03.11
I’m going to make a broad statement that seems to cause some to fret.
All Digital Parametric EQ’s are the same.
Read the entire post to fully understand the statement.
Ok now time to explain.
I know your sitting there saying but hey my Waves , URS, Oxy, UAD, Vox, blah blah sound completely different. This is why. With emulation plugins you have EQ+X. X can = Saturation, bandwidth limits, softclips, & so on. Now take away X what do you have? The EQ algorithm.
Lets look at Digital EQ types.
1. Parametric/Series – “PEQ”.
(These are the most common track EQ’s, Most channelstrip EQ’s, Most Plugin EQ’s, Native DAW eq’s, it’s never ending. )
2. Parallel – More uncommon in the digital world. Algorithmix has one.
3. Linear phase – Mastering EQ
These 3 types will be different. But PEQ’s are the most commonly used/emulated.
You can take any respectable PEQ and create all of the curve/phase characteristics of any other digital PEQ. It is the “X” that is the variable. The Q & Gain numerical value settings are a developer decision. You can’t compare EQ’s by matching dials & numbers. You have to use analyzers & match curves.
Digital emulations for the most part are marketing hype. If you use a fully variable PEQ like the one that comes native with your host & saturation plugins/tools. You will be able to recreate just about any classic console EQ you have heard.
Don’t just take my word for it, listen to the developers.
Read this from Algorithmix
Quote:The truth is that with a properly designed, fully parametric analytic PEQ, every amplitude and phase characteristic of any other equalizer setup can be recreated. Of course, the contribution of distortions to the specific sound of a particular analog equalizer caused by the respective electronics has to be considered. If the distortions are ‘good’, they may make certain applications sound better.
So spend your $ on the tools that actually make a difference.
Here is an EQ example.
Everyone likes null tests right =)
So I took two supposedly “drastically different classed” Digital parametric EQ’s.
The external DSP hosted SSL Duende X-EQ, & compared it with Sonars native Sonitus EQ. You can get them to null.
The test signal was pink noise, tone & a drum mix. FYI – Noise is far from lacking dynamics. It’s actually extremely dynamic. The full bandwidth signal gives the impression of a common static level. Use a bandpass & you will see how chaotically dynamic it is. Pink noise will stress any test much harder then a typical mastered music track. & yes it nulls with music as well.
This was the X-eq setup.
This is the Sonar EQ with the setting I tweaked to null.
To get the settings I panned the channels hard L&R and matched the frequency response. You can see the 2 overlapping lines. Blue = X-eq, Orange = Sonar. You can see single orange pixels if you look close.
This is a bunch of stereo image meters that show the lack of phase differences. I mean LACK of differences.
This is what happens if you bypass one of the EQ’s for comparison.
So whats this mean?
As I said I’ve found emulation plugins for the most part to be hype. But you might find the interface more creative, Or you might like the type of saturation the plugin uses in it’s design, Most don’t have a saturation stage.
All in all your better better off using a fully variable EQ & a saturater tool/plug-in.
But all is not lost if you have invested in a “vintage” plug-in bundle. Most plug-in bundles included compressors. Unlike EQ’s compressors come in many shapes and forms. & tools like the URS CSP with it’s input stage really can change a compressors quality/reaction.
In the end the quality variables are down to internal resolution, oversampling capabilities, & so on. There is no magic in the emulation.
—————
Other comparisons.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————————————– 
——————————————————————————————————————————– 
——————————————————————————————————————————– 
——————————————————————————————————————————–
I decided to take it a step further.
How close could I match the waves SSL with analog on.
So instead of using sonar & my usual URS saturation I decided to try it with all native Ableton Live plugins. At 1st I was having a hell of a time trying to match the EQ Phase. That is until I turned off Live’s Hi quality EQ mode.
Live oversamples with Hi quality on.
Here are the EQ setups.
Frequency Response with saturation.
The left measures frequency differences & the right is phase. Not bad, it’s near mono. Pretty cool for completely different tools.
..
really impressive tests.
very nice article!
congrats
LOL – i love it. I’ve been feeling like everyone has been getting duped by these “vintage GUI’s” for a long time.
The proof is in the pudding. Thanks for doing this.
Very interesting tests. Are you able to do test with UAD plugins?
No i don’t have a UAD at my disposal. Anyone care to donate? =)
How much did you spend to get theses results ? I don’t deny your tests (looks serious), but… When I use a plugin which emulate a hardware, it’s for the “sound” but also for the efficiently of the controls… Setting up a UAD 1073, 88RS or Pultec for a vocal track can takes me only a minute to have the result I expect… Even “if” you can null it with a generic EQ, how much time do you have to spend to get the same result ?? Is it even possible if you’re not trying to null a snapshot ? Don’t forget all theses are tools, and the way they get you to the result is as much important as the sound you get from (at least for me, doing it for living). Thanx for your time anyway, it’s interesting results.
“How much did you spend to get theses results ?”
Not really the point at hand. I’m not suggesting everyone should match EQ curves. What i wanted to share is that a fully variable PEQ can emulate them all.
If you use your ears & dial in the tone you desire, you will not be missing some “magical” quality of some digital vintage emulation. You won’t get improved fidelity by switching to a different EQ.
But i will say with an analyzer it’s not to hard to match curves at all. As i mentioned in the article it’s the balance of convenience vs price that one most decide on for themselves. For myself i prefer to use my ears & dial in the curves i desire. I’ve taken the time to learn the audible effect of creating curve shapes. But for some having the “preset” classic curves found in emulations saves them the need to dial anything in. It can be less distracting or have a more creative work-flow. I fully understand the importance of that. For myself until a digital EQ algorithm contains not only the saturation stage but also the phase/delay characteristics of the analog counterparts, there is no reason for me other then GUI preference to use one digital PEQ over the other.
The test signal was pink noise, tone & a drum mix. FYI – Noise is far from lacking dynamics. It’s actually extremely dynamic. The full bandwidth signal gives the impression of a common static level. Use a bandpass & you will see how chaotically dynamic it is. Pink noise will stress any test much harder then a typical mastered music track. & yes it nulls with music as well.
Let me add an analogy with cars to clear my point. What you’re saying is : every car can make you go to point A to B. And you’re right. With your tests, you prove that a commercial who say “with my car you’ll can reach a point the other cars can’t” is wrong.
But they can say “with my car, it will be faster, more comfortable, and you’ll not loose yourself cause we have a GPS”. So YES you’ll arrive to the same point B with a Porsche, Mercedes, Hyundai or the new TATA Nano (or even bicycle !). The point is, when you’re work is traveling, or if you have enough money and likes to travel, some cars are really better than others at what they do. It’s not about the design of the car…
I understand your view, I do. I really love classic analog hardware for dedicated tasks. But when i’m driving my “digital car” I pick a single vehicle with a that can be anything from a bicycle to a tank.
Hey..very impressive !
I’d really appreciate if you could also check these two EQs:
- Eiosis AirEQ (they claim to emulate an analogue console curves unlike in most common digital EQs). You should be able to demo it and also please read what they say in their website.
- TriTone digital plugins (AngleTone and HydraTone)
Gary.
Also, here’s some info about the
AMLT Technlogy offered in AirEQ
http://www.eiosis.com/amlt
i think you should check it out just to know better what to test
looking forward for the results!
Just checked out the AirEQ & added a screen-shot.. Nice EQ, I like that it doesn’t give you number indication & makes you use your ears. Not sure if AMLT is anything more then over sampling. I was still able the match the bands. Not sure what “AIR” boost is actually is doing.
“AirEQ also features a special “Air” band, which is a new type of filter that helps you to restore or to add brightness to the sound. ”
I’m guessing harmonics & or saturation.
Like i said overall great EQ but not seeing anything that doesn’t fall into EQ + X addon…
Wow. You are definitely the man. That really is the long and short of it. You don’t need the expensive emulators. I’m guilty of an expensive Waves purchase. Most DAW’s really do come with the tools you need to meet the exact same demand. i know better and should have thought about it. Superb tests and examples. Thanks for the insight.
hogwash
you’re my kind of guy. don’t believe the hype!
of course i thought this was nonsense until i took my much-loved sonalksis eq and the much-hated live7 eq and was able to line them up 99% perfectly. for some of the alternative sonalksis shelf curves i needed 2 live shelves, but once i found that out, it was easy. i still like the sonalksis, because it gives me access to good curves immediately. but now i see that with a bit of practice i could get the same results out of the live eq.
i just wonder how to interpret this. same spectrum and no phase difference means they sound the same, right? so… do live eq and sonalksis have the same x (distortions) or just a minimum amount of them?
i gather from this post that there is just 1 peq design. is that true? if so, designing an eq boils down to taking that design, making sure the parameters map in a ‘musical’ way and then add distortions to give the eq character.
and is it differently in the analog domain? or is there only 1 design too? i suppose that there, even choosing different capacitors changes the character of the basic design. is that the phase/delay characteristics you’re talking about? so why don’t people emulate that?
finally, as i understand it, an eq is just a bunch of filters. so could you match any filter as well? i could get the lpf in the sonalksis eq and lpf in the live eq to line up, but lining up live’s autofilter and sonalksis tbk filter proved impossible. does it have to do with the resonance? (=distortion) or are there different filter topologies that all sound different?
i’m quite excited about this, so lots of questions. hope you answer some of them.
I couldn’t agree more.
Most of what people buy with Plug-In EQs is the name and the pretty pictures.
Hi, could you make a test with the Nebula-Plugin. It has a different approach to the whole topic.
Thanx in advance
Thomas
WOW!
Thank you man! Great experiments and great info.
Can you tell what about compressors with more details?
[...] Check out this link. [...]
Nice work! We always should remind ourselves to just close our eyes and listen (as hard as that can be when using a DAW). Keep up the good stuff, I look forward to reading more.
Dan
Interesting. Let me see if I get it, did you somehow tweaked them to remove the X factor from them? or are you matching them right as they are and stating they have no unique character?
If we base ourselves on the concept that digital emulators are allegedly quite faithful reconstructions that mimic the circuitry, signal-flow and characteristics of the internal parts of an analog EQ using algorithms how can you say they are all the same?
Great job. Very informative!
very good article!
Can you tell me how you notice and correct the phase differences?
Thanks!
saw this months ago already. yesterday i did a quick test myself (without nulling though) and was surprised how equal they sounded! i guess there’s a few special EQ’s though such as the pultec emulations (UAD, t-racks) with a certain mojo, standard digi eq’s don’t have.
another exception is acustica audio nebula 3!
well, it’s not a “real” digi eq, but a convulsion thingy..really worth trying (if you havent already).
there’s free versions of it for pc and mac aswell.
i’d be interested what a guy like you says to that one.
cheers
Hi there!
Very interesting read. Any chance you might give the UAD eq:s, like Neve 1073/1081, Pultec and Harrison a go?
Well if iI ever get my hands on a UAD I will for sure..
Using VST Plugin Analyser on Automap wrapped Waves SSL EQ (the original UI can’t be used in VST Analyser), the imaginary domain has some noise like signal when the “analog” is turned on. I wonder how this contribute to the sound.
Brilliant work, rhythminmind! Tests like yours are so important for folks making music these days, who rush to empty their bank accounts for the latest & greatest (including DAWS that all produce identical sound). I’ve been fooled before, too. Better to spend TIME developing the ear and learning to use the tools we have. I’ve bookmarked your site to revisit & share with others.THANK YOU!
Great work. I did exactly the same thing a while back. Same results, except for Nebula and UAD, They will not null and are doing what they are supposed to do. doesn’t fall into EQ + X addon…
I’ve tried a few different Eqs and never really heard a difference. Glad to see that I wasn’t crazy!
I recently have been trying to resist using my ‘go-to’ plugs when mixing, instead trying to use the stock ones included with Cubase, or at least a freebie that I’m not familiar with. I’ve learned two things: 1. Using gear that you don’t ‘know’ forces you to listen and not just go with what has worked in the past, and 2. If you’re listening closely, you can get almost any effect you want with the stock plugs.
Fun stuff!
im loving my sonitus eq. does everything i’ve ever needed. even though i have more expensive e.q. plugins, i use it around 95 percent of the time. because let’s face it…a 3 db boost at 1k, is a 3db boost at 1k, no matter the eq.
so what you’re saying is; that instead of just using a Waves EQ and being done with it, you should get the sound you want with Waves, pan it to the left, then duplicate the track on the right and spend hours emulating the sound with various cheap/free plugs… just to prove a point? Sounds like you’ve got too much time on your hands!
No.
Don’t confuse the explanation examples with creative method.
I have shown that buying 3rd party tools labeled with “fill in the blank” vintage marking terms, with the hope/anticipation of better sound might not be a wise decision.
Furthermore…
One using the tools they have already obtained & most importantly their ear can, achieve the sound they are wanting. (With knowledge & skill-set).
There is no unknown magic in audio processing. Audio processing & signal flow is science. The more you understand how the science & math work, the more you understand how to create magic while mixing audio.
[...] All Digital EQs Were Created Equal Filed under: Cool Stuff — Tags: eq, music software, music technology, plugins — nkholmes @ 3:36 pm More or less. Check this post out: Digital Eq Fact and Myth. [...]
This is a great article!
There ARE a couple of points that I think ought to be mentioned though.
As a designer of EQs (the Sonalksis and Focusrite EQs for example, plus a new one I’m working on at the moment), I can tell you that there are a bunch of different mathematical techniques available for designing digital EQ curves.
The biggest difference you would expect to see is at the very top end, up near nyquist.
I imagine you would find that if you added some air with a bell using something like AirEQ, you might need a couple of bands to accurately replicate that.
It was very unfortunate that your AirEQ example did nothing at the top-end.
I’d actually go so far as to say that the “cramped” top end that the bilinear transform imparts was partly responsible for the “cold” and “sterile” reputation that early digital audio had. Effectively, the top-end air was getting cut out. For a long time since, the Orfanidis technique has been ubiquitous in well designed EQs, although as good as it is, it’s not necessarily perfect.
Eiosis overstate the point in their AMLT demonstration (for instance, in their graphs, the gain at nyquist is incorrect, despite the principle of the Orfanidis technique being that it ALWAYS generates the correct nyquist gain), but it is true that if exactly matching the analogue shapes is your objective (which it probably ought to be, since they’re consistent), the differences between the analogue and digital domains mean that a good approximation is the best that can be done.
For mid frequencies, you’re absolutely right that you shouldn’t expect to see any differences. At the same time, I think creative usage of Q is an excellent skill to develop; and a well-designed EQ (analogue OR digital) will have the gain and Q interact in a productive way – guiding your hand as you work.
A crucial point that’s often ignored is that these vintage analogue EQs that we get excited about are not interesting because they’re old, nor because they’re analogue, but because THOSE are the designs that were good enough to be remembered. What this tells us is that the interactions and ranges, and overall workflow are good. When what you’re looking for is a tool, a well-designed tool has value. If an EQ makes things sound good in 10 seconds, you can fairly judge that it’s a better-designed EQ than one that takes 10 minutes to get a good sound. Sure the maths is still the maths, as you’ve said, but what matters is not the set of shapes it CAN achieve (which, neglecting >10k, is generally the same set), but which set of shapes the workflow guides you towards.
Thanks again for a great article!
Thanks Dave for the detailed reply. It’s great to get information & viewpoints direct from developers. Much appreciated. Did you ever work for AMS? Just curious, i’ve had some lingering questions about the DFC eq options on the consoles I deal with.
I’m afraid I didn’t, but I believe one of the other Sonalksis guys did.
Drop them a mail and ask for Gus; I’m sure he’ll be happy to help!
All the best,
Dave.
Ha!
This is amazing work. I know you don’t have a girlfriend but that’s ok man.
I have to add that even if they looks the same doesn’t mean that they behave the same in a 120 channel mix. With that said.
Everyone should know, the music business is not a “fair” place and this whole scam made by the Audio scene is just one of the many that they have pulled on people with not enough confidence since the death of the tape recorder. I have been using Logic 5 since it came out and I still make it sound better that most pro-tools users do… why. I will tell you soon.
Your test also mirrors the fact that many talented people never gets a break in life and some without knowledge live like kings for knowing how to MC an acoustic guitar or setting up a mic (thinking mostly about RnB business and rap business).
In all fairness YOU (who has aaaaaaall this knowledge) should be one doing Michael Jackson records and not some joke who doesn’t even know where a “c” (his last producer) note is on the piano (not Bruce Swedin) but that’s the way of the world. Isn’t it?
So what I’m trying to say is that, it is what it is even if you and I don’t like it, peoples brains don’t “null” and that should be the tool to use when working, your test just proved to me that all this CRAP about equipment don’t mean SHIT. It’s all in the songs and melodies and whatever you use it’s STILL all about music and songs.
LET this be a lesson to all “gearslutz” out there who think that by buying the latest UAD or Waves Eq they are the shit, That’s not it man, it’s in the music and SONGS. Learn music and develope that and then come back to MIX and use whatever to get where you want it, because it’s not in the EQ, not at all. It’s in YOUR music and that my friends can never null.
Daniel
The audio pirate
I concur, focusing on the music rather then the gear will result in drastic improvement. Much more so then any single device. For the most part I agree with your view. ( all but the GF comment that is , I’m proud to say shes as crazy as I am. : ) )
Glad you hear that you have love in your life, you deserve it man! And again congrats on a discovering the Atlantis of engineering.
Daniel
Nah can’t say I discovered anything, This information is common place with audio engineers. Not to confuse the term “audio engineer” with “mixer” that is so often done today.
I just happen to be both & maybe more persistent/vocal then the average.
BTW, did you feel fooled by SSL when you found out that your X-eq and the Channel strip really sounds the same?
Like you I’m using DSP cards, and the Duende is one of my favorites (in v. 2.59 mode), Glad that you saved me 350 Euros, as i already got all I need it seems.
It would be cool if you did some tests of heavy mixes when working with DSP vs Native. I will keep an eye on this site and show it to all my friends. You are a fresh brief of air my friend. Good luck with everything.
They are meant for two different tasks. The channelstrip emulates the classic SSL EQ curves/dial limitations that many find so musical, with of course it’s punchy ass dynamic section. X-eq is a non restricted EQ. Allows for unlimited adjustment unlike the channelstrip. But to answer your question I won’t be buying X-eq anytime soon, as I have found the sonitus covers that identical capability. I have my duende (ver 2.x as well) to offload CPU cycles & its compressors are the best i’ve used ITB. Being the drummer I am I love the SSL punch.
Thank you for this study….We need more of this sort of comparison. The magazines tend to be beholden to their advertisers, so reviews there are always pushing the newest toys. We as gear junkies also are sometimes tempted into collecting more toys. In the end, it’s about the music. A great musician can make great music with even the most limited and primitive gear; I think of how many times I have heard incredible jazz drummers make pathetic thrift-shop drum kits sing and swing. In fact, the limitations can foster creativity, and also force one to really learn an instrument (including a plug-in) in depth. Sometimes too many options just become overwhelming, and one can spend all day scrolling through presets.
Thank you again. Keep up the great work!
Interesting stuff. Thanks. Are you sure you can’t do the same with most plug-in compressors? I’m pretty sure I could get most compressor emulations with a single powerful plug-in compressor (such as Waves C1) coupled with optional harmonic distortion on the input/output, and maybe an EQ on the side channel. But unlike you I couldn’t even begin to bother trying, so I might just be talking out of my @rse.
…compressor are a different story
…there are a lot of variables involved there…attack and release curve shapes for example…it’s impossible to emulate different compressors with only one digital compressor, Reacomp for example, even if it has a lot of parameters to tweak… consider that a compressor is a time variant system, unlike a digital equalizer that is a time invariant system…;-)
btw i made a similar experiment with Nebula (API550B program with one kernel so no THD here…) and, in the limit of the frequency and phase response matching accuracy (it’s near impossible to go below +/- 0.1 dB of accuracy and especially the phases are really hard to match near the Nyquist frequencies..), the results tend to null…like differences of about -40dB rms….
so even with Nebula, there is no magic involved here… Nebula compressors are another story however..
Yes, shortly after posting my last comment I did actually try and match an 1176 to a Waves C1, and came to the same conclusion as you – that getting COMPLETE accuracy is impossible. The envelope shape of the release decay was particularly tricky. But, having said that…I did get it quite close – close enough for rock and roll? Maybe!
Thanks again.
It’s not what you see, it’s what you hear. Don’t rely on this destracting test. It states nothing! I compared a bunch of eq’s yesterday myself and found out that with the exact same settings they all sound DIFFERENT. The best was Sonnox Oxford Eq, it just blows everything out of the water in terms of sound quality, especially Type 3 that emulates Neve sound, but Type 1 is even better for comparison, Waves simply don’t have a chance. I compared just soft plugins, but I think that SSL Duende and UAD are in the same league, not sure about Liquid Mix and Powercore.
Take the time to understand the article. If you walk away with anything, walk away with this.
There has never been a regulated standard for EQ parameters.
The numerical Gain, Frequency, & Q setting on EQ A, Will not equal the numerical Gain, Frequency, & Q setting on EQ B.
You can lead a horse to water, as they say…!
That’s what I’m saying lol
I’m a music producer, not a mathematics professor or developer. I need just the tool which is complete and ready to be used. Why inventing the bicycle when you can just buy it?
But you did a great post actually and I hope these suckers at Waves drop their prices.
Can you please post the emulation settings you used to match the SSL Duende X-Eq, really want to compare to Oxford Eq.
Thanks
Also to Daniel Flores…
Equippement that you use really Do have impact on your music. You just need to know how to use it.
I think you need to move on to PS2, the graphics are much better dude… also on Ps3 hahaha
I have no comment on your post………
Somebody mentioned phase differences, is it possible that the FFT tests would show the same results but completely miss phase artifacts, like smearing or loosing transients as with non-linear phase IIRs.
[...] All digital parametric EQ’s are the same. [...]
VERY impressive post here — I am a huge fan of using good outboard gear rather than expensive software.