DigitalAudioSoft - EQ Suite

Post by **hubird** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:15 pm

to stay on topic:
do those extra -60 db, below the -95 db, do these make the audible difference between the Poltec and the CW eq?
I mean, we are talking about audible sound parts, aren't we?

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:38 pm

I am not frustrated at all.

maybe I should after all those personal attacks.

I didn`t do the tests because I need my time for more important things in my life. (at the end I got a job). And I love to be productive, not destructive.

Its just so easy, why I post and ask.

I am interested in your products... And it is not a secret that I like your reverb.

But for the EQs I am not sure, what I get.

If you buy a car, you do not just go out and buy.
Normally you go to your local dealer and inform yourself, what features it has. And he does inform you.
If you are convinced about all features you`ll go and buy.

Yeah and thats the same with everything other in this world.
I`d like to inform myself.

Convince me to buy one of your EQs, and why should I buy Polteq or 550 or 1084. Where is the difference.

The max resolution of a standard audio CD is 96dB. As an audiodesigner you must agree that if the difference is below -92db its close to being not captured by a standard audio CD and far away from audible.

You don`t have to give away your internal algo structure but some information would be nice.

best regards...

Post by **garyb** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:37 pm

i'm not surprised that the fully parametric multiband peq can do what the pulteq can. i'm more interested in how closely the DAS eqs mimic the originals that they resemble(audibly)...

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:55 pm

Yes, it would be nice if you could shed some light after all this (imho pointless) mud-throwing and argumentation. I think everybody is open to hear from the developers what their products have to offer and in what way they are different from the others.

Come on brother Olive and brother Eric, I know all this is bothersome and really trying for you, but please, please, give yourself a chance to be at peace -within yourself first- and then with an open-hearted mindset, come and discuss and share the good things that you chose to bring in this world with us!

I am positively definitely interested to have you as a part of this great community, and I'm almost certain that everybody else share my opinion about this.

We are not against you! We actually are WITH you, regardless of some sharp words that were exchanged, because we share a common goal: to make music with great tools, and be at peace. I think that Eric and you (Olive) to some extent were (and are) so convinced that you are under attack that you created a war that doesn't exist! You were and are not under attack, my dear friends, you are under the *microscope*!

There's a world of difference between both!

I'd like to gain a clearer understanding about phase and it's relation with eqs and music production in general. So many questions were raised that I'm confused, but all these debates can actually be distilled to become an extremely potent, instructive and useful discussion about the topics that have been discussed yet. I think that this would deserve a new thread where no insults or personal attacks would interfere with what you have to share with us, and what we have to share with you.

I have to say this though: Eric and Olive, you are seriously hot-tempered chaps and your insulting attitude is positively a cancer to your business as well as your health and general success. You might argue that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I assure you I KNOW PERFECTLY WELL what hatred and a fighting attitude do bring in the lives of those who choose this path.

I must tell you with all the kindness that I'm capable of that unless you get a STEEL-LIKE GRIP upon your temper and STOP TO BITE those who are around you and who simply ask questions or want to discuss peacefully, then I'm sorry for you that you're sowing such disaster for yourselves in all aspects of your life that the bitterness of these painful experiences will FORCE YOU TO BECOME HUMBLE AND POISED AND KIND with yourselves as well as those surrounding you.

Overcoming anger is conquering the enemy within that is constantly working against us. Overcoming irritation means to understand that the Flame that burns inside of everyone is a Mighty Powerful Force where we do tap our creativity and constructive ideas!!! You DO have infinite creativity and beauty that flows within you, so why have these marvels (temporarily) compromised by some intellectual concoctions that would want us to believe that we are not worthy of all the beauty that Life holds in store for us?

Eric and Olive, you deserve the best that Life can give, will you care to hold out your hand and receive it? I trust so.

With all my heart, I hope we can all be friends!

Élie

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:17 pm

On 2006-09-27 18:37, garyb wrote:
i'm not surprised that the fully parametric multiband peq can do what the pulteq can. i'm more interested in how closely the DAS eqs mimic the originals that they resemble(audibly)...

Maybe someone have than original laying around?
then they can send to both isolate a band on DAS and Original. then they revert the original and spend half an hour tweaking one of them. if things suddenly turns quiet then it must be a 1:1 copy

Post by **garyb** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:31 pm

uh...yeah..

Post by **hubird** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:31 pm

On 2006-09-27 18:37, garyb wrote:
i'm more interested in how closely the DAS eqs mimic the originals that they resemble(audibly)...

not better or worse that the Peq4 does, if MCCyrano's test is right

DAS has pointed out already that their plugin is not meant to be kind of an emulation of the Pultec.
I really would like to buy the Poltq for a reasonable price, as it's a great approvement compared to the stock SFP one, qua organisation of the bands ánd the GUI

BTW., is the channel eq of the STM24/48 the same as the PEQ4?
I guess so, but anyone has any thought about it?
I now know how to test it tho

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-09-27 20:37 ]

bill3107 · Post by **bill3107** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:53 pm

Music remains something very subjective. We are not talking about a transparent converters, right? So is a 1:1 comparison so important? If yes, i would just take into account someone who has tested both things (hardware and the plugin). As demo versions of DAS are available, there is no mystery... we can test it, period. When it comes to EQs, i just use my ears. Some people love one gear, others don't, that's music!!!

To be honest all the points of view are interesting, although i tend to think that if i were a developper i would not talk about the other developpers's job. Are DAS good plugins? Man.... the demo is available !

My 2 swiss cents...

[ This Message was edited by: bill3107 on 2006-09-28 00:54 ]

[ This Message was edited by: bill3107 on 2006-09-28 00:54 ]

katano · Post by **katano** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:22 am

swiss cents?!?!

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:34 am

B.t.w.

Look in the music section.
Some time ago I compared the Pultec UAD (digital thing) with Poltec.

I didn't get even close to the results from UAD, but it could really be, that it was me who was unable to find matching settings.

Should I try to phasedelete them? Someday I will, because I'm curious. Thesis: I won't get by any chance leveldrop to -50db. Could it be -70db? Don't think so, but I will try someday.

Martin

bill3107 · Post by **bill3107** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:04 am

swiss cents means my neutral contribution...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:36 am

Swiss Cents - now that would be truely out of phase...

musurgio · Post by **musurgio** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:47 am

Hey.
I tried Graphic eq and DAS eqs, although the sound of an eq boost can sound sometimes close the results are NOT the same.
Graphic eq after much or less tweaking sounds a little boring. DA eq like polteq and SSL sounds pleasing and fulfilling.
The sound overall is more defined as opposed to Graphic or other CW eq.
These little differences are what make things better than others.
you cannot have a day /night difference with good devices.
I have uad1 I have powercore , I have Paris .
The Paris compressor can be made to sound close to UAD1 but there is an extra 5-10 % that makes the difference.
I don't follow that phase cancellation tests because I can phase almost phase delete two different audio files recorded with different preamps with some eq tweaking.
That "almost" is though the difference !!
Dead silent is identical soundfiles.
Anyway if DAS would use existent things why does their revrb sound so unique on CW platform ? why so close to the RMX16 ?
Do they use a CW reverb a CW eq and maybe vinco algo to do that ?
Do you need to know why something sound the way it does ?
Do you have ears to judge yourself if Polteq sounds the same as PEQ4 ?
I would choose anytime the DAS eq instead of Graphic eq or PEQ4 and thats me.
Regards,
Dimitrios

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:31 am

On 2006-10-03 06:47, musurgio wrote:
...Anyway if DAS would use existent things why does their revrb sound so unique on CW platform ? why so close to the RMX16 ? ...

it does by far sound unique...
It reminds me at the STW4080 (pre Warp69), at the the reverb in a demo of a device called DspMic (maybe brainone was a previous nick of Olive?) and on some of Nico's old stuff.

I write this from memory, but since my system is kind of messed (and about to a 'regular' cleanup anyway), I'll possibly throw in the old DSP extensions have a fresh listen.

Imho the 'phase thing' got a bit out of control in the whole discussion.

To 'invert & add' a channel is a regular tool to check for equality of a signal (also with analog outboard gear) and may serve to verify that signal pathes have identical 'run length' (in cases where it matters).

If processing is distributed over more than one DSP such a test 'right out of the box' may fail (due to sample delays introduced), which was overlooked and heated the discussion unnecessarily.

It's very likely that you get your preferred EQ result with one of the DAS devices more easily than with CWA'S PEQ - and that's the most important aspect.
But you will not be able to tell when one or the other EQ (with equivalent settings) was active in an audio file by just listening to the file

cheers, Tom

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:12 am

the PEQ4 has only 12dB per band

the DAS EQs have more 18dB or 24dB.
Thats the main difference.

Take a PEQ4 with two bands overlayed and you get the same EQ sound.

But I agree that the DAS has a good sound out of the box, appart from some internal distortion, that may occur with a high gained input signal and boosting...

To get the same sound out of PEQ4 you have to tweak the parameters more than with DAS EQ.

[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-10-04 07:13 ]

tgstgs · Post by **tgstgs** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:27 am

'If processing is distributed over more than one DSP '
theoretical these probl.s you described should be mathematical fixed in rotating the phase asyncron to the samplerate;
dont know if SDK or DP could handle that;

please correct me if im wrong;
good vibes from vienna

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:57 am

On 2006-10-04 09:27, tgstgs wrote:
'If processing is distributed over more than one DSP '
theoretical these probl.s you described should be mathematical fixed in rotating the phase asyncron to the samplerate;
dont know if SDK or DP could handle that;

please correct me if im wrong;
good vibes from vienna

if it happened as told, the result shoulb be the same (delays of few samples) all time !!! even if you compare two peq or two polteq !!!
but when you compare them (twice the same), phases are absolutely "on phase" and level shown on a CW mixer is 150.3 !!! the less CW can display !

and any time and anywhere !!! no matter how your project is ! a lot of devices in it or only few !!!

very happy to see that some of you like and use those plugs! that why we built them ...

cheers,
olive

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:15 am

On 2006-10-04 09:27, tgstgs wrote:
...please correct me if im wrong;

unfortunately you ARE wrong, as the afformentioned sample delays don't follow any rule - and they are of course NOT related to the devices in question.

The sample delays are introduced somewhere in the project routing - and of course a 'project' is most likely to contain devices spread over several DSPs, what else would you expect

Obviously immediately after a project is setup everything works fine and your mixer (as that's where it matters) delivers neatly arranged signals, from which you can phase reverse/extinguish any pair (given you feed them the same source).

At least according to my experience this changes over time, if a project is heavily used with adding/removing devices and tweaking - something you'd rather do under testing conditions than in a production.

As such these things really shouldn't be overestimated.
I have a pre-amp (ok, it's a cheapo) with 2 identical channels. With both fed the same signal they phase out no better than -40db.
And I'm not able to tell which is which

cheers, Tom

On 2006-10-04 09:57, sonolive wrote:
...
very happy to see that some of you like and use those plugs! that why we built them ...

that's for sure more important than any technical content - as it's about music, and that is organized by sound (P5)

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-10-04 10:43 ]

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:48 am

and that is organized by sound (P5)

??? sorry astro can't understand this sentence ! my english 's too poor ! sorry

cheers
olive

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:41 am

well, the MUSIC is the important word, as you know it's (often) a matter of taste.
Some like this tool and others like that, but the tool doesn't matter if the result is good.

Music is organized by Sound
is just a funny sentence - you can meditate about it, if you like...
it's also the title of a Pizzicato Five (P5) album

cheers, Tom