EQ,s(inbuilts vs plug ins)

seannash

So i was just wondering about this.whenever i go to eq anything i tend to just hit the eq button in logic and the inbuilt standard eq pops up.
i like it,use it alot but i dont tend to use my sonalksis one for bass,leads,kicks.

i actually dont know why i do this to be honest.i cant really hear much difference between them.i do love the control on the sonalksis one though.

so im just wondering what advantages 3rd party has over inbuilts

Anima

I've wondered this myself. Personally I don't notice much of a difference between plugins although I've never done an A/B comparason.

I remember in college we built a parametric EQ in a DSP lab, there didn't seem to be a whole lot to it. It must be the plugins that are emulations of older gear that sound different.

Neurojazz

I've done an A/B with the Oxford Sonnox and the UAD Cambridge (so could be considered a hardware comparison within the DAW) and the difference in the highs were obvious... the Cambridge was much sweeter and all the software EQ grated compared the the UAD one.

The sonnox was much better for shelving that the DAW in built eq... you could have up to a 24db per octave low pass... great for cleaning up mush.

seannash

Neurojazz wrote: »

I've done an A/B with the Oxford Sonnox and the UAD Cambridge (so could be considered a hardware comparison within the DAW) and the difference in the highs were obvious... the Cambridge was much sweeter and all the software EQ grated compared the the UAD one.

The sonnox was much better for shelving that the DAW in built eq... you could have up to a 24db per octave low pass... great for cleaning up mush.

okay so the 3rd parties will generally give a cleaner boost to signals than the inbuilts(if that makes sense).
one thing i do like about logics inbuilts is that they have a 48db per octave low and high pass on there eqs.

Miss_Terry

seannash wrote: »

okay so the 3rd parties will generally give a cleaner boost to signals than the inbuilts(if that makes sense).
one thing i do like about logics inbuilts is that they have a 48db per octave low and high pass on there eqs.

There are 6 or 8 different algorithms for types of shelves though - some steeper than others (having a steeper roll off) - i don't know why this is, but i think the ecliptic is the steepest i've seen so far.

Then you get those pultec things which are very different sonic effect again.

jtsuited

with EQ's one of the big things is 'ringing'. All eq's ring to a certain extent but some more than others.

From what I can make out the ringing is actually certain resonances that present themselves as artefacts or something like that.

Some EQ's are designed to be transparent and clinical (normally anything with the word 'Precision' in it). Others are for more musical purposes (I find the UAD pultec great for this type of thing).

Then apparently there's an issue of 'smearing' with eq's. Word on the street is that most cheaper eq plugs smear the sound to an extent (Logic's inbuilt one for example).

Tbh, most debates about EQ can be filed under 'a load of esoteric nonsense', and any eq will do the job. Especially if you're not recording 'real' instruments or vocals.

seannash

jtsuited wrote: »

with EQ's one of the big things is 'ringing'. All eq's ring to a certain extent but some more than others.

From what I can make out the ringing is actually certain resonances that present themselves as artefacts or something like that.

Some EQ's are designed to be transparent and clinical (normally anything with the word 'Precision' in it). Others are for more musical purposes (I find the UAD pultec great for this type of thing).

Then apparently there's an issue of 'smearing' with eq's. Word on the street is that most cheaper eq plugs smear the sound to an extent (Logic's inbuilt one for example).

Tbh, most debates about EQ can be filed under 'a load of esoteric nonsense', and any eq will do the job. Especially if you're not recording 'real' instruments or vocals.

i rememebr that freemasons in the studio video they did a bit on smearing.
think the said that sony oxford eqs where the only ones they found that didnt smear.

seannash

so is it safe to say most of us dance music folk need not worry about it.our inbuilts should do a decent enough job.

jtsuited

yeah, the inbuilt ones will do fine.

*awaits onslaught from the audiophile world*

Miss_Terry

Well, to be honest - i think the dance music people abuse EQ and use it to sculpt what they want in the panorama of the mix... maybe sometimes like a bandpass would or pick out some squealing tops and cut the rest from a distorted synth... not used like the normal audiophile in anyway they'd approve

I think dance music people abuse the gear and end up using anything to get a result that fits at the end of the day

splitrmx

When and where are you guys using shelving EQ? I hardly EQ anything when doing music, maybe that's one of my problems though!

Neurojazz

Steep shelves on the low end remove sub harmonics that interfere with the frequencies above (think MATHS, the more ****ty low frequencies you have add up and create a mass of low frequency information that muddies the bottom end)

Also, most instruments sit in the 150-350 register on the htz scale, so can clean up mixes by tweaking / cutting with a high Q on some sounds to make room for more important sounds.

If you want to get really anal about it you can side chain EQ to remove frequencies when the main sound plays that you want prominent.

The thing to remember is that 'sounds layered on sounds' = more volume across the shared frequencies, so it's handy to use EQ to make some space in a cluttered mix.

hubiedubie

I've never been able to tell the difference between my eqs (Ableton stock and T-Racks's) however I've never consciously tried. I generally just reach for Abletons. To be honest I don't use EQ that much yet. Only really to tame the low end of sounds interfering with the kick and the bass.

splitrmx

All the mixing guides I've ever read have all promoted the same basic theme which was "use EQ as little as possible" and "use panning and volume adjustments a lot before you think about EQ".

Do people here generally do a lot of EQing? How many EQs and where about did you use them on your last track?

Neurojazz

As a track progresses each track pretty much has an eq on it for myself... I'd be removing unwanted frequencies and picking out things i want (not that this is anyway the 'right thing')

I rarely boost excessively, the most drastic stuff is done with surgical EQ (like on the duende) or fixing masters with dynamic EQ that pop in when needed (they are the safest to use really) - the only boost i've done that's excessive is when a softsynth might have some really cool but quiet harmonics in the mix and i'll i'll crank it for fun.

Take a look at the Brainworx M/S digital processor, it's a typical tool that people would use at the final stages of a track being mastered - and really helps the stereo mixing.

Pretty much use your ears, learn.

Even big 'no-nos' can be turned on their head with someone taking a creative angle on the misuse of technology.

Trust the ears on yer head, not the lummox in *insert website/publication/book*

PaulBrewer

Miss_Terry wrote: »

Well, to be honest - i think the dance music people abuse EQ and use it to sculpt what they want in the panorama of the mix... maybe sometimes like a bandpass would or pick out some squealing tops and cut the rest from a distorted synth... not used like the normal audiophile in anyway they'd approve

I think dance music people abuse the gear and end up using anything to get a result that fits at the end of the day

I think Miss Terry may have hit the nail on the head.

I guess you could sub divide implementing EQ as 'Standard' and 'Non-standard' .

Standard in this example might be eqing a vocal to make it sweeter (whatever da feck THAT means), perhaps some top and dynamically eqing with a de-esser etc.

Miss Terry's example might be Non-Standard use.

Obviously both approaches equally useful in all Music types.

In the Standard example sometimes 3rd Party Plugins may be preferable. However most 'Inbuilt' EQs are good as workaday tools.

Also sometimes one needs the benefit of superior DA conversion and Monitoring to hear the differences .

One probably won't hear much difference otherwise.