DigitalAudioSoft - EQ Suite

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:14 pm

you think of me ?

O.K. you know that this is a joke. Why async? I try to work with sync signals in SCOPE if possible... much faster... But maybe you're talking about something totally different.

[ This Message was edited by: MCCYRANO on 2006-09-25 15:23 ]

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:26 pm

Why async? I try to work with sync signals in SCOPE if possible... much faster

wowww !!!

Post by **hubird** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:28 pm

On 2006-09-25 15:11, sonolive wrote:
i should need some beta testers !!!
any one ?

you need beta testers??

great timing, you're funny without realizing

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-09-25 16:30 ]

bill3107 · Post by **bill3107** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:37 pm

a tiny message to say i have swithed off my tv ... much better to look at this thread...

Too bad i have not understand half of the comments...

... just hope it helps people looking for EQs. I must admit that i just prefer the GUI from DAS rather than that of DE-VICE. As for the sound itself? It does not matter as i now use the EQs from my sequencer and send the buses into scope.

Jo
heu.. does it bother if i am french?

Post by **hubird** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:45 pm

no, why?

DSP has better sound than native they say, so you better stay with Scope eq

,

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-09-26 01:11 ]

Hysteric · Post by **Hysteric** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:28 am

DSP's are so darn argumentitive though, it's real lucky they're so great

tgstgs · Post by **tgstgs** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:58 am

Ive missed this discussion course i was very buissy the last few days;
I dont want to take part of one side or offend or deffend or whatever;
I also dont want to put oil in fire,
but you know this is musicforum isnt it and people discuss aspects of music;
So i feel that i must post this one; Sorry in advance!!
At first to say iv made non of the tests people here did
so dont want to comment this;
to me this phase phenomenon ocurse in the analog world live on stage;
but its digital also;

Test ist made with a song i recorded few months ago; !!!NOT MASTERED!!!
contains full Drum (analog), BAS, Guitar, Organ, Vocal and Percussion
there are also synth involved but only for percusive additional effect;
So i have full spectrum with a analycer;
i took only the left channel duplicated it in Nuendo;
so i have 2 MONO files of same contend on different channels
one panned to the right one panned to the left;
the first one is routed over a Nuendo EQ to asio source to one channel strip of dynamic mixer;
The second one is routed direct to asio source from there to PEQ4 M to another channel strip of Mixer;
I iverted one channel on Dynamic MIxer; whatching the output of this sum;
the dynamic Mixer is 'not phase comp.'!!!
with Bypassed on both EQs i get a Signal to 0 ( first led of VU is blinking)
but on speaker i hear no sound;
So i made a setting on Nuendo EQ and the VU goes up as expected; i can hear now
Then i give the same Numbers in CWEQ to see the result;
after 5 minutes of tweaking the PEQ 4 M
the result goes to 0
check it out

'if i know how i would have posted a picture here but everyone can redo in a few minutes'

So what the F*ck is that!!
Steinacle uses CW Atoms !!

NO

the answer is very simple;
if you look to deep into the structure you finaly see MATH
(of Mr. Einstein the one and only and his Math friends)
does this mean every EQ is the same

NO

its the nuances the makes the difference and developers would be mad if they tell you;

Finally to say you could phaseOUT every wavesource equal what they are passing!!

its a trick engineers use live on stage;
just a good EQ of what sort ever and a good engineer and the signal is gone to 0 (nonhearable)

If some will redo this test
take wave source whatever you like;
take Nueando Sonar VST SX or whatever
route as me
and ply with the EQs finding the point where sum is to 0
the result depends on the source so different source have different settings!!
check it out! it takes just a few minutes
If you want to get better results course one led is still blinking
you had to phase comp. the dynamic mixer and put a delay behind PEQ 4 M
course there are differend runtimes of the signals

its like human ;
we all made of the same substances 99.9%
but this 0.1% is why we all dont look the same and some are good some bad;
its the nuances that makes the difference

i do not reply on this post i dont want to get involved in something i dont have do to with
maybe we discuss the aspects on another tread another time;

good vibes from vienna

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:11 am

"the answer is very simple;
if you look to deep into the structure you finaly see MATH
(of Mr. Einstein the one and only and his Math friends)
does this mean every EQ is the same

NO"

With your results I would say:

Make a blind test on the best monitors you can get and compare the two EQs you were able to phasedelete.

The question for me is not if ALL digital EQs sound the same, but:

Do EQs which can be phasedeleted sound the same?

Second question:
Make the test with an EQ that is known for its colouring and you can really hear the difference.

Are you able to get the same cancelling-results? (with settings that sound different!)

Martin

[ This Message was edited by: MCCYRANO on 2006-09-27 05:12 ]

tgstgs · Post by **tgstgs** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:25 am

You can phasedelet all signals equal what they are passing
So 'non equal sounding EQ' can be phasedeleted YES
try it out
its a trick often used on stage (live gigs)
ps you make very good devices keep on good work!

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:39 am

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:38 am

so I would really be interested on how DAS describes the differences in their 3 different EQs:

-Poltec
-A550EQ
-N1084EQ

Do they really deliver something different soundwise. I mean, they themself state that their plug-ins are in no way real emulations, so why do they build 3 different EQs.
And they already stated that they are build based on the standard atoms, so why are they called vintage?

I mean there even are no manuals at all that describes the different approaches.

I`m sure if you have the real boxes you`ll find differnces in the colour of the sound.

[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-09-27 09:39 ]

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:37 am

"And they already stated that they are build based on the standard atoms, so why are they called vintage? "

do you even know what Vintage means? if so, what has it got to do with standard atoms?

Would you buy Flexor if it was built of standard atoms?

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:44 am

Guys,

This thread is an enigma. There's some great discussion in here. But there's also WAY too much self-demeaining insults and immaturity, that is just embarassing to witness.

Please rein it in. Stay on topic. If you can't post without hurling insults, then please go somewhere else. (And I'm saying this to both the users, and the DAS company representatives).

Personal attacks and insults serve nobody. Please stay level-headed and try to rise above the fray.

I wrote a bunch more here, and then deleted it all. I've said it all before.

John

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:49 am

On 2006-09-27 10:37, piddi wrote:
"And they already stated that they are build based on the standard atoms, so why are they called vintage? "

do you even know what Vintage means? if so, what has it got to do with standard atoms?

Would you buy Flexor if it was built of standard atoms?

this was my question .... so I don`t have the answer.
with Flexor you clearly get something new and unique, you get fx and modules that are very different to the standard CW modules.

I mean the filters, saturators, ... are something new ... and give you new possibilities to build new sounds...You cannot achieve this with the standard CW modules.

Does this truely apply to the DAS EQs?

Would you buy Flexor if it was the standard CW modules with a nicer GUI?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:12 am

Flexor IS all standard CWA atoms, but instead of using (and modifying) 'macro type' units like filter, oscillator, saturation, all that is modelled in an original way by just the most basic math atoms like adder, multiplier, sine, square etc.
Even John Bowen admitted freely he wouldn't be able to do what RedMuze achieved (in his compliments to the Flexor release)

cheers, Tom

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:15 am

On 2006-09-27 11:12, astroman wrote:
Flexor IS all standard CWA atoms, but instead of using (and modifying) 'macro type' units like filter, oscillator, saturation, all that is modelled in an original way by just the most basic math atoms like adder, multiplier, sine, square etc.
Even John Bowen admitted freely he wouldn't be able to do what RedMuze achieved (in his compliments to the Flexor release)

cheers, Tom

I don`t have an CW SDK, but I am sure there are bigger atoms(like a complete EQ band), and more basic atoms, as you said.

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:24 am

my point was, hifi, that most devs ARE made with basic CW atoms. and i cant see where this has anything with being "vintage" or not, thats why i politly ask you, do you know the meaning of the word "vintage".

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:45 am

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:56 am

piddi, I try to explain, what I mean:

look at the compressor department

there is the creamware standard compressor...
and there is the CW Vintage compressor, called Vinco.

I don`t need to phase chancel out both, to see that there is a difference.
Its easy to hear the difference between Vinco and standard CW compressor.

The standard is just a digital compressor, so it comes with the scope basic fx. (good sounding but nothing special)

The Vinco models the internals of real analog classic hardware...
So it costs extra. And it sounds high-class.

So the DAS EQs look like vintage EQs(from the GUI) and if you look at Creamware shop:

They call it

VINTAGE BUNDLE
Highend EQ Bundle

So I wonder whats so special and why do they call them vintage, if they are not modeled behind real analog hardware, and soundwise don`t differ too much from the standard EQs.

MCCyrano proved that some bands chancel out completly.

So now tell me, why is it called vintage.

You get my point.... ?

Its worth to pay 99€ for RMX160, because it delivers a special sound not available from other CW devices...

But can you say this about the other three? where is the differnce.

The question is not do standard EQs chancel out perfectly with the DAs ones, but more:
do I get a special sound with DAS EQs that I cannot achieve with standard EQ.

They could build 1000s of classic EQs with nice GUI, but I wonder where is the difference between them.

And the worst thing is there even is no manual at all.

Read the Vinco manual. CW describes what they model and how.

DAS doesn`t describe anything.

just my 2 cents...

[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-09-27 13:33 ]

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:56 pm

MCCyrano proved that some bands chancel out completly.

absolutely false !!!

he didn't proove anything !
he only showed that on the VU meter of a dynamic mixer, while tweaking settings, he got about - 90 or -92 dB result ! ( after inverting one phase .... i won't do the remake of the thread here )

On CW plateform, you can go down to -150.3 db (using the margin range text ) and -90 db is more than 60 db difference !!!
60 db !!! imagine ! even if you admit (i'm not sure at all that you hifiboom can admit it !)that dB curve is not linear !!! it's not nothing !

note that on a dynamic mixer, first led light at about -90/92 db ! so what you call cancellation is very far from the reality !!!
cancellation is not a visual notion !!!
a 60 db difference ! is not "nothing"

there's something that hurt me in your way of posting !!! maybe you could explain me ?
have you ever made one of these tests ?
have you ever tried to understand what happens in a digital DSP systems ?
are you posting only "for posting" ?
what's YOUR matter with us DAS ?

in fact : what's your problem ? frustrated ?

cheers,
olive