|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 9, 2021 19:43:59 GMT -6
Well the filters are wholly different so you can’t just copy eq settings over. That’s a recipe for disaster. TDR also makes you pay for the narrower Surgical curves, the same as with Slick EQ GE’s most useful Japanese mode. docs.tokyodawn.net/nova-ge-manual/#Curve_ModesFabfilter truncates to 32 bit float upon export back to the daw (same as Pro Tools) and Nova GE’s dynamic sections are noticeably cleaner. A recipe for disaster?? Dear me that does sound serious. Unless I'm working on the DSP team, I don't actually care what's going on (or alleged to be going on) under the hood. I care about what happens to the sonics of the audio I run through the processor. For this test, the stereo image, the individual elements' places within that image and the separation and clarity of each element in relation to all the others is what I cared about. I want a change in frequency response at the lowest possible sonic cost. FF passed that test just a bit better than Nova to me. Are we all talking about dynamic eq? I realized I didn’t really specify that…but that’s what I thought I heard a difference in. I think I mentioned something about the attack adjustability…so maybe I did make that clear.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 9, 2021 19:45:13 GMT -6
I also go through periods where I start doubting Pro-Q, but I always end up concluding that whatever differences I thought I was hearing are either nonexistent or too minimal for me to care about. I do think the free JS ReEQ in HQ mode (not the same thing as ReaEQ) sounds ever-so-slightly better, but Pro-Q's workflow is so ingrained in me at this point that the end result is usually better simply by virtue of how goddamn fast I can get to it. I mean it’s not going to stop me from using it. The ease of use is tremendous.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 9, 2021 19:48:55 GMT -6
A recipe for disaster?? Dear me that does sound serious. Unless I'm working on the DSP team, I don't actually care what's going on (or alleged to be going on) under the hood. I care about what happens to the sonics of the audio I run through the processor. For this test, the stereo image, the individual elements' places within that image and the separation and clarity of each element in relation to all the others is what I cared about. I want a change in frequency response at the lowest possible sonic cost. FF passed that test just a bit better than Nova to me. Are we all talking about dynamic eq? I realized I didn’t really specify that…but that’s what I thought I heard a difference in. I think I mentioned something about the attack adjustability…so maybe I did make that clear. Ah ok. I was just comparing overall sonics of the EQ. There are so many sweeping claims being thrown around about this or that plugin and whether or not it Functions Correctly™️ and whatnot that I had half-convinced myself Pro-Q3 had some inherent weirdness to its sound. And when I compared at first, I felt like the Nova really did sound better and the FF really did sound weird. Until I compared blind, of course, in which case the FF sounded better. I didn't carefully compare the dynamics between the two but I did think that Nova's dynamics really sounded nice. I loved it on the drum bus.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 9, 2021 19:50:40 GMT -6
I also go through periods where I start doubting Pro-Q, but I always end up concluding that whatever differences I thought I was hearing are either nonexistent or too minimal for me to care about. I do think the free JS ReEQ in HQ mode (not the same thing as ReaEQ) sounds ever-so-slightly better, but Pro-Q's workflow is so ingrained in me at this point that the end result is usually better simply by virtue of how goddamn fast I can get to it. I mean it’s not going to stop me from using it. The ease of use is tremendous. And (if you care to) it might be worth some blind testing, because in my case the "it" doesn't exist. Or rather, there is an "it" but it's an advantage for the FF not a disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Feb 9, 2021 21:00:39 GMT -6
I also go through periods where I start doubting Pro-Q, but I always end up concluding that whatever differences I thought I was hearing are either nonexistent or too minimal for me to care about. Yeah, I guess I don't really get the showdown here. Regardless of what a given plugin is doing, whether it's smearing or has more clarity, whatever the song sounds like out of the end is all that matters. And, hell, you can easily load multiple plugs on a source and toggle on/off. I don't get the drama here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 22:05:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 9, 2021 23:23:22 GMT -6
I mean it’s not going to stop me from using it. The ease of use is tremendous. And (if you care to) it might be worth some blind testing, because in my case the "it" doesn't exist. Or rather, there is an "it" but it's an advantage for the FF not a disadvantage. But I lm the one that initially swore I heard “it” lol…guess that’s not blind though. I thought I heard some weirdness - some dirtiness when compressing upper mids…so I went looking for other options. Thought Nova handled it much better…but I’m thinking it might be the attack - and the lack of being able to adjust it - on PQ3 that I was hearing.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 9, 2021 23:25:55 GMT -6
And (if you care to) it might be worth some blind testing, because in my case the "it" doesn't exist. Or rather, there is an "it" but it's an advantage for the FF not a disadvantage. But I lm the one that initially swore I heard “it” lol…guess that’s not blind though. I thought I heard some weirdness - some dirtiness when compressing upper mids…so I went looking for other options. Thought Nova handled it much better…but I’m thinking it might be the attack - and the lack of being able to adjust it - on PQ3 that I was hearing. I mean, or you might totally be actually liking the Nova better. Like I said, I heard a difference too, it just flipped from me preferring the Nova to me preferring the Pro-Q3 when I went to blind comparison. But again, that's purely EQ. I feel like I might like the dynamics section of Nova better too, I just haven't done any careful comparing.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 9, 2021 23:26:59 GMT -6
I also go through periods where I start doubting Pro-Q, but I always end up concluding that whatever differences I thought I was hearing are either nonexistent or too minimal for me to care about. Yeah, I guess I don't really get the showdown here. Regardless of what a given plugin is doing, whether it's smearing or has more clarity, whatever the song sounds like out of the end is all that matters. And, hell, you can easily load multiple plugs on a source and toggle on/off. I don't get the drama here. The only time I’ve run into this - and it has been more than a couple - has been when I’m really trying to surgically fix a problem vocal. In fact, I think I posted this after trying to fix that one horribly recorded chick vocal (I deleted the thread because I wanted to make sure she never saw it) that I posted about. Like major dynamic eq cuts. Just felt like Nova did it better. But again - I could be hearing things.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 9, 2021 23:29:06 GMT -6
But I lm the one that initially swore I heard “it” lol…guess that’s not blind though. I thought I heard some weirdness - some dirtiness when compressing upper mids…so I went looking for other options. Thought Nova handled it much better…but I’m thinking it might be the attack - and the lack of being able to adjust it - on PQ3 that I was hearing. I mean, or you might totally be actually liking the Nova better. Like I said, I heard a difference too, it just flipped from me preferring the Nova to me preferring the Pro-Q3 when I went to blind comparison. But again, that's purely EQ. I feel like I might like the dynamics section of Nova better too, I just haven't done any careful comparing. Purely eq, Nova is pretty damn clunky. I don’t know why it didn’t occur to me that people wouldn’t just get that I was talking about the dynamic eq part of it lol. I think I’ve just always thought that was what Nova was - not an EQ, but a dynamic eq.
|
|
|
Post by superwack on Feb 9, 2021 23:47:37 GMT -6
I mean, or you might totally be actually liking the Nova better. Like I said, I heard a difference too, it just flipped from me preferring the Nova to me preferring the Pro-Q3 when I went to blind comparison. But again, that's purely EQ. I feel like I might like the dynamics section of Nova better too, I just haven't done any careful comparing. Purely eq, Nova is pretty damn clunky. I don’t know why it didn’t occur to me that people wouldn’t just get that I was talking about the dynamic eq part of it lol. I think I’ve just always thought that was what Nova was - not an EQ, but a dynamic eq. I get that as NOVA was released as a dynamic EQ BUT I always look at Pro-Q3 as only an "EQ" that they happened to bolt some dynamic abilities on during the last update since I've been using it since it's first version.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Feb 9, 2021 23:50:49 GMT -6
I would almost think a better comparison would be to FF ProMB, where you can change attack/release times.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 9, 2021 23:56:30 GMT -6
I would almost think a better comparison would be to FF ProMB, where you can change attack/release times. Yeah, if we're talking the dynamics, for sure. My test was purely EQ, no dynamics engaged on either. But I did compare Nova to Pro-MB a little bit today. No clear conclusion other than that they do sound different. I suspect I might use Nova on drums quite a bit. Even the EQ. It has a bit more of a colored sound, I called it 'cloudy' in the EQ comparison post but I don't necessarily mean that in a purely negative way. Some of my favorite SSL channel strips have some of that. Anyway, I like Nova on drums. The compressor seems to be a bit smackier and less refined than Pro-MB (or Pro-Q3), kind of more assertive. That sounds cool on drums. And again, Nova is free! No need to choose between it and the FF stuff I already have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2021 0:04:10 GMT -6
I also go through periods where I start doubting Pro-Q, but I always end up concluding that whatever differences I thought I was hearing are either nonexistent or too minimal for me to care about. Yeah, I guess I don't really get the showdown here. Regardless of what a given plugin is doing, whether it's smearing or has more clarity, whatever the song sounds like out of the end is all that matters. And, hell, you can easily load multiple plugs on a source and toggle on/off. I don't get the drama here. There's no conflict. It's all preference and part mental. Whatever eq you start the project with, is probably going to sound the best because the mind inherently compensates for the various filters and processing. Whatever sounds the best for something and someone, is the best for them. I would never even think of using Nova as a parametric eq like ragan did because well... it's clunkier for that than the stock daw ones. but it can be cpu intensive and the Tokyo Dawn guis can crash upon loading or exiting and I already use do most things in Slick EQ and now the PSP masterq2 I got on sale where the gui is out of 2002
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2021 0:26:21 GMT -6
I would almost think a better comparison would be to FF ProMB, where you can change attack/release times. Yeah, if we're talking the dynamics, for sure. My test was purely EQ, no dynamics engaged on either. But I did compare Nova to Pro-MB a little bit today. No clear conclusion other than that they do sound different. I suspect I might use Nova on drums quite a bit. Even the EQ. It has a bit more of a colored sound, I called it 'cloudy' in the EQ comparison post but I don't necessarily mean that in a purely negative way. Some of my favorite SSL channel strips have some of that. Anyway, I like Nova on drums. The compressor seems to be a bit smackier and less refined than Pro-MB (or Pro-Q3), kind of more assertive. That sounds cool on drums. And again, Nova is free! No need to choose between it and the FF stuff I already have. Honestly, upon thinking about it, I think you just discovered the Tokyo Dawn timbre. A bunch of other guys and I noted a while ago the change in timbre from the VladG to the Tokyo Dawn versions of the plugs. Fabien said that was just the anti-aliasing filters at work scrubbing away all the sometimes cool digital dirt. I never used Nova 67P much but Molot and Limiter 6 went from covered in soil to a dust cloud and hyper clarity respectively in the Gentleman's Editions.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 10, 2021 4:31:15 GMT -6
Hmm, since ff has a match eq button, I’d be interested in heating a blind shoot out ?
I think FF will match the eq/sound of what ever you select? So, use the challenger as the first and have ff match it ?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 10, 2021 4:37:14 GMT -6
And if we are talking dynamics, without exactly matching the volume envelope change it’s apples to oranges.
Could be done, but if you think you have a eq preference, why not just stick with that ?
From an all round user experience, I’m pretty happy with ff.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 10, 2021 7:10:02 GMT -6
FF is all over everything I do. I don't even care if something else sounds "better". FF is part of my workflow at this point.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Feb 10, 2021 8:02:00 GMT -6
I had nova before FF.
Fabfilter wins out now for the most part because it’s a quicker and easier interface to deal with.
I do still send my bass bus to an aux with Nova on it. The low end dynamic eq helps squeeze things into the low end nicely and FF doesn’t give quite the same effect.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 10, 2021 8:23:50 GMT -6
FF is all over everything I do. I don't even care if something else sounds "better". FF is part of my workflow at this point. Seems like Fab Filter is an "industry standard" for plugins, if that can be a thing. I bought the Toneboosters last night came out to about $47 after the currency conversion and tax. Someone else just put LVC Toned-MAX on my radar, another $50 EQ, but I'm too fatigued to dive into that right now.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 10, 2021 9:09:47 GMT -6
No reason to get our dicks out of joint…you can use whatever you want. I thought I heard the dynamic eq of Nova to be a little smoother. Maybe I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 10, 2021 9:31:13 GMT -6
No reason to get our dicks out of joint…you can use whatever you want. I thought I heard the dynamic eq of Nova to be a little smoother. Maybe I was wrong. Having a dick out of joint sounds like the worst thing ever. Is that a saying down there? Funny as hell.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 10, 2021 9:38:29 GMT -6
One really cool thing about Pro Q3 is the CPU usage. It's almost invisible in the footprint. I just added 40 or 50 of them to a Cubase project and the CPU barely even registered. You can use as many as you possibly want in a session. That's a good accomplishment for a plugin that can do so much.
The Toneboosters uses a tiny bit of CPU, just a little bit though, but more than Pro Q3. Probably not enough to break a project, a very small hit with 40 or 50 instances.
The TDR stuff puts me off a little bit, the interface is a tiny bit odd to me. The curves are less standard than these other plugins, broader and more interactive, seems like. When I think parametric EQ I want those normal curves, for how I'm used to working. Got trained and ingrained by Pro Q3 over the years.
Apologies if my EQ musing is starting to make circles, I'm just a little bit obsessed right now. It's a good topic. I don't think any of them win or lose, just personal preferences at play.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 10, 2021 10:53:10 GMT -6
No reason to get our dicks out of joint…you can use whatever you want. I thought I heard the dynamic eq of Nova to be a little smoother. Maybe I was wrong. Having a dick out of joint sounds like the worst thing ever. Is that a saying down there? Funny as hell. Currently imagining the chiropractic appointment for that. (
Doc)"What happened?"
(ME)"Well, I was on RGO in a debate about digital EQ's..."
(Doc)"Stick to mixing"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2021 11:11:36 GMT -6
One really cool thing about Pro Q3 is the CPU usage. It's almost invisible in the footprint. I just added 40 or 50 of them to a Cubase project and the CPU barely even registered. You can use as many as you possibly want in a session. That's a good accomplishment for a plugin that can do so much. The Toneboosters uses a tiny bit of CPU, just a little bit though, but more than Pro Q3. Probably not enough to break a project, a very small hit with 40 or 50 instances. The TDR stuff puts me off a little bit, the interface is a tiny bit odd to me. The curves are less standard than these other plugins, broader and more interactive, seems like. When I think parametric EQ I want those normal curves, for how I'm used to working. Got trained and ingrained by Pro Q3 over the years. Apologies if my EQ musing is starting to make circles, I'm just a little bit obsessed right now. It's a good topic. I don't think any of them win or lose, just personal preferences at play. Again, TDR makes you pay for the surgical curves for Slick EQ and Nova. You need the GE for them. They can’t give away the house for free.
|
|