vintage eq
;o)
Hi, it's me.... ;o)
Yes , I have to laugh, because the first thing I did (some years ago) when I got that EQ was trying to phasedelete it with normal CW devices.
I didn't manage to do so (there come new atoms with the devices which seem to make the sound (dll file with poltec is just XTC-mode)), but the difference was minimal - although enough to make it sound (in my opinion, which is influenced by visuals, tradition, interface etc. too) slightly better than creamware modules.
Although Tom is right (it has problems with Algos of L & R distributed on different DSPs => sample delays) I use it quite often.
It has problems with distortion in some special extreme settings, but I never hit them in real live.
I like them very much but wouldn't buy them for 200€ (don't know how much they are actually) these days (just personal decision).
Martin
Hi, it's me.... ;o)
Yes , I have to laugh, because the first thing I did (some years ago) when I got that EQ was trying to phasedelete it with normal CW devices.
I didn't manage to do so (there come new atoms with the devices which seem to make the sound (dll file with poltec is just XTC-mode)), but the difference was minimal - although enough to make it sound (in my opinion, which is influenced by visuals, tradition, interface etc. too) slightly better than creamware modules.
Although Tom is right (it has problems with Algos of L & R distributed on different DSPs => sample delays) I use it quite often.
It has problems with distortion in some special extreme settings, but I never hit them in real live.
I like them very much but wouldn't buy them for 200€ (don't know how much they are actually) these days (just personal decision).
Martin
yes, finally it IS most important to listen 
I once had a piano expander (GEM Realpiano) with a somewhat 'flat and boring' sound - that thing really lived up when sent through a Kawai EQ-8, both matched just perfectly.
That Kawai EQ is a standard op-amp-rc-design with lots of phase alterations, due to the filter layout.
It got to have them by design principle, yet it made a great sound in this context.
Don't overestimate math and precision
I seriously doubt that these sample shifts Martin reported are absent in the native world - they just haven't detected them yet...
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-09-27 04:17 ]</font>
I once had a piano expander (GEM Realpiano) with a somewhat 'flat and boring' sound - that thing really lived up when sent through a Kawai EQ-8, both matched just perfectly.
That Kawai EQ is a standard op-amp-rc-design with lots of phase alterations, due to the filter layout.
It got to have them by design principle, yet it made a great sound in this context.
Don't overestimate math and precision
I seriously doubt that these sample shifts Martin reported are absent in the native world - they just haven't detected them yet...
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-09-27 04:17 ]</font>
I`m sure these phase problems don`t exist in native world.On 2006-09-27 04:14, astroman wrote:
yes, finally it IS most important to listen
I once had a piano expander (GEM Realpiano) with a somewhat 'flat and boring' sound - that thing really lived up when sent through a Kawai EQ-8, both matched just perfectly.
That Kawai EQ is a standard op-amp-rc-design with lots of phase alterations, due to the filter layout.
It got to have them by design principle, yet it made a great sound in this context.
Don't overestimate math and precision
I seriously doubt that these sample shifts Martin reported are absent in the native world - they just haven't detected them yet...
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-09-27 04:17 ]</font>
I think they occur due to the fact that all Scope plugs run in realtime on different DSP, which cannot run 100% in sync together.
But if you are using outboard gear and different length cables you also got some phase differences, but are they really a big problem?
I think in most situations, its not.
Like CW manual says in manual for Scope mixers. It will be problematic mainly with surround and and multi-channel recordings....
So I don`t care too much.
Of course if your main job is to chancel out differnt plug-ins, it will be problematic. But thats not the cause why I bought a Scope system at all.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-09-27 09:24 ]</font>
I agree ...On 2006-09-27 10:35, tgstgs wrote:
'I`m sure these phase problems don`t exist in native world'
When native world meens analog HW or acustical pur your wrong it exist and is used;
analog HW for example runtime troubles in big conzerthalls
on pur acoustic there are the reflections that drives the unpros. crazy
greetings from vienna
But in my post 'native' describes the native VST plug-in world. so personal computer audio processing.
Depends on host sequencer and bug free PDC.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-09-27 13:31 ]</font>
exactly, now you hit the point.On 2006-09-27 15:53, Wired wrote:
but isn't the whole discussion an issue regarding gui'ing a peq4 vs. real engineering.
but if you compare the PEQ4 to a native highquality VST one, it still sounds better.
Thats my personal opinion.
And that does apply to DAS EQ too. They sound highquality.
The question is more: we all have the PEQ4 for free, so do we have to buy a DAS EQ or even all three.
compare the PEQ4 with DAS is one test.
comparing the DAS or PEQ4 with the native VST EQs, UAD EQs Sony or real hardware is another one...
PS: Really funny, I`m sure we don`t have to wait more than 1 week and the complete first page of planetz will only consists of Phase chanceling, vintage vs normal EQ, DAS EQs, EQ in general threads.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-09-27 16:27 ]</font>
the phase issues mentioned are less than what would be involved in a hardware, realworld mix with the original gear! ...worth considering as one always wishes to get as close to perfect as possible, but not a problem. what's more important is your level of skill with the gear you are using. just because the stock eq can do what an expensive hardware box or plugin can do doesn't mean that the other hardware or software wasn't worth using. workflow has to be a consideration! uad is not immune to minor phase issues. in the realworld, the length and type of cable can introduce these anomolies.
a mix is an artistic compromise, ideal vs. reality, not just a scientific formula(although science can be used to assit one finding what works). there are plenty of example of things "not right" that were mega mega hits or that we really think sound great....there are no absolute best bits of kit, nor solutions....
stock eqs are the fairlight's eqs, that should be 'nuff said. http://www.fairlightau.com/xtmovie_content.html
the stock eqs are great. if the DAS sound just as good but are easier to work with, that alone is reason enough to use them. in the scheme of recording gear costs they are cheap, a minor expense if they increase productivity. if you are fine with the stock eq, why even fret about it?
the UAD won't be better, but if you want to use it, why not? the only real disadvantage is that it's not really realtime. it relies on PDC to stay in sync which uses a fair amount of CPU. on the other hand, if your mixing is in scope, you should have plenty of cpu headroom...
a mix is an artistic compromise, ideal vs. reality, not just a scientific formula(although science can be used to assit one finding what works). there are plenty of example of things "not right" that were mega mega hits or that we really think sound great....there are no absolute best bits of kit, nor solutions....
stock eqs are the fairlight's eqs, that should be 'nuff said. http://www.fairlightau.com/xtmovie_content.html
the stock eqs are great. if the DAS sound just as good but are easier to work with, that alone is reason enough to use them. in the scheme of recording gear costs they are cheap, a minor expense if they increase productivity. if you are fine with the stock eq, why even fret about it?
the UAD won't be better, but if you want to use it, why not? the only real disadvantage is that it's not really realtime. it relies on PDC to stay in sync which uses a fair amount of CPU. on the other hand, if your mixing is in scope, you should have plenty of cpu headroom...
