch up to analog compressors (it's still debatable), but there are also amazing digital compressors that do original things that their analog counterparts couldn't do, or it was difficult to do. I sold my 500 series EQ awhile ago, I just wasn't using it. But I do miss outboard sometimes...cheers!
what about the uad pultec?
I don't have the Pultec right now (used to, when I had the hardware), but I imagine it would be much the same: typical digital filters tuned to act like the original, with maybe some unremarkable saturation in there somewhere. But I'll have to test it out sometime. Cheers!
More than 15 years ago I was a beginner audio engineer playing around with my arsenal of cracked plugins... and even than I remember thinking "what the hell are all these analog eq's, can't I just use this very flexible digital one and recreate anything than these analog ones do"... and it turned out that yes, yes I can.
So true! I remember the Holy Grail days of yore, yearning for this or that analog EQ or channel strip. Now, I don't think about it much. Analog compressor emus, sure! Cheers!
The reason I don't use "analog" EQ plugins is simple. They aren't actual analog, yet still have all the downsides to outboard gear. They most often LACK the surgical visual displays that tell you EXACTLY what's happening. You know, one of the primary advantages to using a DAW? Taking the guess work out of sound, because you can SEE wtf is going on? I know a lot of old schoolers like to incentivize themselves to "mix by ear" but having done that for years on actual analog gear, I found it constantly way more efficient to actually SEE what's going on and let your ears THEN train by association of what you are seeing first.
Analog plugins to me, kinda fall into the same category as "simulated" studio plugins. Bringing back all the joys of visually inaccessible wire messes that the invention of Logic Pro saved me from. I just don't see the point to analog interfaces in a digital DAW. It's like deciding to edit linearly, just to make your life more difficult. It defeats the purpose and advantages of the DAW. No thanks.
I largely agree with that. The older I've gotten, the less I care about these "analog" references, and I just want to get on with mixing. I stopped using Reason a long time ago because of its belaboured analog "patchbay" visual metaphors. Give me the advantages of modern digital mixing, not the curses of the past. Cheers!
I agree 100%. I have collected hundreds of plugins over the years. But more often I grab the standard EQ in cubase because its fast and does the job right. Only some plugins with special functionality (btw. Sonible, Sound Radix, Melodyne Studio) I pull out and use in some cases.
Well said, my friend! Yes, there are exciting, innovative products (like you noted) that I reach for because they're really unique and serve a purpose. Mixing is less stressful these days, as I feel confident in using the basics and the specialized tools. Cheers!
Yes and who still wants to experiment with "analog" EQs should get a free one - there are many out there!
Great video man!
Thanks so much! Yeah, I actually should’ve mentioned that now we have things like Analog Obsession and so many more; why pay for Waves, et al.? Cheers!
I use any Tool that has the most option to start with and add a Vintage Vibe to the track so I don't get bog down with the technical stuff and fix later if needed. I understand what you're saying in the video and can get similar results with Digital EQs, the end of the day it's what works for you. If a certain "Vintage EQ" get you there without having a hundred options to try and look for problems that are not there or makes the source sound worst rather then a couple of knobs I'd go for it, but all-in-all it's really doesn't matter what you use, I payed for the plugins and I'm going to use them. I always use the Fabfilter Pro Q3 no matter what other plugin I have. Pro Q3 Hands Down A Must Have. I will say though if you want Vintage Vibe get an external EQ.
That's a great response. I agree with all of that, except maybe your final statement. Do you really get "Vintage Vibe" from a single instance of analog-modelled EQ, or is that an aesthetic you bring to your entire mix, with every decision, from instruments, to arrangement, to DSP and EQ? I personally think EQ is too subtle for most of us to say, "this one EQ curves is the reason I have an analog-sounding mix."; but that's my take on it. But I super-agree with everything you said-especially "If it works for you, then it IS good"! Cheers!
I’d be interested to see you recreate the sound from Clariphonic by House of Kush. There is definitely some magic there that would take you a few minutes to copy. And my other comment is about those virtual knobs in these fake EQs. Some of them might be doing some weird stuff with the curves that we just can’t do even in Kirchoff. That is, we can copy a static curve, but not a sweep because we don't know what the shape is doing as we turn the “knob”.
No, I'm not really talking about automating the curves - but I guess you could do that for creative effects- but I mean when we are searching for a sound or how to fix a sound, sometimes the way these EQ curves interact with each other lets us find the right sound quicker than drawing them in a parametric like using Adobe Illustrator.
House of Kush is great, they really know their stuff. I checked out Clariphonic quickly and looks like a couple of fixed frequencies with slopes that can be modified. And he adds heavy oversampling to prevent aliasing, so that may explain some of the "smoothness" too.
As for your second point, it's an interesting thought. I do think, however, because we're still talking about static EQ curves, that we can copy the sweep, unless the developers program some kind of interpolation or crosstalk between bands. Cheers!
Two master engineers out there 1 who uses not a single plugin but in his video he uses a native EQ. That video was misleading and then there's the other mastering engineer who got rid of all his analog equipment and went solely ITB or as I like to call it mixed everything only in his Music software. I do understand this video in a sense ...for those who are on a budget yes you can try to achieve same thing in the tools that you already have for those who are Grammy winners it's plugins out there that cost big bucks but will help you achieve that sound with just a few clicks. Final Note. At the end of the day. The listener does not care what plugging the mastering engineer used. Nobody is ever at their favorite artist concert and yell out " why did y'all use only one brand of eqs.". No never in history has that ever happened
Yes, I agree with all of that! I do think any good engineer can make the most of even the most basic, good-quality equipment.
I agree, I just found old Sonnox EQ cuts better than anything else as it's pure digital eq. The rest I use Fab or free Ozone EQ, same shit
Yep, all ones and zeroes; just different EQ curves. And if you like what you like -all the power to you!
Great video. Subscribed!
Thank you so much! That means a lot. Cheers!
You make a strong case for why you don’t want to use so called analog eq, which of course, they are not. But personally I don’t love fabfilter or that style of EQ because its distracting to me. While its visually impressive in its own way, I find it aesthetically on the clinical side.
I don’t feel that ‘analogue’ EQ plugins are especially right either, but the workflow is better for me. The Pultec is very easy to manipulate with a mouse although I also link it to a controller, and the SSL Native Channel, when you get used to it, is super fast because essentially you do pretty much the same thing on all tracks and only have to shift the dial a little when you know what it does.
Thats what I most appreciate, I’ll typically hi pass upto 90hz, cut a few db on the low end, a couple of db on the 2.5 and then some 8k on most tracks to get the feel of what I’m after, and only if its obvious that something needs to stand out or hide more do I worry about tinkering with the detail.
Different horses/courses as we say in the UK but as clumsy as ‘analogue’ plugins can be, once you learn them I find them to be more intuitive and faster to work with.
I hear you. And if you have a controller, then that changes everything; now you’ve got tactile input that’s more in-line with the original intent. At the end of the day, even though it’s probably just a standard digital parametric EQ, If you like working that way, then that’s wonderful. Great points all round, sounds like you know your kit! Cheers. 🥂
As others have said. It's about workflow. I know how to achieve what looking for with a pultec very quickly. By turning a few knobs. Instead of wasting time fiddling with Eq curves etc.
For sure, I hear you. For me, I like to do the Pultec EQ-trick with preset curves in FabFilter. Then I can adjust the Qs to further intensify the effect. But I totally get having it set to a fixed setting. A LOT to be said for that. Cheers!
I’m lucky enough to have a real Chandler Limited Curve Bender. I also have the UAD plugin. I use the hardware on mix downs and the plugin on individual tracks. The plugin is actually pretty close. I am familiar with the way it works. I also use Pro Q3 and other similar eq’s because that visual is very helpful.
Good call. I think we have to make room for professionals who are experienced with hardware. If you're used to that paradigm and response, then a well-made emulation makes so much sense. I started off in the analog world, but my career only really took off once I was in the digital world, so I do have to admit to a probably bias there. But I have spent a lot of money on analog EQs over the years, and I wanted to muse on why I don't do that anymore.
Thanks for the thoughtful response-and now I want to test out the Chandler Limited Curve Bender! I've never had the pleasure. Cheers!
What’s the song at 5:11? Sounds damn good
Thank you so much! That's "Beautifully Troubled" from my band Arkana. I'm just finishing up remixing/remastering and I'll make an announcement video when it's back up on streaming! Cheers!
I believe "analog warmth" to be snake oil so I'm definitely with you there. I also agree that modern parametric EQ plugins are able to achieve everything you need. That being said, the EQs that I always reach for first are an SSL channel strip or Pultec emulation because they generally get the sound I want faster and with less hassle.
I believe everyone should use the plugins that work best for them to achieve the sound that they are after.
Sure, the dude could have used a Pro-Q 3 at the end of his chain for his high shelving but he likes what's the Puigtec is doing so what's the problem?
All good points, and no, it’s not a big problem that he liked the sound of the Puigtech (although I thought there was a little bit of over-processing being done, but whatever). If you like an EQ and it works for you, then go nuts! I just find myself never reaching for analog emus, and I wanted to reflect on that. And chip away at the hype. Cheers!
My take:
1) workflow. Use the emulations a lot to get things done quicker. If you work as quick with ProQ or something like that: good for you.
2) "Bad harmonics" (aliasing) are also present in other simpler EQs. ProQ too.. that is what proper oversampling fixes (to the audible level)
3) if it sounds good it is good
4) mouse reacts to quick: settings are often capable of setting the mouse movements to NOT go crazy so you can finetune with the mouse.
You sound a bit like: hey! Someone moved my cheese ;-)
That said I also use a lot of ProQ and the like, but also a lot of analog emulations. Fast, works, sounds good (using reaper I have no aliasing/oversampling issues cause it does it for me properly ).
But I DO agree that many buy to many expensive plugins that do little or nothing for the sound/mix! And simpler plugins will often do it as well or better if you know how to use them.
Good points, all. And why did they move my cheese???
I would say that you do not need oversampling at all for standard equalizing. You'll only hit real phase issues with huge boosts, and even then, oversampling won't address things like transient smearing. You'd be better off switching to linear phase in that case. Cheers!
I use a lot of analog hardware when I mix. I also use digital plug-ins.
When I have the same of both, it’s easy to hear the difference.
Sometimes the plugins offer useful sounds. But much of the time, I find that analog hardware glues the mix much better.
More importantly, when I mix, the mix process is much faster when analog hardware is used.
I hear you: I miss analog gear a lot sometimes; the way you have to take more time and thought into connections and levels, and the immediacy of faders and knobs. If you have the real deal, then it's just easier to dial things in by hand, as opposed to twiddling with a mouse. It's more of a performance. Cheers! Thanks so much for watching an commenting!
The second one was the SSL, am I right?
I thought first one was an SSL, but maybe you're right, anyway, thery're very similar each other
The second mix was SSL! Good guesses, all. :)
@@palebluedotstudios It sounded a bit smoother and less digital to my ears, but it is so minor.
@@ES60Hz Good ears! I thought the highs sounded a little softer-is that good or bad? Did I match poorly? It's all very subjective! Haha. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios, You are right about the highs. No offense, brother, but after hearing it again, I realize that testing it for a few seconds like this is not a good test. One may not feel it for a few seconds, but the SSL mix is much more comfortable for extended listening periods and will prevent ear fatigue, especially with earphones; thank you for the comparison; I learned a lot from you.
Very much depends. I use several hw eq's, and while i can get the curves equal, it's how the circuits respond that also make the sound. Same goes for good emulations. There are indeed quite a few vst where i have doubts. Don't get me wrong, absolute fan of Kirchoff. Then things like aliasing saturation, on my site a lot nightly builds etc. Just post them for the fun. You hear a lot of errors, and the most common is because of the idiotic time frame they are made. Aliasing might not be heared on one track, but in the mix then thru hardware and you have nasty surprises. Just eq and saturation when in the box doesn't always give the same result, these are not the only factors that make the sound. But true, at a point there are enough and there are certainly "analog emulations" that are (almost?) fraudulent. But there are also very good ones on the market. But certainly, Kirchoff or stock EQ perfect. Even when using hardware, clean digital eq is so beautiful. Anyway, my 50ct, go hybrid....
And then a last note, doing all these mock ups last year, many times to play with new gear...just to use it..the biggest problem with eq is actually using it to much... digital or hardware...or emulations...
I don’t understand this at all. To me those version with analog modeled plugins sound clearly different, they are: a) a little darker and duller b) they have a little amount of compression to them caused by modeled harmonics/saturation c) due to these two features they sound denser and thus ”sit” in the mix in a more musical way. Pro-Q is obviously clearer and more transparent, but it feels like you have to add something else to that in order to get that ”sit” in the mix.
That's fair! You clearly have good ears. An issue to look out for is phase affecting transients-but ONLY with large boosts-more modest boosts/cuts are fine. So my second example with the kick & snare would probably be where you'd hear that most. Good call! Cheers.
@@palebluedotstudios You are absolutely correct with that, I agree that transients do sound way much more articulate in those fabfilter boosts 👍 very interesting video comparing trade offs with these two approaches :)
@@KSS184 Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I think it's a good idea to do blind-tests from time to time. Cheers!
I completely understand your point of view and it is totally valid...for audio scientists like yourself....but for simple humans that like to work with audio like me and are also on a budget....my reason for not wanting to go this way is like in a comment below mentions the workflow/ simplicity of performing the task and in the budget area let's see.... Fabfilter Pro Q3 = $169 against Waves Puigtec = $29.99. I don't know about others but I will go with the $29.99 and just turn the knobs I need than to have to go through all the science class Lol...nevertheless, awesome video and explanation.
Oh thanks! I'm so glad you enjoyed the video, even if I'm a big science nerd, haha. And I hear you! By all means, ignore any audio theory bullshit and just mix with something cheap, that you like. I mean, one of the main points I'm trying to make is: you don't even have to spend money for an EQ plugin: your DAW's stock EQ is the same as a Pultec; it's just been programmed differently. And there are plenty of great free EQs out there (TDR SlickEQ or ZL Equalizer come to mind). As always: if it works for you, it IS good! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I also understand that and I think in the end is just a matter of personal preference. By the way I don't think that your audio theory is bullshit by any means and I totally admire what you do. If I didn't find it interesting or didn't think that it is great I wouldn't have watched the whole video, which I did. I am just a mere musician that mixes his own stuff and could never compare to masters of the craft like you.
Keep up the magnificent work and blessings always.
While I do agree that all Digital clones are just 1s and 0s, I do believe that the saturation and the signal flow of said saturation is partially helpful in getting a closer sound to the hardware. Also you use the Puigtec EQP 1A (and I see a lot of people use this as an example). It's a horrible example because Waves has been busted by the likes of Dan Worrall and Paul Third for it's EQ cramping and lack of sonic characteristics that make it similar to the hardware.
I recently got into a heated debate with AP Mastering on this exact topic, and referenced a few videos where this is actually debunked. If you're gonna form an opinion based on one brand, I'd definitely try other brands such as Noiseash and UAD for their amazing emulations (which actually do have differences).
Well, AP Mastering is bit of a sophist. Good for you for debating him, I'm not crazy about his approach or attitude. I guess it got him some views (shrug).
As for EQ plugin saturation, well, I felt like a addressed it in my video: sure, bx or SSL can add a flavour of saturation to their EQ, but...is that saturation really that special? Couldn't we add our own-with oversampling? But I'm sure many devs take the time to carefully model these non-linearities, but to me, it doesn't move the needle much for me: do you really HEAR these things across a full mix? Or does that aliasing saturation/non-linearity build up over time in your mix, and you wonder why things are not coming together like they should? Just a thought. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios very true. There is this to also take into consideration. The end user may find it easier to use something like a Pultec or 1073 in their mixes for workflow purposes rather than just sound alone. When I was at uni, I got a few of these plugins so that I was better able to utilise the hardware versions they had, which was crucial for me being visually impaired. So to put it simply I think it's just a matter of circumstance and taste. Don't get me wrong, I use Pro Q 3 a ton for more meticulous tasks, but when I need something on the fly, I tend to reach for either the UAD Pultec, BX SSL 4000 E, or the Maag EQ 2.
@@kidsonicofficial That's a very interesting point about using the plugin to aid in using the hardware with an impairment. Glad that option was available to you. All we had when I went to audio school was Pro Tools stock plugins, haha. But I did get to experience the classic hardware units in pre-digital studios.
Congratulations on your 5k. I recently achieved 4k with my guitar channel.
Thank you so much! Now you've got 4.41k +1 subs! ;)
Ooh, I see you're a Journey fan! Escape was the first album I ever bought! Love those guys.
@@palebluedotstudios thanks for checking. Yeah I love Journey. I have watched them live twice and it'll be a third as soon as the opportunity comes. How do you know?
@@stratoalex I sorted your videos by "Oldest" and it was all Journey! lol
Wow, tough topic. I think in the end it really comes down to personal preference. There's absolutely no point in telling anyone what to use and what not :D
Personally I use both - I mostly rely on channel strips and/or Console 1 to get the basic mix done (which works way faster to me with actual knobs), mainly because they give you all the necessary tools in one package and can be the only thing you ever need to do a full mix. In fact I even prefer those that are a bit more limited, like only giving you a certain set of frequencies instead of the full spectrum, simply because these limitations speed up the process a lot. You dial everything in and make decisions quickly rather than endlessly looking for the perfect frequency. Once everything is done I often reach for Ozone or Neutron EQs for more surgical tasks like ironing out resonances or masking issues, which those absolutely excel at. It's a bit like using two sets of brushes to me - first the broad strokes to get the sound where you want it and then the smaller ones to define the details. There's great use cases for both and no point for me in generally preferring one over the other.
I've gotten so many comments from Console 1 users, and man, I'm sure you guys have a much more positive experience than I have-because you have a controller designed to work with these channel strips! I'm planning on picking up a Console 1 soon. I'll report back and do a review. Cheers!
What it comes down to is a trained ear, we have now so many free plugins that do a great job, at the end of the day the computer is handling '0''s and '1''s if you have a computer that can handle very high res audio comfortably and you have a good pair of pro headphones to check the audio against the speakers, your good to go.
Agreed. I'd add to that "check your mix against references", and you're good to go! Cheers!
Darn you for being so right!🤬 Plugin publishers would love to tell producers that this EQ or that will save their mixes! The important part for young producers is to train the ears. Any of our mix-gods we look up to could make a world-class mix with stock EQs if they had to.
(I still have my fave knob EQs and channel strips and I'm training myself to get used to SSL's 4K strips in preparation for getting one of the UF controllers so I can mix head-down and mouseless one day soon).
Oh man, if you get that controller...that's a powerful workflow with the SSL 360 system. I do not begrudge the analog, tactile world at all, and I'm sure your mixes will benefit from that human connection. Let me know how it goes! I might have to dive in (if they'll sponsor me, lol). Cheers!
just Pro-Q 3 and you are all set or kirchoff is a good one too.
Kirchoff sure is! And looks like Pro-Q 4 is just around the corner, with spectral compression, and EQ models to compete with Kirchoff! Stay tuned...
@ pro Q 4 just came out, kirchoff is now just a history. Lol
Absolutely fantastic video! Glad people like you and Dan Worrall are really shedding light on the snake oil and hype of the industry, especially the buzz words like warm, glassy etc. lol!
Thanks so much, that means a lot! After years of mixing, i’ve grown tired of those terms and just rely on getting the best recording possible, and using simple, proven mixing techniques to get a solid mix, quickly. Thanks so much for watching!
Back in 2010-2011 I mixed a lot of proyects with just Waves Qclone using my Mackie 32-8 mixer Eqs. I also used Cubase stock plugs and very few mid level outboard fxs. It sounded FUCKING AMAZING. Nowadays anyone can find a Mackie for just about 1k or even less
Wow, Waves Q Clone...I haven't thought about that plugin in yeeeaarrrrs. I remember using that for awhile, but I have to admit I got a little tired of picking EQ settings from a dropdown menu. Anyway, that does sound like a really great way of mixing. I was thinking yesterday about testing out running things through my little mixer first...see how it sounds. Think'll I'll do a video on that-stay tuned! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios back in the day I wasnt to fond with eq plugins and the ones in the Mackie mixer sounded very good, once I mixed everything throut Mackie is was kinda easy to use Qclone to save the sound in the box. It was an experiment that worked fine. Anyway right now I use only plugins
@@danyavilaoficial Oh I see: you were using Q Clone to clone your Mackie?
@@danyavilaoficial I like that. I experimented heavily with IR back in the day, but I find I don't use it much these days, apart from amp sims. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios since I work solely in music production, mixing and mastering for about 35 years, after all this time anyone learn that it’s all about eq curves and saturation. I started experimenting with the most basic eq plug-ins of my daw, I downloaded Burten eq curve plugin (its free) and use it to match my expensive UAD plugs. It’s really amazing how close even indistinguishable difference one over the other.
My conclusion is this= in my particular case with Mackie mixer it make it easy and even fun to use the knobs while listening to get to the point. Digital eq are amazing to substract offensive frequencies. Talking about compressors I solely work in the box, in my Mackie mixing years I had 2 Alesis 3630 for parallel drums compression and that was it. Also, and this was something I discover by merely coincide, I hooked a BBE sonic maximizer in the Buss, about 10-15% processing and voilà…magic mix.
I hope 🤞 this info help someone
Your first example of the pultec and pro eq 3 i could spot the difference.
Fabfilter for me is still digital.
Great! I'm not saying they're exactly the same-I never got a null-but my point is: is it really that big a difference? Is it worth paying for, and using outdated architecture? But as always, if it works for you, that is totally cool. Cheers!
I'll make it simple... people making a living at mixing don't need to buy gear unless it's a industry expected ... people that don't make a living at mixing need something need to feel they are doing something... buying plugin ins is one of those things...
You make a good point there. Even as a professional, I find myself getting in modes of ennui where I'm looking for a "solution" or some endorphine, instead of using my skills and established effects. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I think you're missing the point... not all people will be professionals... that's called reality... but people still want to keep the dream alive... so they need to at least pretend ... buying a new whatever helps them get through the day without blowing their brains out...
A video about analog EQs, but not a mention how they can have different impact on phase? Or how different EQs can have different impact on transients
Thanks for bringing that up. I didn't specifically mention phase in this video, because I was trying to focus on listening alone. Every EQ adds phase, and sure: some EQ phases are different-but do we really hear that across many tracks in a mix? I'm not convinced. But this is definitely a worthy subject that I think I may tackle in part 3...stay tuned...cheers!
I've tested phase across many EQs...guess what... :)
@@NuclearDeathWalk Tell me Tell me Tell me!
Pale Blue you do realise I have left you a very intelligently-profound comment. Please recognise it, and read it
so that I don't think that you're a charlatan. I thank you in advance.
Hey there! Which comment do you mean? I missed a few, I wasn't getting email notifications. I assure you I am not a charlatan! Just an old audio engineer. :)
@@palebluedotstudios Not an old engineer, "genius". I'm one who has studied the game meticulously; that's all, friend-o. Sort via "Sort by" Newest first, and then go back 8-9 days, and then you should see it.
I agree, you only really need one versatile eq to do any mix, and stock eq of your daw would also work. In the recent time I don't bother with different eq's, because using something like Q3 is very fast.
But I also think there are reasons to have some other eq's, and why I use them from time to time.
The most differing factor for me is the UI / band freq and curves selection. Sometimes you want to do some basic eq on a common instument, like a kick drum, and for example ssl style eq is convenient, because the bands are right where I want them to be. Or you want to add top and bottom, it's very easy to use pultec style eq. But you certanely don't need them, and with time I use them less and less.
The second reason is eq curves. There are some 'analog modeling' eq's, that freature very wide filters, that will be difficult to replicate with pro q 3, you would need several bands, and it will look unnatural (so you probably won't try to make them). But they sound great in some cases, like on groups and master. So I think that's a good idea to have an eq in this style.
And the third reason - all digital eq's sound very close to each other, but not exactly. And if you are something like a mastering engineer, it's a good idea to compare the best digital eq's and choose what do you think sounds best (If you could hear the difference). I tried, found that I like Crave eq in transparent phase mode 3% better than fabfilter. But for me I value the convinience and speed more, so I choose the latter. So in conclusion I use something that sounds good (which are most eq's really) but most importantly the fastest to work with.
I see the good modelers more like amp simulators (same goes for mic emulation). I use these for a familiar sound…like reaching for a Strat & Marshal to sound like Hendrix. Sometimes I’d rather make these modelers work even when Fabfilter might be better, simply because I want to tip my hat to certain eras.
Right, so it's like a stylistic choice. Amp sims and mic emulators are a different beast, but if that keeps you in the zone, then that's great! Cheers!
Naw, its not that you shouldn't, but just knowing when you should, and why. Most wont make much difference, some will, and even then only in certain situations.
Very true. Again, if someone just LOVES their analog EQ emu for workflow, etc, I won't deny that. But knowing your trade is the most important thing. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios Naw, again, lol. Not bashing. The tools, and ones selection of tools, is just as "important" and equal to any knowledge in the trade. In fact proper tool choice will directly effect the quality of the end result, regardless of any amount of "knowledge" Its also what usually separates the common hacks in the trade from the tradesman. Now this is in general, to all trades, and not specific to the analog eq emu. vid.
@@sword-and-shield That makes sense. And I bet we find in all trades that pros tend to come back to the essential tools.
@@palebluedotstudios Yes ma'am
@@sword-and-shield Haha! Love that. 😄
not to mention that analog obsession has totally free plugins! dont waste your money!
Agreed! So many options nowadays, and even most DAWs come with analog emus now! Cheers!
Not all plugins have the same development quality
@@PluggedInWith3 Certainly not! Things like bilinear transform and cramping should seriously considered with EQ plugins.
@@palebluedotstudiosDevelopment quality includes backwards compatibility, which AO lacks.
@@sparella Mmm. Good point.
Cubase stock channel EQ does the job for me.
Glad to hear it! Cubase was the first DAW to have EQ on every channel, blew my MIND back in 1999! I tend to use it a bit less these days, only because it's too easy to make big, excessive moves in that small window. But I still use it a lot, especially for quick shelving. Cheers!
Like ssl more here (my country is sanctioned by their company lol), mostly because of how vocal sound
Whoa! I need more info: SSL sanctioned your country? Why is that??
@@palebluedotstudios recently i have tryed to test their new online mastering and i was declined with explanation that their group has sanctioned my country even we are not officaly under any economic or political sanctions. I have googl it and i have find out that their users cant use plugins when they travel in countrys that are sanctioned by their group.
@@palebluedotstudios sorry bro i have made mistake, i was thinkin about steven slate plugs
a commercial that spends time tearing down other products is just a commercial for a bad product.. spend the energy HIGHLIGHTING the product you're trying to sell
YT keeps recommending these EQ videos...
I took the time in 2020 when everything was shut down, downloaded as many demos of EQs as possible and spent hours and hours nulling plugin EQs. My conclusion and opinion...EQs boil down to 2 things: Workflow, and whether they are serial or parallel. Any Detla between EQs required turning my monitor controller nearly all the way up to maximum volume.
To each their own. If people want to spend money on plugins--more power to them!
I tell ya, the level of "Audiophile" mentality that is now prevalent in the "pro" audio community (especially at the purple place) is just mind boggling, along with confirmation bias.
I hear you. I certainly do not want to come across as a snobby audiophile. I mean, I care about details, but I essentially want to interrogate why I don't care about analog EQ emulations anymore. They were like GOLD back in the 00s, I desperately wanted a better, more analog, more PRO EQ, but I've grown out of it. But if someone enjoys buying them, then it's fine! I just want to remind everyone that you can get to a good mix with standard fare. Cheers!
Ozone is amazing and has been a game changer for me. I use it on everything from mixes to radio broadcasting etc etc. I agree it feels and works like it was built for the digital age.
You made this video 3 years later after I have bought almost every eq out there.
I put it off for too long! I used to stockpile EQs as well, but now I’m just kinda over it, you know? You just need tools to carve out space in a mix, and I don’t see a big difference between an SSL shelf and a stock EQ shelf @6dB, when it comes down to it. Cheers!
Exactly my doubts about plugins in general these days, and then the analog fans review them wearing headphones and telling you not to wear headphones while mixing. In short, it's a world of hypes and it's hard to pull yourself out of it. We all also like shiny diamonds.
We are definitely Magpies attracted to shiny objects! Over the years I’ve mostly learned to be less fooled. Cheers!
I came to the same conclusion quite some time ago as most of the plugin market is snake oil aside from some of the utility products. Fab Filter Pro Q3 or the like is all you need. Queue it up in Plugin Doctor to match the curves, send the signal as an effect to Saturn 2 for saturation of "analog vibe" and Bob's your uncle. I would say get the UAD Pultec dirt cheap just because and that takes care of everything just be aware of the 2 db volume boost and dial it back.
I agree about channel strips to a degree. I only use two by SSL since I have their control surface.
Great value Dan Worrell
I'll take that compliment! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios it is!
@@schoovaertssimon7904 I hope so! :)
Thanks for sharing. For me, the video is a little bit biased and lacks some perspective and balance. Here’s why : you encourage the use of plugins like Ozone and Kirchoff but they both try to replicate guess what ? Analog EQ curves (Baxandall, Pultec, Neve, etc). There’s a reason. And this is kind of funny and ironic. You also don’t talk about the workflow advantage (you only talk about the disadvantages of some GUI). To replicate some analog EQ curves, you can have a hard time with a digital EQ. For example, You’ll have to use two or three nodes to make what you can do with a single knob in a Pultec. This is where some good analog EQ can speed your workflow. That said, i can see your point : there’s a lot of marketing and hype in the industry and sometimes, it is good to know you can have some very good results with just your digital tools. Totally true. Thanks.
Great points! I definitely take that on board, and I've heard a similar sentiment from many viewers who want to quickly grab that classic EQ curve that they know and love-and that's fine! What I will counter with is this: yes, I do have to fiddle with 3 EQ filters to approximate the Puigtech, but that's what is already going on in the background to make that Pultec shape. I have to physically add nodes to make that shape with my parametric EQ, but the programmers match the original shapes with their filters, then just assign all that to one control. It's still stylized ones and zeroes. I doubt there's anything particularly special about some of these filters, although many viewers have pushed back on phase and stereo image (although I didn't see much to extoll in my tests), and I think I will follow up this video soon. Thanks for this thought-provoking post! Please stick around and keep watching/commenting! Cheers.
Great to read both comment and reply here! Essentially either one/multi knob analogue with hidden additional processing or a more complex eq display without hidden processing
“I don’t need them and neither do you”
How dare you
I dare to compare! Haha. Cheers!
In essence EQ uses phase to manipulate frequencies, good luck replicating that and the phase relations between bands. In practical terms you would be spending all your time replicating curves and phase relation instead of mixing.
SOLUTION: You could try memorize all band and phase curves of all analog EQs.
So you’re saying you should be familiar with the phase of your track EQ? Not a bad idea. And you’re right; I didn’t speak about phase much in my video, because I want to rely on mostly good old listening. Cheers!
Well, you only have to (re)create something once, and then you save it as a macro or multiparameter, or whatever you tools call it.
Phase relations between bands IS the eq curve.
@@sparella True.
Whatever. I won't buy ridiculously expensive plugins. But there is a ridiculously good analog style plugins... EQ included... That are great for workflow and get you the sound you want that you know how to use and just work
Simply put: if it works for you, it IS good, and don't listen to me. I just wanted to question if there really is any difference across a mix between EQ plugins, if you're doing just what's needed to do to get a good mix. Thanks for your thoughts!
@@palebluedotstudios I totally agree with that. And I appreciate you steering people away from, greedy, shadily marketed, overly hyped... Plug-in developers They want to sell you the secret sauce for $$$$.... But that doesn't mean I'll developers are like that.... There's some great really inexpensive plugins... Hello there's some great free or patreon supported developers... Like analog obsession or Chris from Airwindows. NAM Is an incredible open source machine learning amp sim.
If you know what you're doing with EQ and saturation you certainly don't need an analog EQ plug-in.... But there definitely some that really work for many people... Did I certainly do not consider a ripoff
@@ramspencer5492 Yes, I want to be clear: I don't consider plugin developers to be ripoff artists (I'm not that Mastering guy who's yelling at everyone!). Love AirWindows and Analog Obsession! You don't have to spend a lot of money on analog modelling anymore, which is cool.
You shouldn't buy them becaus Analog Obsessions has a ton for free, and they're (IMO) better and more suitable to working in a modern DAW than most paid analog emulations.
Analog Obsessions makes amazing stuff! They're definitely competitive with any paid analog plugins. Cheers!
I think the waves plugins are ass, so seeing the aliasing is no surprise to me. There are other reasons to get better analog eqs like the ones from make believe studios, tone projects, or some of the UAD ones. Sure you could sit there and set up the bells to match in proq3 while looking at plugin dr, Pull up a similar distortion, and build it out from there, but sometimes you just want to have something to pull up and just use without thinking about it.
Yes, it definitely is a matter of taste. For me, I kind of prefer "rolling my own" Pultec push/pull filters, but to each their own. Funny, in my last video about analog compressors, I feel like you do: I like how simple they are, and I know what to expect from, say, and 1176 clone. But I think EQ and compressor modelling are different beasts. Cheers!
I do think that is an advantage of an eq like the kirchhoff. At the end of the day it's about dsp resource management while balancing sound quality and ease of use. I should also say part of the sound quality thing for me is matching the era the music is trying to evoke, and with some genres the lack of precision is a plus. As a side note I wish computer keyboards came standard with a row of knobs and a big fader, because I also agree the interface issue is a problem.
@@JazzyFizzleDrummers Matching the era is important, and lack of precision is welcome too! I tried to advocate for limitations, and I tend to use even Pro-Q simply. But that's the cool thing about Kirchoff: it's got those analog models as presets, if you really need them. Kirchoff is on my to-get list for sure. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I like it more than I thought I would. It totally saved some dead toms with the dynamic eq. Having that in the same spot as the analog stuff is a major plus. My only gripe is that it is fairly cpu intensive when you are fullu taking advantage of its features