Not EVERY EQ Plugin Sounds The Same .. And the Science Proves it!!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2024
- Not EVERY EQ Plugin Sounds The Same .. And the Science Proves it!!
ALL RELEVANT VIDEOS
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
THIS test will stop you buying more plugins.. and maybe even improve your mixes!!
• THIS test will stop yo...
WOW.. audio engineers will really believe anything these days!!
• WOW.. audio engineers ...
ONE of these devs really don't know WTF they are doing.. Is it KIT plugins MO-Q or UAD Hitsville EQ?
• ONE of these devs real...
I ACTUALLY CAN'T BELIEVE KIT PLUGINS DID THIS AND THOUGHT I WOULDN'T NOTICE 😂😂😂
• I ACTUALLY CAN'T BELIE...
THIS is why your mixes don't sound ANALOG 🤯
• THIS is why your mixes...
Do you REALLY need 5 Pultec plugins .. considering KIRCHHOFF EQ can do THIS!!!???
• Do you REALLY need 5 P...
WHY buy a MAAG EQ2 after watching what the KIRCHHOFF EQ can do? .. no joke ..THEY MEAN BUSINESS!!
• WHY buy a MAAG EQ2 aft...
ALIASING IN AUDIO PLUGINS... The most important things you need to know!!
• ALIASING IN AUDIO PLUG...
Why audio plugins sound 'flat' & How to fix FLAT ITB mixes || Is it really the tools or is it YOU?
• Why audio plugins soun...
My name is Paul Third and I am a Scottish youtuber / audio engineer / mixing engineer / audio geek. I mostly cover audio engineering related content ranging from audio plugin shootouts / plugin comparisons (acustica audio plugins, universal audio etc etc) to actual analog vs digital / gear vs plugins plugin tests via access analog and mix analog. I even include ddmf plugindoctor tutorials in my plugin reviews so you can be your very own plugin tester and experiment and understand whats actually going on under the hood.
All of my content is produced in Presonus studio one 6 which is my main daw and in terms of my audio interface I record and monitor through a universal audio apollo x6 through topping dx7 pro+ dac/amp and use a JZ V12 microphone for all of my voice overs.
Join and also subscribe to the channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulthird
🌠 HELP ME TO KEEP DOING WHAT IM DOING
patreon.com/paulthird
⬇️ MERCHANDISE
paul-third.teemill.com
🏷️GEAR I USE
PAUL THIRD'S GEAR (THOMANN EU)
thmn.to/thocf/ad7nb8wdro
MY GEAR (SWEETWATER US)
sweetwater.sjv.io/Qy3B6a
Topping DX7 PRO+
apos.audio/products/topping-dx...
Topping L30 mk2
apos.audio/products/topping-l...
🏷️ PLUGIN AFFILIATE LINKS
pluginboutique.com/?a_aid=60a...
www.masteringthemix.com/?sjra...
WORKING AUDIO TOOLS PODCAST
/ @workingaudiotools
🎶 FOLLOW MY DEBUT ALBUM JOURNEY
• MY DEBUT ALBUM JOURNEY
🎤 RELEASING A SONG?
Music distribution playlist: • Playlist
Songwriting playlist: • MIXING SESSION WITH PA...
📖 CHAPTERS
0:00 intro
0:59 Why do so many plugins sound the same?
4:00 EQ cramping
5:25 anti aliasing filters and internal oversampling
8:36 Q-factor behaviour
10:30 Parallel filters
12:25 How to properly null test EQ's
19:04 Analog clipping stages
21:48 The ACTUAL "sound" of EQ's
🖱️CONTACT ME
Email: paulthird.taysound@gmail.com
Instagram: / paulthird_uk
Website: www.taysoundstudio.com 
Видеоклипы
Hey thanks for your response.
It seems you beat me to it on this particular topic by a couple of years. But I guess starting my channel in 2024 I'm probably late to the party on almost everything and where I've not been a viewer in this space on RUclips before I started my channel, I honestly have no idea what has been beaten to death by others on the platform already.
In terms your response to my video... I watched your video on pink noise and I think that's a really good idea, recording the delta and adding it back to the original signal and looking how much the level changes. That's a really cool tip that I will use if I do null tests again. In my video I just wanted to show the magnitude of phase cancelation in a really basic way and most people got the point but there are many more technically minded people, yourself included, for whom that wasn't good enough and so if I do something like this again, I'll aim to better quantify the results using that trick.
In terms of pink noise, I can just grant you that pink noise is the superior type of noise to use but in terms of an EQ test, I'm struggling to see how that would throw such a huge spanner in the works, especially if I'm not adding the delta back into the original signal... but again, thanks for the tip, if I do it again, I'll use pink noise and add it back because I like that methodology for displaying a quantifiable result.
Generally, my goal wasn't to say that all EQ plugins are mathematically identical, as you can hear they are not in my tests, but rather to point out that the differences between various EQs, when you know how to use them, is not that shockingly large and most people probably can't tell the difference, and most people aren't going to radically transform their mixes just because they buy X fancy plugin. From the vibe I get from what you are saying, you more or less agree with me anyway.
In terms of the curve bender and my attempts to get it to phase cancel, I'm not 100% sure you are right that this was merely an antialiasing filter because I was using EQ curve analyser to precisely match the eq curve and also the phase response, and I show the curves in the video and they are close to identical. Had it been a linear phase low pass antialiasing filter, I would have expected there to be an absence of phase distortion there, but there wasn't. If they used a minimum phase low pass, then the phase distortion is inconsistent with what I'd expect in the pass band given the frequency response. Anyway, I'm not a DSP programmer so am happy to learn more precisely what was going on there. Feel free to make a better null test with it, I'd be interested to see what you do.
This is the reply I was hoping as I've made it purely to make your tests more conclusive in the future. If you take it all on board which from this response I think you will.
White noise nulls are most likely the reason why your nulls are audible in your videos. If you use pink noise then the mid to high end differences are mitigated and thats fine as it related to the sources that people will use on the plugins which are based on acoustic sound.
Where with using white noise, the mid to high end is at equal energy to the low end which means that from a null perspective it'll show those high end differences in anti aliasing filters bla bla to be as audible as the low end differences which in reality isn't the case.
If you feed a plugin with audible non linearities white noise then it will saturate equally and the difference will show when in reality, musical sources have a fundamental and then corresponding octaves and harmonics. So when passing an acoustic guitar through a coloured eq, the low end energy of the guitar will trigger the input most and thus saturate more in that area and less in the highs.
What you'll find using pink noise is that the null will be perceived quieter than the white noise null because we are more sensitive to mid and high end frequencies. So in a white noise null we are hearing differences that we shouldn't because the mid to high end shouldnt be at the same energy of the fundamental.
Id harbour a guess if youd have used pink noise on your tests, we most likely wouldn't have heard the nulls.
In regards to the curve bender, you've used an all pass filter which is not an anti aliasing filter. You said that science is unforgiving so you understand that from a science point of view, you need to do apples vs apples.
An anti aliasing filter significantly attenuates the amplitude of frequencies above it's cut off frequency. It's main aim is to incur the least amount of phase shift whilst removing the frequencies above the cut off. That's why the implementation of the anti aliasing filter is very important, Kit moQ being a big example of how NOT to implement an anti aliasing filter. The issue is that even an FIR filter can incur a little bit of phase shift but it's so minimal and in such high regions that it's not to worry about, especially considering more sources won't make anything as considerable that high up the frequency spectrum.
Sample rate is also another contributing factor as at higher sample rates, that phase shift will be way above the audible hearing range. So with the curve bender, that phase shift you see at 44.1 or 48k will not be where it is at 96k because niquist is now 48khz. The issue with 44.1 and 48khz is that niquist is 22 & 24hz which means that the filter has to be JUST above 20khz and super steep to not encroach into the audible range. That's what they mostly all use linear phase filters because minimum phase filter at 44.1 & 48k will incur big phase shifts all the way down to like 5k. At 96k, that minimum phase shift moves up to 10khz, and then 20khz at 192khz.
An all pass filter is used purely to manipulate the phase response without altering it's amplitude. It's main purpose is to rotate the phase as you said but it doesn't attenuate any frequencies, unlike an anti aliasing filter.
So you've used an all pass which has manipulated the phase, which you've then had to fix with another eq. It's nowhere near apples for apples. You've tried to reverse engineer an anti aliasing filter using incorrect methods cause you are trying to get the phase to match differences you see in a white noise null that has massively emphasised these high end differences.
You are trying to fix differences in a frequency range that hardly anybody can hear where if you used pink noise you wouldn't even hear it.
My main advice is to watch the whole eq course selling thing. Trying to sell a $50 EQ course on a platform that already has thousands upon thousands of free videos on the topic, whilst trying to make a message that you don't need to fall for audio marketing sounds hypocritical because you are kind of using the same methods
"but this to become more 'pro'" that's where I've seen most backlash to your video.
If your new to youtube in this community then you need to learn fast that shilling is a massive issue and as youtubers we are all trying to find that balance because the audience are now fully done with content being made purely to sell a product. If you want to grow on this platform then just start giving everything away with no strings attached. That will build you an audience. Nicholas from Panorama mastering is a great modern example, and a fellow mastering engineer.
I have completely stopped all paid reviews on my channel, and tbh mostly all reviews. If a product ends up in a video it's because it's unavoidable due to the topic but there's not a hidden agenda.
Its a difficult gig to try and make the time investment quantifiable from a financial point of view but selling eq courses being a relatively unknown mastering engineer in the community isn't gonna help your message. Work at just giving the best information you can purely to help others.
If I was in your position, I would genuinely refund the people that bought the course and and stick it up for free on youtube for everybody. You'll be amazed at how much respect that will give you in this community.
Just an idea, depends on what is more important, reaching a wider audience to educate and get your name out there or make a bit of side money from what you know.
Just be careful, don't make the wrong enemies, and if you are unsure about something, don't talk about it. If it's plugins ask a dsp engineer or somebody that knows a lot about this stuff as when you assume... Well you'll know the saying. (and trust me, there's been the odd occasion where I've made an ass out of myself and had to redo something or take it out)
Hope things work out for you in the future
@@PaulThird Thanks for your detailed reply!
I guess the main point I want to address there is the course selling thing. I think many people have hang ups about charging for stuff. Many youtubers do it for a hobby or passion and are happy to spend years of their lives making free content to increase their subscriber count and gain more respect in the community, and that's totally cool. But the idea that selling stuff is somehow ethically wrong is just bizarre to me. Imagine going to an evening class on cooking to learn how to make better food at home and then someone comes up to you and says "you're getting conned out of your money here, and the chef/teacher should refund all of the students and teach this for free because there are free cooking videos on youtube". Like, what?
The reality is, most people dont want to wade through 10 hours of dog shit on youtube for every minute of valuable content. And if they wanted to learn something new, how would they know if the information was legit or leading them down the wrong path? It's fine to say "it's on youtube for free". But in reality people are ecstatically happy to pay 19 quid ($49 with 50% early bird discount in GBP) for the massive time saving convenience of a high quality comprehensive course, in a structured, focused, logical presentation on the topic they want to learn, taught by a qualified industry professional with 15+ years working in the industry. The people who bought my course have demonstrated with their credit cards that they prefer a coherent well taught course to sifting through endless random youtube videos of wildly varying quality.
It's like going to tescos and standing in front of the mushrooms telling people "don't buy these mushrooms! 4 quid is a rip off! just go into the woods and find some yourself for free!". But it turns out, if you go into the woods, you find a lot of mushrooms but you don't know which are good and which will make you ill and after you've trawled through google trying to learn which ones are good, joined the local fungus experts group and had two stomach pumps at the local A&E, you will have wished you bought the mushrooms at tescos.
And sure, it's possible that I could spend months of my life putting together high quality courses and then instead of selling them to extremely enthusiastic buyers for peanuts like I'm doing, I could just release that all for free and incur a $500 loss per year on my course hosting fees and never recoup the cost of the camera equipment. Sure I could do that, but I'm not going to, and there's no rational reason why I ought to. I'm not hiding anything. I'm very open that I'm selling high quality courses for a reasonable price and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
Bear in mind that I currently charge $65 to master a single track. The effort I put into my courses and the value you get out of them for less than the price of one single master is pretty disproportionate, but nobody is bashing me for being a mastering engineer. And my mastering clients are digging my courses to the point where I've stopped doing my mix critique service which was $35 per track and replaced it with my mix prep course, and they are getting more value from that course than paying me for mix critique on individual tracks.
@APMastering OK. So the question is.. What makes your course any better than any of the free content that's out there from reputable names in the industry?
Produce like a pro has multiple eq videos, sonic scoop has over an hour long video dedicated to just EQ. Rick Beatto has one. In the mix with over 1m subscribers (who's also a mastering engineer). All free and all you have to do is type in how to eq on youtube.
If they are giving away so much of these things for free then why are you expecting others to pay you?
As much as you've said that plugin devs expect you to pay for the same thing that you can get for free... You are doing the same thing.
Are you saying that your eq course is better than youtube videos from recognised professionals?
It would take me less time to consume their teaching and cost me nothing
Just Think about the hypocracy of what you are trying to justify compared to what plugin devs try to justify
The free market
@@PaulThird OK so the Produce like a pro one with Mark Rubel seems to be a lead magnet for the $200 subscription. It's a half hour video where he says a few really awesome things, but some of it I strongly disagree with and I actually demonstrate in my course why you shouldn't do those things.
Sonic scoop EQ video is a cut down version from a paid course which is $169. In this free cut down RUclips version, skipping through, it's not in the same universe as my course. Not even close. He's just rambling some loosely structured barely rehearsed stuff live to camera in one hurried session. He might be an awesome engineer but this isn't particularly great educational content.
Rick Beatto has a playlist of long form whiteboard videos which is a lead magnet for his $100 course. There seems to be zero hands on EQ. Again, I'm not saying this is bad, this content is probably extremely deep and something I'd be interested in watching but its dry and even I don't have the attention span or time for that kind of dry white board content.
If I want to know how to use an EQ like a pro, I'd rather pay 19 quid and get a fast track, logical, concise, well structured course, going through every aspect that I need, rather than some lucky dip bag of unstructured long form white board stuff or some dude chatting unscripted to camera.
I'm sure some people have enjoyed that lead magnet content but from a pedagogical perspective it's just not good at providing a well rounded education on the topic for people who just want to get the information with minimum friction. I used to be a private tutor, teaching audio synthesis to BA and MA students at my old uni. And I have even done some actual university lecturing (industry guest lecturer), so I'm coming at it with some prior teaching experience as well as having earned the majority of my income over the last 16 years from actually doing mastering.
So if those are your top recommendations, I'm actually relieved because my course is in a different universe to this free stuff and costs much less than their courses.
My nostalgia is kicking in big time. Seeing Paul talk about plugins again brings a tear to my eye....(sniff)...
Sigh... I will forever be the plugin guy on youtube haha
Laymans audio guy with proper science @@PaulThird
@@PaulThirdnah, it's just that we less plugin sellers and more geeks and nerds again.
instant subscribe here. Watched that AP video and just felt like he was missing so much. Especially you talking about the unique behaviour of the controls on EQs, and reaching a result is very different from recreating a result. This and the cramping, parallel architecture etc. That and a Scottish accent and i'm 110% in.
🤜🤛
Great video!
Thanks for sharing on the Pink Noise vs White Noise for testing material!
🤜🤛
Glad you debunk that topic, glad to see you still cover some technical subject here on yt
🤓🤓
Thank you, Paul, for setting the record straight on this!
🤜🤛 (ps I may need to pick your brain about something in the future)
The real problem is that mixers believe they have to be a part of the creative process. The most basic EQ will do for your REAL job.
I've learned that the hard way haha
Glad I found your awesome channel again, had lost it a while. SUBd
🤓🤓
There are reasons to have different EQs, however I feel like 3 or 4 should be enough to cover everything one could possibly want. In terms of "emulations" I still use the Nomad Factory Motown EQ on every production. It does none of the harmonics, it doesn't do the band-independence right, but I know it so well that it's still the best way for me to generally shape a sound. Also, it's the most CPU friendly EQ apart of stock EQs (because it does none of the fancy stuff). I've got three main ways that I EQ any instrument:
1. I use the stock Ableton Live 12 EQ Eight that I set up with macros in order to low and highpass, change the Filtershapes and compensate gain (all controllable with my controller).
2. I use the Nomad Factory Motown EQ to shape the general sound (again, fully controllable with my Controller).
3. I use either the EQ Eight, the IKM Equal or the Kirchhoff EQ for mid-side EQing.
In production I usually don't do fancy dynamic EQ moves anymore. Also, I don't care for saturation from EQs, I do saturation and distortion seperately (usually after EQ). Obviously EQ moves still affect the processing later on in the chain, but this way I feel I have the most control and clear intent when doing moves. It's my own school of thought and I'm very comfortable with it.
Great info! It might be sometimes boring to you but those things are very interesting to others like me and I learned a lot in half an hour. Lots of points to go off of and do some research. So thanks for that!
I saw AP's video first, a couple days ago. I am glad you picked it up and shed some more light on tje topic.
🤓🤓
Nice video. Even though taste/mindset is key, it's still great to be aware of the more geeky technical side of things. And there is some kind of magic to the nebula technology in my opinion. I recommend the combination of nebula with regular modelling plugins depending on the application.
You mentioned Taupe....that can be very heavy handed so that one I use very selectively but it's one of the best "plastic removers" available. I have a lot of Acustica and TimP, and I'd recommend you try Tulip - it just seems to sound great on anything, those pres are great especially on vocals.
🤓🤓
That was a really informative video. Bravo Paul. I honestly never considered the pass-through transfer response to be important but you opened my eyes and ears to it. Although TBF, I rarely ever consciously notice anything that subtle and I don't do mastering, but it certainly goes some way to explain preferences I have for different plugins / analog emulations.
🤓🤓
I’d be curious to see what the developers at DMG audio would say about this. Their plug-in Equillibrium is my favorite digital EQ. In the settings menu, you can change so much about how the plug-in processes audio. The impulse response, the window size, IIR or FIR filters, the individual phase for each individual EQ point, etc. Theres a lot of tweakable things in there that you didn’t mention that go into coding a digital EQ. When I AB Equillibrium with other digital EQ’s, it blows them out of the water.
The best thing about EQuilibrium is that it allows YOU, the user to specify exactly what kind of EQ response you want. You can have it in parallel, you can have it in series.. you can force the filters to ring out a lot, or you can make them incredibly tight with almost no ringing. You can go from full minimum phase to inverted phase (so instead of ringing you get pre-ringing only!). You can abuse all of these settings to fit the purpose. Example: If you have a really clicky and nasty closed hihat that needs to be softened up a bit, you could cut a narrow bell where you have most of the transient energy with a filter that is ringing like crazy. Then you can null that cut with another instance in the opposite direction, with an identical filter and Q, and have that bell ring like crazy as well! The end result is that the filters will smear the hihat at this particular point you selected and thus smooth out the hihat click by basically destroying the transient. :)
Great video, my friend! It's so weird: that AP Mastering guy's video came out while I was working on my video on the same subject. Cheers for looking into this!
🤓🤓
Glad to see you back in the nitty gritty of things :)
🤓🤓
As usual…great video. You are understandably doing fewer videos. I understand that….but I sure do miss new content. Paul, I have been recording/mixing/mastering since 1976; there is generally not much in this realm that I can learn. But….I find your content to be refreshing and informative. Please don’t let the RUclips fatigue stop you.
🤓🤓
Hi Paul! I have a question, I’m in search for a mix bus/mastering eq plugin. My mentor uses acustica diamond color eq just for the high shelf on mix bus. I am very shy about using acustica plugins for the tech they are using(sampling) and the cpu usage? Do you recommend anything for mastering or color purposes like softube’s curve bender maybe? Should I give a chance to Acustica or stick with algorithmic eq? I have brainworx Amek 250 eq btw.
Depends on exactly what you want to do on the mixbus.
DMG EQuilibrium 😊
You probably already have what you’re looking for.
Exactly this! Well done, Paul 👍
🤓🤓
Great vid mate 👍
🤓🤓
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your a lot of amazing videos.
I always watch your stuff with a huge appreciation.
I hope that makes a new version of Acustica Audio's original hardware video.
Please don't mind this hard, I know it's hard on you.
Thank you always!
Well said and done Sir!👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾🙏🏾👍🏾👍🏾🫡
🤓🤓
I have had to use the DFA knob with many clients, works every time.
Hey Paul
Have you used Drawmer 1976 hardware It’s a stereo width processor and saturator Would be good to hear your take on it.
Alternatively your thoughts on, stereo analogue delays in the Moog matriarch or the ten band filter back on the Moog spectravox
Cheers for the videos. Very informative
Thanks for making this! Especially after watching APMastering's second video with the extra nulls, I thought it was impossible that he was nulling modelled EQs with Reaper stock. I immediately went to Cubase and started trying to null all my favourite EQs-some digital some analog-modelling-and could rarely get nulls. Also thought his white-noise point was odd too. I'm tempted to make my own video on this is well, but I wanted to make sure I was cool-headed. Don't want to start RUclips audio drama ha ha. Your tone is the correct one. No insults, just facts. Thanks again.
cubase? ewww gross. jk! lol
@@hithere4289 Ha! Pro Tools potentate? Logic lord? Reaper regent? SONAR snob? StudioOne-percenter? 🤔
Ableton cause we are Able of Tons 😂
Cubase seems great, Studio One is becomint the best Daw though
Becoming*
Also please do a video, f if there drama or not ! Do things !! Especially if you want to do it ! GO FOR IT !!! Don't think about it do it man !!
I had to edit quite heavily and do a few takes so it came off very fact based and non confrontational. I tried to take my personality out this one and just stick to facts that I know
Great video Paul. This is my new white noise for my 2 year old. He falls asleep 30% faster 😂 I knew that guy didn't know when he started peddling his courses. Keep doing what your doing ❤
🤜🤛
I like to hear every side of the debate. You never let us down Paul.
🤓🤓
thanks for this, so sick of these youtubers saying all digital EQs null & sound the same , I'm like "hell no, not even close" But you proved it with the science. Speaking of convolution & impulse responses, check out AnalogXAI, some of them are much better than Acustica/Nebula.
👍
I'm from a similar area to the original poster of the vid you're talking about, and I greatly appreciated the accent you did! 😂😂😂
I just find it funny that it's the same cockney accent I've been doing for years 😂
@@PaulThird It's too funny, keep it up! ;)
27:20 well an allpass won't directly change the tone, but phase will definitely change how it interacts with other stuff in the mix, which could change the tone
Yes but it's not what softube or any other developer are using as anti aliasing filters.
Very interesting Paul!! Have yet to try any Acustica stuff but prbably will now (I do have Michelangelo :) )
Acustica is a bit like wine to me. There's tons of different flavours but at the end of the day, they all get you pissed regardless so you need to take time to study their sound to ascertain whether they are actually beneficial. Its really all down to taste with Acustica.
Some people like rose, some like red, some like white, and some like different variations of each. Just be careful not to go nuts cause I've seen people spend thousands on them
That’s a very bad rabbit hole to be in. They’ve got good stuff but their fandom is insane. Having 1 or 2 EQ from them is good enough.
Hi Paul. Regarding to the "analog clipping part", you mentionned that a standard digital eq will clip in a daw as soon as it hits the 0db ceiling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are correct since all major daws work tin 32 bits floating point or higher. They matematicaly can't clip even if you see red light in the meter, and it's because the headroom is about 1400 db per channel. The only instance where it can happen is on the master bus when you exceed the 0db and feed your DA converter. You can try it by gain staging a channel at +20 dbFS and bring back your master fader by lets say -25db. You will not hear clipping.
Yeah, you are correct. Depends on the bit depth of your session but it was said more to give the difference between the clipping points of linear eq's vs some analog emulations. Some emulations will internally soft clip and the ceiling will be determined via the internal calibration of the plugin. This whole video was just completely off the dome.
Was really hoping for a Paul Third video on this exact topic
🤓🤓
gave me the fright of my life when you yelled at me son... calm down a bit
It's been the same intro for over 3 years haha
Thank you for making this video
🤓🤓
You need to check out Neural Amp Modeller my man, same thing with the pres from Acustica but you can create your own. Make sure to use MGuitarArchitect though instead of the free NAM plugin.
What is the Hypertech, and how did TimP do it 10 years ago?
I need to know more about phase equalling EQ and how shifting phase can add depth
Hyper tech is kinda the same thing. As far as I know it's about how you manually model and measure the compression. As we all know, Tim got that down to a fine art from the beginning. He would measure and measure until he got all the compression behaviour correct.
As far as I'm aware, hyper tech is really just Acustica admitting that they were measuring compression incorrectly over the years (as we've all heard for ourselves) and finally caved in and started measuring and implementing compression correctly. That's all it is really.
Hyper tech is essentially "old tech" 🤣
Great video bud.
🤜🤛
I think the biggest problem is the consumer, me, has 1000s of plugin eqs to choose from. I also have to cough up x amount of dollars for this EQ or that, i want to know at the start if its just a clean EQ that has the same sound as my daws eq, is it a clean eq with changes in the q as you boost or cut or if it is a non linear eq
There is no standard or rgulation for all companies of how they label their eqs
Just make gui that looks like the product they are tryna sell
I.e. harrison, i cant trust them now even tho i like their hardware and then that makes me question ssl and slate with the harrison acquisition
I liked his video cause it is anti all that and thats the biggest issue for me
But this video by you Paul is spot on also, as its important to critique because the industry can easily dispute what he has said by using his poor testing against him. Thus they continue to have support from their sympathisers and cheerleaders 😊
Correct!
Thank you lol 😅
I argued quite a lot when I found that video.
I probably shouldn't have.
But as a developer, it upset me a little, because I spend years getting my circuit models to run efficiently
🤓🤓
Thank fk Paul...I was worrying alot about my mixes...😂
😅
If you are fairly new to recording and you’re doing most of it in the box, as opposed to something like recording a live drum kit with multiple mics in a room, it’s very easy to have a skewed sense of what phase is and what our relationship to it should be while mixing. We can think of phase as a potential problem, such as comb filtering, instead of an integral part of the process we ought to be manipulating. Recording that multi mic drum kit will be a crash course in phase/polarity. You need to manipulate it to get the best sound. Time aligning things, being aware of polarity, how the distance and direction of your mics affect the sound when played together. All of that is toying with the phase of your recording. If I’m having trouble getting a good sounding kick and a good sounding bass part to play nice together, flipping the polarity of the bass is the first thing I try. Just like in your example Paul, using Brown, shifting the phase can make all the difference on its own.
🤓🤓
Well well well if it isn't Paul one of my favorite youtubers, i missed you bro.
🤜🤛
Did you see Starsky Carr's new EQ video? He was trying to match Softube analog modelled curves with Logic stock EQ. Same debate as you are having here. Not sure if you were referring to him in this video.
No. AP mastering.
@@PaulThird It's weird. Loads of people that are doing videos like this moment. Mix busTV just tried to null an analog Wes Audio EQ to Pro Q this morning.
@@RJ1Jprobably because RUclips heavily promoted that AP mastering video and people are jumping on the algorithm bandwagon.
@RealHomeRecording that's a good point
Starsky Carr's video was really lacking unfortunately..
It is a good knowledge to have the eq curves of useful eq units so you can emulate them with a stock digital eq , but if you can achieve easier the results you want by using a emulation plugin then it becomes a useful tool even if you can achieve similar results without using it.
One sound I can't find with plugins is the sound of the eq and the whole channel of my Soundcraft signature mtk mixer, maybe is the phase sifting from the amp stages, the moment you move from the 0 and boost or cut there is a 3d element in the sound. I don't think that I can emulate that sound with a digital eq even if I try and find the curves of the asymmetrical sapphyre eq. Sometimes I pass signal through the console and print it but only if I know that it fits the track in a way to justify the time spent and the not so great d/a a/d conversion
If you really want it, find a way of getting an IR of the passthrough so you can see what's going on. It could be a multitude of things.
Will choice of recording interface influence the sound of your plug-ins ?
No. It's all digital with plugins
Glad you read our comments at other mastering channels. Thank you for answering my question. However, I still suffer from GAS regarding plugins. Can you talk about addictions? Spent thousands of euros in the last two years...as a hobbiest.
Me and Ed talked about GAS on the working audio tools
@@PaulThird thanks Paul, will check it.
Anyway, thanks for the infos
9:10 yea that's something i really like in peak eqs, though it feels like some kinda hack it into existing coefficient formulas rather than design it like that for the start. the q behavior on mine feels much smoother than logic's channel eq
also thinking more about different behavior, mine is for a graphic eq which has significant overlap in the filters, i have no plans to label decibels on the ui in large part because they overlap so so so much. +3db on 4 bands in a row might be +9 in the middle for all i know
Excellent video, and well done for pointing out many of the things wrong with that other video that was making some ridiculous claims.
With the EQ’s that model non linearities, they would exhibit (some of ) those behaviours even when operating in a normal range wouldn’t they? The Hammerstein plots can show the different harmonics generated. Clipping would be another non linear behaviour when driving them hard, but even in a “normal” operating range many won’t be replicable just a plain filter.
By definition, the frequency response of an eq SHOULD be somewhat similar if you set them the same on different eq’s. That’s kind of what they’re designed for….
It's quite an easy conclusion tbh
Digital filters are technically all the same but that is only 1 part of an eq plugin and the theory only applies if you have a linear eq that can offer a large number of bands which cater for all frequencies, filters & q factors.
However, Q behaviour, anti aliasing filter/internal oversampling, eq cramping are variables that the user has no control of in most cases. Some plugins give you an aspect of control but these dsp choices are what can make an eq plugin sound and function different from a standard fixed digital parametric eq. So whilst multiple fixed filters can be matched with a high band count plugin like kirchhoff or proq3, there are other coded factors which can affect the filters after the fact.
non linearities in an eq aren't all the same. This is the biggest difference in eq plugins as you have variables of THD, IMD, noise, group delay, aliasing, dynamics, oversampling, clipping, phase anomalies via modelling line amps, transformers etc
Only part of his video that is correct, is that all fixed filters in the digital domain can be replicated with proq3. That's it really
@@PaulThird Agree with pretty much all of that - what about FIR and IIR filters though? and different impulse lengths and shapes like DMG Audio Equilibrium allows you to edit? A guy called sseb has the BEST video on how EQ works that I've ever seen, well worth watching if you haven't seen it before. Really good channel, but sadly not much content.
I've not got time for the equilibrium rabbit hole yet haha the phase of the filter will always change the sound but fabfilter and kirchhoff have like 3 or 4 different phase options. I like kirchhoffs mixed phase option as it's quite a clever idea.
@@PaulThird Yeah I love Fabfilter and Kirchhoff. The FIR/IIR stuff is different from their mixed phase modes which are combining linear and minimum phase for different parts of the spectrum. The channel I mentioned above is cool for explaining them. It explains the difference in plugin doctor when you use the impulse view on a frequency response.
Does Atmos still feel like it'll stick?
After having only super positive energy from everybody that's been in my room. I'd say so. Not one person has viewed it as a gimmick, but I do have a very good atmos playlist
I got into a small argument with AP Mastering following his second video which was a reaction to criticisms he got after his first video. He didn't like being criticized about his "scientific" test. I was about to talk about proportional Q as well but I didn't bother to keep arguing.
Same here I called him out for the harmonic distortion from the neve example he used which proves it’s different and not transparent. Can literally put it in plug-in doctor and see it which he didn’t show at all.
It's early days. I'd like to think he's got the right intentions (bar the $50 eq course) and will hopefully learn from the situation. It's the wild west when you start making big scientific claims in audio. Just when you think you've got it somebody comes along with something you didn't know and the rabbit hole continues haha I'm still in the whole conversion rabbit hole! 🤣😅
24:01 ah hm yea i think convolution/FIR would handle very low cutoff filters better in part because of precision issues in IIR. we hear audio logarithmically/exponentially, but the filter math happens linearly. so as you get lower and lower, the values get closer and closer together, and you'll end up with incorrect behavior as it does so, since floating point math on computers has limited resolution. there's no performance (only memory) benefit to 32 bit float, so using 64 bit instead will provide a significant improvement at no cost, but im not sure at what point it would run into issues. higher precision either could require some platform dependent code (i know intel uses 80 bit registers internally, but im not sure how it is for other systems) or emulation with multiple instructions which would be much slower. it's important to remember that IIR, being a feedback process, will compound any errors.
That's why I'm not a developer haha
ah I thought the line on axustica was an input thing so u could plug ur guitar into the board or what ever u want to use line level not mic level inputs. I didn't realize they were line amps post eq ha.
Well now you know haha
@@PaulThird do i tho? Do Iiiiiiii
Drs. Sir Paul the Third actually knows a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff ❤
And youtube is the only place that cares 🤣 my knowledge is absolutely wasted elsewhere. I had my mate round to the studio on Friday night and everything went over his head haha
@@PaulThird I understand haha, my son is developing a game engine and it’s hard to visualize code for me. But when I talk about audio he has the same problem. I think we both punish ourselves listening to each other’s gibberish 😂
Great video, Paul. Made even better by three Gretsch guitars behind you.
Everything’s better with a Gretsch.
I can't deny that! 😂
@@PaulThird no its not. they are poor in the mix . get a tele a Strat and a les Paul.
The Michealangelo Eq by Tone Projects is the best solution to color the mix ITB with real analog vibe.
love that one, a game changer for sure.
Not tested that one... Yet
Use Michelangelo on everything these days lol. The extended section with the M/S, Trans/Sus, all dynamic etc. shit is just so versatile. Genuinely amazing plugin, so well thought out,
@@PaulThirdIt's the best thing out there, in my opinion. Mind blowing. I think they used IRs.
I'm also genuinely surprised with it... And I claim to be very skeptical about "analogue"...
thanks, i'm always suspicious when people are too strident, it can lead to cherry picking to suit your hypothesis. often the truth is a bit less convenient and rarely leans entirely one way or another.
🤓🤓
The plug-in goat speaks
Didn't know Dan Worral was in the video 😜 haha
You near Newcastle?
No. Unless you class 3 hours as close
@@PaulThird ah. I was on tik tok and one of the streamers’ accents from there reminded me of yours. Cheers.
I HAVE SO MUCH TO LEARN!!!
🤓🤓
omg I'm so glad you made that video! I saw that guy's video and thought that finally it's time to start my own youtube channel to respond to that🤣
I was just gonna leave it but after the 8th DM I was like OK fine haha
@@PaulThird you nailed all of the points. Great job on the video Paul!
I can't wait until we get some sort of ai plugin that can quickly react to incoming audio and do some clever stuff to emulate mojo boxes and vibey outboard.
That'll need a fucking super computer to run 🤣
@@PaulThird yeah, 1 per instance...
Because of your coverage, I'm still using Kirchhoff for all EQ. Never heard anything better since. It also replaced all compressors except for my mastering compressor. That is an incredible fact. I use Kirchhoff at 96 without oversampling at 117bit.
🤓🤓
First time I've heard a Scot do a half decent cockney accent.
🤣
i was hoping you'd tackle this! it's like everywhere now and it's always people who just don't get why people go to specific things. glad you touched upon workflow and how you work in real time.
i also noticed about the testing as well. it was pretty awful. there's nothing wrong with white noise for what it is, but you can't be like see i did this ONE test and it's all good now. do pink noise, do music, etc. also the fact that he wasn't using plugin doctor was a huge red flag for me. and then he dismissed harmonic distortion and stuff. you could tell the whole point of the video was strategic: click bait title to sell courses. I have no idea who he is either. he just acts like he knows his stuff, when like... he kinda doesn't. nor does he understand why people actually buy analog emulations.
Tbf to him I think he talked about non linearities in the 2nd video but was really dismissive and said if he wanted a transformer sound he'd use kazrog true iron so he had more control, which is only one part of the non linearities. Doesn't really matter if you use different saturation, all the audible non linearities of the eq is part of the sound whether you like it or not
@@PaulThird yeah exactly! barely talked about it and dismissed it. like wtf dude?!
I feel like he may just be very young and it's worth it to recognize that the tools we have now are capable of way more than what we had before, but at the end of the day it comes down to the sound we have in our head and translating that into what comes out of the speakers. and for those of us who grew up with more analog counterparts it's easier and faster to get that sound from analog emulations/hardware. where as other people don't even get that and can probably get it faster with just putting an EQ and saturation on vs using an all in one plugin. since they won't know which one to reach for. Just because you can doesn't mean it's the best option. I started mixing with only logic's plugins as well as pro tools DAW plugins (which were shit). It took me forever to dial in things to get what i was looking for. 12+ hours for a mix (even after upgrading my monitors and other things). as soon as i went with decent analog emulations though, my workflow sped up by 4+ hours. then when i added in a control surface i saved even more time.
ProQ3 has a proportional Q mode 😄
Yeah but not the same as motown or api. I tried to replicate it using proq3 propQ when I did the videos but unfortunately it had a different proportional q behaviour. Still a very handy feature though
Instead of 'pre-amp' pre means 'pre-set eq'. I watched that video and I thought "If I can hear a difference, it is not null." I stopped listening when he started talking shit about the Curve Bender. I know you can do stuff the same with other things. It's how is it easiest to get to the place you like, in my preference. I try a lot of demos. I agree that Pulsar Modular is a good one too. Telling me I can do stuff with Pro-Q doesn't help if I don't own that. I like Scaler Eq, sometimes. It lets you add/cut harmonics based on the key you are in. It starts sounding weird if you are heavy handed, but that is another example of an EQ that sounds different than your stock. I think Antares has an EQ similar.
🤓🤓
Science aims to be objective.
Your senses are subjective hence why we see and hear things in our own way as we are all different.
Regardless of what is objective.
The mere inclusion of human perception is sciences biggest hurdle haha
I'm only a minute in but I'm going to say right off the bat if I had to pick one that sounds different the Pultec
Depends which one. There's tons of pultec variations
THIS test will stop you buying more plugins.. and maybe even improve your mixes!!
ruclips.net/video/j256EXo2zhE/видео.html
WOW.. audio engineers will really believe anything these days!!
ruclips.net/video/JE1UBfMOmmw/видео.html
ONE of these devs really don't know WTF they are doing.. Is it KIT plugins MO-Q or UAD Hitsville EQ?
ruclips.net/video/8BKokNLMB0s/видео.html
I ACTUALLY CAN'T BELIEVE KIT PLUGINS DID THIS AND THOUGHT I WOULDN'T NOTICE 😂😂😂
ruclips.net/video/-bNb3Ybf3jw/видео.html
THIS is why your mixes don't sound ANALOG 🤯
ruclips.net/video/JTVIXOxCafs/видео.html
Do you REALLY need 5 Pultec plugins .. considering KIRCHHOFF EQ can do THIS!!!???
ruclips.net/video/L9v3F2foddg/видео.html
WHY buy a MAAG EQ2 after watching what the KIRCHHOFF EQ can do? .. no joke ..THEY MEAN BUSINESS!!
ruclips.net/video/B-tptqQ8DPs/видео.html
ALIASING IN AUDIO PLUGINS... The most important things you need to know!!
ruclips.net/video/t4-h38SyhCY/видео.html
Why audio plugins sound 'flat' & How to fix FLAT ITB mixes || Is it really the tools or is it YOU?
ruclips.net/video/zNCebtz5tGM/видео.html
Maybe it’s time to try nulling with the analog gear the plugin’s claim to model. Ah, no, cause “all analog gear has tolerances” blah blah. It’s all marketing in plugin land. Hold my beer, im off buying the next big digital emulation that sounds analog. The bs we love to hang on to… anyways, great talk on the subject. And I love plugins, and i love hardware. We are spoiled for choice, and im buying into it happily! Have fun with the toys, yes!
Analog is a bitch though cause of the tolerances. It genuinely isn't a cop out. You can sample a piece of gear and then 6 months later sample it again, and get a different Result. Humidity, power, heat, age, wear. It's the nemesis of the null test, but you can still do curve matched, level matched AB's. That should be enough so I agree
Probably the most frustrating thing as a tuber is seeing someone cover the same things you've covered a few years later. Playing off the hard hardwork and research you have already done. I've gone thru this every day since my first channel was term...ed back in 2015
Yes.
I'm not fussed as long as its done right. If it's not done right then it kinda pisses on the hard work I've done previously
@PaulThird Paul u make me laugh but in a good honest way. I appreciate it. And exactly
This commenter mentioned Paul Third's first-to-post video IN Worral's video's comment section at the time.
Also, Worral took swaths of this commenter's phrasing attesting to Third's findings and appropriated it for himself, verbatim (without giving credit), in his takedown of Harrison's plugin, in similar fashion to how he didn't credit Third for being First to debunk Harrison.
Never mattered who did it first. He mentioned it in a video a few weeks later. The main thing was that we both had the same findings which absolutely destroyed Harrisons marketing claims. That was the most important
Thank God you saw that video. I was arguing with that guy on his video about this subject. I am happy to see you made a video about it! Tell him like it is Mr.Third! 😎😎🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
This is me actually trying to help him haha I hope it's not came across as an out and out hit piece. I think as soon as he pushed the $50 eq course it really rubbed the community the wrong way cause the message is good, but using that message to sell a course in the same breath basically dilutes the "fight the marketing" shout.
Tbf he's probably looked at loads of other youtubers and thought.. What's the difference, they are all selling shit. And he's probably got a point but the issue is the conflicting nature of "you don't need to spend money on eq plugins cause they are all the same, free and paid" but "you need to spend money on me teaching you how to eq cause my course is different"
Basically doing the exact same and capitalising on people that dont know any better
@@PaulThird Don't spend those $50 on some cool new plugins! Spend them on the AP Masterclass on how to use your stock EQ. Yipee! 😭😭😭😭😭😭🤣🤣
Guys these are algorithms , if they use the same type of algorithns , they sound the same , if not they don't
Yes, that's basically it. Well, unless it's convolution. You can't code convolution. There isn't an algorithm for convolution
@@PaulThird to be fair convolution is the algorithm for convolution, it just requires an input, gets the same input, and gets the same sound.
And for the analog stuff, they were trying at the time to get distortion and noise down. We live in a funny world.
I'm more on the analog side of sound processing, but I did look into high-level DSP programming with stuff like Faust, and you definitely can get DSP really close to analog stuff, convolution and circuit modeling are big in that world. But in a way I'm in the same camp as Harrison, I'm not sure it's really worth the processing power, I also wouldn't sell it as an analog reproduction, but that's me.
People would be better served by an eq plugin a distortion plugin and a few different combinations for different needs. Get the right order and you can build a guitar amp minus speaker IR.
Or on the funny end, go learn LT spice, get some good models of vacuum tubes and components, and build the schematic, you can then run audio through it, and presto changeo you get a circuit modeled, albeit nonreal time, guitar amp or any analog device.
Edit: having remembered the Spice thing, googled around a bit and there is a tool called Live Spice apparently that actually allows you to play the models in your DAW. So there you go the ultimate analog emulation tool.
Yeah if you can have all the exact same digital parameters then you can do it, but at the end of the day it's not something that can be done with every eq
I can get close with melda mxxx cause I can add in mconvolution to the equation and chain stuff in certain ways but I need a lot of tools and a shit ton of measurements in order to get everything to null.
At the end of the day, the guy was trying to say that you can do everything with proq3. You can't. You can recreate a lot. If you learn dsp or get into mxxx then the world is your oyster but unless you've got that.. Good luck trying to recreate every eq plugin in existence with proq3 haha
Thank you man; was ripping my hair out at the smoothbrain antics, lack of critical thinking and groupthink.
Just early days on youtube I think. It's easy to get carried away in the first year
He says as he defends all of the huge companies curating the pr on their overpriced snake oil.
When I provided links to videos I've done proving that you don't need lots of plugins ie Harrison, waves, kit, plugin alliance. Been there, got the t-shirt
I've bashed acustica plenty in the past for buggy shit and and their anti piracy shit.
I'm aloud to actually like a plugin or 2.
💥
🤓🤓
10:39
Pro-Q have proportional Q option
True but it's nothing near to API or motown, but still annoyed that I forgot about that
13:13 not really sure how to lead into this comment. Just that logic right there is such a good indicator of whether someone's is just repeating what they've been told and I can't not comment on it.
White noise is technically the "most complex" signal, but people tend to misunderstand what that means. For starters, the number of signals that "count" as white noise approaches infinity-- like shuffling a deck of cards where each card is a sample and trying to reshuffle into the original configuration. White noise is what happens when you maximally SCRAMBLE the information available in an EXISTING signal.
There's no information to be recovered from white noise. It doesn't have a fundamental. A given sample of white noise technically has an end and a beginning, but only because it's band-limited and will eventually repeat. It has real weaknesses. We say white noise is complex because it contains all frequencies, but a sharp enough dirac delta with the same bandwidth does as well. Choosing one over the other ought to be brought on by a conscious evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses.
👍
you sayd it Brother ; ) . Use a SNOW from Acustica Audio .Enjoy cleaner sound ; and buy some decent flowers for yo Love. Acustica Audio SNOW made me overthink buying any other plugin : ). SNOW can do both ; sound very round and full , or give some very interesting high end glow sparkle . Did you compare these two ?
Years ago. Think I did snow vs celestial or something.
👍🏾
🤓🤓
I wonna say no chit but that would be disrespectful
Music event in an upscale neighborhood....like going into homes...no one had any top tier systems in the homes. Bluetooth or air pods, saw some mid level Klipsch from Best buy. This eq, compression voodoo is nonsense. Elliott Smith sounded just fine with an sm57 and a garbage eq. Bad music should be mixed as rotten as possible so it dies.
❤❤
🤓🤓
WIsh they'd update brown and ruby and cobalt and their OG HW based emulations rather than releasing new frankenstein pieces thatll never be updated
Agreed
No content for 12 days. Dadgummit….every time I land on a RUclipsr that I trust (I have been recording/mixing/mastering since 1976!), y’all bail on the content creation. I have followed you closely, and I believe you are one of the few legitimately valid creators. But, man, two weeks with no new content?
That's cause I've been taking 2 weeks on a video that's required a lot of testing. If you want videos with conclusions that are done correctly then you have to be patient. Otherwise it's just easy one take videos every week.
Remember Ive also got the Working Audio Tools Podcast which is on here, apple, amazon etc. That's every Saturday without fail
You are the man!! We shall be patient and continue to expect greatness.
I have an opinion about this and I feel like it's very important that I put it here on the internet
👍
@@PaulThird Paul, I really really miss watching and listening along with you to blind tests comparing plugins/hardware. I hope you'll do this again...
Sheep, here we go again... Every few years a video hit an yt that undermines analog EQ simulations.
Keep moving
Have fun paying 100s of dollars for the same thing you can do with stock plugins!
yeah but how else you gonna sell an eq course? lol
I did mention it in the original edit but decided to take it out. I'm still debating whether that was the right decision cause I really don't agree with the premise of his whole eq course thing..
I don't understand why it matters. He plays the null so you can decide for yourself how significant it is. He seems to think that which EQ you use is not significant compared to knowing how to use it, so his own company sponsors the video, offering relevant educational material. That's better than a VPN or some other irrelevant sponsor, imo.
In medical research, it's often the companies that could profit who fund the research. As long as they are up front about their potential conflict of interest, the experiments and results can be evaluated on their own merit. It's happens all the time and is just the way incentivizing works. I don't see how this is any different.
It's diluting his message that you shouldn't be duped by audio marketing when he himself is using the exact same method to try and sell the audience something that is already out there.. Paid and free.. Eq courses and videos about eq are ten bob a penny.
If we are genuinely saying that a random guy on the Internet's course on eq is a worthwhile investment then I really beg to differ.
What he should have said was
"WHAT tool you use isn't as important as knowing HOW to use an Eq. Invest in time, not money. Learn for yourself how to get the most out of your daw plugins via mixing yourself and over time you'll be amazed at how far you can get with stock plugins. You don't need to spend ANY more money right now. Period. There is a plethora of free trusted resources on RUclips and it costs nothing to experimenting in the daw and learning from your mixes and references"
But instead he used the same marketing tactics as the plugin devs and audio manufacturers talking about how his eq course shares 'secrets', tips and tricks from pro engineers. It's the same clickbait formula.
Plugin dev; Pro engineers endorse this plugin. Be a pro but buying the tools of the pros!!
AP; Pro engineers use these eq moves. Be a pro by learning how to eq like the pros.
Let's be honest between us. If you were talking to a young 17 year old looking to start audio. Would you advise him to buy AP Mastering $50 course on how to EQ?
I thought of you straight away when i saw that boys video, like hello, Paul has already covered this mate. I still think Dan's a twat btw 😂
This whole „this EQ sounds more analog“ is nonsense. Use an EQ with all relevant functions like Pro-Q3 for EQing and learn how to use it „properly“ to achieve what you want to „equalize“. Than use dedicated Saturator to get the „flavor“ you want. Bringing a kind of saturation in an EQ is not only a limitation it serves the marketing of plug-in developers.
It's really all about terminology. It's genuinely just if an eq is linear or non linear. That's really all it boils down to
I saw the video in question and the truth caused me grief so much ignorance together and calls himself a mastering engineer or audio scientist, you have to be careful with the content that is consumed.
I think he's just a bit over exuberant about his message. This will be uncharted territory for him. I learned the hard way over the years. That's why I think it's best to give the needed info now to help his content in the future.
AP Mastering’s video is what happens when a RUclipsr tries to DUNK on companies and their marketing and other RUclipsrs trying to come across as the ONE HONEST guy. Be the most skeptical of the guy who has to tell you “I’m honest”.
Be careful with that... Dunked on companies marketing in order to try and sell a $50 EQ course... Just sayin
He wasn't the first and he won't be the last.
He does make a good point though regarding using the tools you already own to the best of their abilities to achieve great mixes. About to call all equalizers equal, no pun intended, is ignorance.
Lugs over plugs. Lugs afore een. Don't look at the screen when mixing fffs. Fehv pehs. 👌👍Guid software but why the shite gtrs? 🤔😉😉🤣🤣🤣✌️💚
Dinna be slaggin my gretsch's!! 🤣
@@PaulThird fife4life amigo. gan ower the circle till yeh see a bridge ower the watter. is it eh? peace neebs.
You've been the first, but....
First at....
He also said inductors are perfectly linear, excuse me WHAT lol
I'm not gonna lie. All that stuff goes over my head. I probably need to buy a diy kit to learn what everything does. Or look up schematics or something
Dude, I usually agree with you across the board, but this is so weak.
You can make all of the 30 minute videos spitting jargon about linear vs non linear and real time knob tyrns all you want, THE DUDE GOT IT TO NULL.
You sound like the guitarists who brag about how their $2000 pickups adds 5% to their high end tone, which they can totally hear.
The difference is nominal at best and no one will notice without breaking out high tech measuring devices.
Also, dude used pink noise in the video. There are 2, make sure you yave seen both.
You've COMPLETELY missed the whole point of the video.
He showed a drop in signal on a -24db master fader. Only proves that the delta signal is quieter than -24dbds which I don't get as most daw master faders show signal down to -60dbfs. I'm trying to help him by showing him how easy it is for people to question his results. I have no doubt that the nulls are very quiet but they aren't full nulls, cause I can hear them. Theres a difference between a null and full null. That's when it starts to become misleading when you don't show numeric data. If he used a -60dbfs daw fader and combined that with span going down to like -130dbfs we would be able to concretely determine just how audible the difference is.
The main issue I can see is that I spoke partially positively about acustica this time round and you have a bee in your bonnet about it. Get over it.
AP mastering said himself that science in unforgiving as its all hard facts. I'm providing the unforgiven hard facts he's left out. Fair game and done to help him in the future. Purely cruel to be kind. Knowledge is knowledge and will stop him from having devs tear his tests apart cause he's left too much assumption on the table. It's better to come from me now than a big company like ssl or whoever who hold a lot of weight in the industry. I know what it's like to have them try and pick you apart. You need to have all the data to back your shit up. The video is purely a heads up, like what Worrall done with me in my early days
And also where does he use pink noise. Checked both videos and can only see one using music, and another using white noise
@@PaulThird to be fair it's pretty easy to hear the difference between for example Pro-Q3 and Tube-Tech Eq or Curve-Bander eq from Softube when you match the curves in the plugin doctor. The saturation is pretty obvious and the tone is different. If he really does mastering I wouldn't want to be his client..
Tbh I could even hear the difference between proq and the tube tech on my phone. It was quite audible in the top end. If I can hear it on my phone then I normally say it's a difference worth taking into consideration. However, the curve bender difference was definitely more to do with how he processed the track using an all pass filter and then skewed the frequency response trying to match the anti aliasing filter. He should've just left it alone and matched the bell.
The issue with the pultec test is that he intentionally left out the low end part which is what we all know is where the sound of a pultec really lies. It's difficult to match the low end perfect with stock eq's cause you need more that 2 bands. The process was a hassle in real time trying to recreate the interaction. I know cause I've tried in the past. That's why kirchoff was a bit of a revelation having that interaction built in with its linear modelled analog curves so you could use the same amount of bands as any eqp1a emulation and get the same curves with more variability.
AP mastering 100% should've matched every function of that tube tech, not the mid boost which is purely a standard bell found in any digital parametric eq