A fantastic read, I second the motion!

 

I like one of the comments that is bringing some light on what analogue EQs are good for:

"This is a great article!
There ARE a couple of points that I think ought to be mentioned though.
As a designer of EQs (the Sonalksis and Focusrite EQs for example, plus a new one I’m working on at the moment), I can tell you that there are a bunch of different mathematical techniques available for designing digital EQ curves.
The biggest difference you would expect to see is at the very top end, up near nyquist.
I imagine you would find that if you added some air with a bell using something like AirEQ, you might need a couple of bands to accurately replicate that.
It was very unfortunate that your AirEQ example did nothing at the top-end.

I’d actually go so far as to say that the “cramped” top end that the bilinear transform imparts was partly responsible for the “cold” and “sterile” reputation that early digital audio had. Effectively, the top-end air was getting cut out. For a long time since, the Orfanidis technique has been ubiquitous in well designed EQs, although as good as it is, it’s not necessarily perfect.
Eiosis overstate the point in their AMLT demonstration (for instance, in their graphs, the gain at nyquist is incorrect, despite the principle of the Orfanidis technique being that it ALWAYS generates the correct nyquist gain), but it is true that if exactly matching the analogue shapes is your objective (which it probably ought to be, since they’re consistent), the differences between the analogue and digital domains mean that a good approximation is the best that can be done.

For mid frequencies, you’re absolutely right that you shouldn’t expect to see any differences. At the same time, I think creative usage of Q is an excellent skill to develop; and a well-designed EQ (analogue OR digital) will have the gain and Q interact in a productive way – guiding your hand as you work.

A crucial point that’s often ignored is that these vintage analogue EQs that we get excited about are not interesting because they’re old, nor because they’re analogue, but because THOSE are the designs that were good enough to be remembered. What this tells us is that the interactions and ranges, and overall workflow are good. When what you’re looking for is a tool, a well-designed tool has value. If an EQ makes things sound good in 10 seconds, you can fairly judge that it’s a better-designed EQ than one that takes 10 minutes to get a good sound. Sure the maths is still the maths, as you’ve said, but what matters is not the set of shapes it CAN achieve (which, neglecting >10k, is generally the same set), but which set of shapes the workflow guides you towards.

Thanks again for a great article!"

 

Well if you ever read SOS, you know what I'm talking about.

Here are some examples:
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/inside-track-chainsmokers-closer
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/inside-track-shawn-mendes-treat-you-better
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/inside-track-lukas-graham-7-years
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/inside-track-coldplay-hymn-weekend

 

Well, I'm a subscriber since the nineties. That's I'd guess 240 issues. If every mix review used Waves, and the last 120 also used Slate, that's 240 hits out of around 5,000 'hits'. It doesn't justify the claim that most hits are made using Waves and Slate. Mr Dave Pensado is responsible for quite a few hits and rarely records an In The Lair with Waves and I can't ever remember him using a Slate plug. And how do you define 'use'. I know of one very famous lady mixer who swears by the Ren Comp but uses no other Waves plug on a regular basis.

Confirmation bias is never a good guide.

 

I can find some other ones if you want me to.

 

Last edited: Jan 12, 2018

I'd rather you found an industry report that dealt with trends in the plugin market.

One Waves and two Slate. This is the only one I could find.

Nope none here.

Or here.

Or here.

You see, you'd have to inspect every Pensado video there is and do a count up. But on the basis of probability, he's using many different kinds of plugs, in addition to a few Waves and Slate plugs, and he's constantly changing his mind as time passes and newer items come out.

You can't prove your claim that most hits are mixed on Waves and Slate. Some are. But you can't prove most, unless you have access to a market summary.

 

When it comes to more expensive or just popular plugins, never exclude the possibility of sponsorship. People's gotta eat, eh?

And yes, if you work at 96k, the difference between the EQs is definitely smaller since the nyquist is at 48kHz, so cramped frequency and phase doesn't matter that much.

One should also take into consideration the material you work with, how it's recorded and with what. It's far easier to mix with audio that's been pristinely recorded through a good preamp and other hardware processors, as it's pre-saturated through good "stuff", than doing it all ITB.

 

Last edited: Jan 12, 2018

the guy is right.

 

hi guys
How to install Nebula libraries?

 

Everything just magically sweetens up at the top end and becomes less harsh. Combine that with mixing in linear phase to help rid cramping, congestion and phase cancellation and the world is transformed into a more aural friendly place.

 

Well, at least they do use one slate and or waves plugin somewhere in their fx chain.

 

Are you referring to me as "the author"? Are you sure you quoted the right guy there? I didn't even touch the subject you accuse me of "ignoring"

 

The author of the original article. In this context you are the OP - original Poster.

And thanks again for posting it.

 

For the same examples as in the Omni's demonstration, I personally go for Acustica Lime/Pink + Crimson (Crimson being the saturation/colour tool that's represented as "preamp" in Omni's channelstrip case). You can't beat these kinds of combos inside the box for the analog flavour and 3Dness. Others wouldn't mind the quality difference and would rather go for something less CPU consuming like the Waves's Omni Channel, but for me personally.. if there's a particular amount of quality/fidelity that I can spot on my monitors between some plugs, I'll always go with the ones that sounds the best to my ears.

Evorax

 

You want choice and flexibility ? Fabfilter pro Q, electri-Q (abandoned) or something like that
You want analog sound, transformer sound, crosstalk and more ? Acustica Audio

For a SIMPLE reason : Acustica Audio capture things not a single algo dev thought about.

I remember years ago, when Acustica Audio started the famous "console" and "tape" war
You know...before Slate and others stole the idea...

Nebula was the gold standard for audio quality. And it was funny to see algo devs completely lost when ppl started to speak about "transformer sound", "crosstalk" and such.
They NEVER thought about those things before Nebula...so, they never programmed them.
That's the main problem with algos : you need to know ALL the little things you need to code BEFORE starting to code.
And as you "optimize" code...most of them are never coded, even if you known them.

This is not a problem with Volterra Kernels: they capture all those subtleties, without even knowing they are there
Of course, it is huge on CPU/RAM... but you need to know what "accurate" mean for you.

 

Well, if you take a look I think you will realize that I did not link to any article. I think you are referring to an Article/Link posted by the Sinewave... but nevermind.

 

Acustica Audio "Amethyst" is super smooth and it's their cheapest channel strip. At 100€ - discounts that you can ask to any Acustica dealer and you got yourself a very damn nice start.

Lime is also very smooth, and if you want lots of color and vibe then Gold is for you.

With those plugins you also get the compressor and preamp modules separately, which is great.

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2018

what people usually mean with good eq usually translates to linear eq for low content and non aliasing dsp for top, mid top. fabfilter Q linear eq option is good for lows. For top, mid top end, Maag and Acustica Trinity are really outstanding, acustica being the most impressive soundwise. For surgical, SSL duende, and mids probably anything like elektra kush or slyfi combined with some tube saturation, maybe hg2. Slate has good sound but puts you in a box, so I prefer the aforementioned, and waves is more famous than good in sound. If you do not want to try everything go with acustica, check this italian producer testing acustica plugins. Some honorable mentions. sknote and analog obsession

About SlickEQ I have not tested it but I have read only good things about it.

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2018

I love Acustica but they are processor hungry.

I am thoroughly enjoying the T-Racks EQP-1. Truly the best minimum phase I have heard in ages.

I suggest you guys try some of the PSP eqs as well as the FF Pro-Q2.

 

EQP-1 is a Pultec design, and probably not something you want to use all over your mix, it's more like a top-end sweetener or cramper depends on the developer, but usually mostly used for bringing some fat lows back into your track.