Watching closely to Spiff graphs in Plugin Doctor one can see that they are tweaking their graphs (making them much more even than they really are).
When you make EQ 'linear' on their graph, there is still +.5 dB of gain at 10 kHz (the old trick, so that it 'sounds better')
Their fixed zero gain is in fact at +2.5 dB (the old trick, so that it 'sounds better').
With controls given you can never make it completely amplitude linear. The best you can do looks ridiculous on their graph [see attachment].
So it seems like Oeksound uses cheap tricks, like almost everybody else on the market.

 

You have to consider signal type generated in Plugindoctor. Maybe that's why spiff start to process that frequency. Need to check it.

 

Well, here's a test with delta of pink noise input. It clearly shows the same EQ 'preferences' as shown with Plugin Doctor test. Obvious even with their default EQ set to +1.5 dB @2kHz to 'bridge the gap'.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2021

im gonna read manual and I hope to find some info about how it works

 

Nice find! What about soothe?
Maybe check softube weiss plugins and chandler too when they are released. I sense that they use those tricks too like almost everybody else and still the masses fall for it.

 

There are no telltale manuals.

 

I have only a few Weiss plugins in archives, and do not use them.
But the champion in using tricks so far to my knowledge is Slate, very impure, who use several tricks jointly and pass secret dirty processing to 'please the ear'. Their distortion figures are a disaster.
Among them is also Kush, who produces mishmash plugins as a rule.
It is not that they are inapt or poor developers, unable to make quality products, they are just cunning.

 

One can add Soundtherapy Gullfoss to the list who greatly manipulate with interaction of controls and introduce an omnipresent 'bump' at 16 kHz whatever you chose.

 

One should

One should make a list of developers who use those tricks and which excessively. Afair plugin alliance also does this as they do recycle code a lot.
And then people wonder about "digital harshness" when these plugins add up all those high frequencys and distortion..

 

Could you elaborate a little on that topic? I find some of the Kush plugins, for example Novatron to be amazing. One of my go to compressors to be honest.

 

There’s no EQ in Spiff. It’s not an equalizer, it’s frequency dependent transient shaper. By adjusting its bands, you’re basically adjusting transient sensitivity for desired band. You should read product manual before posting nonsense.

 

What you say it's correct but not entirely.
Compressors and transient designers are different even when comparing the same devices because they have non linear responses and wanted or not they change slightly or in a noticeable way the tonal response of a signal.

Just an example, I love to use 2A comps on material that needs more presence and body because even if it's a compressor, the topology of the circuit usually makes the incoming signal more present and full so... Just my 2 cents.

I don't know if developers do it on purpose to make their plugins appeal like a soundgoodizer or the emulated machines (in analog emulated plugins) behave that way but it's always useful to know your tools inside out to be able with time and experience to choose what the situation needs.

 

Well, what you claim to be an EQ is not an EQ. It is a pre-filter or Sidechain EQ.
So, the whole post is non-sense it seems.

True.

Now, @pratyahara For spectral Dynamic Compressions (like Gulfoss or Soothe), check the plugin's activity with steady state signal.

 

As shown in the graph, Spiff processes a transient-wise relatively very even signal (like pink noise in my example) as if the pink noise has a 'detectable', rather pronounced transient gain curve set into two groups: @400kHz and @10kHz.
----------------------------------------
There is no dynamic 'band detection' of a large field of transients in Spiff, (i. e. dynamically finding out where the grouping of transients is 'likely'), Spiff detects just single transients, one by one, of course. User has to tell it by using mouse on nods provided where to look and how much gain to apply. So 'adjusting transient sensitivity' is envelope shaping. That envelope regulates gain change, which can be obtained either through EQ-ing or by compressing.
There is no hyper-intelligent transient sensitivity of Spiff, but the user himself modifies the transient gain regions of his choice.
The dynamic tests, further, show no compression or expansion, and frequency response tests point at EQ-ing. So EQ-ing it is.
The problem is that Spiff's envelope can not be made flat by user, and that default envelope state is tweaked by providing added gain in two regions mentioned above - so people who test in on default settings get impressed at the first sight by its 'efficacy'.

 

Now, let us see the frequency response graphs of pink noise before and after Spiff.
After Spiff there are some minor, hardly visible new transient peaks, but the whole region from approx. 12 kHz to 20 kHz is raised by approx. +1 dB. Transients alone can not contribute that much to the overall frequency response, of course.

 

Interesting post, but I don't understand how can you see transients in a static frequency graph... Peaks in a frequency graph are not transients, they are resonances. Or am I missing something about your tests ?

 

I too find it very interesting and even suspicious what you discovered about Spiff, but of course a transient designer can affect a Pink Noise's peak, see

 

Yes, but I referred to static cumulative graph.

Resonance peaks are a bit sharper.