In Puremix Tutorials Most Of All Producers Use Sonnox Oxford Eq
Explain me in details

 

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2019

some EQs are meant for problem solving and removing specific frequencies (Fabfilter)
and some EQs are meant more for "coloring" the sound and do broad enhancements (Pultec)

every EQ is going to sound a little different, depending on how wide the Qs are and how much you add or remove a certain frequency, and how one Q point affect the rest of the curve when its being modified or changed, for example, on some EQs when you boost a certain frequency - other frequencies are being deducted which might work very well on certain sounds sometimes

its also a matter of how well you know a certain EQ, if you're very familiar with one - you're more likely to get good results with it because you used it alot, and you know its characteristics, therefor its you're personal preference

 

There are two main types of EQs according to usage: parametric and graphic EQs. Graphic EQs are used for when you need gentle correction, and to get rid of feedback at live performances. Graphic EQs can be used for mastering, especially if they're linear phase. I find them quick for spectrum matching. Parametric EQs are used for everything else.

There are two different types of EQs according to the algorithm they use: IIR and FIR. FIR EQs are very similar to graphic EQs - gentle and quick to set right, and even minimal phase ones are good for mastering, because when using gentle curves, phase deviation is minimal, but they are usually linear phase, which is even better for mastering - when transparency of processing is required. IIR EQs are used for everything.

All EQs can be linear phase, minimal phase, or recently we got natural phase - which is a type of linear phase with less latency and more ringing. Natural phase is alright when you use gentle, low Q curves, and need lower than linear phase latency processing. Linear phase EQs are used for mastering where transparency is required, and you don't care about the latency. Minimal phase EQs have significant phase deviation, but they can be 0-latency, so they are usually used for tracking and mixing. If you use very gentle curves, you can use these for mastering, too.

And then you have EQs which use analog saturation algorithms, and those who don't. You would usually use the one without any colouring for mastering, if transparency is paramount, but but maybe the track needs some "grit and/or sparkle". However, colouring/saturation is usually used on separate tracks and buses.

There's also one other special type of EQ people love to talk about. Usually with nice, big, hardware lookalike GUIs, and/or made by a famous audio brand. It is called a "Placebo EQ". They are usually fancy looking and expensive, but actually your standard IIR EQs with some standard saturation algo, and minimal phase deviation. People report hearing pink elephants having sex when they use these.

-edited grammar errors-

 

Last edited: Feb 2, 2019

In short, some EQs are used because they influence the sound a lot, whilst some are used because they don't influence the sound that much, according to what you need at the moment.

They all do influence the sound in a bad way, be it frequency ringing artefacts, or phasing artefacts, or transient smearing artefacts - the usual consequence of saturation. But again, it depends on what you need, what you want to do with the sound...

 

Can you tell more about pultec I liked your knowledge

 

I'm begginer but you are explained in deep
Respect

 

Sonnox is an old brand and most of older engineers use what they are used to using. This is the main reason why Pro Tools is still used by most of the professionals.

 

it's more of an obsolete leftover workflow from the past,
in those medieval ages of hardware, every EQ sounded different, they colored sound even with all knobs on zeros, or even in bypass,
with arrival of digital world, processing tools like EQ became mathematically exact tools,
very quickly people realized proper EQ sounds like shit to their ears and so devs started sampling and simulating those old hardware EQs, funnily enough no 2 pieces of hardware gear sound exactly same, so it's more of a hybrid solution, cool thing about plugins is you get same sound crippling/mangling every time, unlike for ex. different channels on different channel strip of console sounding little different,
also with computers becoming faster, various modes for plugins started to appear, for ex. EQ can be linear phase, zero latency, dynamic phase etc.. of which all those modes sound different;
nowadays there's so much stuff devs compete primarily in creating fancy GUI (graphical user interface), and trying to emulate various fancy legacy gear; there are basically 2 main types of EQ plugins - the ones which are surgical mathematically accurate tools (Fabfilter Pro-Q3 for ex.) and the ones which are imitating some hardware (Overloud GEM series EQs for ex.)

 

of course there is eq to color or not and smoother q's etc... part of the concept behind what the inventor was trying to tackle
And there is dynmamiq eq's too... and linear phase eq

just learn all about them and rule

sonnox is used by older engineer...but new engineer use pretty much what ever willl work best with the frequencies they are mixin

new engineer mix in the box and use also new inventor like kush audio...

 

You don't need saturation for this,an EQ by nature influences phase and transients.
I understand(I think) you hate PA plugins because they are expensive and you don't like their GUI :

But you don't like colored EQs ?
I used a lot ProQ but todays I prefer emulations or passive EQs.
First with a ProQ style EQ with spectrum analyser I find that the spectrum analyser is too disturbing (I know you can disable it) and you make the EQ too much with your eyes before your ears.Even though sometimes a spectrum analyser or linear phase EQ is usefull.

I like SSL emulations,elysia passive EQ,Pultec,or the BAX eq for busses,for their (nice for me) imperfections.I find them more musical than a ProQ.

 

Last edited: Feb 5, 2019

Natural phase is a type of linear phase? In ProQ2 natural phase is similar to analog or minimum phase, similar to zero latency mode, but natural phase has no problems at near nyquist area as zero latency mode does (both frequency and phase).
---

One of the interest aspect of how work IIR and FIR.
1. Make a loud DC offset (maybe any audio with Airwindows DCVoltage (it creates or removes, increase or decrease DC Offset)).
2. Add DMG Equilibrium instance with highpass (low cut) filter to remove DC offset.
3. Adjust frequency of cutting filter at minimum (enter 5Hz at 44.1kHz sample rate), lowest order (6 dB/oct) - at IIR you may completely remove DC offset, but at FIR you can do that, you need more IR length for precision of frequency, more steepness of filter, and more higher frequency (going to 15Hz is better, going to 25Hz is much better etc.), but still you can't completely remove dc offset with any FIR filter. But it is no problem with IIR, low steepness, lower frequency and dc gone. Because IR length depends on frequency and sample rate. 1024 precision at 44100 Hz means you can cut 44 Hz, 88 Hz, 132 Hz approximately (44100/1024=your precision of filter) etc. Same with 2048 at 88100 Hz. So if you need to cut or boost narrowest 23.5 Hz, not 23.2 nor 23.9 Hz you need higher IR length. But more pre/post ringing. Higher ir length is for higher precision of cutting or boosting harmonics, whistles or so. For high frequency and wide Q you dont need too much IR length. So, FIR filter can't work precisely with near 0 Hz dc offsets, but works better with >=1Hz at highest IR length. More info - meldaproduction reading tutorials on their website.

Another test.
1. Open DDMF Plugindoctor or create flat fft clicks or white noise and use DMG Equilibrium.
2. Make a highest steepness of highpass filter (low cut) and start to cut everything near nyquist area at 44100Hz, for example. Play there with 19 kHz, 18 kHz, 21 kHz etc. Any frequencies, move filter around there. Switch to FIR - everything is ok, as should be. Switch to IIR - what the shit happens there! Not precisely with IIR mode.
3. Another test. Switch to high cut (low pass) with highest steepness (highest order filter) and make highest or not so highest resonanting boost with Q. FIR - resonance made with Q is ok, chosen frequency boosting exactly. Switch to IIR and move filter around highest frequencies area - chosen frequency boosts not exactly there what you see on spectrum graph and on filter. Even making 512 precision and compensation does not fix this completely.

Linear phase on mastering is mostly not always go-to. It is good for work with left or right or mid or side. For example, doing steep cuts when clap panned to left and lead vox on right. Choose mid or side and see what happens. IIR or FIR analog/minimum make clap sounding to right, lead vox becomes crosstalking to left. More steepness, more obvious stereo image becomes distorted. This shit doesnt happen with linear phase.

Need more?)