As you said, it's not a question whether it's possible to copy the curves, it's whether you know which curves work, why and how. And there is no chance you will learn that on your own by fiddling around with a stock EQ...
Yeah, like I said I learned a lot by using the emulations, so I don't see them as a waste of money, even though I don't reach for them any more - more for fun than quickly finishing a mix. Now I've had more experience with all those emulations my Logic EQ skills are much improved.
one of the best pieces of advice i started following was to use much broader Qs when EQing, immediately i was able to mix way faster and all my mixes sounded more natural and full of life. clear to see why after watching this!
And thats why we need to keep it broad... Luckily, these days we have surgical EQ's.. That can notch wit steep filters , or even like ET spilt EQ, give us options beyond hardware.. But that is also your point... Because many get locked into specifics due to what is possible, and many also relying on a GUI... It becomes sterile..... Balance is key... All of it. Ears First..... Eyes just a glance.
In defense of good analogue classic plugs, they have great curves used in many records thanks to being locked to specific frequency choices that are musical, and as you said. Some genuinely have a lot of saturation, e.g. Acustica Audio and the Curve Bender as you showed. Acustica have pre-amp emulations built into their EQs. But specific hardware EQs sound great because they can have great saturation (Neve 1073/1084), and create a sense of separation that digital struggles to replicate, especially stock plugs. But digital is catching up, e.g. Tone Project's Michelango and some Acustica EQs like Opal and Erin which sound so close to hardware.
@@RJ1J Thanks that is a good tip I'll give that a try. At 44 though there is a shocking difference between the hardware and the plugin that is supposed to have been sampled from it..
@@ignacedhont9816 They sound like garbage to me. Most of the lower samples in Acustica plug-ins are much worse than the native 96Kz. But the problem is CPU, especially on MacBook Pros and Apple Silicon. So far the only DAW I've got them to work at 96kz is Logic on an M1 Ultra.
this was interesting! i'm still using a 16 year old mac book pro running snowleopard so i'm using almost solely native logic stuff with my hardware. every now and then i'm thinking of upgrading my computer and daw so i could use certain eq, compressor etc plug-ins but it probably would lead to having to update my audio and midi interfaces as well so it feels too big of a hassle 😅
I really enjoyed your work in this video! The first thing I noticed between the hardware & the logic eq was the change in image. Linear eqs can sound really flat. I'm a hybrid mixer so I use linear eq's for fixes & good modeled & analog eq's to add depth & vibe.
yeah the imaging is possibly the Neve mixer, or could also be the filter of course. The Neve 8816 has a stereo widening circuit. It wasn't switched on but who knows whats going on under the hood.
The stock Pro EQ3 plugin now in Studio One I use has 3 band parametric, solo isolation of frequencies which is a really cool, and you can apply dynamic compression on an isolated frequency, and more.
Hardware emulations are sensitive to absolute input levels, particularly where distortion is concerned. Guitar pedal/amp emulations demonstrate this most strongly since they’re all about distortion, but I would think that it’s important in EQ emulation as well (that “vintage vibe” as you say). So testing an EQ emulation with an input of -50dB (a level much lower than you’d ever use with the hardware) may not be showing anything interesting. I’d be interested in seeing what you get at -10 or 0 dB input level (whatever that translates to in digital dBFS for that plugin - amp emulators normally want the input level to be around -18 dBFS).
I don't understand the appeal to needing this all in one. If one knows what a vintage EQ is going differently from a perfect digital one, why not just add a bit of saturation yourself alongside a digital EQ? The end result won't be any different. The only market I think these plugs make sense for are old producers who are used to working with these hardware units and expect an exact result based on their years of experience, and so for them it's nice to have a software emulation that does what they expect. At the end of the day, those people were still mixing by ear, the same way any new producer should be.
That’s a good point. I did try a few different levels -what you see here is the overall ‘best bits’ or most relevant bits of my experiments. I went down to -50db as that’s the plugins default setting - so where I started. But putting it up to anywhere near zero doesn’t change the different between fundamental and harmonics, it did, however, raise the level of the noisy junk at the bottom so it took centre space in the image. Importantly, it didn’t increase relative to the input level In the plugins I tried at least - it just lifted the levels of everything. The noisy stuff would then need explaining 😂 . But if you look at the final image from the Hardware. The input is around -6dB and the 1st harmonic is around -100dB which is about 20dB less than the vintage emulations, with only 2 harmonics as opposed to about 30 on the Chandler. As you say with my hardware the levels did something mad to the signal… I’m assuming that was all saturation etc.. and it was inputting very high - possibly higher than the plugindoctor would allow on the plugins. but it’s hard to reach a definitive conclusion when you can’t hear it at the same time. If the software had been giving dramatically different results at higher levels I’d have shown it. …. Because it tells a story.
@@SomeOne-pd6vm I like your take. As an older engineer who learned on consoles and digital, but before digital anything was as clean as it is today (they all sounded like plastic) I find that the analog emulations help me a lot with my workflow. If you’ve never used the units before going full digital makes sense. There are also certain console emulations that aren’t worth spending money on because it’s just super clean and may as well be digital eq.
@@SomeOne-pd6vm I'm most sympathic to your view--unless the saturation is perceived with a completely different character from other vsources of virtual analog saturation, which seems untrue/unlikely, I'd rather it be something that I'm intentional about and to be able to make adjustnebts besides how hot I'm driving the input. Airwindows has a few plugins (free of course) that I really like for adding analog input/outtput stages to a plugin/chain,, and rolling my own means I can change the order and use them once in pre-post or as components in both input + output stages. And *still* not have too many parameters to fiddle with.
@@StarskyCarr Interesting. Guitarists are used to setting the input gain close to some interesting nonlinear breakup point so they can use picking dynamics to actively "play" the distortion. Thus, it's important for a pedal or amp plugin to emulate the whole nonlinear response behavior of the circuit at the different input levels, and you even see plugin makers doing ranty videos about how people don't read the manual and fail to set the input levels where they're supposed to be. The nonlinear response (aka distortion, aka "warmth") in preamps and channel strips is of course an important part of their character, but some of the emulations (e.g., the bx SSL strip) provide a separate "add more harmonics" control rather than literally emulating the level-based behavior the real preamp has. Maybe these EQ emulators are at the end of that spectrum, where people really just want a constant amount of "characterful distortion" rather than trying to accurately emulate the circuit in all respects.
I have my plugins in Ableton organised into broad categories - saturation, EQ/filters, dynamics, modulation/reverb/delay, and 'misc' - and the EQ one is by far the smallest, for exactly this reason. Fabfilter covers most tasks, but for broad tone shaping a few analog emulations get there faster. Saturation and compressors on the other hand, there are so many colours and grooves that stock saturation and compression simply can't do, in the same way as synths or guitar pedals, whether software or hardware. One thing I will pull you up on with the Massive Passive, since I use the Pulsar Audio version as my main analog-modelled EQ: a characteristic of the hardware that makes it worth using is that each band is in parallel and can saturate separately through the tube stages. That means you can get, for example, really smooth transient rounding and compression in just the low end. In plugin doctor, you were running a -40dB sine wave into it, which is well below the -18dB nominal operating level. Those harmonics would have been more prominent if you'd driven it harder, and you'd see a bit of movement in the dynamics page as well.
I I’d try at higher levels but the difference between the harmonics and input signal was the same - everything increased relative to each other. I settled back in -50db to avoid showing the noise which just asks a whole load more questions. I was hoping for more obvious saturation effects from them all tbh as I thought the same as you.. I thought they’d be more dramatic. Perhaps (as I said) more harmonically complex input signals would show more - compare the Manley or curve bender with my xfilter for example. Also I show the xfilter with -6dB input and the first harmonic is at -100dB which is a 20dB greater difference (weaker harmonic) than the vintage emulations as you might expect. With the hardware having only v low 2 harmonics it does actually show how harmonically rich the plugins are in comparison. I maybe should have laboured that point a bit more.
Interesting video bud, you should analyse some analogue filters next on some of your hardware synths, especially the moog it would be nice see whats going on with the curves the phasing and the harmonic distortion.
@@StarskyCarr Thanks bud it would a great video in my opinion, perhaps look at the VST model aswell. Have you ever used your moog for a harmonic distortion unit, by running stems through it and recording them for mono parallel tracks. I bet you could get some excellent results with a tiny bit of the feedback loop.
Great video, you really have a point. In this case, clearly for some of us it is preferable to use a Pultec plugin than to emulate curves in Pro Q3, since obviously if I think of Pultec I am thinking of an aesthetic, a workflow and a sound concept and a set of technical-creative factors that cannot be overlooked. I think that behind this "rip off" movement about plugins that has been rising these days is the tiredness that we consumers have to the megalomaniacal marketing, sometimes gray and sometimes openly false, about emulation plugins. For obvious reasons, there is NO WAY they are the same as their hardware counterparts, but companies take advantage of the naivety of aspiring producers and engineers to hear what they want to hear, and sell them their placebo.
There’s only so many any of us need. I thought about this a while back and stopped buying more. If you think of a huge pro studio a few years back it’d have lots of hi end outboard.. but only so many and none had anywhere near what you get with eg pluginalliance subscription. It’s nuts!
@@StarskyCarr yup! These days imo if you got one great hardware chain it’s more than enough. I also think hardware is better for recording than mixing. Since in the box stuff sounds so very close these days.
very good video my friend and you are right in everything but don’t forget to mention that all the plugins sound clean no matter what curve you do but with hardware they have electrical components on like transinstors,transformers,tubes and a lot more that make every hardware unique and affect the sound in a different way than plugins,when you run an audio tru a hardware eq and you sculpt the signal you are changing the the sound in an electrical way not and that makes a huge difference in the sound
the pultec lowend trick shape is basically what you get with a parallel second order lowpass, iirc. it’s not a stock plugin but the bass boost i came up with for the bonsai effect in surge ended up with a similar shape.
I like to use the UAD Pultec & API Channel Strip EQs for broad strokes, mostly because they don't have a visual display showing me the curves and the frequency spectrum. I think this works better for me because it forces me to use my ears more. When it comes to more surgical stuff, I prefer to use Pro-Q3 or the stock DAW EQ. So in my experience, it's a case of horses for courses.
Not having the display makes a huge difference for me. I was quite shocked by the shape I created on the xfilter (I’ve never looked before). If I’d have seen it I’d probably have avoided doing something g so obvious 😂
tbh most of the processing plugins are pointless. Not a ripoff, just pointless. Your DAW already has 90% of processing plugins you'll ever need. Anything else is just software GAS.
Workflow is really important and more often than not third party VSTs run circles around similar native devices. AFAIK there isn’t any DAW with an EQ as feature rich as say TDR Nova GE. For basic static EQ, sure the sonic results will be more or less identical compared to a stock EQ, but you cannot combine multi and or wide band dynamics with native devices nor do they have SmartOps equivalent for curve matching and static/dynamic de-resonating. Not all DAWs have a stock linear phase EQ and or have good mid-side workflow so something like Pro Q still has a place in the toolbox. You don’t need umpteen different analog modelled EQs, that is just GAS although if you enjoy using different tools and you bought them on sale there’s no harm in having them around either. I’ve spent lots of money on software that I don’t really need and am still better off than the next person who pissed away more on fags and booze, that’s how I justify my purchases anyway 😂
Here's the thing: Logic's plugs can do everything but they're GUId for sound engineers. I am a musician, not a scientist. A UAD plate reverb is super easy to understand; Logic's plate is a list of parameters and a picture of a waveform. Logic's Pultec modeler sweeps the entire spectrum so it's nothing but a skin for the parametric EQ and doesnt replicate what the hardware actually does. And no matter how good the compressors are, rolling every model from LA-2A to SSL behind the same GUI does not help me to use compressors effectively.
Just had a quick run with that Bertom EQ Analyzer... incredibly useful! I normally use UVI Shade as my main eq for just about everything but copied a few of my favorite UAD eq settings over to it. Thanks for the heads up!
Well said. I stopped buying eq/compressors years ago. In fact a decade ago i reckon. I was happy after getting my ssl strip from PA and tdr nova. PA did have me buy a few compressors and saturators but not many. I prefer to go for better than stock delays/reverbs or genuinely creative sounds. Eg valhalla delay is a tonne better than any FL delay. And valhalla is obviously better then fruity reverb 2... When i settled on Cytomic "the glue" i knew i didn't need another comp.
What excellent timing!! Just saw a UA plug-in bundle for like 90% off and figured what they hell... I won't need it for years at rhis point but might be nice to have in the future for that cheap!
Yeah I’ve got a fair amount of UAD - it’s good stuff. I had promised myself I’d only buy the Roland Dimension D emulation .. that didn’t work out quite as planned!
Wondering if we would be able to recreate the curves without the analyzers.. i think thats what made the hardware special,there was no screen to look at and every piece of hardware had its character by having unique curves and flavor through the transformers etc, of course nowdays you can run a pultec through an analyzer and then recreate the curves with the stock eq and say, every eq is the same
Yeah, I think thats what made them special. As. I say, with many ears over many years agreeing on the curves it's a few less decisions you're making yourself. It's almost like having presets.
You need to run a sine wave through the EQ plugin set flat and then look at the output through an analyzer. Does it add any harmonics? That’s the reason I’ll use EQ plugins other than Logic’s EQ at times.
I’m not sure what you’re asking, but if they’re out of phase you’ll hear the difference. Maybe that’s what we heard in the video when I put 2 together..
Love that EQ analyzer! Interesting stuff. Looking forward to see how the new Pultec device in the beta version of Bitwig 5.2 compares. It does sound nice I will say that. Thanks for the great video.
You can match most of them... It at least come close, adding saturation.... But how much longer will it take you to dial an EQ? Will it sound as good when you do is manually.... Are you going to play with the slope or just the q? What's going to sound good for how the frequencies interact? I'm not saying to buy crazy overpriced analog emulation EQ... I'm saying that the plugins in this category that really do have their place!
I agree. Learning how they work is a great help too. Theres a reason why some are used on different instruments and some are good for mastering. What I’m attempting to show is that it’s possible but not always preferable. There’s a reason why the classic are classic. That ‘many years through many ears’ or whatever it is I say is really important.
When running sound through ANY analogue external gear - surely, it's not just a curve that can be e3mu8lated by any clean digital parametric EQ - you also get pleasant distortions, 'warmth', 'thickness', or shiny brightness without being ear-piercing etc.
I have UAD Api, Pulltec, Maag and uad SSL, Neve ch. strips eqs...got all of it very cheaply on a sale. My personal fav is Pulltec but I like them all AND most of the time I use anyway FL Studio stock eq plugins...at least at the early stage of mixing.
The most clever thing I did was something someone said years ago ... unsubscribe from any mailing list, I felt bombarded until finally buying something I never used, falling into the bargain trap, something Waves thought me is their stuff real value is always $29.99 (same as PG Alliance). As you professionally mentioned the EQ is a tool that must help the mix in context. My apologies if I am lost in translation, question: do you recommend getting for example a good hardware EQ, Elysia for example, also new or vintage, because there is a trend, almost as a cult for expensive to buy and maintain vintage hardware (that also looks nice in the back of a YT video even when is just a prop). Thanks again Starsky for your help. Music production is becoming as necessary as speaking latin :-( and every piece of advice is needed. Getting into your Patreon.
I think hardware vs software is becoming more about the psychology of mixing rather than the sound. With a nice piece of outboard you tend to take more time to learn it properly and understand how and where to use it. So perhaps people get better results because they're invested in the process. Having said that plenty of people get great results with software. For something creative like writing music I think you should do what makes you feels good and inspires you. If you love playing with hardware then great, but its not necessary... I've got a room full of synths when I could probably do everything on plug-ins!
harder to demo with specifics. `the plugin doctor id great at showing what plugins are doing.. but you can only show AU or VST plugins not the stock plugins. So its a much harder thing to demo with the 'evidence'... without that I'd just get piled on by conflicting views.
This was really informative. Would be great to see one about 'analogue warmth' or the emulation and desire of that in saturation plugins. Ive seen studio desk emulators (with crosstalk) and various attracting, but can it be replicated or what even is it? The vid might help focus folk on what might help them (or save them endlessly window shopping!).
@@StarskyCarr 🤣DAWs are like that. Too much going on. what do you think of the automatic accompaniment features on logic? Is it worth upgrading my 2019 Intel Mac for Apple silicon?
@@ManCalledMif ive not updated Logic yet, but I would highly recommend upgrading to Apple silicon. I noticed a huge difference in performance. A step change rather than increment.
I think it comes down to whether you want your processing plugins to add character to your sounds, or just tidy them up. The better analog emulation plugs definitely add something if that's what you're after. Having said that, I can happily mix most tracks solely using Toneboosters plugins, which cost peanuts.
There's a huge machine now that is the plug-in industry. It makes me roll my eyes a bit when I see a new greatest plugin press release every stinking day almost. So I understand the push back. It's getting a bit out of hand. I'm happy with really getting to know just a handful of plugs now.
I think I’m taking a step back rather than pushing back here. Taking stock of what I’ve got realising I’m not using it anymore. For some those little details are everything .. read the comments .. it’s really important to some folks. For me not so much.
Had similar issues with Plugin alliance SSL channel strips. With their filter, not being accurate at all, or Gate/Expander not being effective. Found that Waves SSL style channel strips to be way more accurate.
Comparing old-school plugins to stock plugins is fine and so is questioning the value of basic EQ plugins, but maybe a better question is looking at plugins that go beyond (faster, easier, more tools) and see what their value is. Things like pro q 3 and multiband plugins.
Not necessarily a better question but definitely another one. I don’t think taking things further is considered as potentially as much of a waste of money as emulations of hardware can be. The thing with these (and they’re not all vintage) is they don’t necessarily really take things further than what can be achieved with stock plugins,except perhaps the hardware ‘shortcuts’.
most probably. I did try tweaking the EQ to see if it was possible, but there was no way so it has to be something to do with extra sounds - and that could well explain analog sizzle.
A winner would be an EQ that has the curves, notches, characteristics etc of all the classics in one plugin, followed by a selection of transformer/saturation stages. Anyone know of this type of plugin?
@@StarskyCarr Something like slate's virtual mix rack is actually pretty welcome. Like you say even if something can be achieved through other plugins the recreations do save time. But something like a Fabfilter interface but with preset modelled parameters.
I literally just follow what I hear and what I want to hear when EQing, I basically only use Pro Q3, EQ8, and the three band EQ on Korvpressor and I can pretty much get any sound I want with that.
Sounds about right. I was only showing the curves to demo what was happening. It's the first time I'd tried it. I was surprised by the curves on the xfilter.. much broader than I thought - which goes to show ears are best!
@@StarskyCarr Yup yup. I also started to learn Smart EQ4, it is very nice for getting elements to sit where you want them to sit. But that is not a traditional style EQ though.
I would say, dont be sucked into the marketing and glossy GUIs by all these different manufacturers with their new greatest and powerful plugins and instruments, technology is so good now,that there is no one better than the other or groundbreaking anymore, i feel those days are gone, bit like the cameras on our phones, they are all so good now that you are going to get very good results no matter what brand you are using, it is all subjective, find the ones that work best for you and learn them inside out! Its a competitive market and its good to have choice, stock DAW eqs compressors etc are so good now, as are some of the free ones, there are also a fair few hardware devices that secondhand, are affordable if one wants to try different flavours outside of the DAW. Spend the time learning and using what you have available to you!
I think they do a good job of replicating the hardware, but so many just isn't necessary, and once you know whats going on you can get similar or the same results with stock plugins... gf course the specific harmonics etc of vintage units won't be possible, but you can get close enough, unless your after that specific tone. I think they're fun to play with, but no-ione should be fooled into thinking its going to make them sound like a pro.
Let's also not forget, 85% of people are going to be listening on a cellphone or laptops. I don't know if it's common, but I've heard of people checking their mastering on a tiny mono monitor because they know that's what most people listen on. Anyway, great video.
Was trying to figure out why I'm not a huge fan of 500 series EQs and basically came to the same conclusion. There shouldn't be any color in EQs and there's very little special functionality like you'll find in pres or compressors. It's really all about what's intuitive for the user.
One takes 5 seconds and I think that's the things, hpow you get there. So totally agree, it can be done and when its in the era of hardware eqs its magic! Now we see behidn the curtain we see why
While i like the video, I have to disagree with a few things said on the technical aspects. Especially at 21:40 - analog EQs are ALL ABOUT distortion / saturation! My own conclusion is, that everyone who doesn't have the monitoring and/or ear to feel the hardware elysia sounds far superior in your demo at 08:25 should take care of THAT first - before spending ANY money on plugins.
I think analog EQs were traditionally all about EQ - and the ones that became classic are the ones that sounded best (harmonics) Now we have access to such clean modern devices the different harmonic character of the vintage units is what sets them apart from the crowd. So as I say, if you’re after a specific tone or character then yeah of course the emulations are the way to go, but if you’re just looking to get elements to fit in a mix then…. And you can add different saturation flavours after if wanted. The elysia has very low distortion levels - I show a clip for a couple of seconds at the end of that section, but there’s no doubt Logic’s EQ doesn’t sound identical. Although if listening with my ears rather than looking at the graph I could possibly have got them closer (the Neve mixer may also be doing something - I’m trying to remember what the signal chain was .. mixer before or after the Apollo, or if it was bypassed - I think it was bypassed). In the end it’s all about what you’re trying to achieve. For most the stock EQ will do all the EQing they’ll ever need. For other tasks or if you’re familiar with hardware then the emulations are the way to go.
I’ve bought many eq plugins, cheap and expensive, the only thing remotely close to analog is the DMG equilibrium, it makes things sound right, a lot of the vintage emulations I find a bit too eccentric, I’ve ended up spending far too long just wondering…
That’s possibly the Neve mixer it has a widening circuit although I had it turned off you never know with these elctronics! Or could be the xfilter of course.
When u buy nice converters and high end speakers u can hear that 90 percent of the time u don't need to touch anything just choose the right elements.Eq makes everything sounds much much worse and unnatural.There is very little needed on the busses and a bit during master.Saturation totally replace eqs and compression especially on electronic music as there is no dynamic content .
Yeah I’ve found that gentle EQ if any is the best way. Separate the sounds by picking sounds that work well together, or tweak tones to suit. Heavy EQ was needed in a room full of drums and guitars, but I’m with you - less is more these days.
It's not the curves. You can emulate curves on any EQ. It's the internal circuitry that gives EQ plug flavor. Tubes and transistors. There are fantastic analog channel strips available. There's also really poorly coded ineffective plugs too. Choose wisely.
Yeah I take a look at the result of the components in the harmonic distortion section. It’s there but not huge. The compound effect of more harmonic tones and a whole track would make it more obvious - but hard to demo as these are the magic sparkles the ear candy for the brain that’s hard to distil
@@StarskyCarr TDM on Protools.... way back.. Just saying how cutting edge its was... You where using it I guess, after all , not sure of the emoji..........What do I make of that? do you Agree or disagree? Im guessing you used it, back when.... (To add, im being polite.. as im not sure of you're connotations with your response...)
For the Pultec style EQ, sure... you could create something, especially in Ableton or Bitwig that emulates the curves and parameters. But if you want that SOUND... and the plug-in is relatively affordable, just buy it.
Pulled adds a few dB plus those even harmonics. It’d be interesting to see if it actually does anything audible other than volume. But if it gets better results for whatever reason then it’s doing its job.
@@StarskyCarr Its still an artistic process while producing. If something reaches me and my creativity really well through specific choice of interfacing and I am happy with the results, then this is everything and what I choose dont has to be entirely rational and technically analyzed. Good video though! Its just that for me something tiny and simple like a color choice can make all the difference, the brain is a mystery
They were balanced and working fine but after I added the EQ they got much louder 🤦♂️ never thought of that!!! Duh 🙄 it took so long to match stuff I wasn’t going back 😂 I only noticed as I pressed record and at that point I was already running late and kids needed feeding.
To be able to emulate the curve from the hardware you need the hardware. Without the hardware you don’t have a clue what you are emulating so the argument becomes moot imho.
I’m not really showing how to emulate the curve in order to repeat it on a track - I demo how it’s done to show how I’m analysing it. So you’re right, it’s a non starter from that perspective - and I say as much a couple of times. What I’m trying to show is how the same sound (or very close) can be achieved by stock EQs… but the hardware and emulations have their own way of doing things. This is preferable in some cases but if you know your EQ it’s not necessary. .. unless you’re going for a specific tone and vibe in which case the emulations do the trick simply and effectively.
I saw another creator post on this a few days ago and it irked me. Your point at the beginning is the biggest key here - Yes, you could achieve the same results with a stock EQ, but it is faster, easier and more repeatable to achieve desired results with emulated plug-ins. Workflow is king. Sure, Nova can do anything that any of the EQ's in the UAD native bundle can - but my mixes had a very notable improvement in quality and speed by using the UAD plug-ins. Not only that, but as someone in the process of expanding my hardware collection, having quality emulation plug-ins allows me to become intimately familiar with units that I'm considering purchasing which dramatically decreases the learning curve once acquiring the hardware unit, and I have plug-in backups for when I need, say, an 1176 across more than 2 channels at once. Workflow - Workflow - Workflow. I have no desire to sit here with an EQ curve analyzer to emulate emulated units, which clearly I would have had to purchase to be able to analyze to be able to effectively emulate the emulation in the first place. Seems like a completely moot point. And there is something to be said for the UI of emulated EQ's - not having the graphical displays does force one to rely upon their ears. Also, an analog EQ that essentially proves the point that EQ curves are able to be recreated is the UTEQ500 - which has settings that can emulate a wide variety of analog EQ's from Pultec's to G-Bus, to 1073 etc.
Absolutely. I hope it came across that I agree with what you’re saying. You CAN replicate them… but why would you? If you want the benefit of many years and many ears use the emulations. The curves are musical and things can be done quickly. But you can get the same results on stock EQs .. well at least near enough in most cases. If you’re not trying to copy the hardware, or haven’t used it, rely on your ears.
@@StarskyCarr Yes, that did come across, I was simply adding onto that perspective. I'm glad someone is making that argument in response to the opposing perspective that everything is a scam. Appreciate your content!
most people think a plugin eq or compressor can substitute their (dis)ability to arrange and compose, and in the end the abilty to mix. nope your boring 200 layer crap is still boring after all the plugin chains ;D. thats wqhy plugin developers tryin to sell you nice pictures simulating hardware. they all sell an illusion of being THE producer. i reckongnized that some plugins are really tricking into the more db trap upfront wihtout ANY setting done
No, not a ripoff. It’s the workflow, the bands, the way the curves interact, the quality of the algorithm. Pulseq is one style of EQ; there are dozens of others. Your video was off to the races right from the get go 😅. Enjoyed it nevertheless.
@@StarskyCarr Sorry for the rude tone. I actually agree with your conclusions. 👊🏾👌🏾 But been seeing some videos of this lately and it baffles me, that people are EQ matching in 2024 like it proves anything. Only thing it proves that a digital EQ with endles amounts of bands and options can EQ match. Like thats it.. literally. What's the big whoop? 😅😅 I don't get it. Btw love the look of the curves on that Elysia 😍
The vintage emulators don't just emulate the originals' curves, they emulate the whole circuit path including the transformers, as is the case with UAD.
@@moe47988 Why did you comment without watching it? I don't label it as a rip-off, I'm clearly questioning the proposition. The big yellow question mark in the thumbnail is a bit of a giveaway as is the title which indicates I'm testing the idea of them being a rip-off.
@@StarskyCarr Because I watch a lot of youtube, but I don't watch every second of every video. You could have easily made the title match the thumbnail.
I just watched the part about phase response and thats probably the least accurate part of the video. Not only is phase response on things like lowcuts INCREDIBLY audible to even average listener ears, it also affects the entire signal chain and gainstaging afterwards as a shift in phase will in 99.9% of the cases also introduce a change in signal amplitude. Now there is no inherent advantage to certain types of phase responses, but its OBJECTIVE that it makes a difference.
Sure, you proved you CAN match any EQ plugin curve on screen, if you are happy to sit and look at an analysis plugin for ages. The problem is, that only works if you have already set up the actual EQ plugin you want to emulate (which you need to have installed) and dialled in the settings you like, only to then copy them with your stock EQ plugin. What is the point of that?! No one intuitively knows what the curves ‘should’ be to set the stock EQ to emulate a Pultec at any given setting, for example, so you need the Pultec (or any other EQ emulator) plugin first to see what it is doing to be able to emulate it to begin with. How else could you possibly match the curves? Because you can do this doesn’t mean EQ plugins are not needed. As a professional mixer, the idea of spending all that extra time just so I can say ‘I don’t need to buy other plugins’ is an absolute waste of my time and mixing a song will take soooo much longer for no added gain. Time I would have to charge my client for and man, that’s not fair. So again, sure you can, but why would you and when is that ever an advantage to a mix engineer?
Look, i love your videos but i think theres a lot of things your missing here. I really hate to write this as it sounds like an attack on you, i dont mean it to be. Im just frustrated with your conclusions. EQ curves are just a part of the equation, good eq emulations do much more than that. You can generally hear that in respect to stereo depth, phase and saturation. You cover it, but again, not the best emulations (UAD is meh) and you've downplayed things. Quite often i will throw these eq's on without even touching the knobs, no boosting, no cutting. Thats because they have certain aspects i like. I think of them as more color or depth tools. They are basically preamps with extra tweakability. If im doing small boosts or cuts i will quite often use a stock plugin before it! Also Different pulteq plugins will sound vastly different to. Like theres one pultec plugin i use (and its free) for tight low ends where transients need to be retained, then theres another for bolder more 3d low end. . This applys to other types of emulations. And to he honest, the emulations your using arent exactly the best. I really really dislike these types of "hey i can make these curves with stock plugins" videos because they miss the point. Your not the only creator thats done this and its cringe/annoying . It feels likes its copium for people who dont want to invest in plugins and the "i only use stock plugins" crowd. Sorry that was a bit of attack, i dont mean it to be. In your demos you can hear deltas and they are from average at best emulations. Also, as you know from hardware eq's its how you drive (gain stage) the eq to which effects the outcome due saturation, etc. You get different musical results.
That’s cool. We don’t always have to agree on stuff. I tried to get as much as I could in here without making a documentary or becoming a prolonged PowerPoint on EQ. You’re obviously in the ‘it matters’ camp, and there absolutely nothing wrong with that. I demo why it matters to some (albeit a bit downplayed as I’m talking from my perspective). I’m saying they’re not a rip-off if that’s what you’re using them for, but they’re not necessarily a magic ingredient if you don’t notice those things. UAD and Softube are generally considered to be some of the best out there, and most people have heard of them and respect the brands which is why I used them. Peace and love.. all good here 👍
@@Grant82gc the 'analog emulation' eqs are almost always just linear simple filter cookbook filters with a simple nonlinearity after. You're making out as if they're some black box
Think of the time you spend dicking around trying to emulate what a specific eq does using a stock daw eq. I'd rather use a Pultec-type or API-type eq and just get the job done. Or for an even bigger time-suck try emulating a Manley Massive Passive with your stock daw eq.
I don’t think anyone tried to emulate the curves manually. I was just doing it to show it could be done- but nobody would do it that way. BUT.. it might be because of those curves they sound subjectively ‘better’ to some.
@@musicman8942 That's exactly my point! I'm showing the type off things that hardware EQs do to the curves, which is different to the stock EQs that are much more precise. i.e. the main reason they sound different isn't because of some magic sauce, but because the curves are different... and to demonstrate the point I create the same curves on the stock EQ. Possibly no-one has ever done this in a mix. I'm doing it here only to hammer home the point. If for whatever reason you really want those curves buy the emulations, but you might get the same EQ result by ear with the stock EQs etc..
Terrible approach to relaying information, you have your narration, what's going on screen as you adjust parameters of the EQ, seperate unrelated text to read, as well as music playing fairly loudly . . . gave up after just a couple of minutes, thumbs down from me.
Call me 'Old Fashioned', but when it comes 2 hardware EQ -I prefer my Behringer Ultragraph PRO GEQ3102 31-Band Stereo Graphic EQ!😈... There's no pretentious arcane 'Knob-Snob' twiddling -U can SEE from across the ROOM Ur frequency curves (in STEREO w/ NO NEED of an O-Scope -BTW!)📈👀📉👀... There's ALSO 6db-12db Boost; LED I/O Meter; Input/Low-Cut/High-Cut Pots... I mean, if U CAN'T sculpt Ur sound w/ 'Surgeon-Like' accuracy w/ THAT -MAYBE Ur in the WRONG Business!😒... As far as DAW EQs go, I find the stock EQ that comes w/ Studio One QUITE sufficient!😇... So, IMHO (and 40+yrs experice), any EQ emulator plugin w/ arcane knobs & switches is selling itself on its 'professional hardware reputation' (a convenient excuse 4 being overpriced) for somehow having a "Unique Flavor" (that U just CAN'T get w/any other CHEAPER EQ) in recording studios where its is chique 2 use overpriced hardware touting freq-knobs & switches IN PLACE of a Good Ol' Fashioned Graphic EQ. Let's face it: Frequency is Frequency Hi & Lo Cut & Boost, is ALL the SAME -The issue is between the UI & The EAR!👂... Personally, I've been in Many a recording studios since '85, mixed/engineered (as well as wrote/arranged/produced & played drums/keys/vox as an artist myself); and in those studios that had a 31-Band Stereo EQ (as opposed 2 a 'Snob-Knob' EQ -which needs an O-Scope if U want a graphical reference!📈👀) -the workflow was ALWAYS a helluva-lot SMOOTHER!😇... Ultimately, a 'Good Ear' WILL HAVE the FINAL SAY & if THAT'S BROKE -No EQ, no matter the price, can FIX THAT!🙉... Say what U will, 'Old Skool' works 4 ME!😈 AND, If it👂ain't BROKE -Don't FIX It!😎
As you said, it's not a question whether it's possible to copy the curves, it's whether you know which curves work, why and how. And there is no chance you will learn that on your own by fiddling around with a stock EQ...
Yeah, like I said I learned a lot by using the emulations, so I don't see them as a waste of money, even though I don't reach for them any more - more for fun than quickly finishing a mix. Now I've had more experience with all those emulations my Logic EQ skills are much improved.
one of the best pieces of advice i started following was to use much broader Qs when EQing, immediately i was able to mix way faster and all my mixes sounded more natural and full of life. clear to see why after watching this!
interesting that its what most of the classic hardware does.
And thats why we need to keep it broad... Luckily, these days we have surgical EQ's.. That can notch wit steep filters , or even like ET spilt EQ, give us options beyond hardware..
But that is also your point... Because many get locked into specifics due to what is possible, and many also relying on a GUI... It becomes sterile.....
Balance is key... All of it.
Ears First..... Eyes just a glance.
Fruity Parametric EQ2 baby
Fruity parametric EQ1 has a great sound
In defense of good analogue classic plugs, they have great curves used in many records thanks to being locked to specific frequency choices that are musical, and as you said. Some genuinely have a lot of saturation, e.g. Acustica Audio and the Curve Bender as you showed. Acustica have pre-amp emulations built into their EQs. But specific hardware EQs sound great because they can have great saturation (Neve 1073/1084), and create a sense of separation that digital struggles to replicate, especially stock plugs. But digital is catching up, e.g. Tone Project's Michelango and some Acustica EQs like Opal and Erin which sound so close to hardware.
Yeah for me I think the many ears over many years gives confidence that the right blend of features works.
Opal EQ sounds nothing like the hardware. I have both the hardware and the AA plugin
@@ignacedhont9816 Have you run your session at 96kz? Those are the original IR samples, and they sound a lot better than the down sampled ones.
@@RJ1J Thanks that is a good tip I'll give that a try. At 44 though there is a shocking difference between the hardware and the plugin that is supposed to have been sampled from it..
@@ignacedhont9816 They sound like garbage to me. Most of the lower samples in Acustica plug-ins are much worse than the native 96Kz. But the problem is CPU, especially on MacBook Pros and Apple Silicon. So far the only DAW I've got them to work at 96kz is Logic on an M1 Ultra.
this was interesting! i'm still using a 16 year old mac book pro running snowleopard so i'm using almost solely native logic stuff with my hardware. every now and then i'm thinking of upgrading my computer and daw so i could use certain eq, compressor etc plug-ins but it probably would lead to having to update my audio and midi interfaces as well so it feels too big of a hassle 😅
Great video! Like the opposite and a more intelligent discussion of what AP mastering did in his videos (which were just pitching courses i feel).
I’m seriously going to have to watch it as it’s been mentioned a lot in the comments! 😂👍
@@StarskyCarr yeah it wasn’t that great. Had a lot of potential but missed the mark a lot. Your video was much more professional and accurate.
I really enjoyed your work in this video! The first thing I noticed between the hardware & the logic eq was the change in image. Linear eqs can sound really flat. I'm a hybrid mixer so I use linear eq's for fixes & good modeled & analog eq's to add depth & vibe.
yeah the imaging is possibly the Neve mixer, or could also be the filter of course. The Neve 8816 has a stereo widening circuit. It wasn't switched on but who knows whats going on under the hood.
The stock Pro EQ3 plugin now in Studio One I use has 3 band parametric, solo isolation of frequencies which is a really cool, and you can apply dynamic compression on an isolated frequency, and more.
Hardware emulations are sensitive to absolute input levels, particularly where distortion is concerned. Guitar pedal/amp emulations demonstrate this most strongly since they’re all about distortion, but I would think that it’s important in EQ emulation as well (that “vintage vibe” as you say). So testing an EQ emulation with an input of -50dB (a level much lower than you’d ever use with the hardware) may not be showing anything interesting. I’d be interested in seeing what you get at -10 or 0 dB input level (whatever that translates to in digital dBFS for that plugin - amp emulators normally want the input level to be around -18 dBFS).
I don't understand the appeal to needing this all in one. If one knows what a vintage EQ is going differently from a perfect digital one, why not just add a bit of saturation yourself alongside a digital EQ? The end result won't be any different. The only market I think these plugs make sense for are old producers who are used to working with these hardware units and expect an exact result based on their years of experience, and so for them it's nice to have a software emulation that does what they expect. At the end of the day, those people were still mixing by ear, the same way any new producer should be.
That’s a good point. I did try a few different levels -what you see here is the overall ‘best bits’ or most relevant bits of my experiments. I went down to -50db as that’s the plugins default setting - so where I started. But putting it up to anywhere near zero doesn’t change the different between fundamental and harmonics, it did, however, raise the level of the noisy junk at the bottom so it took centre space in the image. Importantly, it didn’t increase relative to the input level In the plugins I tried at least - it just lifted the levels of everything. The noisy stuff would then need explaining 😂 . But if you look at the final image from the Hardware. The input is around -6dB and the 1st harmonic is around -100dB which is about 20dB less than the vintage emulations, with only 2 harmonics as opposed to about 30 on the Chandler.
As you say with my hardware the levels did something mad to the signal… I’m assuming that was all saturation etc.. and it was inputting very high - possibly higher than the plugindoctor would allow on the plugins. but it’s hard to reach a definitive conclusion when you can’t hear it at the same time.
If the software had been giving dramatically different results at higher levels I’d have shown it. …. Because it tells a story.
@@SomeOne-pd6vm I like your take. As an older engineer who learned on consoles and digital, but before digital anything was as clean as it is today (they all sounded like plastic) I find that the analog emulations help me a lot with my workflow. If you’ve never used the units before going full digital makes sense. There are also certain console emulations that aren’t worth spending money on because it’s just super clean and may as well be digital eq.
@@SomeOne-pd6vm I'm most sympathic to your view--unless the saturation is perceived with a completely different character from other vsources of virtual analog saturation, which seems untrue/unlikely, I'd rather it be something that I'm intentional about and to be able to make adjustnebts besides how hot I'm driving the input. Airwindows has a few plugins (free of course) that I really like for adding analog input/outtput stages to a plugin/chain,, and rolling my own means I can change the order and use them once in pre-post or as components in both input + output stages. And *still* not have too many parameters to fiddle with.
@@StarskyCarr Interesting. Guitarists are used to setting the input gain close to some interesting nonlinear breakup point so they can use picking dynamics to actively "play" the distortion. Thus, it's important for a pedal or amp plugin to emulate the whole nonlinear response behavior of the circuit at the different input levels, and you even see plugin makers doing ranty videos about how people don't read the manual and fail to set the input levels where they're supposed to be.
The nonlinear response (aka distortion, aka "warmth") in preamps and channel strips is of course an important part of their character, but some of the emulations (e.g., the bx SSL strip) provide a separate "add more harmonics" control rather than literally emulating the level-based behavior the real preamp has. Maybe these EQ emulators are at the end of that spectrum, where people really just want a constant amount of "characterful distortion" rather than trying to accurately emulate the circuit in all respects.
I have my plugins in Ableton organised into broad categories - saturation, EQ/filters, dynamics, modulation/reverb/delay, and 'misc' - and the EQ one is by far the smallest, for exactly this reason. Fabfilter covers most tasks, but for broad tone shaping a few analog emulations get there faster. Saturation and compressors on the other hand, there are so many colours and grooves that stock saturation and compression simply can't do, in the same way as synths or guitar pedals, whether software or hardware.
One thing I will pull you up on with the Massive Passive, since I use the Pulsar Audio version as my main analog-modelled EQ: a characteristic of the hardware that makes it worth using is that each band is in parallel and can saturate separately through the tube stages. That means you can get, for example, really smooth transient rounding and compression in just the low end. In plugin doctor, you were running a -40dB sine wave into it, which is well below the -18dB nominal operating level. Those harmonics would have been more prominent if you'd driven it harder, and you'd see a bit of movement in the dynamics page as well.
I I’d try at higher levels but the difference between the harmonics and input signal was the same - everything increased relative to each other. I settled back in -50db to avoid showing the noise which just asks a whole load more questions. I was hoping for more obvious saturation effects from them all tbh as I thought the same as you.. I thought they’d be more dramatic. Perhaps (as I said) more harmonically complex input signals would show more - compare the Manley or curve bender with my xfilter for example. Also I show the xfilter with -6dB input and the first harmonic is at -100dB which is a 20dB greater difference (weaker harmonic) than the vintage emulations as you might expect. With the hardware having only v low 2 harmonics it does actually show how harmonically rich the plugins are in comparison. I maybe should have laboured that point a bit more.
Interesting video bud, you should analyse some analogue filters next on some of your hardware synths, especially the moog it would be nice see
whats going on with the curves the phasing and the harmonic distortion.
Nice idea
@@StarskyCarr
Thanks bud it would a great video in my opinion, perhaps look at the VST model aswell. Have you ever used your moog for a
harmonic distortion unit, by running stems through it and recording them for mono parallel tracks. I bet you could get some
excellent results with a tiny bit of the feedback loop.
Great video, you really have a point.
In this case, clearly for some of us it is preferable to use a Pultec plugin than to emulate curves in Pro Q3, since obviously if I think of Pultec I am thinking of an aesthetic, a workflow and a sound concept and a set of technical-creative factors that cannot be overlooked.
I think that behind this "rip off" movement about plugins that has been rising these days is the tiredness that we consumers have to the megalomaniacal marketing, sometimes gray and sometimes openly false, about emulation plugins. For obvious reasons, there is NO WAY they are the same as their hardware counterparts, but companies take advantage of the naivety of aspiring producers and engineers to hear what they want to hear, and sell them their placebo.
There’s only so many any of us need. I thought about this a while back and stopped buying more. If you think of a huge pro studio a few years back it’d have lots of hi end outboard.. but only so many and none had anywhere near what you get with eg pluginalliance subscription. It’s nuts!
@@StarskyCarr yup! These days imo if you got one great hardware chain it’s more than enough. I also think hardware is better for recording than mixing. Since in the box stuff sounds so very close these days.
very good video my friend and you are right in everything but don’t forget to mention that all the plugins sound clean no matter what curve you do but with hardware they have electrical components on like transinstors,transformers,tubes and a lot more that make every hardware unique and affect the sound in a different way than plugins,when you run an audio tru a hardware eq and you sculpt the signal you are changing the the sound in an electrical way not and that makes a huge difference in the sound
the pultec lowend trick shape is basically what you get with a parallel second order lowpass, iirc. it’s not a stock plugin but the bass boost i came up with for the bonsai effect in surge ended up with a similar shape.
Did you look at Logic’s built in Pultec emulation?
No, I completely forgot it had one!
@@StarskyCarr I use it all the time. It sounds great. Definitely got some non-linearity going on.
I like to use the UAD Pultec & API Channel Strip EQs for broad strokes, mostly because they don't have a visual display showing me the curves and the frequency spectrum. I think this works better for me because it forces me to use my ears more. When it comes to more surgical stuff, I prefer to use Pro-Q3 or the stock DAW EQ. So in my experience, it's a case of horses for courses.
Not having the display makes a huge difference for me. I was quite shocked by the shape I created on the xfilter (I’ve never looked before). If I’d have seen it I’d probably have avoided doing something g so obvious 😂
tbh most of the processing plugins are pointless. Not a ripoff, just pointless. Your DAW already has 90% of processing plugins you'll ever need. Anything else is just software GAS.
Workflow is really important and more often than not third party VSTs run circles around similar native devices. AFAIK there isn’t any DAW with an EQ as feature rich as say TDR Nova GE. For basic static EQ, sure the sonic results will be more or less identical compared to a stock EQ, but you cannot combine multi and or wide band dynamics with native devices nor do they have SmartOps equivalent for curve matching and static/dynamic de-resonating.
Not all DAWs have a stock linear phase EQ and or have good mid-side workflow so something like Pro Q still has a place in the toolbox. You don’t need umpteen different analog modelled EQs, that is just GAS although if you enjoy using different tools and you bought them on sale there’s no harm in having them around either. I’ve spent lots of money on software that I don’t really need and am still better off than the next person who pissed away more on fags and booze, that’s how I justify my purchases anyway 😂
not true. every distortion is different. every reverb is different. don’t simplify it… when it comes to eqs, yeah you’re right.
Here's the thing: Logic's plugs can do everything but they're GUId for sound engineers. I am a musician, not a scientist. A UAD plate reverb is super easy to understand; Logic's plate is a list of parameters and a picture of a waveform.
Logic's Pultec modeler sweeps the entire spectrum so it's nothing but a skin for the parametric EQ and doesnt replicate what the hardware actually does. And no matter how good the compressors are, rolling every model from LA-2A to SSL behind the same GUI does not help me to use compressors effectively.
Logic’s plugins are the best! You can’t compare it i feel with other daws except maybe cubase, but it’s also a lot more expensive than logic.
Sure, but I would rather pull my hair out than working with Abletons EQ8
Just had a quick run with that Bertom EQ Analyzer... incredibly useful! I normally use UVI Shade as my main eq for just about everything but copied a few of my favorite UAD eq settings over to it. Thanks for the heads up!
Well said. I stopped buying eq/compressors years ago. In fact a decade ago i reckon. I was happy after getting my ssl strip from PA and tdr nova. PA did have me buy a few compressors and saturators but not many.
I prefer to go for better than stock delays/reverbs or genuinely creative sounds. Eg valhalla delay is a tonne better than any FL delay. And valhalla is obviously better then fruity reverb 2...
When i settled on Cytomic "the glue" i knew i didn't need another comp.
I forgot about Cytomic after I got Softubes SSL bus compressor. I prefer it to the SSL version,
What excellent timing!! Just saw a UA plug-in bundle for like 90% off and figured what they hell... I won't need it for years at rhis point but might be nice to have in the future for that cheap!
Yeah I’ve got a fair amount of UAD - it’s good stuff. I had promised myself I’d only buy the Roland Dimension D emulation .. that didn’t work out quite as planned!
@@StarskyCarr now there is a Starsky video...comparing the Arturia vs UAD (vs real Dim D if you can have access to one).
Long & detailed, really interesting 🤔thanks Starsky👍
Thanks... it took a bit longer than expected to put together than I was hoping - nice to hear it was worth it. :)
Wondering if we would be able to recreate the curves without the analyzers.. i think thats what made the hardware special,there was no screen to look at and every piece of hardware had its character by having unique curves and flavor through the transformers etc, of course nowdays you can run a pultec through an analyzer and then recreate the curves with the stock eq and say, every eq is the same
Yeah, I think thats what made them special. As. I say, with many ears over many years agreeing on the curves it's a few less decisions you're making yourself. It's almost like having presets.
Whenever I listen to music Im always like “Wow this has the best eq plugin EVER! YEAHHH!” Lol
You need to run a sine wave through the EQ plugin set flat and then look at the output through an analyzer. Does it add any harmonics? That’s the reason I’ll use EQ plugins other than Logic’s EQ at times.
I do… watch the harmonic distortion section.
@@StarskyCarr Ah… Too quick on the draw! Good job!
😂😂 where have I heard that before 😃
Could you copy an eq curve with a second track that is out of phase?
I’m not sure what you’re asking, but if they’re out of phase you’ll hear the difference. Maybe that’s what we heard in the video when I put 2 together..
Love that EQ analyzer! Interesting stuff. Looking forward to see how the new Pultec device in the beta version of Bitwig 5.2 compares. It does sound nice I will say that. Thanks for the great video.
You can match most of them... It at least come close, adding saturation.... But how much longer will it take you to dial an EQ? Will it sound as good when you do is manually.... Are you going to play with the slope or just the q? What's going to sound good for how the frequencies interact? I'm not saying to buy crazy overpriced analog emulation EQ... I'm saying that the plugins in this category that really do have their place!
I agree. Learning how they work is a great help too. Theres a reason why some are used on different instruments and some are good for mastering. What I’m attempting to show is that it’s possible but not always preferable. There’s a reason why the classic are classic. That ‘many years through many ears’ or whatever it is I say is really important.
Logic eq is always so clear.
Good video 👍🏼
When running sound through ANY analogue external gear - surely, it's not just a curve that can be e3mu8lated by any clean digital parametric EQ - you also get pleasant distortions, 'warmth', 'thickness', or shiny brightness without being ear-piercing etc.
That’s what the harmonic distortion section is looking at.
Thank you for the Bertom analyser tip.
I have UAD Api, Pulltec, Maag and uad SSL, Neve ch. strips eqs...got all of it very cheaply on a sale. My personal fav is Pulltec but I like them all AND most of the time I use anyway FL Studio stock eq plugins...at least at the early stage of mixing.
The most clever thing I did was something someone said years ago ... unsubscribe from any mailing list, I felt bombarded until finally buying something I never used, falling into the bargain trap, something Waves thought me is their stuff real value is always $29.99 (same as PG Alliance). As you professionally mentioned the EQ is a tool that must help the mix in context. My apologies if I am lost in translation, question: do you recommend getting for example a good hardware EQ, Elysia for example, also new or vintage, because there is a trend, almost as a cult for expensive to buy and maintain vintage hardware (that also looks nice in the back of a YT video even when is just a prop). Thanks again Starsky for your help. Music production is becoming as necessary as speaking latin :-( and every piece of advice is needed. Getting into your Patreon.
I think hardware vs software is becoming more about the psychology of mixing rather than the sound. With a nice piece of outboard you tend to take more time to learn it properly and understand how and where to use it. So perhaps people get better results because they're invested in the process. Having said that plenty of people get great results with software. For something creative like writing music I think you should do what makes you feels good and inspires you. If you love playing with hardware then great, but its not necessary... I've got a room full of synths when I could probably do everything on plug-ins!
@@StarskyCarr Thank you so much for your reply, we all really appreciate your time sharing your expertise and advice with us.
Wat about compressor emulations?
harder to demo with specifics. `the plugin doctor id great at showing what plugins are doing.. but you can only show AU or VST plugins not the stock plugins. So its a much harder thing to demo with the 'evidence'... without that I'd just get piled on by conflicting views.
This was really informative. Would be great to see one about 'analogue warmth' or the emulation and desire of that in saturation plugins.
Ive seen studio desk emulators (with crosstalk) and various attracting, but can it be replicated or what even is it?
The vid might help focus folk on what might help them (or save them endlessly window shopping!).
I’ve got one of those planned. I got the Thermionic Culture Vulture to do just that. So a distortion/saturation vid is in the cards.
What do you think of the Logic stock pultec emulation?
I didn’t know it had one 😂😂 I just click on the EQ at the top of the strip 🤦♂️
@@StarskyCarr 🤣DAWs are like that. Too much going on.
what do you think of the automatic accompaniment features on logic? Is it worth upgrading my 2019 Intel Mac for Apple silicon?
@@ManCalledMif ive not updated Logic yet, but I would highly recommend upgrading to Apple silicon. I noticed a huge difference in performance. A step change rather than increment.
I think it comes down to whether you want your processing plugins to add character to your sounds, or just tidy them up. The better analog emulation plugs definitely add something if that's what you're after. Having said that, I can happily mix most tracks solely using Toneboosters plugins, which cost peanuts.
Is this only for doof doof music?
Thanks for the analysis!
Stopped bying eq plugins after getting 2 hardware eqs. The difference is vast
There's a huge machine now that is the plug-in industry. It makes me roll my eyes a bit when I see a new greatest plugin press release every stinking day almost. So I understand the push back. It's getting a bit out of hand. I'm happy with really getting to know just a handful of plugs now.
I think I’m taking a step back rather than pushing back here. Taking stock of what I’ve got realising I’m not using it anymore. For some those little details are everything .. read the comments .. it’s really important to some folks. For me not so much.
Had similar issues with Plugin alliance SSL channel strips. With their filter, not being accurate at all, or Gate/Expander not being effective. Found that Waves SSL style channel strips to be way more accurate.
What about saturation??
Its in the harmonic distortion section
Comparing old-school plugins to stock plugins is fine and so is questioning the value of basic EQ plugins, but maybe a better question is looking at plugins that go beyond (faster, easier, more tools) and see what their value is. Things like pro q 3 and multiband plugins.
Not necessarily a better question but definitely another one. I don’t think taking things further is considered as potentially as much of a waste of money as emulations of hardware can be. The thing with these (and they’re not all vintage) is they don’t necessarily really take things further than what can be achieved with stock plugins,except perhaps the hardware ‘shortcuts’.
the reason you could not achieve perfect null between manley and logic eq is that uad's manley adds harmonics.
most probably. I did try tweaking the EQ to see if it was possible, but there was no way so it has to be something to do with extra sounds - and that could well explain analog sizzle.
A winner would be an EQ that has the curves, notches, characteristics etc of all the classics in one plugin, followed by a selection of transformer/saturation stages. Anyone know of this type of plugin?
Interesting…
@@StarskyCarr Something like slate's virtual mix rack is actually pretty welcome. Like you say even if something can be achieved through other plugins the recreations do save time. But something like a Fabfilter interface but with preset modelled parameters.
I literally just follow what I hear and what I want to hear when EQing, I basically only use Pro Q3, EQ8, and the three band EQ on Korvpressor and I can pretty much get any sound I want with that.
Sounds about right. I was only showing the curves to demo what was happening. It's the first time I'd tried it. I was surprised by the curves on the xfilter.. much broader than I thought - which goes to show ears are best!
@@StarskyCarr Yup yup. I also started to learn Smart EQ4, it is very nice for getting elements to sit where you want them to sit. But that is not a traditional style EQ though.
Do you use Fabfilter Stuff ?
I don’t - not for any particular reason - I just haven’t felt the need.
I would say, dont be sucked into the marketing and glossy GUIs by all these different manufacturers with their new greatest and powerful plugins and instruments, technology is so good now,that there is no one better than the other or groundbreaking anymore, i feel those days are gone, bit like the cameras on our phones, they are all so good now that you are going to get very good results no matter what brand you are using, it is all subjective, find the ones that work best for you and learn them inside out! Its a competitive market and its good to have choice, stock DAW eqs compressors etc are so good now, as are some of the free ones, there are also a fair few hardware devices that secondhand, are affordable if one wants to try different flavours outside of the DAW. Spend the time learning and using what you have available to you!
I think they do a good job of replicating the hardware, but so many just isn't necessary, and once you know whats going on you can get similar or the same results with stock plugins... gf course the specific harmonics etc of vintage units won't be possible, but you can get close enough, unless your after that specific tone. I think they're fun to play with, but no-ione should be fooled into thinking its going to make them sound like a pro.
Let's also not forget, 85% of people are going to be listening on a cellphone or laptops. I don't know if it's common, but I've heard of people checking their mastering on a tiny mono monitor because they know that's what most people listen on. Anyway, great video.
Was trying to figure out why I'm not a huge fan of 500 series EQs and basically came to the same conclusion. There shouldn't be any color in EQs and there's very little special functionality like you'll find in pres or compressors.
It's really all about what's intuitive for the user.
The Elysia sounds beautiful
One takes 5 seconds and I think that's the things, hpow you get there. So totally agree, it can be done and when its in the era of hardware eqs its magic! Now we see behidn the curtain we see why
Cubase stock eq and melda eq gets the job done for me
Included in Cubase 13
While i like the video, I have to disagree with a few things said on the technical aspects. Especially at 21:40 - analog EQs are ALL ABOUT distortion / saturation! My own conclusion is, that everyone who doesn't have the monitoring and/or ear to feel the hardware elysia sounds far superior in your demo at 08:25 should take care of THAT first - before spending ANY money on plugins.
I think analog EQs were traditionally all about EQ - and the ones that became classic are the ones that sounded best (harmonics) Now we have access to such clean modern devices the different harmonic character of the vintage units is what sets them apart from the crowd. So as I say, if you’re after a specific tone or character then yeah of course the emulations are the way to go, but if you’re just looking to get elements to fit in a mix then…. And you can add different saturation flavours after if wanted. The elysia has very low distortion levels - I show a clip for a couple of seconds at the end of that section, but there’s no doubt Logic’s EQ doesn’t sound identical. Although if listening with my ears rather than looking at the graph I could possibly have got them closer (the Neve mixer may also be doing something - I’m trying to remember what the signal chain was .. mixer before or after the Apollo, or if it was bypassed - I think it was bypassed). In the end it’s all about what you’re trying to achieve. For most the stock EQ will do all the EQing they’ll ever need. For other tasks or if you’re familiar with hardware then the emulations are the way to go.
I’ve bought many eq plugins, cheap and expensive, the only thing remotely close to analog is the DMG equilibrium, it makes things sound right, a lot of the vintage emulations I find a bit too eccentric, I’ve ended up spending far too long just wondering…
Once you have SOUNDGOODIZER ...Eq dont matter ... You have gone next level.
😂
Hardware's slightly wider @ 8:25 ? Not €1000 wider, but there's something going on I think.
That’s possibly the Neve mixer it has a widening circuit although I had it turned off you never know with these elctronics! Or could be the xfilter of course.
When u buy nice converters and high end speakers u can hear that 90 percent of the time u don't need to touch anything just choose the right elements.Eq makes everything sounds much much worse and unnatural.There is very little needed on the busses and a bit during master.Saturation totally replace eqs and compression especially on electronic music as there is no dynamic content .
Yeah I’ve found that gentle EQ if any is the best way. Separate the sounds by picking sounds that work well together, or tweak tones to suit. Heavy EQ was needed in a room full of drums and guitars, but I’m with you - less is more these days.
It's not the curves. You can emulate curves on any EQ. It's the internal circuitry that gives EQ plug flavor. Tubes and transistors. There are fantastic analog channel strips available. There's also really poorly coded ineffective plugs too. Choose wisely.
Yeah I take a look at the result of the components in the harmonic distortion section. It’s there but not huge. The compound effect of more harmonic tones and a whole track would make it more obvious - but hard to demo as these are the magic sparkles the ear candy for the brain that’s hard to distil
This is why Filterbank was way ahead of its time...
Yeah there’s no emulating that! 😂
@@StarskyCarr TDM on Protools.... way back.. Just saying how cutting edge its was... You where using it I guess, after all , not sure of the emoji..........What do I make of that?
do you Agree or disagree?
Im guessing you used it, back when....
(To add, im being polite.. as im not sure of you're connotations with your response...)
I’ve just had a similar confusion with someone’s comment too. So hard via texts sometimes … to clarify … I’m with you 👍
Someone’s been watching AP Mastering lol
No idea what that is but sounds like it might be right up my street 👍
This has been up several times for years, this is not a new thing people realise
@@razorgarf I guess!?
@@razorgarf Sure but AP Mastering essentially made the same video…3 days ago.
Literally
For the Pultec style EQ, sure... you could create something, especially in Ableton or Bitwig that emulates the curves and parameters. But if you want that SOUND... and the plug-in is relatively affordable, just buy it.
Bitwig 5.2 has now a built in Pultec emulation.
Match Curvee is ok but people been running thingz thrug PulTecs without even touching the EQ same with La2A and such Juzz for Color.
Pulled adds a few dB plus those even harmonics. It’d be interesting to see if it actually does anything audible other than volume. But if it gets better results for whatever reason then it’s doing its job.
@@StarskyCarr Yes but in HW there moe Mojo going on with Tubes and Distortion etc.
I think the real test is if you can get it to null or close to.
How close do you think these bills were?
Workflow is key, for me its worth the munne
I get that. If it works it works.
@@StarskyCarr Its still an artistic process while producing. If something reaches me and my creativity really well through specific choice of interfacing and I am happy with the results, then this is everything and what I choose dont has to be entirely rational and technically analyzed. Good video though! Its just that for me something tiny and simple like a color choice can make all the difference, the brain is a mystery
I agree 100% and what I was clumsily trying to get across in sections - but it’s hard to say everything without it becoming a waffle fest
All of these products sell nostalgia.
why are you digitally clipping the audio examples?
They were balanced and working fine but after I added the EQ they got much louder 🤦♂️ never thought of that!!! Duh 🙄 it took so long to match stuff I wasn’t going back 😂 I only noticed as I pressed record and at that point I was already running late and kids needed feeding.
The more i fanny about with EQs,the worse it gets.🤣
we all know how that feels! I spent a while not touching them at all and everything sounded better than all my fiddling :)
Ive made a promise to stop buying Mixing plugins !
Me too. Just record and take it to the studio and let them polish it.
and other lies you/we tell your/ourself 😅
That's it. I'm going to sell all my hammers. Because I can use my screwdriver to bang a nail in instead, if I turn it around.
Haha..that's the spirit... I take it you've not watched it yet ;)
@@StarskyCarr I did. And I was being sarcastic
@@ParadNorthProdI had hoped so 😂 difficult to tell on text. Especially when I can get so many no. Sarcastic weirdness! 👍
Pultec is a Big Smiley Face Switch
To be able to emulate the curve from the hardware you need the hardware. Without the hardware you don’t have a clue what you are emulating so the argument becomes moot imho.
I’m not really showing how to emulate the curve in order to repeat it on a track - I demo how it’s done to show how I’m analysing it. So you’re right, it’s a non starter from that perspective - and I say as much a couple of times. What I’m trying to show is how the same sound (or very close) can be achieved by stock EQs… but the hardware and emulations have their own way of doing things. This is preferable in some cases but if you know your EQ it’s not necessary. .. unless you’re going for a specific tone and vibe in which case the emulations do the trick simply and effectively.
@@StarskyCarr Thank you for clearing that up 😊
I think we're all getting tired of buying plugin "PICTURES"
I saw another creator post on this a few days ago and it irked me. Your point at the beginning is the biggest key here - Yes, you could achieve the same results with a stock EQ, but it is faster, easier and more repeatable to achieve desired results with emulated plug-ins. Workflow is king. Sure, Nova can do anything that any of the EQ's in the UAD native bundle can - but my mixes had a very notable improvement in quality and speed by using the UAD plug-ins. Not only that, but as someone in the process of expanding my hardware collection, having quality emulation plug-ins allows me to become intimately familiar with units that I'm considering purchasing which dramatically decreases the learning curve once acquiring the hardware unit, and I have plug-in backups for when I need, say, an 1176 across more than 2 channels at once.
Workflow - Workflow - Workflow.
I have no desire to sit here with an EQ curve analyzer to emulate emulated units, which clearly I would have had to purchase to be able to analyze to be able to effectively emulate the emulation in the first place. Seems like a completely moot point.
And there is something to be said for the UI of emulated EQ's - not having the graphical displays does force one to rely upon their ears.
Also, an analog EQ that essentially proves the point that EQ curves are able to be recreated is the UTEQ500 - which has settings that can emulate a wide variety of analog EQ's from Pultec's to G-Bus, to 1073 etc.
Absolutely. I hope it came across that I agree with what you’re saying. You CAN replicate them… but why would you? If you want the benefit of many years and many ears use the emulations. The curves are musical and things can be done quickly. But you can get the same results on stock EQs .. well at least near enough in most cases. If you’re not trying to copy the hardware, or haven’t used it, rely on your ears.
@@StarskyCarr Yes, that did come across, I was simply adding onto that perspective. I'm glad someone is making that argument in response to the opposing perspective that everything is a scam. Appreciate your content!
most people think a plugin eq or compressor can substitute their (dis)ability to arrange and compose, and in the end the abilty to mix. nope your boring 200 layer crap is still boring after all the plugin chains ;D. thats wqhy plugin developers tryin to sell you nice pictures simulating hardware. they all sell an illusion of being THE producer. i reckongnized that some plugins are really tricking into the more db trap upfront wihtout ANY setting done
you saw the video from ap mastering am i right? 😂
I’m going to have to find it … you’re about the 3rd person to mention it. 😂
Hoping that all this nerding about technical quibbles would translate to better music. Sadly, hasn't happened yet
You're absolutely right. Tens of thousands of bedroom musicians with millions of software synths and plugins... and no decent songs
Haha better produced maybe … but it looks like we’re going to have to rely on AI for the better music 😂
@StarskyCarr it were all Italo piano tunes round these parts when I were a lad
Just bought HMD Rosetta Eq... Loving it though appreciate it is a very lazy method of eq'ing
Nah bro you saw a video and stole the idea. Lmao be honest
Haha
No, not a ripoff. It’s the workflow, the bands, the way the curves interact, the quality of the algorithm. Pulseq is one style of EQ; there are dozens of others. Your video was off to the races right from the get go 😅. Enjoyed it nevertheless.
Cheers... I think! Covered all of those. .. I think!! :)
He said all of these things except "the algorithm" which doesn't mean absolutely anything lmao
@@ema6897yeah I can’t comment on the algorithms as I’ve no idea what they’re using.
I mean yeah they are eq curves… people always say the software is JUST the same as the hardware 🤣🤣🤣 can’t make it up
Why are you people shocked an EQ can do what an EQ is supposed to do.
Like.. OMG I CAN EQ MATCH!!! 😮🤯
No shit Sherlock.
😂😂
@@StarskyCarr Sorry for the rude tone. I actually agree with your conclusions. 👊🏾👌🏾
But been seeing some videos of this lately and it baffles me, that people are EQ matching in 2024 like it proves anything.
Only thing it proves that a digital EQ with endles amounts of bands and options can EQ match. Like thats it.. literally. What's the big whoop? 😅😅 I don't get it.
Btw love the look of the curves on that Elysia 😍
@@Trackformersno worries… that’s exactly what I thought you meant 🙏
@@StarskyCarr Good to hear that. And good look to you 🫡
@@StarskyCarr And thank you for being a honest one. And thanx for saving your commercials to the end.
Followed for that 🫡
The vintage emulators don't just emulate the originals' curves, they emulate the whole circuit path including the transformers, as is the case with UAD.
Which I demo in the harmonic distortion section.
@@StarskyCarr Then why did you title this video as a rip-off, instead of asking if they are a rip-off. There is value to vintage hardware emulations.
@@moe47988 Why did you comment without watching it? I don't label it as a rip-off, I'm clearly questioning the proposition. The big yellow question mark in the thumbnail is a bit of a giveaway as is the title which indicates I'm testing the idea of them being a rip-off.
@@StarskyCarr Because I watch a lot of youtube, but I don't watch every second of every video. You could have easily made the title match the thumbnail.
@@moe47988 matching the thumbnail and title isn't recommended as you're repeating yourself in the same frame
I just watched the part about phase response and thats probably the least accurate part of the video. Not only is phase response on things like lowcuts INCREDIBLY audible to even average listener ears, it also affects the entire signal chain and gainstaging afterwards as a shift in phase will in 99.9% of the cases also introduce a change in signal amplitude. Now there is no inherent advantage to certain types of phase responses, but its OBJECTIVE that it makes a difference.
Err… I demo that 😂😂
another you tuber did this exact thing recently.
And what was the conclusion?
@@StarskyCarr that all EQ plug ins are a scam like you said.
Sure, you proved you CAN match any EQ plugin curve on screen, if you are happy to sit and look at an analysis plugin for ages.
The problem is, that only works if you have already set up the actual EQ plugin you want to emulate (which you need to have installed) and dialled in the settings you like, only to then copy them with your stock EQ plugin.
What is the point of that?!
No one intuitively knows what the curves ‘should’ be to set the stock EQ to emulate a Pultec at any given setting, for example, so you need the Pultec (or any other EQ emulator) plugin first to see what it is doing to be able to emulate it to begin with. How else could you possibly match the curves?
Because you can do this doesn’t mean EQ plugins are not needed.
As a professional mixer, the idea of spending all that extra time just so I can say ‘I don’t need to buy other plugins’ is an absolute waste of my time and mixing a song will take soooo much longer for no added gain.
Time I would have to charge my client for and man, that’s not fair.
So again, sure you can, but why would you and when is that ever an advantage to a mix engineer?
Exactly my point. I’ve been doing this for decades and this was the first time I looked at what the plugins were actually doing .. hence the video.
not watched the video jet, but it's a 100% ripoff! there is zero benefit to buy all the plugins, they all sound the same.
check out the Carnaby 500 harmonic EQ from Cranborne audio!
Harmonics build up, especially in the high end. And that’s where the “color” comes in.
@19:57
Look, i love your videos but i think theres a lot of things your missing here. I really hate to write this as it sounds like an attack on you, i dont mean it to be. Im just frustrated with your conclusions.
EQ curves are just a part of the equation, good eq emulations do much more than that. You can generally hear that in respect to stereo depth, phase and saturation. You cover it, but again, not the best emulations (UAD is meh) and you've downplayed things.
Quite often i will throw these eq's on without even touching the knobs, no boosting, no cutting. Thats because they have certain aspects i like. I think of them as more color or depth tools. They are basically preamps with extra tweakability. If im doing small boosts or cuts i will quite often use a stock plugin before it!
Also Different pulteq plugins will sound vastly different to. Like theres one pultec plugin i use (and its free) for tight low ends where transients need to be retained, then theres another for bolder more 3d low end. . This applys to other types of emulations. And to he honest, the emulations your using arent exactly the best.
I really really dislike these types of "hey i can make these curves with stock plugins" videos because they miss the point. Your not the only creator thats done this and its cringe/annoying . It feels likes its copium for people who dont want to invest in plugins and the "i only use stock plugins" crowd. Sorry that was a bit of attack, i dont mean it to be.
In your demos you can hear deltas and they are from average at best emulations.
Also, as you know from hardware eq's its how you drive (gain stage) the eq to which effects the outcome due saturation, etc. You get different musical results.
That’s cool. We don’t always have to agree on stuff. I tried to get as much as I could in here without making a documentary or becoming a prolonged PowerPoint on EQ. You’re obviously in the ‘it matters’ camp, and there absolutely nothing wrong with that. I demo why it matters to some (albeit a bit downplayed as I’m talking from my perspective). I’m saying they’re not a rip-off if that’s what you’re using them for, but they’re not necessarily a magic ingredient if you don’t notice those things.
UAD and Softube are generally considered to be some of the best out there, and most people have heard of them and respect the brands which is why I used them.
Peace and love.. all good here 👍
Lost all of your credibility as soon as you said '3D low end'
@@NamelessSmilelol what because the semantics of how I describe something? Come on mate, you're better than that
@@Grant82gc the 'analog emulation' eqs are almost always just linear simple filter cookbook filters with a simple nonlinearity after. You're making out as if they're some black box
Please buy my attenuator, modeled after the golden Abbey Road attenuators of old! 😂
Think of the time you spend dicking around trying to emulate what a specific eq does using a stock daw eq. I'd rather use a Pultec-type or API-type eq and just get the job done. Or for an even bigger time-suck try emulating a Manley Massive Passive with your stock daw eq.
I don’t think anyone tried to emulate the curves manually. I was just doing it to show it could be done- but nobody would do it that way. BUT.. it might be because of those curves they sound subjectively ‘better’ to some.
@@StarskyCarr But why waste the time doing that?
@@musicman8942 That's exactly my point! I'm showing the type off things that hardware EQs do to the curves, which is different to the stock EQs that are much more precise. i.e. the main reason they sound different isn't because of some magic sauce, but because the curves are different... and to demonstrate the point I create the same curves on the stock EQ. Possibly no-one has ever done this in a mix. I'm doing it here only to hammer home the point. If for whatever reason you really want those curves buy the emulations, but you might get the same EQ result by ear with the stock EQs etc..
I find bbe sonic maximizer set to max over every track works. Jk
I’ve got an old hardware one somewhere. Must be in the loft.
EQ's are for people who can't choose and place a microphone correctly. ;-)
'plug-ins' ? Ewwwwww! #TheScreenIsDeath
Terrible approach to relaying information, you have your narration, what's going on screen as you adjust parameters of the EQ, seperate unrelated text to read, as well as music playing fairly loudly . . . gave up after just a couple of minutes, thumbs down from me.
😂 you’re probably right
Call me 'Old Fashioned', but when it comes 2 hardware EQ -I prefer my Behringer Ultragraph PRO GEQ3102 31-Band Stereo Graphic EQ!😈...
There's no pretentious arcane 'Knob-Snob' twiddling -U can SEE from across the ROOM Ur frequency curves (in STEREO w/ NO NEED of an O-Scope -BTW!)📈👀📉👀... There's ALSO 6db-12db Boost; LED I/O Meter; Input/Low-Cut/High-Cut Pots... I mean, if U CAN'T sculpt Ur sound w/ 'Surgeon-Like' accuracy w/ THAT -MAYBE Ur in the WRONG Business!😒... As far as DAW EQs go, I find the stock EQ that comes w/ Studio One QUITE sufficient!😇...
So, IMHO (and 40+yrs experice), any EQ emulator plugin w/ arcane knobs & switches is selling itself on its 'professional hardware reputation' (a convenient excuse 4 being overpriced) for somehow having a "Unique Flavor" (that U just CAN'T get w/any other CHEAPER EQ) in recording studios where its is chique 2 use overpriced hardware touting freq-knobs & switches IN PLACE of a Good Ol' Fashioned Graphic EQ. Let's face it: Frequency is Frequency Hi & Lo Cut & Boost, is ALL the SAME -The issue is between the UI & The EAR!👂...
Personally, I've been in Many a recording studios since '85, mixed/engineered (as well as wrote/arranged/produced & played drums/keys/vox as an artist myself); and in those studios that had a 31-Band Stereo EQ (as opposed 2 a 'Snob-Knob' EQ -which needs an O-Scope if U want a graphical reference!📈👀) -the workflow was ALWAYS a helluva-lot SMOOTHER!😇... Ultimately, a 'Good Ear' WILL HAVE the FINAL SAY & if THAT'S BROKE -No EQ, no matter the price, can FIX THAT!🙉...
Say what U will, 'Old Skool' works 4 ME!😈 AND, If it👂ain't BROKE -Don't FIX It!😎
Haha snob knob 🎩 🎛️ never heard that before 😂