Thanks to you! I'm very glad to hear that.xtrax wrote:This EQ sounds so good, and different from others. Now I see here why.
Great job Acon.
Thanks
Best,
Stian
Thanks to you! I'm very glad to hear that.xtrax wrote:This EQ sounds so good, and different from others. Now I see here why.
Great job Acon.
Thanks
Yes, I've been thinking of adding some sort of preferences where you can also set the resolution of the analyzer. I could add a slope setting there as well. Please beware, though, that tonal components and broadband noise or transients behave very different so that you can't really mimic a true octave band analyzer simply by multiplying with a slope (it would be a 3dB/octave slope for broadband noise and 6 dB/octave slope for tonal components).lesha wrote:It would be great if the analyzer slope could be adjustable (0, 3 and 4.5dB).
What do you think about that?
That would be possible, but I always felt that the slope is the parameter to focus on in shelving and high or low cuts. It wouldn't be a problem to enable the bandwidth control (Q) for these as well, though. I guess it shouldn't be called bandwidth in that case. Maybe 'Resonance'...lesha wrote:There is also one more thing that I miss, and that is a lack of adjustable Q for HP & LP filters.
That's good to know! I think we''ll use the label "Resonance" for this, since we use the term "Bandwidth" instead of Q, and bandwidth is definitely the wrong word... I'll see if we can get this implemented for version 1.1 along with some other feature requests that we have received.lesha wrote:Thanks for your answer, I usually tend to add a little bit of resonance when applying HPF on kicks and bass.
I may be too used to the sound of minimum phasestian wrote:Don't worry, I'm not offended. Which phase mode are you using? The following applies to clean EQs ("character EQs" that mimic harmonic distortion and noise in analog equipment is another chapter): Given the filter curve you see (amplitude response) and the phase distribution, there's actually only one mathematically correct solution. If you run Equalize in linear phase mode, the results will be very close to identical to other properly programmed linear phase EQs with the same filter curve. There will only be subtle differences due to kernel lengths (the number of coefficients in the FIR filter) and windowing techniques.Mario-C. wrote:I played with the demo this afternoon ... On acoustic drums mono overhead (which is a real test for me because there are lots of transients and full range freq content) I found the sound to be really weird and un natural when cutting mids, it's a pity because the overall concept is really interesting but it sounded too processed for me, it's hard to describe, I mean to give some feedback so I hope this won't offend anyone, I'm just giving my opinons.
Equalize doesn't use the common biquad IIR filters in the minimum phase mode, but uses FIR filters here as well. That has a couple of advantages. The filter curve will be identical to analog gear since we don't have any problems with frequency warping when reaching the Nyquist frequency at half the sampling rate (some plug-ins use biquad IIR filters with oversampling to overcome this problem). Anyway, since the amplitude responses actually vary between minimum phase EQs, there will be differences. However, given the displayed filter curve and the minimum phase distribution, there's only one mathematically correct solution here as well.
The mixed phase mode is new and intends to overcome problems with both minimum and linear phase filtering. It provides a unique way of setting the amount of pre-ringing vs. post-ringing. This is something new, but if you prefer either of the other phase modes, that is perfectly fine.
Best,
Stian
Personally, I prefer minimum phase over linear phase in the majority of cases. I do like the the mixed mode, though, especially since you can control the amount of pre-ringing. It is most certainly a matter of taste, though.Mario-C. wrote:I may be too used to the sound of minimum phase
Do you mean audio monitoring (i.e. routing mid or side channel to both speakers)?Mario-C. wrote:It would be nice to be able to monitor mid and side channels independently by the way
That's a good point and would definitely be a very useful feature. I'm thinking of how to implement that in the most intuitive way without adding clutter to the GUI. Suggestions are welcome! I've considered a monitor button in the header (with bypass, mid, side, left only, right only, etc) or ctrl click on the channel mode buttons (a loudspeaker symbol below the button could indicate which is being monitored).Mario-C. wrote:Yes, I mean it would be nice to be able to solo the mid and side channels and work on each separately, I work a lot on the stereo room and overhead tracks when mixing drums and more often than not I solo the mid channel to cut any annoying resonances in the hi hats and then I work on the side channel, (I often get tracks to mix that have lots of hi mid build up from home studios) so It's great to be able to listen and work on either channel without listening to the other ...
The solo mode button already lets you listen to the effect of each frequency band, including the channel mode. My concern is that an additional monitor button would be confusing. I'll think about it...Mario-C. wrote:Thanks for considering adding those options, Personally I'd go for the immediacy of a monitor button but that's just me.
Duly noted, that should be easy to implement.Mario-C. wrote:I'll also second adding a resonance control to the high and low pass filters, it's definitely very useful to have.
Thanks, I'm glad you got convinced about the audio quality. At least your wallet won't hurt as much as with Q2...Mario-C. wrote:I'm liking the sound on summed tracks and I've found myself preferring it over pro Q 2, oh my wallet's gonna hurt.
Thanks for testing! I couldn't reproduce that issue, though. The tooltips are the standard ones from the JUCE library, so it's strange that there are problems with them. Would it be possible to send me a screenshot? Thanks in advance.mutantdog wrote:Had a very brief play with the demo last night. I noticed that whenever i hover over a parameter, the info text that pops up is cropped and i can only see the bottom half of it (maybe less), too little to actually read.
Using Ableton 9.1.x (32-bit) on Windows 8.1.
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2024
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement