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
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 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!
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!
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'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.
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!
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!
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The average listener could give a shit. You hate channel strips, and analog modeled EQ's and have convinced yourself that ProQ3 is all you need, and maybe it is for you, and if you like it, then that is fine. Some people like the workflow of other plugins, and some like the sound even if it is snake oil shit because they don't have to grab 4 stock plugins to do the same thing the 1 does. Who really cares? Most of the hits you hear on the radio for the last 20 years are mixed with the plugins you hate so much. It is what it is. That guy liked the pultec plugin because it had a nice curve when he turned a knob and the shitty harmonics sounded good aliasing and all. Some people just like things. If only the world would just use Fabfilter plugins and long plugin chains wouldn't it be the greatest utopia ever? One can dream...
I totally agree: in the end, it doesn't matter. The first all-digital mixes were done with 8-bit converters; mixes in the 90s used stock Pro Tools plugins. Use what you like and make good mixes. 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
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!
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 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
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!
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
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
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.
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 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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
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.
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!
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
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!
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'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...
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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 :)
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.
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!
Why do these videos always use fake drums. Every damn time. You make a good point though, I rarely use anything but Kirchhoff EQ which is the next obvious step in EQ plugin development from pro q.
That's a good point. I don't get to mix multitracked real drums much these days; I need to dig into my archives and restore some projects with real kits. Great idea. And you're saying that FabFilter should make Pro-Q more like Kirchhoff?
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!
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.
Within the first 45 seconds, you de-bunked your own idea First couple of seconds basically said "don't buy an EQ" The next couple of seconds said "use the affiliate link to buy an EQ" lol
Haha! Well, I need to pay the billz, haha. I hope I didn't say "use my link to buy an EQ"...I just want to point people to my affiliate site. I'm probably thinking: "if you need a good EQ, here are some options". Cheers!
I've been hearing that a lot, that they're quicker to use. I struggle to understand that, because I can open Pro-Q, or any stock EQ, and work immediately with whatever frequency I want. I suppose you have fixed filter curves, but again, I could just save my default settings in my EQ to have fixed bands & filters, so I still prefer my digital situation. But I do see the point of limitations. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios but this is only your choice not to use or buy it. I understand, that most of the curves in those "analog eqs" are dynamic and it is almost impossible to reproduce them fully in stuff like Pro-Q3. I know it because I was trying to do that a long time ago (that was in 2015 or so, omg that's almost 10 years ago...).
There is a point where you are wrong, one of the main reasons for using analog eq is that there are fewer options. When you use digital, you can make a very difficult decision, I'll fix it here, I'll cut it here, blah blah blah. I use analog eq for clean fast musical results, usually in buss mixes.
I hear you! I tried to speak to the advantage of limitations and the limitations of overabundance, but it's a good point. Again, I do generally use only 1-3 bands when track EQ-ing, and not go overboard. 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!
Whatever. I won't buy ridiculously expensive plugins. But there is a ridiculously good analog style plugins... EQ included... Some things that are really perfect for people to work with who know how to use them... Great for workflow and really good for the tone
I'm all for anything that works for people. I do want to be clear: the only analog style plugins I have this issue with is EQ. Compressors have totally different behaviour that cannot be nulled and can totally approximate hardware. But really, if you like the sound of an analog plugin, then it IS good. 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
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 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 completely agree! Pro-Q 3 is my default, and I wanted to demonstrate how powerful non-analog-modeled EQs can be. But your DAW EQ is fine, or you can get Ozone EQ or some others for free, or little money! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios aye, Pro-Q3 is sweet because you can also use it as a multiband compressor while EQing - but modern DAWs also began to include multiband compressors in theirs.
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!
Thanks! Yeah, I agree I’m breaking no new ground here. Just wanting to put my two cents, meant to do this ages ago. Thanks so much for watching and commenting! Cheers!
Okay, but can you explain what "good mixing practices " are? Good to whom? If you think you're saving the newcomers from being duped into believing that Analog Emulations and Channel Strips are necessary for a professional mix, then okay. But I think you're over correcting a problem in a way that misses the point. You don't need a Porsche to get to work, you're dad's Toyota Corolla will do. But it aint a Porsche. This generation gets to drive any Supercar they choose, for about $29.95. If that. If the only purpose of driving is to get to the destination, then yeah, why not take the bus. But I often get behind the wheel and start driving with no particular destination in mind. I enjoy just seeing where the road takes me.
I like your analogy...maybe I can borrow it sometime? So I guess: what is the destination? The mall, or a cathedral? Yeah, I like this analogy...cheers!
I'll take the UAD Pultec + Pro-Q 3 Porsches, over Ableton's stock EQ anytime. Kirschoff EQ could be said to be a tuned sleeper, I hate its interface but it's that good; Pro-Q 3 + Pultec are the ones I use - I even use Ableton's EQ8 when I'm super lazy, but it isn't transparent and its musicality is so Abletonishly weird, compared to the emulated curves. Kirschoff is the way to go for practicality, Pro-Q 3 + Pultec (or Neve/SSL/etc) for enjoying the road properly.
@beatsandstuff So when You're garage door open, you Hop in whichever whip your feelin' that day. Some time it's a Rupert Neve Rolls Royce. Some times it's an API American Muscle Car. Maybe it's a Tesla Kirchoff today. You could take the Stock Toyota Carolla, but why?
I like your metaphor. I would respond that I see where you're coming from, but the thing is: is that $29.95 Porsche actually a Porsche? Or is it a Corolla that the car salesman is telling you is a Porsche? I think often the latter. What I mean about "Best mixing practices" is things like subtractive EQ, not doing massive EQ-ing on every single track, thus introducing phase issues, not highpassing everything just because you think you should...things like that. Cheers!
There are hundreds of thousands of plugins out there I'm pretty sure you didn't try every single one of them. So you probably don't even now want your talking about.
I definitely can't try them all. But my main point is: if you're making normal EQ moves across many channels in a mix-do you think you'd really notice if the EQ was digital or analog? I don't find a big difference, so that's why I made this video. Cheers!
A tad confusing. So you are saying, Pro-Q at over $120 it can replicate other EQs that I've bought... Or any other EQ you mention that costs more than UAD or Waves :) Obvs, some have a demo, but many don't and I have way more value on my time to be replicating something that's already there. I get what you are hinting at. But that's like a sports car owner, convincing me my car can do the same as his, if I tweak it like his. Without knowing his settings.
I see what you're saying. I would respond with: you can know the settings, because we can use analyzers to see the EQ curves. Now, I get it: we all don't want to spend 20-60 minutes carefully dialing in EQ curves until they null, but my overall point in the video is: we can get the same results in a mix with any EQ-especially if we're using good mixing practices-and have more control over any saturation and aliasing. You don't have to have an analog-modelled EQ to do a 4dB boost at 1k! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios Certainly, I agree. I've spent (and assume most of us have) way too much on gear, when current gear would suffice. Is Logic X really holding me back... ProQ isn't going to make my track any better than stock lol Same with synths. I can make a Juno patch with ANY synth & plugs. Would I trade my Juno-60 in? It's severely limited compared, and that's what I like. Its limits are sweet spots. Same with these 'Vintage plugins'. They have sweet spots and less faff on. But I do get why others want more flexibility. Good discussion though. Cheers
@@palebluedotstudios eheheh :) But there are some good analogue emulations..that s true, even in digital hardware gear, like guitar pedalboards, amp boxes, etc...I do have some and they are pretty close...But nothing beats the real thing...:)
@@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.
I agree and hve for decades now as well. While many of these pluginz do sound good, they are simply fru-fru-ing which anyone skilled could and should do to achieve their desired aims (or not at all in many cases). If I want a compressor, or eq, or compressing eq'd compressed eq that compressed the eq then all I need to do is add devices that do those things in that order. If someone can't do that, they are simply not ready for it. The thing is tho that this "anal-og" thing is like religion, people believe regardless of the actual facts and philosophy of what their relevant old ugly dude said. Say something different and they bet mighty bent and go to war. Today I proved what I have always known for decades as well: All synths sound the same! (with some caveats) ua-cam.com/video/v7bzSv7IEMA/v-deo.html
I agree: I think there's a lot of faith-based thinking when it comes to analog-modelled plugins. Just watched your video-it's fantastic! Another point that's dying to be made. Love the Slim-Fatty test. You're much better at extemporaneous speaking than I am, plug a British accent, so you have a nice edge. Subscribed! ;) Your name sounds familiar... do I know you from KVR?
@@palebluedotstudios Thanks and yes I was on KVR (and other places) but have pulled back from them all because of the whole DAWville as a crazy toxic cult thing (another of my vids). :-)
@@BenedictRoffMarsh I pulled away from KVR many years ago, mostly due to being addicted to the forum. I'm not familiar with DAWville, but there was always plenty of toxicity to go around (along with lovely people). I'll have to check out your video!
@@palebluedotstudios DAWville means the strange 'world' that has grown around modern music making (incl DAWless jams). Mostly it happens in forums etc BUT it also has changed how people in the real world do things in nonsensical ways like telling me all their gear but refusing to talk about the song itself. :-)
There is so much misinformation and divisiveness in this video it's insane. You only proved yourself wrong in literally every test and then said "well I like it so it doesn't matter". Why would you upload this contrarian hit piece?
I publish these pieces because I find the subjects interesting, and often I find my thoughts ramble a bit, so I wouldn't be surprised if I did contradict myself from time to time. I was mostly trying to say "I don't think analog modelled EQs make a big enough difference in a full mix to use them instead of a good standard EQ". I'm sure I probably mis-explained some science, and that's fine! It's good when you guys point out any errors or challenge me, then I can challenge my preconcpetions! 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!
Se vedo un altra volta la UI di un 1773, nelle varie brutte interpretazioni dei vari brand giuro che vomito. Basta, avete rotto le palle. Fate qualcosa di diverso.
I've gotten into it with people in comments over a similar topic, but not over EQs, over all these compressors that are supposed to model old compressors. Pro C or the Ableton Compressor is all you need... WHY all these compressors that are supposed to look like something from the 1950s? The argument people make is these compressors "add" to the sound... okay, but it's a COMPRESSOR! If you understand compression and know what you are doing, you simply want compression... not "adding to the sound" thus why would you NOT use Pro-C and SEE visually what you are doing and have as many controls as possible vs crappy LA-2A plugins with ZERO attack and release?
Ooh, I love the passionate stance! It's funny: there have been many comments asking about analog compressors vs digital compressors. And like you, I find myself using quality "digital" compressors that aren't modelled after any specific analog compressor, because it has the sound I like; such as Audio Damage RoughRider (which will give you 1176-style compression without explicitly being that) or Waves RenAxx (which sounds great on anything!). Now, I still think you can make great EQs modelled on analog gear, and you can get very close with the sound, so it doesn't work me up as much as EQs. But I'm thinking my next video will be on analog modelled compressors. You make a good point for the "con" side! Thanks so much, cheers!
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.
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
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!
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!
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 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!
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! 👍
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!
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'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.
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!
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!
You can always trust a person that’s using cubase , if they use the best daw they know what’s best and what’s not about plug-ins
Cheers, my friend! I won't say Cubase is the best DAW ever on my channel, but I won't deny it either...😄
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The average listener could give a shit. You hate channel strips, and analog modeled EQ's and have convinced yourself that ProQ3 is all you need, and maybe it is for you, and if you like it, then that is fine. Some people like the workflow of other plugins, and some like the sound even if it is snake oil shit because they don't have to grab 4 stock plugins to do the same thing the 1 does. Who really cares? Most of the hits you hear on the radio for the last 20 years are mixed with the plugins you hate so much. It is what it is. That guy liked the pultec plugin because it had a nice curve when he turned a knob and the shitty harmonics sounded good aliasing and all. Some people just like things. If only the world would just use Fabfilter plugins and long plugin chains wouldn't it be the greatest utopia ever? One can dream...
I totally agree: in the end, it doesn't matter. The first all-digital mixes were done with 8-bit converters; mixes in the 90s used stock Pro Tools plugins. Use what you like and make good mixes. Cheers!
Ice Ice Baby only had a limiter on the master. It's the creative who matters, not the equipment; although the equipment can be helpful.
@@beatsandstuff As in Vanilla Ice? And I agree about the equipment; well said.
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!
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!
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 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.
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!
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
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
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!
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.
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
Great video. Subscribed!
Thank you so much! That means a lot. 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!
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!
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!
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.
I don't need to go to the beach... but yet, I still go....
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
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!
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!
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!
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.
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!
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!
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!
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...
Totally agree!
Amazing! Thank you! 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...
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? 😃
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!
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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 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!
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. 😄
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!
You made excellent points in here
Thank you so much! That means a lot. Cheers!
Why do these videos always use fake drums. Every damn time. You make a good point though, I rarely use anything but Kirchhoff EQ which is the next obvious step in EQ plugin development from pro q.
That's a good point. I don't get to mix multitracked real drums much these days; I need to dig into my archives and restore some projects with real kits. Great idea.
And you're saying that FabFilter should make Pro-Q more like Kirchhoff?
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!
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...😂
100% Agree!...Maybe even more!
Great to hear! Thanks so much for watching, cheers!
for subtractive eq digital eq is better for additive eq analogue is better. Period
Pardon the late reply! wasn't getting notifications. So I'm curious about that: why are boosts better "period"?
Within the first 45 seconds, you de-bunked your own idea
First couple of seconds basically said "don't buy an EQ"
The next couple of seconds said "use the affiliate link to buy an EQ"
lol
Haha! Well, I need to pay the billz, haha. I hope I didn't say "use my link to buy an EQ"...I just want to point people to my affiliate site. I'm probably thinking: "if you need a good EQ, here are some options". Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios I understand, I like the video, thumbs up.
@@arnolenke Thanks so much, cheers!
"Analog EQs" are just quicker to use. And its "famous character" only tells that you can stick with it, if the result satisfies you. This is it.
I've been hearing that a lot, that they're quicker to use. I struggle to understand that, because I can open Pro-Q, or any stock EQ, and work immediately with whatever frequency I want. I suppose you have fixed filter curves, but again, I could just save my default settings in my EQ to have fixed bands & filters, so I still prefer my digital situation. But I do see the point of limitations. Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios but this is only your choice not to use or buy it. I understand, that most of the curves in those "analog eqs" are dynamic and it is almost impossible to reproduce them fully in stuff like Pro-Q3. I know it because I was trying to do that a long time ago (that was in 2015 or so, omg that's almost 10 years ago...).
There is a point where you are wrong, one of the main reasons for using analog eq is that there are fewer options. When you use digital, you can make a very difficult decision, I'll fix it here, I'll cut it here, blah blah blah. I use analog eq for clean fast musical results, usually in buss mixes.
I hear you! I tried to speak to the advantage of limitations and the limitations of overabundance, but it's a good point. Again, I do generally use only 1-3 bands when track EQ-ing, and not go overboard. 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!
Great video.... thank you so much...
My absolute pleasure! Thank you so much for watching!
*RIGHT ON!*
Cheers! Thanks!
Cubase stock plugins are more than enough and better than 95% of third party plugins...
Agreed. Plenty of great stuff, especially in the last few years. Cheers!
Whatever. I won't buy ridiculously expensive plugins. But there is a ridiculously good analog style plugins... EQ included... Some things that are really perfect for people to work with who know how to use them... Great for workflow and really good for the tone
I'm all for anything that works for people. I do want to be clear: the only analog style plugins I have this issue with is EQ. Compressors have totally different behaviour that cannot be nulled and can totally approximate hardware. But really, if you like the sound of an analog plugin, then it IS good. Cheers.
Great content!! Well said!!
Thank you so much! That means everything. 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
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... :)
@@PlottingTheDownfall Tell me Tell me Tell me!
“I don’t need them and neither do you”
How dare you
I dare to compare! Haha. 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!
You don't even need to buy ProQ for that, a stock parametric EQ in your DAW will do literally the same thing. And you don't need to pay extra.
I completely agree! Pro-Q 3 is my default, and I wanted to demonstrate how powerful non-analog-modeled EQs can be. But your DAW EQ is fine, or you can get Ozone EQ or some others for free, or little money! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios aye, Pro-Q3 is sweet because you can also use it as a multiband compressor while EQing - but modern DAWs also began to include multiband compressors in theirs.
@@wrmusic8736 Yes, we're starting to see more complex EQ tools in DAWs-great to see!
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!
Preach
Word. Glad you enjoyed. 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 wish you had made this four years ago…
Well, I’m kicking myself now! The video is doing very well, Haha. Glad you enjoyed it, stay tuned for more! Cheers.
Valid point.💯
Thanks so much! And thanks for watching, cheers!
BULLSHIT! Universaj Audio RULES!
You know it! Cheers!
Ah, a copy pasta video of Dan, Paul and Ian plus many more. Good job. Spread the word
Thanks! Yeah, I agree I’m breaking no new ground here. Just wanting to put my two cents, meant to do this ages ago. Thanks so much for watching and commenting! Cheers!
Use a different eq every day because it keeps the doctor away.
There’s a lot to be said for keeping it fresh with new tools! Cheers
Okay, but can you explain what "good mixing practices " are?
Good to whom?
If you think you're saving the newcomers from being duped into believing that Analog Emulations and Channel Strips are necessary for a professional mix, then okay.
But I think you're over correcting a problem in a way that misses the point.
You don't need a Porsche to get to work, you're dad's Toyota Corolla will do. But it aint a Porsche.
This generation gets to drive any Supercar they choose, for about $29.95. If that.
If the only purpose of driving is to get to the destination, then yeah, why not take the bus.
But I often get behind the wheel and start driving with no particular destination in mind. I enjoy just seeing where the road takes me.
I like your analogy...maybe I can borrow it sometime?
So I guess: what is the destination? The mall, or a cathedral? Yeah, I like this analogy...cheers!
I'll take the UAD Pultec + Pro-Q 3 Porsches, over Ableton's stock EQ anytime. Kirschoff EQ could be said to be a tuned sleeper, I hate its interface but it's that good; Pro-Q 3 + Pultec are the ones I use - I even use Ableton's EQ8 when I'm super lazy, but it isn't transparent and its musicality is so Abletonishly weird, compared to the emulated curves. Kirschoff is the way to go for practicality, Pro-Q 3 + Pultec (or Neve/SSL/etc) for enjoying the road properly.
@beatsandstuff So when You're garage door open, you Hop in whichever whip your feelin' that day.
Some time it's a Rupert Neve Rolls Royce. Some times it's an API American Muscle Car. Maybe it's a Tesla Kirchoff today.
You could take the Stock Toyota Carolla, but why?
@@G_handle The Corolla leads you to the Yarrr ship at the Bay.
I like your metaphor. I would respond that I see where you're coming from, but the thing is: is that $29.95 Porsche actually a Porsche? Or is it a Corolla that the car salesman is telling you is a Porsche? I think often the latter.
What I mean about "Best mixing practices" is things like subtractive EQ, not doing massive EQ-ing on every single track, thus introducing phase issues, not highpassing everything just because you think you should...things like that. Cheers!
There are hundreds of thousands of plugins out there I'm pretty sure you didn't try every single one of them. So you probably don't even now want your talking about.
I definitely can't try them all. But my main point is: if you're making normal EQ moves across many channels in a mix-do you think you'd really notice if the EQ was digital or analog? I don't find a big difference, so that's why I made this video. Cheers!
A tad confusing. So you are saying, Pro-Q at over $120 it can replicate other EQs that I've bought... Or any other EQ you mention that costs more than UAD or Waves :) Obvs, some have a demo, but many don't and I have way more value on my time to be replicating something that's already there.
I get what you are hinting at. But that's like a sports car owner, convincing me my car can do the same as his, if I tweak it like his. Without knowing his settings.
I see what you're saying. I would respond with: you can know the settings, because we can use analyzers to see the EQ curves. Now, I get it: we all don't want to spend 20-60 minutes carefully dialing in EQ curves until they null, but my overall point in the video is: we can get the same results in a mix with any EQ-especially if we're using good mixing practices-and have more control over any saturation and aliasing. You don't have to have an analog-modelled EQ to do a 4dB boost at 1k! Cheers!
@@palebluedotstudios Certainly, I agree.
I've spent (and assume most of us have) way too much on gear, when current gear would suffice. Is Logic X really holding me back... ProQ isn't going to make my track any better than stock lol
Same with synths. I can make a Juno patch with ANY synth & plugs. Would I trade my Juno-60 in? It's severely limited compared, and that's what I like. Its limits are sweet spots. Same with these 'Vintage plugins'. They have sweet spots and less faff on. But I do get why others want more flexibility.
Good discussion though. Cheers
@@vaiman7777 Imagine if we spent all that money investing on crypto instead of buying plugins? I mean not now, but when we were starting out. Yikes!
Is any plugin an analogue thing? Oh my
That is a good question! I think things like analog-modelled compressors are a more accurate thing.
@@palebluedotstudios Hi....I understand, but it is still digital 100% :)...0's and 1's :)
@@gibson2623 Oh yeah, for sure! :)
@@palebluedotstudios eheheh :) But there are some good analogue emulations..that s true, even in digital hardware gear, like guitar pedalboards, amp boxes, etc...I do have some and they are pretty close...But nothing beats the real thing...:)
too late , i have most and only use pro q3 🙆♂
Haha. Good news then! You figured it out already! Cheers! 🍻
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.
I agree and hve for decades now as well. While many of these pluginz do sound good, they are simply fru-fru-ing which anyone skilled could and should do to achieve their desired aims (or not at all in many cases). If I want a compressor, or eq, or compressing eq'd compressed eq that compressed the eq then all I need to do is add devices that do those things in that order. If someone can't do that, they are simply not ready for it.
The thing is tho that this "anal-og" thing is like religion, people believe regardless of the actual facts and philosophy of what their relevant old ugly dude said. Say something different and they bet mighty bent and go to war.
Today I proved what I have always known for decades as well: All synths sound the same! (with some caveats)
ua-cam.com/video/v7bzSv7IEMA/v-deo.html
I agree: I think there's a lot of faith-based thinking when it comes to analog-modelled plugins.
Just watched your video-it's fantastic! Another point that's dying to be made. Love the Slim-Fatty test. You're much better at extemporaneous speaking than I am, plug a British accent, so you have a nice edge. Subscribed! ;)
Your name sounds familiar... do I know you from KVR?
@@palebluedotstudios Thanks and yes I was on KVR (and other places) but have pulled back from them all because of the whole DAWville as a crazy toxic cult thing (another of my vids).
:-)
@@BenedictRoffMarsh I pulled away from KVR many years ago, mostly due to being addicted to the forum. I'm not familiar with DAWville, but there was always plenty of toxicity to go around (along with lovely people). I'll have to check out your video!
@@palebluedotstudios DAWville means the strange 'world' that has grown around modern music making (incl DAWless jams). Mostly it happens in forums etc BUT it also has changed how people in the real world do things in nonsensical ways like telling me all their gear but refusing to talk about the song itself. :-)
1:)…?
There is so much misinformation and divisiveness in this video it's insane. You only proved yourself wrong in literally every test and then said "well I like it so it doesn't matter". Why would you upload this contrarian hit piece?
I publish these pieces because I find the subjects interesting, and often I find my thoughts ramble a bit, so I wouldn't be surprised if I did contradict myself from time to time. I was mostly trying to say "I don't think analog modelled EQs make a big enough difference in a full mix to use them instead of a good standard EQ". I'm sure I probably mis-explained some science, and that's fine! It's good when you guys point out any errors or challenge me, then I can challenge my preconcpetions! 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!
Se vedo un altra volta la UI di un 1773, nelle varie brutte interpretazioni dei vari brand giuro che vomito. Basta, avete rotto le palle. Fate qualcosa di diverso.
I don't speak Italian, but that was mean. :(
not so much fratello! 🎉
Lol
Cheers
I've gotten into it with people in comments over a similar topic, but not over EQs, over all these compressors that are supposed to model old compressors. Pro C or the Ableton Compressor is all you need... WHY all these compressors that are supposed to look like something from the 1950s? The argument people make is these compressors "add" to the sound... okay, but it's a COMPRESSOR! If you understand compression and know what you are doing, you simply want compression... not "adding to the sound" thus why would you NOT use Pro-C and SEE visually what you are doing and have as many controls as possible vs crappy LA-2A plugins with ZERO attack and release?
Ooh, I love the passionate stance! It's funny: there have been many comments asking about analog compressors vs digital compressors. And like you, I find myself using quality "digital" compressors that aren't modelled after any specific analog compressor, because it has the sound I like; such as Audio Damage RoughRider (which will give you 1176-style compression without explicitly being that) or Waves RenAxx (which sounds great on anything!). Now, I still think you can make great EQs modelled on analog gear, and you can get very close with the sound, so it doesn't work me up as much as EQs. But I'm thinking my next video will be on analog modelled compressors. You make a good point for the "con" side! Thanks so much, cheers!
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.
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
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!