I don't like that knob-centric interface tbh. In terms of EQ layouts, I think the classic "map" view (as seen in ProQ3, ReaEq, etc.) is the most clear way of visualizing equalization IMO and definitely the type of EQ GUI I'm the most used to.
Fantastic video as always! Your elaborate points, ways of presentation, self presentation, aesthetic and attention to details doesn’t go unnoticed! Definitely one of my favorite RUclips channels for plugin reviews by far!
This is a pitch perfect review - no Melodyne required! Taking your technical points into consideration, this comes down to subjective preference. And I'm much happier with dials and using my ears than more graphical representations of the audio at the mastering stage; except for metering. I do have other options already, though. Without your detailed technical investigation and comparisons, it would take so much longer to evaluate the plugin for myself. Thank you!
Thanks for your kind words!! The only additional comment I have to make is that there is a preamp switch, which does introduce some harmonics. But I didn’t find it to be of major influence on sound since its before the eq and the eq is as clean as it gets.
Great tutorial on the Cherry EQ. It sounds like it would be a good addition to a plug-in stack. For some reason, it reminds me of the extreme yet musical boosts or cuts I can get away with on my Pulsar Massive. Sometimes, broad brush editing is just fine. I have other EQs if I need surgical.
If this no longer uses the convolution style of the other acustica eq then what is the difference between this and any other digital eq? Honest question.
So it's modeling digital EQ? I'm confused. Isn't this the kind of thing you don't reach for Acoustica for.... Like the opposite of their specialty? What is unique about this one? The first "hyper" EQ.... I'm so confused right now. Is it just like non-dynamic convolution style EQ curves? Honestly, i think algorithmic is probably better for this kind of EQ.
@@whitenoisestudioafter watching the video: The harmonics and nonlinear behavior come into effect when you enable the preamp on this plugin- its in the top right and looks like a small circuit icon. Thats how you enable the “mojo”. Also, there are several different modes on the top right menu that all create slightly different characteristics- with “digital HQ” being the highest quality I believe
@rhuggins Yup, but still nicely aliasing free! This preamp doesnt have a huge impact on the overall sound in my opinion, being placed before this very clean eq. The different modes also dont have a noticeable difference between them in normal use I found.
You sir have no idea what a "null" test is if you're saying those nulls are barely audible. If I can hear the whole kit by simply turning up my interface loudness, THAT'S NOT NULL.
@@whitenoisestudio yes, and it's not null. A null test, if it nulls, returns silence, clicks, pops, swooshy sounds. If you get the WHOLE kit, then it's anything but null. The closest you got to a null were the low-lows of pro-Q with those of Cherry, everything else is very far from it.
@@fescolfaro We're on the same page here m8🙂 Indeed, it's not a perfect null, hence the null test to find out if it nulls at all. It didn't, so its not a perfect null i.e. the outcome of the null test. I'd say the tests show exactly how similar pro-q and kirchhoff can be in comparison to the eq settings and curves of cherry. When you do a null test and the difference is a very similar sound but a lot lower in level, you almost have a perfect null and factors like tiny eq curves difference or sample accuracy between the two come in to play. Click and pops point to differences in transients normally, or simply the loop points if you loop a section. The DAW doesn't always nicely catch up at loop starts and ends. One test to learn to recognize different null test behaviours is to use an audio clip , duplicate it and phase inverse one of the two. Then move one of the two 1 sample at a time. It gioves highly interesting results in regards of sound and volume.
@@whitenoisestudio my critique was a reaction to the commentary that you added after it (and how in the nerd forums some people already started reporting "very little difference, it nulls!"). I disagree not with the test, but your assessment that it's anything close. Especially if we're talking mastering where 0.5db can mean a track's vibe out the window. In this case I could bet we're talking about stereo field collapsing, maybe transients behaving differently, the perception of depth etc. Which means I would conclude the exact opposite of what you did (exception to the kick with Q3, which became harder to pinpoint even when turning up the volume). My approach to null test is anything greater than -90db is easily discernible, and therefore I consider both examples significantly different, especially if I can still hear the program material.
What do you think of this first ''hyper eq'' plugin?
I don't like that knob-centric interface tbh. In terms of EQ layouts, I think the classic "map" view (as seen in ProQ3, ReaEq, etc.) is the most clear way of visualizing equalization IMO and definitely the type of EQ GUI I'm the most used to.
Fantastic video as always! Your elaborate points, ways of presentation, self presentation, aesthetic and attention to details doesn’t go unnoticed! Definitely one of my favorite RUclips channels for plugin reviews by far!
Thanks man! Means more to me than you can know :-) Now post this in every new video I upload to boost my ego ;-)
@@whitenoisestudio I gotchu!
This is a pitch perfect review - no Melodyne required! Taking your technical points into consideration, this comes down to subjective preference. And I'm much happier with dials and using my ears than more graphical representations of the audio at the mastering stage; except for metering. I do have other options already, though.
Without your detailed technical investigation and comparisons, it would take so much longer to evaluate the plugin for myself. Thank you!
Thanks for your kind words!! The only additional comment I have to make is that there is a preamp switch, which does introduce some harmonics. But I didn’t find it to be of major influence on sound since its before the eq and the eq is as clean as it gets.
I think it sounds pretty amazing to spice up a final mix. On discount now I'll probably get it.
Great tutorial on the Cherry EQ. It sounds like it would be a good addition to a plug-in stack. For some reason, it reminds me of the extreme yet musical boosts or cuts I can get away with on my Pulsar Massive. Sometimes, broad brush editing is just fine. I have other EQs if I need surgical.
Goede review weer
Dankuuuu
If this no longer uses the convolution style of the other acustica eq then what is the difference between this and any other digital eq? Honest question.
It is a convolution style eq. But I believe you need to have the pre button on to make the sampled unit more pronounced.
Preamp doesn’t do that much I find. Eq is very clean.
Acustica finally sampled ProQ3 and Kirchoff)
hahahaha
So it's modeling digital EQ? I'm confused. Isn't this the kind of thing you don't reach for Acoustica for.... Like the opposite of their specialty? What is unique about this one? The first "hyper" EQ.... I'm so confused right now. Is it just like non-dynamic convolution style EQ curves? Honestly, i think algorithmic is probably better for this kind of EQ.
Mostly the technology I’d say.
Is this out today?
I honestly have no idea, the release date was quite fluid. I expect it wont take long anymore.
@@whitenoisestudioafter watching the video:
The harmonics and nonlinear behavior come into effect when you enable the preamp on this plugin- its in the top right and looks like a small circuit icon.
Thats how you enable the “mojo”.
Also, there are several different modes on the top right menu that all create slightly different characteristics- with “digital HQ” being the highest quality I believe
@rhuggins Yup, but still nicely aliasing free!
This preamp doesnt have a huge impact on the overall sound in my opinion, being placed before this very clean eq.
The different modes also dont have a noticeable difference between them in normal use I found.
July 31st
yeah on monday. I saw it too when they shared my video ^^
What is hyper EQ?
The new engine of acustica.
@@whitenoisestudio What does the hyper thing do, actually?
@@ES60Hzvery CPU efficient
You sir have no idea what a "null" test is if you're saying those nulls are barely audible. If I can hear the whole kit by simply turning up my interface loudness, THAT'S NOT NULL.
Null TEST. You don’t perform a test when you want an outcome to become what you want it to be. It’s a test.
@@whitenoisestudio yes, and it's not null. A null test, if it nulls, returns silence, clicks, pops, swooshy sounds. If you get the WHOLE kit, then it's anything but null. The closest you got to a null were the low-lows of pro-Q with those of Cherry, everything else is very far from it.
@@fescolfaro We're on the same page here m8🙂
Indeed, it's not a perfect null, hence the null test to find out if it nulls at all.
It didn't, so its not a perfect null i.e. the outcome of the null test.
I'd say the tests show exactly how similar pro-q and kirchhoff can be in comparison to the eq settings and curves of cherry.
When you do a null test and the difference is a very similar sound but a lot lower in level, you almost have a perfect null and factors like tiny eq curves difference or sample accuracy between the two come in to play.
Click and pops point to differences in transients normally, or simply the loop points if you loop a section. The DAW doesn't always nicely catch up at loop starts and ends.
One test to learn to recognize different null test behaviours is to use an audio clip , duplicate it and phase inverse one of the two. Then move one of the two 1 sample at a time. It gioves highly interesting results in regards of sound and volume.
@@whitenoisestudio my critique was a reaction to the commentary that you added after it (and how in the nerd forums some people already started reporting "very little difference, it nulls!").
I disagree not with the test, but your assessment that it's anything close. Especially if we're talking mastering where 0.5db can mean a track's vibe out the window. In this case I could bet we're talking about stereo field collapsing, maybe transients behaving differently, the perception of depth etc. Which means I would conclude the exact opposite of what you did (exception to the kick with Q3, which became harder to pinpoint even when turning up the volume).
My approach to null test is anything greater than -90db is easily discernible, and therefore I consider both examples significantly different, especially if I can still hear the program material.
So, basically not really different from our favourite digital eq plugins. Great! Saved some money.
sounds very musical and very unnecessary
lol. Well maybe in the large scheme of all plugins, but does Acustica already offer something like this?