I know I'm opening a can of worms, but hey, it's fun investigating this stuff

 

I tested Silk Eq with FB ProQ3 with gain match and the same curve. They almost sound identical. The Silk eq has slightly more saturation. The guy has a point. Maybe I'm doing this all wrong, so I hope Stevie dude could give his 2 cents

 

Is there somehting like TOP AA plugins, or recomended list ?

 

Both of the recent two releases seem to have the full set of samplerates - this bodes well!

 

no, it's not scientifically accurate : ) that's just what your ears hear in your studio
interesting to read but definitely not something that can be archived like "scientific"

frankly even that video above con be considered "scientific", and I do think that nothing around "music" can be considered scientific. I trust my ears and my taste only (ok also stevie dude's ones but always not like a religion )

 

I think my opinion on the subject is as good as anyone's ever. I don't have problem with the guy, but I think he missed the point just because he uses the EQ his own way, doesn't man it applies to others. There is not one definite way to use an EQ, not one right way. He probably good at the engineering thingy but bro needs to work on how he looks at thing. It's not like people don't know that for curve alone, 100% matched EQs will cancel each other out most of the time even with convolution based stuff, but still even the top top mixer/producer still buying every new shinny new EQ, to think that they are not aware and like to be scammed is.. hmm.

I like the Analog Emulation EQ for their personality and it keeps me going every day. Not because they sound different, but because when I use them they tend to make the thing im processing to sound different, I make different decision compared to using say Pro-Q3. I use ProQ3 for different job. Using analog EQ I pay attention, listen and have expectation, a boost on my fav EQs combo for snare (PSP E27 + SlyFi Axis) on certain selection give exactly what I want and take the guesswork out of the way, I don't need to look for where (sweeping frequency), I just know this snare need a boost at a certain fixed point with a certain amount of boost, with some saturation cranked that will work with the compressor after (because I know the compressor sensitivity area, I just want certain part to hit first, body or transient depends), it works all the time, and I move on to the next thing. Whatever comes with the EQ, all those non-linearity, saturation wtv are just bonus, the combo somehow make the snare ready to be smashed after and get what I want. This is after years of randomly testing one EQ after another then I stick with the one that works well with the processing chain, for the whole mix. I don't know if the saturation of the EQ, or maybe the curve (?) somehow blend nicely with the compressor's saturation/artifact or the ever present SSL J 9k channel strip on every channel + all those parallels processing for snares + reverbs that shared with other instruments too. I know for a fact, everything works nicely together and bet if I switch the PSP E27 with Pro-Q3 that 100% phase canceled, things will falls apart, not bad sounding, but not to what I want/like and huge part of the sonic details will be lost especially when parallel compression that bring up low level details involved.

Also I don't even know how that boost on the PSP E27 looks like and that 28kHz button that sometimes on or off. Will I ever randomly do a huge bell boost at 28kHz as much as 6db when EQing to see if it works ? I don't think so.

Things will be even weirder if I switch my fav Sonimus Burnley 73 on main vocals before it was sent out to 12 compressors (I have wrote about this the Brauer vocal technique). I know by instinct now, what frequency selection the vocals need to be boosted or attenuated or how much the preamp the vocal needs or not. Even if Pro-Q can 98% phase cancel the Burnley 73, switching them will give different compression results, because all those extra 2% thing from the Burnley adds up when smashed and mixed back together, because I'm basically emphasizing the low level saturation (parallel compressions) introduced by the EQ that can't be heard and fell under the -100db level upon phase cancellation testing. Stacking the 10db GR compression 12 times will push them back up to -60db or so it matters, a lot. Pretty sure you don't even need to test this to understand the logic behind it. I have tested every Neve style EQ plugin I can get my hands on for the EQ trust me each and every single of them sounds stupidly different in context of the whole processing on more or less same settings and I ended up choosing the Burnley 73. Not because it's different or better, just because it works with the whole chain and most importantly.. I love the consistent expected result I'm getting in context.

"why do you love me ?" - she

"idk, I just do"

 

youtube engineers have their own "waves periods"

now it's time for the "null tests madness"

 

Well i think it makes sense. One of the reasons i've been kinda stepping away from analog emulations is because i think EQ-wise the differences between them and standard digital EQs are not worth it, and sometimes (specially with stepped freuqencies or boost/cuts) it's rather limiting.
But then of course you have all the extra stuff, harmonics, compression (in case of channel strips), and let's not diminish the importance of a nice looking interface, force of habit, the limitations themselves, or hell sometimes integration with hardware. So it's not as simple as just comparing curves.

But i see his point and i agree. The whole hyperbolic or sometimes straight up deceitful marketing is funny at best, but for someone who's just getting started or is just easy to convince with pretty words, then that's a real problem. Sadly that's not even something exclusive to the audio industry.

Now, about AA...Can't really say much because there's always something that makes me choose other stuff instead, and it's never about the EQ so i doubt any proof of magic on a nulltest will make me use their stuff again.

 

Also all EQ sounds the same ? so this is just a gimmick ? -https://website-maat-digital-downlo...ublic/docs/Understanding_EQ_Architectures.pdf

 

Well, here we go again... Acustica Audio Cardinal 2023. "a rare 70's custom built console". Never heard of it, and no one I know has ever heard of it. "rare" in this case means who cares maybe? At any rate, it's another huge ass DL that may or may not be a total waste of time. Checking here with the acustica fan club to see if it's worth the time to even mess with.

 

To be fair, that was never the claim (he even says so in the video). The point was that the differences were not enough to justify buying different "flavours" of EQ (at least not in the way the marketing puts it).

 

I still have the framework installed for testing the new R2R releases but since I never touch the AA stuff in a production scenario I removed all the plugins. I have found that on the whole the sound achieved with AA plugins can be gotten elsewhere with MUCH less waste of machine resources. Dunno if that's blasphemy here or not, but it's just what I have personally encountered when attempting to run any of the AA stuff in an actual session.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Last edited: Oct 9, 2024

EQ curves in analog emulations are not something mythical or obscure: of course you can virtually replicate any curve of any plugin/hardware.
That’s why I don’t get the point of those videos: why should I use the proQ as an SSL emulation and vice versa ?

 

I will not discuss what you have personally encountered

as I wrote...the wrong thing here is to address something with absolute truth meaning or scientific unique solution around whats instead music related, Music has its percentage of scientific modules, but not more than 30% imho

in fact, everyone can reach great results with any kind of plugin, but the results "will sound different" : )

because if you say "I can reach identical results with AA or any other plugin" it means that would be the same with stock plugins, and I hope that we all agree that stock plugins need at least some help. But, again, you can win grammies even with stock plugins. Many did : )

I think that this is philosphy, not music or science. or maybe it's marketing, yes; they sell, so they need marketing. it's the same with the stuff you buy at the supermarket, you can trust or not. ok, we can talk about everything here : ) but maybe would be more interesting to keep it "not absolute". Nobody will ever convince my ears that the infamous "VOG Little Lab" sounds identical to a resonant HPF set up with PRO-Q3, even if it nulls!!! lol

that's music, folks

 

and in fact the first difference is............THE WORKFLOW!

maybe they didnt use that word at the time, but the SSL EQ was revolutionary for its workflow, first of all, not for the sound or whatever. And it's still impossible to have "identical results" without that workflow, the more in a producing scenario. Maybe if you spend half an hour with plugin doctor you can null PRO-Q3 with any SSL emulation. But who cares? I want those knobs in that exact positions on my controllers!!!

(and I am not an SSL man...I prefer stepped knobs )

 

forgot to mention my can: I unistalled the Fab Filter suite a couple of months ago because PRO-Q3 nulls with Cubase's Frequency 2 EQ lol

 

SUNRAY EQ has anyone tried to press the PRE button on it, is that normal ? or a bug ? it's weird and I hate it. This is the "blurry"-ness I've talked about in previous post. Apparently it's the PRE button when Input cranked (tbf it's not cranked that much). The distortion is different for L/R, it has slight curve and timing different and smear everything to death. A simple boost would put the EQ to non-linearity real quick if the Input isn't at -20 to -24db and destroy the stereo image. I think you don't need analyzer, just feed a stereo track and listen.


at -6db on Input



at -24db

 

Last edited: Jun 10, 2024

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Last edited: Oct 9, 2024

Look at this as another stereo imager