Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Why Your EQ Plugins Are Lying To You.....
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 авг 2024
- It's a clickbait title but today we have a little at some SSL style EQ plugins and see what they are doing under the hood frequency wise. The plugins we look at include Slate Digital's FG-S, Waves Mixhub, Sonimus Stoneq 4K and Analog Obsession SSQ. I am using the awesome Bertom EQ Curve Analyzer which you can get here www.bertomaudio.com/eqca.html.
*I put some background music in this video after doing a poll that at the time wasn't conclusive. If you have an opinion about this, please vote/comment / @jimijaymesproductions
★ THANKS FOR WATCHING! Don't Forget To Like And Subscribe!
★ SONIMUS AUDIO PLUGINS - Great Analog Style Mix Plugins
Use this link! - sonimus.com/?ref=10716
Get 10% off RRP with Code JAMESPARENTICH10
★ DISTROKID - here for you music distribution needs - sign up now and get 7% off using my link www.distrokid.com/vip/jimijaymes
★ WA PRODUCTION - For Sample Packs, Presets and Plugins
www.waproduction.com/#a_aid=5...
★ REVERB - For New and Used Gear check out
reverb.grsm.io/jimijaymes
☺️TWITTER - @jimijaymes
/ jimijaymes
☺️INSTAGRAM - @jimijaymesproductions - / jimijaymesproductions
☺️FACEBOOK - @jimijaymesproductions - / jimijaymesproductions
☺️TWITCH - @jimijaymes
/ jimijaymes
This is one of the reasons why I preffer to use "digital EQs", what you see is what you get.
Great video! Keep making these...nerdy shit that im glad to know
Thankyou
Love It Thank you
Great video
I suppose even if the ratio of boost or cut is scientifically different from the actual difference, it doesn't matter, as long as it sounds good
Exactly and don't worry about what the knobs say, if it sounds good it is good.
What if the EQ analyzer is lying?? 😂😂…..Just kidding. Great video 😎
I found this out recently…the plug-in alliance ssl 4000 g is even worse! Plug-in doctor says in no way what the plug-in setting is.
I think we can put too much weight on analysis at the mix stage. I’m glad I have (too many!) Eqs available, because I can just try a few and see which feels good for the job at hand.
But I have split them up into ‘corrective accurate’ eqs vs ‘creative but wonky’ eqs that do something I don’t expect (which includes most of the ‘modelled’ eqs) How else are they going to achieve those magic surprise’s and ‘character’ except by deliberately labelling things differently to what an analyser says?
In a mix, with accurately corrected sources, I couldn’t care less what the knobs say when I’m dialling them in by ear…. bring on the surprises that inspire creative mixing!
Thanks, great vid. I have a question about AO... if he designs plugins from schematics and automatically generated code (tweaking for bugs etc at the end), is it possible to replicate the nuances of analog gear without modelling it? I guess I'm asking if they really sound like quality analog-type plugins to you. Cheers!
I am planning on some comparisons to other software (unfortunately I don't have the analog counterparts). I think it depends on what you want, if you need a faithful 1 for 1 recreation of your favourite hardware, other paid plugins are probably closer. However if you want to use similar tools I think AO is pretty good for a lot of their plugins. For example their bus compressor based on the g-series bus comp, does what I want from that type of compressor with some cool features, it sounds different to my Slate but performs a similar task. Here for example, it is capable of quickly getting ssl style curves and sounds like I expect SSL eqs to sound. I still mix with Slate plugins mainly because I've had them longer and I like how they sound, but sometimes I'm grabbing AO plugins for their flavour (mainly BusterSE and Konsol). I think comparing them to hardware is a little pointless given they aren't in the same market, if you can afford a bunch of hardware, you are probably not going to get free software instead.
@@JimijaymesProductions Thanks for the comprehensive answer - much appreciated. No, I'm definitely not in a position to buy analogue hardware... I really respect what he's doing and always try to support small operators. Just wanted your take on how his plugins stack up against the 'analogue' competition with what seems like a radical production process. Thanks again!
By going from schematics, he kinda has an "idealized" version of a circuit, because, in reality, all circuits _will_ differ. Components have variances and tolerances and, especially old, vintage circuits, will have drifted significantly from their spec configuration.
He's still modelling specific aspects of how those circuits are implemented - inductor-based filters, for instance, tend to have some asymmetry, some filter implementation widen the Q as boost them further and further, so on and so forth. So it captures the functionality of how the circuit works without necessarily replicating any single one unit of that circuit.
Great video l, I always appreciate a video where everything is explained. I must say though I think the entire premise for this video is flawed. I am by no means a great mixing engineer; so what I am about to say is not a proven theory but I do apply it to every mix I do and for the most part, it gets great feedback. I never expected 2 different EQs to have the same curves at the exact same frequency, especially when it comes to analog based EQs. Even for the digital EQS that are based on computer language therefore should be accurate, I still feel like they have their differences, right? Otherwise you wouldn’t have the Pro Q types EQs vs the stock eq your DAW came with. When dealing with hardware, where literally everything around it has some type of affect on it, even 2 channels on the same board may respond to the same signal differently. So for those EQs that were modeled after different consoles will definitely not be accurate to one another! I don’t think they are lying, I just think they are just different; besides, whether or both 3k on this one is not matching 3k on that one should not matter! Because any boost or cut made on a mix should be around a specific goal, not a number! Sonically, does that boost or cut make sense? If yes, great; if no, then it should not have been made. What I am trying to say is, if you EQ’d a track and decided to swap the EQ with a different one, you should not be copying the setting over to the new EQ. I mean you can copy them as a starting point, but not a final decision! “Mix with your ears, not your eyes;” I think that just means that it does not matter what the analyzer is saying, if the boost or cut make sense then end of story.
I 100% agree and a lot of that was my point despite my clickbait title. I agree curves shouldn't be exactly the same though I was surprised how radically different some similar plugins are. The overall lesson was meant to be 'don't use numbers to mix because your eqs are interpreting those numbers differently' as well as it was a response to people saying all eqs do the same thing which they dont. I've seen a lot of online tutorial that tell people what exact frequencies to use on a style of eq (for example ssl style) and given what I have found in a very not scientific quick test is results will vary greatly so don't do what those tutorials say and instead learn to hear frequencies in your own tools. Thanks for watching
@@JimijaymesProductions I’d have to agree that all EQs do the same thing! I think the problem is just poor explanation and the people doing tutorials, they themselves don’t know much about EQs to clarify what they mean. Yes some do have more flexibility than others. But at the end of the day, you use EQ to shape the sound; whether you were cutting or boosting, all EQs have that ability. I think people just need to learn how to use what they have to get the results they looking for!
@@prodbyeli Yeah they do but my comment is more in reference to people saying why are you looking at EQ plugins they all do the same thing well, they all cut and boost frequency but they dont all (outside of very refined digital EQs) have the ability to have the same curve no matter the settings. I will do a separate video on this but for example a neve, ssl and pultec all have very different high shelfs. But I agree people need to learn their tools first and tbh in most modern daws the stock EQs can do 99.9% of what you need.
@@JimijaymesProductions could not have said that any better! I can’t wait for that video!
Not every SSL EQ is the same model of EQ, so you need to know which SSL model eq the plugin is modeling.
Is the slate modeling the E channel, or the G channel? For example.
Also, you'll find variances like this within different hardware units of the same model on the same physical console. This is because of the tolerances of the physical components, which the plugin makers are measuring and modeling. In order for two plugin makers to have identical results, they'd either have to use a digital eq instead of an analog eq, or they'd have to all model the exact same physical unit in the exact same way with the exact same measurement parameters.
You're right, mix with your ears not your eyes. And don't trust analog components to be as accurate as digital algorithms.
Thanks for watching you are 100% on point! Analog based plugins are all different and aren't 'accurate' like digital. It's part of what makes them have something special. Part of the reason I did this video is due to a bigger statement I want to address which is that 'its just an eq' or 'I have other eqs why should I care about this one' or 'all eqs are the same' that I hear all the time. Furthermore it was obvious that some companies go for the ideal version of the style of EQ (Sonimus 4K for example) or they go for a faithful recreation of their hardware. I found the asymmetry interesting in the Slate and I can't find out exactly what console its based on, either way they are all great sounding EQs once you learn them.
Its still pseudo when a company claims that their plugs emulate the analog hardware. UAD, WAVES the lot apart from Acustica. Now if you really want to capture the actual hardware sound then acustica is the way to go. Go and check it out. I have no affiliation with the company.
To ones understanding so excuse my ignorance if incorrect but when capturing the actual sound of hardware its more than just frequency curves. Hence why sampling is required.
@@thegroove2000 Yeah frequency is only the tip of the ice berg, this little video was just looking at the dials vs frequency, but a lot more is going on such as distortion, phase and noise. These things can be captured or algorithms can be tuned to act in the exact same way. A guitar example would be Kemper (capturing) vs Axe Fx (algorithmic programming), both have amazing sounds.
@@JimijaymesProductions Analog not digital distortion
I think the main reason why some analog emulations are way off their parameter labels' values is because that's just how the real hardware acted. at least that's what i was told multiple times now. so apparently authenticity is really important for the target group of these kinds of plugins.
I could also imagine one reason to be an attempt to make the mostly male dominated target group feel less insecure. because when you can drive the gain knob hard without it sounding like shit it might give you an empowering feeling, you know, like "haha, i'm such a great mixer, because i can put 10db on this thing without making it suck". no one ever confirmed this theory, but i do wonder why they always give you actually less gain than what the UI says, instead of more.
Strange... I just got ANGRY with 100,000 USD SSL Studio machine that sounds like Karaoke. What a Waste! - And not only that... last year, did recording on SSL, input was violin, output was trumpet. Wth.
I want this magic console that turns violins in trumpets, finding decent brass players can be hard.
@@JimijaymesProductions hahahaha, then you should come here, to that studio, I just told them to burn it; and if they can't do it, invite me, I am the champion for burning anything into bonfire. Cheers!
@@JimijaymesProductions just to share with you... at that time.... I was like... in-doubt... I asked the studio engineer 5x... did you have this line thru compressor, or phantom, etc... he said no... then I took my headphone... it sounds like violin... natural sounds like one... but ping-pong back to Da 100,000 Grande machine... I wondered... it sounds like either clarinet, oboe, trumpet... well the strings gone wind section in SSL! - NO KIDDING! - My home 200 USD Focusrite does a better job... You can find my latest rant on it in my 2nd new channel under my same name, this channel of mine is now abandoned bcos of censorship. Anyway, great content Bro, I subbed now to you. Cheers!
That is fascinating but I have to say that I had assumed that something like that at least was true. Some EQs just sound "weaker" than others and cloning settings from one EQ to another (different) EQ doesn't sound the same at all. It is passed off as the "sound" of each device (an argument that can be made) but in digital, one does wonder how often we are being lied to point blank when it is not necessary at all.
Interesting for some reason Analog Obsession eq always sounded accurate to my ear, but never really used it because there's a lot of bad talk about Analog Obsession plugins in their algorithm to give them a try again
I hear what you are saying. I should try them just to hear how they perform... But as far as I understand it is one guy coding/making those, and he is pushing a bunch of them in a short time. Not sure how you can get a quality product that fast, compared to big companies that still need a year or more to work on a specific emulation of a certain hardware.
The way I see Analog Obsession plugins are that they get the flavour they are going for and are fun. If you need to accurately replace a piece of hardware, I'd say 100+ dollar plugins are more accurate. If you want that flavour however they are great. I love BusterSE, does it sound exactly like a SSL Bus Compressor no, can it do things the hardware can't well yes and thats why I use it I like how it sounds, I use Slate or Waves if I want something closer to the hardware. Also the patreon model means you as the users are basically alpha and beta testers so a lot of early releases can have bugs in certain environments.
did i miss something? i always thought people mostly like analog obsession
Why not just use digital eqs? After all I'll make the curves according to what i like right?
Speed and I tend to use analog modelled EQs that do also have saturation so there is slight differences. I use digital EQ for precision and analog style for either a certain sound or speed because I know I like the curves.
@@JimijaymesProductions ya i meam that's because you're used to the eqs right? If you weren't, wouldn't you just make the curves that sounded good to your ears anyway?
@@dwaaaiii8757 Yeah I do use infinity EQ a lot for sources that need work or stuff Im not sure on for example certain EDM sounds whereas for tradtional rock drums I can quickly use slate fg-s and fg-a to get the sound I want. Also yes to the other question about saturation, it is in the planning stage, ive just been way to busy for follow up videos. Some of Dan Worrall's videos have been good at looking at this, I believe his latest one showed the Harrison EQ not being much more than certain EQ curves. Some EQs I have, have an asymmetrical curve which is harder to replicate quickly on a digital EQ (though infinity EQ and fabfilter are easy to get weird curves quickly).
I think you must do the same with a real SSL against plugins.
Would love to, unfortunately I don't exactly have access to any ssl style hardware mind an original ssl 4000, would also love to see some analysis from the worlds big producers desks (such as CLA's) as I reckon they'd probably all come out differently due to component drift and signal chain factors, which is the most likely reason all the plugins differ.
You are aware that when they model these consoles they also model the nonlinearities as well, correct? They aren't supposed to be perfect curves lol. Analog consoles are well known for these kinds of issues. They are not meant to be perfect like Infinity EQ or Pro Q. Every channel in a console has a slightly different curve as well.
Yeah and I tried to make it clear in the video, that there wasn't anything wrong with it, for example the slight asymmetry of the Slate, or the differences in the low end. I think all the plugins are great, the point was that they are different at the 'same' settings due to non linearities and differences between what is being modelled. Some differences were more extreme then I expected though. I use different analog modelled plugins because these differences make me work differently and can give me more interesting sounds, for specific tasks that need accuracy I use infinity EQ. I believe brainworx have some plugins that model the differences between channels like a real console does.
@@JimijaymesProductions Ok, just making sure. Ya, it's defiantly an interesting subject to look into. You are referring to the "TMT" aspect of BX plugins. It's pretty cool stuff! You didn't come off as if it were wrong it was more like you were confused but it's clear you weren't now lol! Great vid tho, thanks for the content!
@@JimijaymesProductions It's also crazy when you think that they are all based on the same thing. It's crazy how different one console can be from the next even tho they are the "same".
@@matt_nyc_audioengineer Great, this is meant to be part of a few similar kind of videos looking at all kinds of aspects of some analog modelling plugins, bit of a trial by fire seeing how this video did before committing to more. I'm learning more about my own plugins as well as I go. Yeah TMT, seems interesting, especially for the more old school guys that want to use the same channel strips across most channels.
@@JimijaymesProductions You are doing a fantastic job, I subbed right away bro! Keep it up! Me, I'm one of those old school guys you refer to!
I don't think the DBs on an actual SSL are accurate. It's just numbers not really meant to tell you DBs I think.
Ohh man isn't suppose to be different? because your sound already coloured with the analoqe counsole even when your not move your eq, and they have their own saturation in it, I think that's what make it different. as far as I know even the same real analoq console can be different one another....why don't you compare pro-Q 3 and your stock eq instead i think they are the best clean eq....for me I don't care what eq is more accurate as long as it has colour in it...I'm not looking the perfect eq, I'm looking for the best result
Yes they are supposed to be different, this video is more about showing how different similar EQ plugins are, I could of done this about any analog style EQ plugin. Its not that it colours, thats a given, its that the gain and frequency are different across plugins intended to emulate similar analog consoles when set exactly the same and how close they can get when set differently (visually). There is no right or wrong, its just some food for thought about learning plugins and to a lesser extent hardware. This exploration came out of claims that all EQs are the same, I saying even in the same style of EQ they aren't, which is why I have different EQ plugins.
Most analogue moddeled eqs don't colour or saturate, if you don't believe me do a graph test on a sine wave... you'll not find any harmonics being added, in analogue moddeled compressers? Yes they'll form harmonics.
@@dwaaaiii8757 All the ones I used in this video do have saturation built in but you are correct a lot of them don't they just map the curves even some older compressors (the original UAD 1176s) dont either.
@@JimijaymesProductions can you make a test of the saturation on a sine wave?
At last some honesty. I have been saying this for a while. Its all essentailly snake oil, when claiming that the analog emualtions capture the actual hardware sound been pure DSP. The only company that can lay claim to that is Acustica with their sampled tech. Thats why I bought into Nebula 4 and use various top quality programs.
Thanks for watching, that really wasn't my point at all, the point was to use your ears and not assume because its digital that the knobs are doing exactly what they say number wise. Acustica is great, but I wouldn't say better just different process but a lot of the sonic results are very good.. I don't have the console slate modelled or CLA's console so I could not say how accurate or inaccurate these plugins are to the hardware, but they work pretty well for me.