|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 20, 2021 17:38:09 GMT -6
Anyone else messing with this thing?
The first mode is kind of like Slick EQ GE, the next mode is a classic deep-dive graphic parametric digital EQ, and the third mode kind of confuses me right now, but you can see multiple channels at a time and see where they overlap for "masking" frequencies.
It feels slightly clumsy to me, I'm still getting to grips with the controls / interface.
I truly miss the presence of a gain control. People are praising the autogain on here, and it does work well, but I want a trim, damn it.
I was trying too hard to "mix with my eyes" on the third mode, I should have just ignored it, but it did give me one tip about the bass and vocal. I'm sure I will get used to this, it just has a learning curve on day 1.
Next time I will ignore the meters more. But regarding the all important sound test..... my mix sounds good. Kind of big and wide, as a matter of fact.
And regarding the EQ shapes you get a lot more options here than you do in the regular Oxford EQ. It's a modern whiz-bang style thing with flat top curves, super steep filter slopes, and so on. Seems to have inherited the smooth sound quality that Sonnox is known for.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Oct 22, 2021 9:11:22 GMT -6
I am really liking it. I don't go into the 'mix' view much, but when i do, it's been useful. Less for 'mixing with eyes' (though I think those features are well-implemented and they HAVE proven useful a few times) and more for just getting all my eqs in front of me in one place.
The resonance detection (when you set a narrow Q) is awesome. The auto gain is also very, very awesome. This is, for my money, the next evolutionary step (from Pro Q) in modern digital eq. Plus, it sounds really good..haven't done a direct a/b against Pro Q, but I'm finding I like my results better with Claro. That could be a question of Q values / shapes or whatever, but in any event, I'm getting "there" faster and with less hassle, so i'm happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Oct 22, 2021 9:22:27 GMT -6
Maybe it's just me but I struggle to get excited anymore about digital EQ plugins.
They all seem to be based on the same old "cookbook" DSP - they all null to silence or so close as to be identical.
I get there's workflow enhancements, but after buying DMG Equilibrium and Fabfilter Pro-Q my last EQ purchases have been analog hardware
as they seems to actually have some character and personality.
Am I getting jaded in my old age?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 22, 2021 9:44:04 GMT -6
Thanks Bgrotto and thehightenor,
Yes the Auto Gain and the tabbed all-in-one view are the money shots here! I agree. Your balance is left pristine and you can just tweak away. I got a much better than average mix my first run with it. Got my tone from "color" compressors. Although I would like to see something like a Claro Compressor someday.
Think I'm going to forge ahead with this one since my initial results were so positive. Tweaking EQ without changing the balance is kind of a big deal new way to mix, for me.
thehightenor, the sound quality is top notch here, but I agree with you, it's not the big draw in this case. It's "that" plus the workflow features (easy mode, tweak mode, all in one mix mode, and that sweet sweet auto gain compensation.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Oct 22, 2021 10:00:09 GMT -6
Maybe it's just me but I struggle to get excited anymore about digital EQ plugins. They all seem to be based on the same old "cookbook" DSP - they all null to silence or so close as to be identical. I get there's workflow enhancements, but after buying DMG Equilibrium and Fabfilter Pro-Q my last EQ purchases have been analog hardware as they seems to actually have some character and personality. Am I getting jaded in my old age? Nah I hear ya, and I'm more or less in agreement. The thing that strikes me with Claro is, it makes me work faster. Much in the same way Pro Q did when it first came out (it won me over from a years-long affair with my beloved MDW eq). Once you start working faster, it's tough to go back to working slower! Ha. Especially with my situation is that of a full timer; if a plugin saves me just five minutes per mix, it'll pay for itself over the course of a year or -- as is certainly in the case of Claro -- less. Hell...Claro probably already paid for itself with the EP i'm mixing this week, and I am still in the demo period 🤣 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2021 14:17:47 GMT -6
I am really liking it. I don't go into the 'mix' view much, but when i do, it's been useful. Less for 'mixing with eyes' (though I think those features are well-implemented and they HAVE proven useful a few times) and more for just getting all my eqs in front of me in one place. The resonance detection (when you set a narrow Q) is awesome. The auto gain is also very, very awesome. This is, for my money, the next evolutionary step (from Pro Q) in modern digital eq. Plus, it sounds really good..haven't done a direct a/b against Pro Q, but I'm finding I like my results better with Claro. That could be a question of Q values / shapes or whatever, but in any event, I'm getting "there" faster and with less hassle, so i'm happy. How is it vs Slick EQ? An instance of Japanese mode + one of American or British is the fastest I’ve used so far. The acceleration curve on the knobs and fixed q puts it above Oxford EQ for me. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Oct 22, 2021 14:22:42 GMT -6
I am really liking it. I don't go into the 'mix' view much, but when i do, it's been useful. Less for 'mixing with eyes' (though I think those features are well-implemented and they HAVE proven useful a few times) and more for just getting all my eqs in front of me in one place. The resonance detection (when you set a narrow Q) is awesome. The auto gain is also very, very awesome. This is, for my money, the next evolutionary step (from Pro Q) in modern digital eq. Plus, it sounds really good..haven't done a direct a/b against Pro Q, but I'm finding I like my results better with Claro. That could be a question of Q values / shapes or whatever, but in any event, I'm getting "there" faster and with less hassle, so i'm happy. How is it vs Slick EQ? An instance of Japanese mode + one of American or British is the fastest I’ve used so far. The acceleration curve on the knobs and fixed q puts it above Oxford EQ for me. I could never get on with Slick EQ, tbh. Something about that UI felt slow to me. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Oct 22, 2021 14:51:16 GMT -6
My curiosity got the better of me. I first attempted to match curves between Claro and ProQ using the Good Doctorâ„¢, which yielded a few discoveries:
- A Q value of ".6" (the default) in Claro is around .73 in ProQ.
- Filter shapes are very similar, however, there's a bit of a rolloff on ProQ at the highest range. I needed to add a shelf boost at around 26k in ProQ to match Claro.
- Phase performance is very similar, except in the very high end (not surprisingly, considering the filter shape differences.
- Claro has a somewhat significantly lower noise floor than ProQ.
Once I loaded these settings into a DAW, was able to achieve about 30db of cancellation in the highest reaches of the spectrum, up near nyquist. I was able to cancel around 50db around 10k. 45db from 3k - 8k. Then from 3k and lower I got a progressive cancellation from about 50db at 3k to 65db at 200, followed by a steep drop-off to nearing a complete null.
ETA: this is using ProQ's "natural phase" mode. Switching to "zero latency" mode removes the odd extra null at 10k, essentially 'smoothing out' the response, but there is a significantly decrease in cancellation (meaning, less similarities between the two) in the rest of the spectrum, particularly the mids and upper mids, to the tune of 6-10db.
|
|
|
|
Post by superwack on Oct 22, 2021 16:15:14 GMT -6
My curiosity got the better of me. I first attempted to match curves between Claro and ProQ using the Good Doctorâ„¢, which yielded a few discoveries: - A Q value of ".6" (the default) in Claro is around .73 in ProQ. - Filter shapes are very similar, however, there's a bit of a rolloff on ProQ at the highest range. I needed to add a shelf boost at around 26k in ProQ to match Claro. - Phase performance is very similar, except in the very high end (not surprisingly, considering the filter shape differences. - Claro has a somewhat significantly lower noise floor than ProQ. Once I loaded these settings into a DAW, was able to achieve about 30db of cancellation in the highest reaches of the spectrum, up near nyquist. I was able to cancel around 50db around 10k. 45db from 3k - 8k. Then from 3k and lower I got a progressive cancellation from about 50db at 3k to 65db at 200, followed by a steep drop-off to nearing a complete null. ETA: this is using ProQ's "natural phase" mode. Switching to "zero latency" mode removes the odd extra null at 10k, essentially 'smoothing out' the response, but there is a significantly decrease in cancellation (meaning, less similarities between the two) in the rest of the spectrum, particularly the mids and upper mids, to the tune of 6-10db. Geez, what is the noise floor for Claro? Plugin Doctor shows ProQ at -186 dB! |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Oct 22, 2021 17:38:32 GMT -6
My curiosity got the better of me. I first attempted to match curves between Claro and ProQ using the Good Doctorâ„¢, which yielded a few discoveries: - A Q value of ".6" (the default) in Claro is around .73 in ProQ. - Filter shapes are very similar, however, there's a bit of a rolloff on ProQ at the highest range. I needed to add a shelf boost at around 26k in ProQ to match Claro. - Phase performance is very similar, except in the very high end (not surprisingly, considering the filter shape differences. - Claro has a somewhat significantly lower noise floor than ProQ. Once I loaded these settings into a DAW, was able to achieve about 30db of cancellation in the highest reaches of the spectrum, up near nyquist. I was able to cancel around 50db around 10k. 45db from 3k - 8k. Then from 3k and lower I got a progressive cancellation from about 50db at 3k to 65db at 200, followed by a steep drop-off to nearing a complete null. ETA: this is using ProQ's "natural phase" mode. Switching to "zero latency" mode removes the odd extra null at 10k, essentially 'smoothing out' the response, but there is a significantly decrease in cancellation (meaning, less similarities between the two) in the rest of the spectrum, particularly the mids and upper mids, to the tune of 6-10db. Geez, what is the noise floor for Claro? Plugin Doctor shows ProQ at -186 dB! It was like a 10db difference! Obvs negligible real world differences at those levels, but interesting. |
|
