Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
EQ plugins objectively tested... ZERO difference? (Part 3)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- My website: www.apmastering.com
I made two videos previously demonstrating that fancy analogue modelling EQ plugins could be phase canceled against ordinary digital EQ plugins. In this video I do deeper with a more robust methodology and quantify the test results, linking that back to the scientific literature on our ability to hear such differences.
Download the EQ test files:
drive.google.com/drive/folder...
Anyone interested in UAD plugins, I did the same kind of test and got the following results:
helios: 0.2db
pultec: 0.2db
massive passive: 0.1db
motown thing: 0.1db (even with an extreme setting with lots of bands)
PULTEC NOTE: there is random hiss and fluttering, and low frequency oriented distortion which sounds pretty fun but is too quiet to really hear in normal operation. One cool use for this plugin would be to achieve EQ cancelation and to boost the delta 20-30db and use the dirty delta signal in the mix as a cool distortion effect. However, that's a bit too much work and you'd probably be better off with a lofi tape sim like reelbus from ToneBoosters or one of the many other devs doing wonky tape stuff.
I'm uploading the UAD stuff to the google drive folder now.
For people wanting Acustica Audio and other stuff, I'm pretty bored of doing these tests now and have to stop somewhere, feel free to simply download my session files and do the tests and post your results here if that is interesting to you....
do Smooth Operator vs Soothe vs Gulfoss
I know trackformers is a troll and I don't care about what he has to say but to be clear, I did NOT use FF EQ match for these matches, it was all manual because not only is FF imprecise at matching, it also doesn't consider phase, which I considered for a few of my matches
@@Trackformers You're a slow lad aint u
@@Trackformers have you watched the video? lol unbelievable
@@Trackformers Im not deflecting, he literally adressed all your points in the video, I dont need to answer you, its literally in the video
The only thing i can say is im excited for the compression vídeo 😂
The two most numerous in my Plug in Manager...EQs and Compressors. Logic is gonna puke if I install another LA-2A or 1176 emulation. Lol
Was thinking the same! 🙂
Yeah gotta get detailed about the attack and release settings, distortion characteristics, tone changes (rarely any though), etc. I do notice a lot of stuff with compression plugins that's hard to emulate in a stock plugin. especially stuff that has automatic releases or program dependent stuff. gonna have to have a variety of sources to emulate transient drums, mix bus, vocals, bass, etc.
@@CreativeMindsAudio Yeah just saying after owning probably some of the higher rated compressors on the market (excluding boutique types), I should be able to make it work. Lol.
I was thinking the same.
Props to you circling back with all the data, glad to see it!
where are the amazing youtube engineers now praising these „analog modelled“ eq plugins?
good work man.
thanks
they been real quiet
It’s been 6 hours people have shit to do they don’t click on videos instantly give it time.
Sup?
@@Trackformers my question is this, if I put on fab filter and then (for the sake of argument from last video) the noise ash neve emulation , which has harmonic distortion which is shown in plugin doctor, doesn’t that literally mean it’s different ? Maybe I’m dumb , if it’s not linear then what’s the change in phase between all different eqs is that not different ? So you have a bunch of eqs are technically different , the harmonics specifically are different , what about maat brand eqs which boosting or cutting ,effects different frequency brands , curves are different and feel different , im just confused how all of this doesn’t make eqs different.
Right on man. I'm with ya.
Good luck figuring out the compression tests....will be curious to see what you come up with. I've often wondered how to compare them myself, but my feeble mind can't wrap my head around what a good test would be. And frankly, I've settled on using compressor plugins that are easy for me to use over some "vibe machine"
Hi!
I'm one of those people who disagreed with your approach to null tests in the previous video.
I'm retracting my statements now, this is a great comeback 😄
thanks, yeah there was just too much to explain to make a punchy youtube video, but glad i got there in the end
Thank you again. Right now just choosing the plugin that is the smallest in size. Works fine!
Man, I love your content so much. I hope one day I can save enough to afford your mixing and mastering courses.
thanks! im trying to price them reasonably and i'll be releasing lots of free content on this channel
Can't wait for the compression video!
Thank you for such an in depth and well measured breakdown
part 1 is already up. part 2 will be today or tomorrow
Great vid, I saw some other big name youtubers with videos on digital EQs this week, it was almost a subtle rebuttal. Love the detail here, and making it clear we really don't need all of the fancy plugins. I"ll still turn the knobs on my digital Pultec and Sontec ;)
Yeah I had a pretty solid disagreement with one of the popular YT engineers when he claimed that a certain EQ sounded better in the highs than Pro-Q3...once I linked him to my video of getting them to null down to -112dB he deleted my comments.
@@PlottingTheDownfallThat's Colt C.? 😂😂
@@PlottingTheDownfall The one who heard some plastickiness in Pro Q3? 😂
Legend in the making
lol thanks
@@APMastering you dont need no validation big brother i know the talking left and right about they are just jelouse of you keep giving us jams and i will buy that eq course
I fall into the "workflow" camp.
I'm not, at all, surprised that all EQs can arrive at the same destination. But, if there's a fundamental difference in +how+ they get there, then these EQs are fundamentally different +to me+.
yeah i COULD sit there and try to match the pultec boost cut on fab filter or i could just use a fucking pultec eq and be done with it in a few seconds.
@@tryingtotryistrying yep...same goes for why I favorite API and Neve equalizers over others. The curves and defined EQ points just work nicely. When I need to fiddle, I reach for an SSL channel strip, which is basically like a digital EQ.
If that works for you fine, but I disagree this is a genuine selling point as this kind of attitude results from a lack of proficiency in using EQ generally. I can dial in the sound I want quicker with Q2 than you can with a pultec, and a pultec generally does the opposite of what is sensible in the high frequencies in many cases. It makes the sound simultaneously dull and piercing, it's a terrible EQ shape for most needs in the top end with both knobs turned up. In the low end, that can work but is not always what is needed. The engineers of yesteryear would happily give you 10 metal boxes for the free version of nova
@@tryingtotryistryingI realized that what you are trying to do when using the boost-cut "Pultec lowend trick" can be much better achieved using a standard EQ.
With Pultec emulations the frequencies are way off. If you boost at 60Hz you are actually boosting up to 150Hz and the attenuation is much higher (around 400 to 600 Hz) than where I usually would want it to happen (280 to 350 Hz).
@@esahm373 so i pulled up my tim petherick nebula pultec in pulgin doctor, and im gonna write a lot explaining what i see, im not sure if its doing what you're saying or not, maybe you can help tell me im not an expert.
so im boosting and cutting at the number 6, the curve is going up and gets to 0 db at ~5hz, it gets to 5 db at ~15hz, its 4.8 at 60hz, its 0db at 365hz, -2.9 at ~800hz, 0db ~5500 hz. are you saying most emulations (not arguing just wondering if nebula is one of them) would go up to like 150 hz and still be boosted at around 5db?
I just find using a couple knobs and listening to what happens more fun which trumps everything else when this just a life long hobby- and im not trying to win an award for making music while saving the most money. they're not magic of course, andrew scheps could still do a better mix in garageband than i could with fancy vsts. yes you could search google for what the pultec curve does, or api 550 or neve 31102 or whatnot and then transfer that to nova and add something like true iron to replicate it, just seems like a hassle if the argument is its EASIER to use nova and some saturation vst to get a vintage eq curve.
you are totally right. we buy all these plug ins that do the same thing, because the GUI looks good and make us believe they sound better.
Thing is: the eq curves those emulations offer are the thing that makes them 'special'. Ofcourse you can recreate all those emulations with a clean digital eq after the fact. The fact that it's possible to do so is irrelevant. Lot of the sound of iconic eq's is because of their curves and how they interact. Trying to copy the curves with a digital eq is indeed possible, but what is the value? Maybe they are right in saying that it's a faithful emulation of the hardware if that the hardware doesn't add as much audible saturation etc except for the curves they offer. A big part of the '3D sound' of hardware is due to different setting for left and right because you have to set them manually and then there's always the calibration/tolerances of the left and right channel which are slightly different.
Hey Alain! Are you doing sales on your courses during the year? Just missed the pre-order on EQ one, and cannot afford to spend full 80 bucks on it.
hey get in touch via email and I'll work something out
Polarisation is inevitable. Objectivity won't make much difference to many, the pretty UI and 'ease' of dialling settings is enough.
PS Averages of logarithmic values are misleading, you need to convert from logarithmic db values to linear power, then average and convert back to db again.
you are 100% right, that's a very smart critique!
For larger values this would really matter as you point out, but in respect to the upper bound JND value, i was just plucking an easy number out of the air basically. I think either people will go along with 0.5db or will have another idea but I think 0.25db is pretty safe and in the "single" tests most plugins fell short of that. Good observation.
AP out here doing Gods work
So beauty ❤
First, thank you AP for your excellent work on this subject. Also your EQ course has things in it you usually don’t find in other courses. Good job.
The simple truth may however be that, even though all technical analyses may be very interesting and informative, we as music makers and producers should maybe really be interested only in audible differences. And this is exactly AP’s point.
I tested all my analog EQ plugins (the Neves, Pultecs, Manleys, Maags AMEKs, SSL’s and whatnot) by replicating their various EQ curves with my stock Logic Channel EQ using Bertom analyzer, and I can honestly say that I cannot hear any difference between the different analog plugins and their replications in Logic’s digital EQ. Every pair does not always null completely undoubtedly due to the inaccuracies of my manually made curve replications, but nonetheless, no real audible difference in a musical context (i.e. using actual instruments as sounds).
I am ready to declare on my part that you really can replicate the “sound” of any analog EQ emulation with your stock digital EQ or with any other normal digital EQ. Now the question of work flow remains. I used to be an advocate of the work flow argument, i.e. I can easily and fast get good results with say a SSL E plugin, but I am not sure even about that any more. If I learn what they are doing and how by using e.g. Bertom (which I highly recommend to all for educational purposes), I can replicate their behavior as smoothly and maybe even quicker with my digital stock EQ. Now it’s only a question about the pretty faces and GUIs of all the fancy analog plugins. Do I prefer to turn colorful “analog” knobs or make graphical “digital” bumps? Well, to me making music is all about feeling and creativity, so I love to tweak these analog knobs and switches just to get me in my “music creation mood”, but if I want to get something done quickly and accurately I see no reason to not do it with my stock EQ.
excellent comment
Wow I just love this no-nonsense approach, feeling lucky I found this 8k views video, it deserves 100x more...Very curious what's your take on actual hardware EQs though? I got hooked recently on the access analog thing and have been using the real massive-passive a lot with a default assumption that it's"better"...
hardware is not as magical as most people think. a lot of the nice feeling of hardware is in its practical use. Using it only for its sound, with a remotely operated plugin interface is pretty snake oil IMHO.
@@APMastering There are some rock-solid things there like Culture vulture for example. I have no idea how to get its mad sound from any vst. But in general makes sense…
Dude, I'm totally on your side. First you have to learn how to use equalization and then you can do anything on any EQ. However, you didn't bring up the topic of GAS. People are happy to be fooled themselves. After all, a beautiful interface can inspire you, since there's so much history about legendary hardware. Anyway, good luck with your video and ignore the haters ✌️
lol yeah i had that over the course of my career
When I use an analog modeled eq, like Voosteq Model N or UAD Helios, it's for saturation. It's the interaction between eq and saturation that makes these plugins valuable. They can make things richer or seemingly louder while keeping the same peak level.
can't you do that better with a saturation plug?
I like these plugins as saturators in the first place. And having a nice eq and compression all in one plugin is very convenient. But mostly I like the kind of sounds I can achieve with them. And no, stacking pro-q with decapitator let's say, is not the same. Neither sonically nor at a workflow level.
@@joanpeiron6080 1000% this! i'd have to not only understand how the EQ curve works (likely by performing similar tests) and how the gear saturates to properly make it a fast workflow, and since i've used the analog gear, it's easier just to throw on the emulation i can't afford knowing exactly how i want things. and yes saturation plugins can do it, but why tweak out 2+ plugins when i can perform the same tasks with a few knob turns in 1 plugin. workflow is everything.
@@CreativeMindsAudioWorkflow benefit isn't "everything" because there's a cost associated with every benefit and the same cost brings different levels of benefit. If my room has an acoustic issue, then my $300 is probably better spent fixing that issue than buying Type 69, for example.
Maybe "productivity is everything" is a better way to say what I'm thinking, since lots of factors impact it, including workflow.
@@sparella oh i totally agree there! 300 in acoustic treatment is money better spent! but time is money and if you are charging $x for a mix the faster you can do it the more it's worth. and if you save an hour per EP or something that's a good raise. and honestly acoustic treatment, a good workspace, and knowing the right tools for the job (along with knowing how to use those tools) are all a large part of that!
also tbh I never understood the appeal of the helios console sound. but yeah plugins all around are dirt cheap now for good stuff. Knowing how and when to use them will benefit way more than having a lot of them.
Don't understand any of the technical data. Is it trying to say that all the eqs I have purchased in my life are the same without anything different between them?
basically yeah
Don’t worry. These videos are just an ad for his courses. There are differences between plugins, wide at some point. The fact that you can MIMIC what a certain plugin does, does not mean that the plugin are all the same. There are no professional mix engineers that mix with stock plugins only. Show me otherwise.
@@andreakleiner80 Because people like to look for shortcuts. Lad sticks to the hot topic(s) and gains himself views. I have for myself a pultec preset for the stock plugin but! Then you still have to add saturation, because pultec adds this "extra"
Have you ever tested the Massenburg mastering EQ? The dual mono one his company produces? Also interested if you ever used/tested his compressor.
I worked with his EQ circuit design (hardware) for years. Very high quality transparent EQ with extremely sweet top end. His gear is aimed at being transparent which is why it is popular among mastering engineers
@APMastering Yeah, I tend to favor it in my work. Not always though. Nothing is always. 😊
Did you have the op amp engaged on the slate api? That could be a reason for the non linearity 1:36 … wondering if this was the case or not. 🤔
yes it was engaged, this was almost certainly why
@@APMastering sheesh, I know it wasn’t your intention to knock the devs, but I’m probably never looking at an eq the same again, love your videos, can’t wait for the free plug ins and the compression video… wouldn’t mind one on saturation either.
Thank you for those rigourous tests! A few hours of lifetime on those EQ's saved. I think such "obsessions" can interfer with seeing the bigger picture and distracts from the more substantial decisions. Even if some people can hear more miniscule differences than most, it doesn't mean it matters to anyone else. So at least one could be honest and consider it a personal hobby than claim that it's contributing to successful records etc.
exactly
I really respect your approach to audio in general. And I say this after purchasing and fully digesting your EQ course. I’ve been recording for close to 20 years and your course helped shift my mindset, in a positive way. 👍🏻😄
wow thanks for the positive feedback, really glad you got value from the course. by the way, i actually have more lessons planned for it and will do some kind of announcement when that additional content is up
@@APMastering Fantastic!! I look forward to it. 🤩
Thanks!!
Ah now I understand your claim.
Your initial video was very confusing to me, as a developer I felt you were doing a big diservice to my work and passion.
I would like to see your thoughts on cytomic filter plugins.
Those are physically modelled, a very different way of approaching analog modelling rather than the black box method that was used for the eqs you tested : )
glad this vid was less confusing. i'm done with eq and filters for now but feel free to download my working files and have a look yourself how those ones stack up
Looking forward compression video!
Great follow up video! I appreciate your efforts and work.
I will say though that with workflow even if I know exactly what to boost/cut i'll be saving 15-30 seconds per band per instance by turning one knob instead of typing in a Q, frequency, and filter type. Analog emulations are much preferred especially if you know exactly how the knobs work. Add in the fact that you'll likely need to put in some minor saturation plugin and learn how that saturation you like sounds. like sure i guess if you were trained with digital EQ and plugins this is definitely better. For me, i'm more comfortable and faster with analog emulations than with digital EQs (which is funny because i started on analog mixers/consoles then switched to digital EQ stuff where i learned a lot about what good EQ is). I also find the interfaces to be a bit more helpful when it comes to not using your eyes if you will. I will definitely do very different moves with analog emulations than with digital.
Also I did some tests ages ago with the maag EQ and felt that the air band kinda sucked and didn't do anything special compared to other analog EQs. i guess this explains why. Great call out. oddly enough i prefer the sub band. definitely feels like it has a different curve than I'd usually do. rarely use any of the maag stuff though.
as far as the delta and all that jazz: I feel like a simple test for these plugins would be harmonic distortion in plugin doctor. that stuff is always subtle and likely not much more than .2 db in various spots, but it's less about hearing the difference and feeling it sitting in a mix. the 'feeling' stuff is often around .5 db (sometimes less) in my experience. but it sometimes makes all the difference in the imaging of a polished mix.
i started making music on fruityloops when i was i think 13 years old, when it first came out. when i got to college and then uni then intern, i spent a lot of hours behind consoles, so for me i'm equally comfortable with both. to get the right eq for one band on a digital eq, it might take me less than one second but generally no longer than 2-3 seconds
@@APMastering ok good for you I guess? We all have different workflows. I’ve found that the analog emulations or hardware gets me where I need to a lot faster. I often fall into traps with digital EQs with the many possibilities they often. Aka more visually using them and seeing flaws I don’t hear. I don’t think there is a right or wrong way to do it, but if the analog style workflow works for you great if it doesn’t great. But you can’t say it’s a waste of money or that we aren’t talented or something if it works better for us. That’s why people felt like you were just selling a course in the old video. It read like you suck at eq and wasted your money buy my course to be better! Felt like you had an agenda while this one felt more scientific.
ok sure, i totally get that. i do honestly believe though that someone highly skilled in using a digital eq will get better results, quicker, than using a modelling eq. many people disagree with me here but this is just my honest opinion. maybe one day i can put it to the test somehow
@@APMastering for me i find when doing subtractive surgical EQ or removing problem frequencies nothing beats digital EQ, but for fast broad stroke EQ curves i find it so much easier to use an analog emulation. especially of a hardware i know that i'd reach for in that scenario. but you've honed your skill with digital EQ and where i'm at in my journey i don't see the need to spend more time learning how to be faster with digital EQ when i'm good. and in a few years or sooner i'm sure AI EQ like the smart EQ by sonible will make all of this unnecessary and it'll just process stuff and make it sound right.
Dear AP Mastering. Scienthific method includes error verification too (I may translate it wrong from another language). Please try null test with devices where you hear differences by ear’s, and see how much difference will he there with null test. Understanding of numeric results is everything in science
that is in my video
@@APMastering I watched video completely, that's why I'm saying. There may be an error in interpretation, since JND you mentioned measured using specific method. Also you test and evaluate your results in range of small parts of the spectrum, in comntext of this eq test. But we hear complete signal, and our brain analyzes whole spectrum infortation at once , so difference in small band by 0.3 or 0.5 may be seen as non signigicant at first glance from this table. but the same number for whole audible spectrum is absolutely different value for human perceprion of sound. What if we take for example tape simulation plugin, and compare it to raw white noise, and difference after null test? I bet the differences in db will be similar to your results, while still be audible for human
there are big differences when sending out, through a tape machine and back in again, that doesn't null without EQ when using the preview head, even then it won't null acceptably, and when recording and playing back, it doesn't null at all because of flutter.
The JND table with sine waves is MUCH MORE SENSITIVE than listening to full range music. So my results are EXTREMELY conservative as a result of this. With full range music the JND is more like 1db, whereas I'm using 0.25-0.5db as my minimum.
@@APMastering I will test it now. Btw for loudness mathcing, better to use LUFS loudness meter.
Regarding flutter, it may be turned in plugins off, if I'm not mistaken.
"The JND table with sine waves is MUCH MORE SENSITIVE than listening to full range music" - excuse me, but I can't agree, the overall differences dencity of information in wide area is more significant, For example boosting from 10khz to 20khz by 1d does not mean whole signal will be loud on 1db. While sonicly for human perception, differences in wide spectrum are more significant than in one small part. All this I read in articles of psichoaccoustics.
LUFS is not an accurate representation of loudness, i might make a video on this
No wonder I could easily overload the maag just by boosting the air band!
yeah definitely
What do you mean overload?
@@herbie5263 Try it. Put the air band on 40 and crank it up. Past a certain point the ENTIRE signal goes up, not just the higher frequencies. If the source input is coming in at a good level it ends up distorting.
@joseluisrevelo Thanks for your answer.
I tested it out on a drum loop.
It does exactly what is supposed to. It is marketed as a musical, not surgical EQ, with no colouring of the signal.
I didn't notice any distribution even when cranked all the way up on the 40K range.
40K is actually above what the human ear can hear. Having those frequencies present in your signal will affect the lower frequencies due to the phenomena mentioned in the video. However, as soon as you export it to wav or mp3, anything above 20K (+/-) will be cut out.
But if you need to boost something in your track more than 6dB, it usually means your recording or sample is bad. Why would you need to crank up 40K to the max?
If your track is missing so much of the hi-end frequencies, you might also consider using multiple pluggins in your chain...adding highs at stages to avoid distortion.
Having said all that, maag EQ is one of the best such plugging, and it does exactly what it is supposed to do.
I trust you because you have Trout Mask Replica in the back
😁
I hate and love this video series at the same time. I hate how much I spent on plugins because I completely fell for the marketing bullshit and love how you just destroyed them all like that! At least I won't feel "bad" for just using the stock EQ 99% of the time now because I never bothered to look for a specific EQ haha
Would you say you would prefer a Fab style over outboard gear too when it comes to sound almost all the time or are there outboard exceptions for you? Not that I wanna get any of those, way to expensive, just curious!
Great videos man, love it when stuff like that gets destroyed haha
I prefer FF over hardware because of recallability and the fact I can have 100 instances if I want, but I can't afford 100 sontecs, and even if I could, I'm not sure where I'd put them, and I would need 200 channels of AD/DA.
In terms of usability, I'm quite comfortable in from of an analogue mastering EQ because I'm a mastering engineer but I still find FF quicker.
Maaan I appreciate you keep making these videos!! Maybe compressors next???
yep! got a fav free plugins video and then compressors at some point, but its hard to do
@@APMastering I can imagine how hard it would be. Sorry I posted that comment before reaching the end of the video but yeaaah with so many different compression algorithms and saturation and embedded EQ curves it will definitely require some hours of work and testing. Massive respect for all the work!! Idk maybe start from the same baseline of trying to match the analog emulation with a Pro-C (?)
My man!!!!
When I boosted the air band in Maag EQ, I didn't feel anything magical and I thought the problem was mine.
Can you test fabfilter with analog hardware eq or compressors next plz?
I’ve done a listening test (I’m not really sure how to perform a null test, so take this as you will) between Tim Petherick Silk EQ (AA Nebula convolution modulation) and the Kiive Audio Filk EQ 2. Both are based on the Siemens w295b EQ. If the Kiive is a digital EQ that doesn’t do anything more than the Fabfilter Pro Q3 - which I believe - then the Silk EQ stands out significantly. It sounds much more open and has much more believable saturation.
I’m not certain if this is scientifically accurate, but to my ears, the Nebula/Acustica Audio products sound different. Better, in my opinion - and that’s what matters to me.
That’s why I asked for the comparison. I hope I’m wrong so I can delete everything and just keep my Fabfilter bundle and do everything digitally 😊
i think they WILL sound different based on knob values alone but often these knob values are hilariously imprecise
@@APMastering The nonlinearity due to convolution sampling should create differences, don't you think?
Please do one convolution (for example Silk EQ) test to put this baby to rest.
@@APMastering You're correct. They both have different curves on the same settings. I will try to set them correctly and lister again. Damn this is hard haha
I tested Silk EQ with Fab Pro Q3 with gainmatch and as a good curve as I could get them. They almost sound the same. The Silk EQ has more saturation, but as you said. Nothing you can't add later. You are right, mate. But I will still use Silk EQ because of that slight saturation.
And it was cheap:)...thx for bursting the bubble of all these marketing hype companies...looking forward to the compression comparisons:)
Good job. I guess you matched the other EQs with Q3 to show that it could be done that way. If you just want to show that the plugins are (practically) linear and time invariant you can also just measure their impulse response. Less knob twiddling. :)
Would be interesting to know whether the hardware they are modelling is close to being LTI with common input levels.
Compressors are probably going to be more difficult to quantify since they aren't linear or time invariant. I some ramping signals and on/off noise to test the attack and decay curves could at least be a starting point.
yeah this is what i thought of too, using side chain triggering
4:35 interesting. Does this data suggest that monitoring hardware mixes at higher amplitude levels are more likely to show up differences to an equivalent in-the-box mixes? Hmm.
I’ve got hardware EQs, compressors etc for mix monitoring. I get some interesting sweet spots. I guess that’s what I’m going for.
when you record to tape, you have a 24 track distortion unit and the only way you control the saturation is the input level. Hardware EQs are sort of similar, especially if they have saturating components like transformers. Even the most transparent EQs have *some* kind of saturation point if you feel it a hot enough signal.... unless that signal is just so hot it will fry the components and then instead of getting saturation you will get a strong electrical burning smell.... with a digital EQ, often times you can send something 100db too loud through it and it will be fine.
Would the ProQ3 matching come up the same over the course of a 24 track mix? That is to say, would the .1-.5 dB reveal more of an audible change when all 24 tracks were summed? Would it matter though? Asking in order to know
Ha, i wrote this before getting to the end
I was a bit put off of your channel after reading the discussion with Paulthethird. But this video was pretty interesting mate! One litty thing I would like to ask, as someone who has a 9-5 job doing science, is to tone down the "scientifically mathematically proven" statement, it's just a bit annoying to hear and even does the opposite effect of what you intend (at least for me).
ok sure but you've got to remember that in the audiophile world people reject concepts like signal delta in favour of marketing hype, so this is not primarily intended for scientists like you. but critique accepted. i thought paul chatted some unnecessary shit about me, basically accusing me of being a snake oil salesman and paying for fake views which is uncalled for. i think he's just annoyed because my video did well and i'm a newcomer.
@@APMastering Thanks! And yeah, it really was an intense comment thread on paul's video, but I think this video shows that you are doing things right. I see a lot of positive comments and people waiting for your next video (myself included)
i think i have my first fan troll
@@TrackformersWell, we each get to decide the implications of the emulations being matchable. To me, it indicates that the magic fairy dust marketing was excessive. I also conclude that I already own sufficient EQ tools to achieve what these emulations can.
Typically, charlatans don't share their methodology and data so that others can recreate it. So, I will conclude that your criticisms are also excessive.
is it 0,5 for people with trained ears or random people?
it depends on the study
A test with convolution plugins like the ones from Acustica Audio would be very interesting.
just tested UAD ones, same kind of ballpark results. Didnt test Acustica Audio yet but I'm getting fatigued with the topic now
@@APMastering I understand, but Acustica/Nebula would open a whole new can of worms haha
@@APMastering Since I found ceilings of sound, I cleaned my PC of almost all eqs:)
Where’s pro q3?
that was the benchmark so id be comparing it to itself, which would be -inf
All saturators are the same....??
spoiler: they aren't
@@APMasteringI'd bet money that MWaveShaper will make an appearance on the saturation video!
they are definitely all different 😅
To add: I've gain matched them and used a 3 db boost on 5.6 khz on a full track.
download eq curve analyser
Did you dare to test UVI Shade or Equivocate by Newfangled Audio?
never heard about it before now
You might find Letimix's Compressor Measurement Toolbox useful for your compression video.
thanks!! didn't know that one
This young man is the Ralph Nader of plugins.
lol not sure if that's good or bad
Fancy EQ GUIs are the new NFTs
it is crazy, how these people will battle over nothing just to prove their delusion. It is literally evident here. If it had significant harmonics, richness, enhancement it would not have nulled.
1+1=2 Thats correct.
People are going to be in these comments arguing once again. If you want to spend a few hundred on plugins go ahead. If you dont, dont. Doesnt matter. Fruity parametric eq is current being used to make the next number 1 song anyways.
lol
Nuh uhh!!...I'm actually using ReaEQ. So that is the eq being used for the next #1 hit! 😅
Ooh, fruity parametric is very phasey...
However yes, people actually use that as an effect.
I enjoy how it weakens a sound.
Good for electronic music.
parametric eq lets frequencies pass even after brickwall.
Actually 170 bucks for ProQ3
sounds fancy to me 😂
Yea. Use your built in eq bro
@@alexanderkhait no need I use analog hardware bro 😎
yes i agree and i promote the crap out of the free version of nova. but i was using it as a benchmark
DDMF IIEQ Pro...a lot more affordable!
It's just the fastest digital eq and dynamic eq to use with a mouse. Period. With a dedicated controller only Console 1 or SSL are faster because you can use two bands at the same time when you want to + you don't need to open the GUI. It's in front of you always
The trolls will always appear, they have to justify why they spend so much on every plugin that gets released. The number of times of bought something only to find that it doesn't do anything different from what you get n your DAW is too many. I used to think that it was my hearing, that I just couldn't hear what these plugin reviewers were saying, now I don't fall for it. I have got rid of so much and I don't miss any of them just the cash I wasted.
Please do Acustica and McDsp plugins, I want to Know if the marketing got me 🙃
acustica do a few things really well... their graphic design team is possibly the best in the industry and they are really good at wasting your hard drive space
I will only believe you are really smart if you do a mocking Scottish accent.
me being smug i never bought an EQ plugin
Apart from the advertising, My money is lost to those lies. No wonder SSL plugins dropped their prices. Appreciate that from them. DAW are currently a nightmare updates upon updates you have to pay for every year.
Regarding JND: For listeners, ~1dB matters. For mix engineers, ~.5dB matters. For mastering engineers, ~.1dB matters.
The JND doesnt changed based on the context that you are listening in. It's an academic value based on human biology.
How to make friends in the plug in industry…😂
To give plugin developers the benefit of the doubt, could this mean the hardware these plugins are modelled from have less non-linearities than we all think they do?
Eric Valentine put out a promotional video for the Undertone Audio UTEQ500 where he was able to closely match the EQ curves of classic hardware EQs, and they sound virtually indistinguishable despite not having the same components.
ruclips.net/video/Dury1LEfCpM/видео.html
100%
I've worked with hardware (mastering EQ and large format consoles, SSL, Neve) and it's mostly about Q implementation, not about non linearities. Remember last century, many manufacturers tried their hardest to get a transparent sound, not a coloured one. This is why neve consoles moved away from using transformers and GML was founded on the principles of inductorless, transformerless active EQ networks etc.
If Dan Worrel had a son with a Pultec
But if we are not in the audio crazyness for the very tiny micro minutia, what are we devoting? Of course this is about a philosophical standpoint, that is skepticism, which I also stand for as hard as you, but what are we doing here if not loving a little difference in the Q value of an eq over another one? I work in audio for music for about 20 years and I also have THE HATRED when someone comes and say: you can't do amazing work if you don't have X, Y or Z gear, oh man I foam at the mouth because this is such a lie. But my question remains: What am I loving all my life if not all those little tiny deltas man?😂Because I swear to you, I have loads of favorites for this and that when it comes to audio gear (plugins or not, and yes I exhaustively A/B everything trying to null and etc.)
i'm an advocate of the 80/20 rule. id rather pursue the big things rather than get caught up in the minutia
Alain, when you make the compression video, please include AIXDSP's compression plugins!!! I had sent you a couple of emails about it. Thanks!
Ok. Your new test. Null a pro Q3 EQ with a hardware EQ. You might find similar results indicating that EQs certainly are EQs, and be EQ matched to sound "similar". So is hardware a scam? Let's find out.
hardware is for the most part a scam too in the sense that the marketing leads you to believe it will be a night and day difference
@@APMastering Vanilla digital EQs for the win!
people think they are bad because they are free/built in, but think of the technology behind it... modern DAC/ADC, modern computer, modern OS, modern DAW, recycled industry standard DSP code
@@APMastering What if people like the EQ response of a certain piece of hardware or color? Would it not drag down workflow to attempt to match the response of said gear through constant A/B comparison until the differences were in audible, then spending time trying out different saturator plugins and messing with their settings to try to match the vibe of the hardware EQ they like? Or would it make better sense to just grab a plugin that is modeled to sound close to the hardware unit? For speed and simplicity's sake?
hi, very interesting expose!!! im wondering about the "Jaycen Joshua NLS Trick" did u hear about it? can u exposed that pls? i dont use it but it sound different in the examples i saw !! thanks!!
The only parameters you fail to mention in the test is that analog emulation plugins give you curves you wouldn't choose with a digital parametric EQ. They also stop you from mixing with your eyes. Do they magically sound analog, no. Do they force you to mix with your ears, definitely.
this is just a problem of not being able to confidently use an EQ
@@APMastering I have a degree in Music Industry Technical Production. I was a Sound Engineer at the Sydney Opera House. I've run a recording studio for 20 years and currently have a full immersive Atmos studio. I most likely know more than you. I know how to use an EQ 🤣
i don't know why having a degree and an atmos setup makes you good at using eq. i've got a degree in audio engineering and didn't learn much from it, in fact i was giving private tuition to other students at the time mainly because they weren't learning anything.
@@APMastering as someone who is trying to build a community you sure assume a lot of things and automatically alienating and talking down to your audience is a pretty terrible business model. People who think they know everything and refuse to learn from other people's experiences are usually the people at the beginning of the bell curve of the Dunning Kruger effect. Sorry you just lost all credibility.
i just say it how it is, if that offends you, 🤷♂️
Books exists for centuries and everyone's free to access the knowledge, yet this didn't (and won't) stopped religions. It seems like humans love (and need probably) believing.
sure but some of the most famous philosophers are religious 🤓
@@APMastering Not sure plugins buying addicts are all philosophers, but if that's the case then that might explain their irrationality 😋 I would say many great philosophers were also interested in the topic of "beauty" (not sure that's the perfect english translation but you get the idea), that could also explain why people (philosophers, sorry) like thinking beautiful looking plugins' GUI sound "better".
100%. aesthetics is one of the main branches of philosophy
Just use any EQ 😂😂😂ok.
any good eq, yeah
@@APMastering but what's a good Eq?
A good EQ goes "eeeeeeek"
@@miklosnagy7411 🗿🗿🗿
r You branded someone a "troll" because he claimed that you sell your courses? Do you sell courses?
merely stating that i sell courses isn't enough to constitute troll behaviour. it's when people say "therefore you're wrong" or whatever that it becomes either stupidity or trolling
@@APMastering Alright, fair enough! I I apologize.
Use pink noise not white noise
I did in this video
GUYS everyone noticed that he OWNS all the plugins he tested? So why the hell you’ve puchased them? 😂
demo
@@APMastering sure.
You can torrent anything, who cares.
@@miklosnagy7411 you missed the point. These videos are just advertising.
There are so many top engineers who have modeled EQs that they like to use for work flow reasons but according to this random ass on RUclips (nobody knows what records he's done), they just need to learn how to use EQ! And they need to do it by buying his course!
you can just search me. many people have branded plugins or are used to certain bits of hardware. i know zero mastering engineers who use analog modelling plugins in their workflow. everyone is using pro Q or a hardware eq.
Nah man, Paul Third has proved that all of this is wrong.
absolutely not, in his video he basically just agreed with almost everything i said and then just said i should instead use pink noise and a compensated signal, which i did in this video
No... Paul recommended additions to the previous video's methodology... He also talked about how not magical the Motown EQ was that he recreated in MXXX.
those additions were the compensated signal and pink noise
Paul Third?? 😂😂
You know what's the horrifying thing? If those analog modeled eq's were real clones of hardware. This means the hardware analog eq's are scam also.
its not a scam, its just that EQ is EQ.
Has someone mentioned acustica? Isn't it a convolution based eq? Would that make it different,?
the main thing special about it is the amount of hard drive space it takes up
You’ve spent weeks of your career trying to convince us of something you can’t prove. You would need to not only create the easy stuff like EQ, which you do, but also incorporate harmonics, phase shift, etc. I’d rather buy a plug-in than waste time trying to figure all that out and not to mention what it does when you make the slightest change to any parameter.
well I proved my point in this video.