|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 22, 2024 16:35:23 GMT -6
I pick eq based on the tone. The Slick EQs are better than the fabfilter, weiss, psp, and mdweqs at single sample rates. More immediate. I will pick one based on it. double sampling rate, it's a toss up. Weiss I generally prefer at 88.2 and 96 khz and up but the Slick EQ M is a fabulous broader EQ. Sometimes I will use Oxford EQ for a more digital vibe but at 192 khz, it can null almost perfectly with the Slick EQs. No SVF filter structure stock eq exists outside of ableton (mixed phase anti alias filters) EQ8 and the JS:ReEQ add on in reaper (not updated in a few years). Filterscape and Reaktor are a pain in the ass to use as normal eqs and not synth shit. What do you mean by single sample rates and double sampling rate? The filters alias at 44.1 and 48 kHz in any structure. They become stupid for bells above 5 kHz and very wide bells. The solutions are to prewarp the iir filters so that when warped they have a more normal amplitude but phase is still wrong, apply a corrective FIR filter afterwards to warp them, or just run the filters at a higher sample rate (optimal solution for phase and amplitude unless the filter structure you want to use has audible numerical errors like 32-bit direct form biquads when you should use a different eq). Dan |
|
|
|
Post by FM77 on Jun 22, 2024 17:07:47 GMT -6
Behringer eq, dbx 530, Urei 546, uh current api sounds like pounding nails, neve 1073 clone high shelf and 3.2 kHz boost, a lot of this stuff sucks and just adds noise, removes detail, adds resonance, rings like a bell, or cranking the high shelf adds noticeable distortion and grit. I certainly don’t have a lot of experience with outboard eq’s, one I can think of is the 1073DPX stereo channel strip (which I sold), the eq wasn’t bad but it didn’t wow me (neither did the pre for that matter). Assume the vintage ones were much sweeter. Sweeter? Not in my experience and there is no real reason they would be. Any two Vintage Neves will be all over the map in terms of sonics and so many are mediocre due to needing repairs, recaps etc. Those who use the DPX and vintage 1073s side by side share little to no differences. I have 2. The DPX is classic Neve 1073 sound and If I had to choose for the same money, it would always be modern AMS based on reliability unless the vintage pre/EQ was unicorn of tone. And I tend to buy alot of vintage gear. The 1081 is quite a bit different. I suspect you simply may not like (or know) the 1073 pre and EQ tones? They are not for everyone but they don't fall into the sterile category of EQ regardless.
Even clean hardware Mastering EQs will impart some 3D character. When I think of sterile / ultra clean / surgical EQs, I tend to think of Weiss. Or Weiss plugins.
|
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Jun 22, 2024 18:15:11 GMT -6
Asking how you personally judge whether and eq is good or not? Obviously, sound…but they’re eq’s. Maybe it’s a given, but if I put on a flat eq and it sounded worse - that’s easy to identify. But sometimes - like comparing say a stam 73 and BAE 73…or really any brands. At some point, shouldn’t all eq sound the same? A -10 db cut at 78hz with a q of 2 or whatever…shouldn’t that be the same sound on every piece? I’ve actually never owned a HW stereo EQ - just because I’ve always thought that was a job for software…any true believers here that think a HW eq (one master or whatever) is a “gamechanger?” (Love that word) My observations have always been that you can push HW EQ a bit further before it sounds bad. Often times, it sounds different, but not necessarily bad. Software EQs I don't feel are as forgiving in that respect. Also, with HW EQs, you get other "benefits" such as slight transient compression with a 550A, tightening of the lowend with a 550B or 5500, or bloom in the lowend with a Neve or Pultec by the nature of just running signal through them. Then you have something like a Maag, which is very transparent. Boosting the Air band is akin to hitting the zoom button on a photo... it just magnifies and brings out the details of the area you are focusing on. In terms of judging what makes a good EQ or not, I actually wondered about that for years....The first HW EQs I had ever used were those in the channel of an 8068. The studio also had Pultecs, 550Bs, SSL 611s, Tridents, 560s, etc... so I started out using the best of the best and thought that was just how HW EQs were... it was hard to make them sound bad. Then I worked in a room that had a Soundcraft console..... man oh man were those things AWFUL. Harsh, harsh, harsh and nasally. Colored in the worst way possible. It made me understand what a good EQ was and why API, Neve, SSL, and Pultec were the standard. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 22, 2024 18:44:19 GMT -6
Plugin EQ really make a strong case for
•EQing during tracking
•EQing using inserts and quality analog EQs
•multi-band compressors
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 22, 2024 18:58:20 GMT -6
Asking how you personally judge whether and eq is good or not? Obviously, sound…but they’re eq’s. Maybe it’s a given, but if I put on a flat eq and it sounded worse - that’s easy to identify. But sometimes - like comparing say a stam 73 and BAE 73…or really any brands. At some point, shouldn’t all eq sound the same? A -10 db cut at 78hz with a q of 2 or whatever…shouldn’t that be the same sound on every piece? I’ve actually never owned a HW stereo EQ - just because I’ve always thought that was a job for software…any true believers here that think a HW eq (one master or whatever) is a “gamechanger?” (Love that word) My observations have always been that you can push HW EQ a bit further before it sounds bad. Often times, it sounds different, but not necessarily bad. Software EQs I don't feel are as forgiving in that respect. Also, with HW EQs, you get other "benefits" such as slight transient compression with a 550A, tightening of the lowend with a 550B or 5500, or bloom in the lowend with a Neve or Pultec by the nature of just running signal through them. Then you have something like a Maag, which is very transparent. Boosting the Air band is akin to hitting the zoom button on a photo... it just magnifies and brings out the details of the area you are focusing on. In terms of judging what makes a good EQ or not, I actually wondered about that for years....The first HW EQs I had ever used were those in the channel of an 8068. The studio also had Pultecs, 550Bs, SSL 611s, Tridents, 560s, etc... so I started out using the best of the best and thought that was just how HW EQs were... it was hard to make them sound bad. Then I worked in a room that had a Soundcraft console..... man oh man were those things AWFUL. Harsh, harsh, harsh and nasally. Colored in the worst way possible. It made me understand what a good EQ was and why API, Neve, SSL, and Pultec were the standard. hardware eqs often just distorting especially high shelf to old or cheap opamps. Big low shelf boost can run out of headroom. Also inductors saturate and can ring like crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Jun 22, 2024 20:06:35 GMT -6
I dunno. I just know they sound different. Better? Worse? Context matters. Or my ears are completely shot. Could be that.
Cheers,
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by russellcreekps on Jun 22, 2024 21:03:43 GMT -6
I certainly don’t have a lot of experience with outboard eq’s, one I can think of is the 1073DPX stereo channel strip (which I sold), the eq wasn’t bad but it didn’t wow me (neither did the pre for that matter). Assume the vintage ones were much sweeter. Sweeter? Not in my experience and there is no real reason they would be. Any two Vintage Neves will be all over the map in terms of sonics and so many are mediocre due to needing repairs, recaps etc. Those who use the DPX and vintage 1073s side by side share little to no differences. I have 2. The DPX is classic Neve 1073 sound and If I had to choose for the same money, it would always be modern AMS based on reliability unless the vintage pre/EQ was unicorn of tone. And I tend to buy alot of vintage gear. The 1081 is quite a bit different. I suspect you simply may not like (or know) the 1073 pre and EQ tones? They are not for everyone but they don't fall into the sterile category of EQ regardless.
Even clean hardware Mastering EQs will impart some 3D character. When I think of sterile / ultra clean / surgical EQs, I tend to think of Weiss. Or Weiss plugins.
Yes, perhaps that’s true…maybe just not enough experience with them. But I do use the UAD 1073 eq regularly, and I like it for what it does. But that’s kind of the point I’m trying to make, unless it’s truly amazing and moves my ear, I’m happy going itb. To be worth the price of hardware, vs plugs (and what they can do these days), I need to sonically feel that it’s really special…the 1073dpx just wasn’t ’special’ enough for me…not saying it isn’t special for others. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 22, 2024 22:15:03 GMT -6
I What do you mean by single sample rates and double sampling rate? Single rate= 44.1 or 48khz 2x rate = 88.2 or 96khz 4x rate = 176.4 or 192khz While I agree with most of Dan’s observations about linear phase being usually smeary and inferior….upsampling when working at single rate is IME, always better for any EQ lifting highs. The exception is that Fabfilter’s upsampling is terrible. I’m confused how a company selling “better UI for clean digital” can’t hear that. But, IK or Logic up sampling is better, as known example. I feel Like the MusEQ Mastering did too? And I should say I used a LOT more analog insert and various EQ plug ins when I was trying to mix things that came in at single rate AT single rates. There was more extreme EQ that NEEDED to be done and the EQ plug ins were more finicky —this one would sound good on this but not that….so my above short and sweet is likely a down the road result of making the rule to stop futzing with single rate digital. Takes an extra minute or two for Mixbus to upsample the tracks…and hours less futzing to mix it. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 23, 2024 10:02:37 GMT -6
I What do you mean by single sample rates and double sampling rate? Single rate= 44.1 or 48khz 2x rate = 88.2 or 96khz 4x rate = 176.4 or 192khz While I agree with most of Dan’s observations about linear phase being usually smeary and inferior….upsampling when working at single rate is IME, always better for any EQ lifting highs. The exception is that Fabfilter’s upsampling is terrible. I’m confused how a company selling “better UI for clean digital” can’t hear that. But, IK or Logic up sampling is better, as known example. I feel Like the MusEQ Mastering did too? And I should say I used a LOT more analog insert and various EQ plug ins when I was trying to mix things that came in at single rate AT single rates. There was more extreme EQ that NEEDED to be done and the EQ plug ins were more finicky —this one would sound good on this but not that….so my above short and sweet is likely a down the road result of making the rule to stop futzing with single rate digital. Takes an extra minute or two for Mixbus to upsample the tracks…and hours less futzing to mix it. I’m still trying to decide if I should be converting my 48 projects to 96 for mixing. I’ve done it before and thought it sounded great…but can ya reeeaaallly tell a difference? Just another step and pita. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 23, 2024 10:53:45 GMT -6
I What do you mean by single sample rates and double sampling rate? Single rate= 44.1 or 48khz 2x rate = 88.2 or 96khz 4x rate = 176.4 or 192khz While I agree with most of Dan’s observations about linear phase being usually smeary and inferior….upsampling when working at single rate is IME, always better for any EQ lifting highs. The exception is that Fabfilter’s upsampling is terrible. I’m confused how a company selling “better UI for clean digital” can’t hear that. But, IK or Logic up sampling is better, as known example. I feel Like the MusEQ Mastering did too? And I should say I used a LOT more analog insert and various EQ plug ins when I was trying to mix things that came in at single rate AT single rates. There was more extreme EQ that NEEDED to be done and the EQ plug ins were more finicky —this one would sound good on this but not that….so my above short and sweet is likely a down the road result of making the rule to stop futzing with single rate digital. Takes an extra minute or two for Mixbus to upsample the tracks…and hours less futzing to mix it. Honestly popmann, I just redemoed pro q 3 and I don’t think natural phase mode is upsampling. I think it’s applying a corrective linear phase filter to the cramped minimum phase filter instead of just running the minimum phase filter at a higher rate with linear phase anti alias filter like Weiss, MDW, PSP, and TDR. It won’t match perfectly like just running the iir filter rates at sample rate where they won’t alias but its eq so there’s no harmonics just weird resonances and impulse responses This paper Came out early 2018 and pro q 3 came out in later 2018. Of course this like most aes papers isn’t even really pioneering research and is pretty much just describing how Dave Gramble’s Equilibrium plugin works but Pro Q 3 natural phase sounds mush like DMG Equilibruim if Equilibrium sounded like shit. Pro Q2 and Pro Q3 minimum phase sound hard like Oxford EQ and Renaissance EQ minus the super cool curves those have. secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=19412The authors of this wrote the Magpha eq that is still sold by Kush. Crave EQ and DDMF Grand EQ (linear phase is an iir filter in reverse to make it linear phase like Weiss eq1-lp not a simple fir filter like fabfilter pro q3 linear phase) are improved versions of this technique. The idea is that this has less pre-ringing than two anti alias filters in up sampling and down sampling but pure eq is just phase shift so can skip one like ableton/cytomic eq8, tdr eco mode that disables the non-linearities and dynamics, and softube Weiss eq mp that’s fabfilter gui but better sound with no dynamics. By this I mean up sampling produces mirror images of the signal, these are cut out by an anti alias filter, signal is processed at higher rate, the padded samples are removed and signal is filtered back to kill the stuff above the nyquist limit of the lower rate. Since eq is just phase shifts (dynamics or distortion would mean they would have to cut out the mirror images and then stuff above the nyquist of the lower rate) they can skip one filter and get less preringing at single sample rates than many of the “corrective fir filter” plugs. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Jun 23, 2024 12:55:00 GMT -6
Slightly OT, but linear phase eq. When would you reach for that?
Cheers,
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Jun 23, 2024 13:50:04 GMT -6
I recently boosted 16db at 2k when tracking on my elec gtr on my sound techniques EQ confidently and it sounded great. I can say for certain if I did that on a plugin id be worried as hell that I ruined the sound. Weirdly - outside of whether the sonics are ACTUALLY better ( and I believe they are ) I didn’t second guess while doing it - which is what plugins unfortunately do to me - make me doubt it a lot more. And not doubting it allowed me to enjoy it and find that the sound worked great. So I’ve realized over the years my analog buildup is just as much about having confidence in the process as it is about having 5-10% better sounds, in fact I’d say it’s even more important the confidence aspect because it makes things a lot more enjoyable and you just focus on the music instead of the “rules”.
As for the actual sonics question:
I’ve been experimenting a lot with boosting eq into transformers. I think transformer distortion has a big impact on whether an EQ boost is going to sound more natural or less natural. I find that harmonic distortion can really smoothen boosts and make them punchier whereas if there is no distortion a boost may become bloomier and more troublesome with certain frequencies poking out and sounding wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jun 23, 2024 14:11:52 GMT -6
Single rate= 44.1 or 48khz 2x rate = 88.2 or 96khz 4x rate = 176.4 or 192khz While I agree with most of Dan’s observations about linear phase being usually smeary and inferior….upsampling when working at single rate is IME, always better for any EQ lifting highs. The exception is that Fabfilter’s upsampling is terrible. I’m confused how a company selling “better UI for clean digital” can’t hear that. But, IK or Logic up sampling is better, as known example. I feel Like the MusEQ Mastering did too? And I should say I used a LOT more analog insert and various EQ plug ins when I was trying to mix things that came in at single rate AT single rates. There was more extreme EQ that NEEDED to be done and the EQ plug ins were more finicky —this one would sound good on this but not that….so my above short and sweet is likely a down the road result of making the rule to stop futzing with single rate digital. Takes an extra minute or two for Mixbus to upsample the tracks…and hours less futzing to mix it. I’m still trying to decide if I should be converting my 48 projects to 96 for mixing. I’ve done it before and thought it sounded great…but can ya reeeaaallly tell a difference? Just another step and pita. Have not noticed a difference in end product correlated to sample rate, whether it’s stuff I tracked or rec’d to mix. Most working engineers I’ve met don’t seem to have strong feelings about it. My pal who works for Neil Young went down to LA with him one time (before he moved down) for an overdub session and the HD rig could only record a couple inputs at a time doing 192k. Total nightmare. (Obviously systems are faster now, but yeesh). |
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jun 23, 2024 16:01:53 GMT -6
My method isn’t very scientific. I try an EQ or two - or three - and pick the one that sounds best to me in the context of the song or production. I find that committing in the moment usually yields the best results. And if I choose wrong no one will ever know as long as the final product is excellent. With that said, I am usually deliberate about whether I want transparent or colored EQ on a given source.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 24, 2024 20:30:21 GMT -6
Single rate= 44.1 or 48khz 2x rate = 88.2 or 96khz 4x rate = 176.4 or 192khz While I agree with most of Dan’s observations about linear phase being usually smeary and inferior….upsampling when working at single rate is IME, always better for any EQ lifting highs. The exception is that Fabfilter’s upsampling is terrible. I’m confused how a company selling “better UI for clean digital” can’t hear that. But, IK or Logic up sampling is better, as known example. I feel Like the MusEQ Mastering did too? And I should say I used a LOT more analog insert and various EQ plug ins when I was trying to mix things that came in at single rate AT single rates. There was more extreme EQ that NEEDED to be done and the EQ plug ins were more finicky —this one would sound good on this but not that….so my above short and sweet is likely a down the road result of making the rule to stop futzing with single rate digital. Takes an extra minute or two for Mixbus to upsample the tracks…and hours less futzing to mix it. I’m still trying to decide if I should be converting my 48 projects to 96 for mixing. I’ve done it before and thought it sounded great…but can ya reeeaaallly tell a difference? Just another step and pita. So, in Cubase, I really can’t. FWIW. In Mixbus it’s pretty tangible. I’m sure Harrison loves me repeating this, but I think the app sounds as BAD at single rate as it does wonderful at 2x. But, certainly it was years ago when I compared in Cubase. Even though I’m on 10.5 and have the 60day of 13 loaded….I don’t mix there unless it’s my own writing demo for….me. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 24, 2024 20:33:45 GMT -6
ProQ’s natural phase doesn’t upsample. It’s time/phase manipulated.
Misunderstanding? I think linear phase EQ generally sounds bad. I GENERALLY think up sampling EQ in single rate sounds better. FF’s upsampling is just tangibly lossy to me. Before you change anything about the actual EQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 24, 2024 20:55:01 GMT -6
I’m still trying to decide if I should be converting my 48 projects to 96 for mixing. I’ve done it before and thought it sounded great…but can ya reeeaaallly tell a difference? Just another step and pita. So, in Cubase, I really can’t. FWIW. In Mixbus it’s pretty tangible. I’m sure Harrison loves me repeating this, but I think the app sounds as BAD at single rate as it does wonderful at 2x. But, certainly it was years ago when I compared in Cubase. Even though I’m on 10.5 and have the 60day of 13 loaded….I don’t mix there unless it’s my own writing demo for….me. No kidding? So you really think Mixbus sounds better at 2x? I downloaded it once and just was so lost I didn’t bother…but that’s definitely interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jun 24, 2024 21:45:58 GMT -6
The discontinued CAPI LC based version of the 550A sounds pretty different from a 550A. Same curves, same basic unit tone and amplifiers. The low band is flabbier/looser but the upper mids and top have a sweet smooth definition the standard 550A doesn’t have.
I have 2 pairs of those, one pair came from Gary who’s responsible for all the GAR op amps, and that pair has some prototype Sphere op amps he designed in them, they sound very different from the pair with GAR2520’s.
I remember ITB transparent EQ making me insane at first. Then grasped that the audible cues for EQ in analog were more the artifacts than the actual EQ; ITB removed that part from the equation. Had to learn to listen differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jun 25, 2024 1:11:38 GMT -6
The discontinued CAPI LC based version of the 550A sounds pretty different from a 550A. Same curves, same basic unit tone and amplifiers. The low band is flabbier/looser but the upper mids and top have a sweet smooth definition the standard 550A doesn’t have. I have 2 pairs of those, one pair came from Gary who’s responsible for all the GAR op amps, and that pair has some prototype Sphere op amps he designed in them, they sound very different from the pair with GAR2520’s. I remember ITB transparent EQ making me insane at first. Then grasped that the audible cues for EQ in analog were more the artifacts than the actual EQ; ITB removed that part from the equation. Had to learn to listen differently. I have a decent selection of hardware EQ and the one plugin ITB that I feel gets the same action (and doesn’t require using way more gain than you would with a hardware EQ) is the DMG Equilibrium (set in its more CPU intensive mode) I call it “digital analog EQ” The guy behind DMG is a very clever developer imho - Equilibrium has stood the test of time in my plugin folder as has the Sonnox Oxford EQ actually but for different reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 25, 2024 6:08:43 GMT -6
ProQ’s natural phase doesn’t upsample. It’s time/phase manipulated. Misunderstanding? I think linear phase EQ generally sounds bad. I GENERALLY think up sampling EQ in single rate sounds better. FF’s upsampling is just tangibly lossy to me. Before you change anything about the actual EQ. I think it must be numerical errors building up or something. The rounding errors rise a ton when you click natural phase mode versus other eqs that use the same technique like Equilibrium. I noticed this in SPAN. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 25, 2024 6:18:01 GMT -6
ProQ’s natural phase doesn’t upsample. It’s time/phase manipulated. Misunderstanding? I think linear phase EQ generally sounds bad. I GENERALLY think up sampling EQ in single rate sounds better. FF’s upsampling is just tangibly lossy to me. Before you change anything about the actual EQ. In older versions at least the eq cramped at 44.1, the distortion aliased, and the compressors all had brutal holds before release to not alias, making them sound like pumpy automation. Doubling the bandwidth will alleviate a lot of of these issues and improve the detectors of the compressors I don’t get why their new channel strip with the ssl type layout just ported the older algorithms instead of updating them. It was still more interesting than the SSL native but not by much. SSL’s own newer 4B and 4K strips have 4x over sampling like UAD and the distortion on them is a bit silly but the dynamics are much better than the awful old native ports from the C200 where the bus compressor behaved nothing like analog, gate sucked, channel strip compressor couldn’t grab anything and hitting peak to defeat the rms detector that smooths the response turned it into one of the stupidest sounding aliased compressors ever up there with the cla 76. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 25, 2024 6:42:24 GMT -6
The discontinued CAPI LC based version of the 550A sounds pretty different from a 550A. Same curves, same basic unit tone and amplifiers. The low band is flabbier/looser but the upper mids and top have a sweet smooth definition the standard 550A doesn’t have. I have 2 pairs of those, one pair came from Gary who’s responsible for all the GAR op amps, and that pair has some prototype Sphere op amps he designed in them, they sound very different from the pair with GAR2520’s. I remember ITB transparent EQ making me insane at first. Then grasped that the audible cues for EQ in analog were more the artifacts than the actual EQ; ITB removed that part from the equation. Had to learn to listen differently. I have a decent selection of hardware EQ and the one plugin ITB that I feel gets the same action (and doesn’t require using way more gain than you would with a hardware EQ) is the DMG Equilibrium (set in its more CPU intensive mode) I call it “digital analog EQ” The guy behind DMG is a very clever developer imho - Equilibrium has stood the test of time in my plugin folder as has the Sonnox Oxford EQ actually but for different reasons. DMG equilibrium is quite clever. It uses a corrective linear phase filter on top of the original minimum phase eq to get the amplitude and phase closer to the ideal analog response. This approach is described in the aes paper I linked above. Unfortunately it’s quite latent and computationally complex the closer you want it to be to analog. Simply double or quadruple up sampling the eq accomplished much of the same and having only one anti alias filter like eq8 and Weiss eq mp and tdr slick eq ge and m eco mode often have less pre-ringing because those are linear processes. EQ results of phase shifts And Equiibrium doesn’t run the filters like analog filters. It uses bilineal transforms. So do the above eqs too. Zavalishin at Izotope figured out how to run digital state variable filters exactly like analog using trapezoidal integration. Simper at Cytomic did the math to just run ideal circuit models of analog eqs. Since EQs are pretty basic circuits with modern ics, they figured out how to run analog filters on a computer with better numerical precision than direct form biquads and with no parts matching issues, distortion, or Johnson noise. These guys are engineering and mathematical thinking geniuses. Compare the basic errors and discontinuities of Waves and UAD 1 SSL vs The Glue at 44.1 kHz. Or basic errors versus Waves Ren Comp or Oxford Dynamics  www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=350246Math Intuition book is fabulous too. cytomic.com/technical-papers/Oxford EQ made by another math genius but it just warps coefficients to not have the amplitude cramped at single sample rates. Very clever. Behavior described in Orfanidis papers. Similar to pro q3 zero latency but pro q3 lacks the super clever gain:q dependencies of Oxford EQ. Higher sampler rates will bring phase response of Oxford EQ much closer to analog. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 25, 2024 6:50:24 GMT -6
The discontinued CAPI LC based version of the 550A sounds pretty different from a 550A. Same curves, same basic unit tone and amplifiers. The low band is flabbier/looser but the upper mids and top have a sweet smooth definition the standard 550A doesn’t have. I have 2 pairs of those, one pair came from Gary who’s responsible for all the GAR op amps, and that pair has some prototype Sphere op amps he designed in them, they sound very different from the pair with GAR2520’s. I remember ITB transparent EQ making me insane at first. Then grasped that the audible cues for EQ in analog were more the artifacts than the actual EQ; ITB removed that part from the equation. Had to learn to listen differently. Itb i had huge issue eqing with stock eqs. I used to use them into free nasty blockfish to feel something making big moves. Then I found the free Variety of Sound Boot EQ which had an emulated tube stage and I found I could boost into that and it would eat my moves so to speak like analog boosts. I still feel much more confident cutting than boosting in digital except when using onto a handful of EQs: the aforementioned boot eq (it might be on version 4 now?) with all the lofi on, the psp eqs with the saturation on where the old ones like the nobleqex extended pultec emulation kinda fuzz out but the avedis e27 model is fabulously rich, and the tdr slick eqs with the auto gain and the distortion stages on feeling like boot eq but better. I love fuse but I feel the model of the adm-1540 is more distortion than corrective filters until you go really far with your moves like a more limited API 550a especially when you can hit x2in psp e27 and work the the filters against each other in one instance. I also like… pretty much all the modeled API stuff itb going from Oxford mode 4, mcdsp channel g, Waves, Lindell, Softube, UAD. Even the 2500s. Yeah Waves sounds absolutely nothing like the hardware but I like it. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 25, 2024 7:38:24 GMT -6
The discontinued CAPI LC based version of the 550A sounds pretty different from a 550A. Same curves, same basic unit tone and amplifiers. The low band is flabbier/looser but the upper mids and top have a sweet smooth definition the standard 550A doesn’t have. I have 2 pairs of those, one pair came from Gary who’s responsible for all the GAR op amps, and that pair has some prototype Sphere op amps he designed in them, they sound very different from the pair with GAR2520’s. I remember ITB transparent EQ making me insane at first. Then grasped that the audible cues for EQ in analog were more the artifacts than the actual EQ; ITB removed that part from the equation. Had to learn to listen differently. maybe then my theory about the impact of the filter (LC vs bridged-T in this case) is bunk! haha i'd be inclined to attribute the high end to the differences in open loop gain in the op amps. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 25, 2024 8:03:31 GMT -6
So, in Cubase, I really can’t. FWIW. In Mixbus it’s pretty tangible. I’m sure Harrison loves me repeating this, but I think the app sounds as BAD at single rate as it does wonderful at 2x. But, certainly it was years ago when I compared in Cubase. Even though I’m on 10.5 and have the 60day of 13 loaded….I don’t mix there unless it’s my own writing demo for….me. No kidding? So you really think Mixbus sounds better at 2x? I downloaded it once and just was so lost I didn’t bother…but that’s definitely interesting. Yes. I dont mix everything in it for its high CPU load! Ive tried repeatedly to get “that sound” in Cubase with plugs….and dont get me wrong, Cubase or anyother flat DAW can sound perfectly lovely. But theres something about mixbus that just nothing fights me. The “time spent mixing” to “quality of results” ratio is high….Id venture I can spend 2hrs in Mixbus on a mix Id have to spend 6hrs in Cubase to call it “separate but equally good”. But, I noticed Id fight every time Id get, usually 44.1 tracks….I fot the same bothers as I would in Cubase at any rate….but, the results werent better. They were worse…it was a kind of overly warm and rolled off…. I chalk it up to that theres 40 analog EQ circuit models and whatever dithered 64bit summing into 13 stereo analog tape emulations….theres just tons of always on analog emulations, and those are always more “correct” at 2x. but, also, not on the latest….theyve merged with SSL….now they have a new engine and an option to swap the 32c EQ for an SSL channel EQ….distortion knobs on the channels….a lot has changed since my like 2021 version that might make it YMMV. |
|
