[RPGWiZaRD]

Another vote for Fabfilter Pro Q 3, I just like both the sound quality and the workflow, so flexible. It's equal to the swiss army precision knife in EQs for me. I've used 1 and 2 before, as well. 2 was quite a big step, from 2 to 3 I'd say a pretty minor step.

 

[SolarCetacean]

Didn't Pro Q 3 add dynamic EQ? Or was that earlier? Dynamic EQ was a revelation in sound quality to me, especially since I like electrostatics which have a hard time in the macro-dynamics department.

 

[DAZZER]

Dynamic Q3 is awesome.

 

[Raketen]

+1 Fabfilter Pro-Q3, though I use EqualizerAPO rather than jRiver. I find Natural Phase sounds decent too for lower latency tasks like streaming video in web browsers, gaming etc...

Only frustration I have is relatively minor- wish it were possible to add folders from outside of the designated preset folder to the menu (possible to change the location of this folder but can only have the one folder and its subfolders AFAICT)

 

[OCC7N]

Im having the best time of my life in headfi with HE400SE and the SONNOX EQ(UAD DSP) in Jriver!

I have not tried the Native version, but the DSP has an obvious improvement to me than any Native(built in EQ) - much more fluid/liquidy and transparent

 

[gregorio]

I have not tried the Native version, but the DSP has an obvious improvement to me than any Native(built in EQ)

Whether it’s the version running on native/host CPUs or the version running on dedicated DSP it’s applying exactly the same algorithms and the output is identical. So there is no improvement at all, let alone an obvious one. This is true of virtually all plugins that have a native/host version and a DSP version, the only exceptions are certain plugins that require more memory than exist on DSP cards, certain reverb plugins for example but in these rare cases the native versions sound better of course.

Even different EQs will null with each other, assuming the EQ settings are matched of course. The only exception are certain modelled (vintage) EQ plugins, which emulate the distortion created by the original analogue versions.

G

 

[coding101]

Fabfilter

 

[OCC7N]

Not every genre comes out very unforgiving into the Hifimans
Experimenting with this saturation plugin, my source has become more precise and cleaner, on hifimans its beyond listening senses.

Im in surprise it not only took the Hifimans "sharpness" away it boosted more body into the cans without the feel of altering/choking the sound/stage!

"Damping" around the lowest.. "Presence" and "Saturation"

EDIT: After 1 hours of demo, this plugin is a buy for me! - I likessss it!- Saweeeet! - Its amazing what it can do on the Susvara so far.

 

[castleofargh]

My general impression of EQ on computer over the years has been that the most common filters are often the right option and that most EQ will give very similar if not strictly identical results.
I've had mainly 2 types of situations that directly contradict what I just said(otherwise it's too simple^_^):
- If the setting options aren't strictly the same(frequency+amplitude+Q) but instead you get sliders or knobs or if you come from measurements, and you have multiple ways of expressing the values. Then obviously it won't be as intuitive that we can get the same results, even if we really can when we look at the output profile and work our way toward the same results. Of course, sometimes the tool simply doesn't have the flexibility to do something as complicated as another multiband EQ and then, that's that.
But my point is that often it can feel like the EQs sound really different when it could also just be the way of tuning things that land us to different results instead of the filters actually being different.

- the other case I used to see a lot and don't see as much on newer stuff, was when reaching the end of the bandwidth (upper freq). Some EQ would return to 0 at Nyquist no matter how much it has to screw up the shape of the EQ, and some do smarter stuff to keep the overall shape more stable (as if it was used at lower frequency), with just something crazy right before Nyquist. I wouldn't go as far as to claim it changed the sound much, as even several years ago I wasn't all that good with 18kHz and above. ^_^

edit: forgot the main point, user interface, convenience, stability, in those areas, one EQ can be soooo superior to another. IMO money brings ease of use more than special sound. At least for generic EQ use of a basic audiophile tweaking his headphone's FR.

 

[SolarCetacean]

My general impression of EQ on computer over the years has been that the most common filters are often the right option and that most EQ will give very similar if not strictly identical results.
I've had mainly 2 types of situations that directly contradict what I just said(otherwise it's too simple^_^):
- If the setting options aren't strictly the same(frequency+amplitude+Q) but instead you get sliders or knobs or if you come from measurements, and you have multiple ways of expressing the values. Then obviously it won't be as intuitive that we can get the same results, even if we really can when we look at the output profile and work our way toward the same results. Of course, sometimes the tool simply doesn't have the flexibility to do something as complicated as another multiband EQ and then, that's that.
But my point is that often it can feel like the EQs sound really different when it could also just be the way of tuning things that land us to different results instead of the filters actually being different.

- the other case I used to see a lot and don't see as much on newer stuff, was when reaching the end of the bandwidth (upper freq). Some EQ would return to 0 at Nyquist no matter how much it has to screw up the shape of the EQ, and some do smarter stuff to keep the overall shape more stable (as if it was used at lower frequency), with just something crazy right before Nyquist. I wouldn't go as far as to claim it changed the sound much, as even several years ago I wasn't all that good with 18kHz and above. ^_^

edit: forgot the main point, user interface, convenience, stability, in those areas, one EQ can be soooo superior to another. IMO money brings ease of use more than special sound. At least for generic EQ use of a basic audiophile tweaking his headphone's FR.

The definitions for Q values in particular aren't standardized across EQs. In FabFilter, I have to multiply the Q values from equalizer APO by 1.414 (or sqrt(2)) to get the same curve.

In the case of Fabfilter, for me the main benefit is dynamic EQ, which is far more powerful than parametric EQ and goes further than just simple FR tweaking. The fact that it is far more pleasant to use than Equalizer APO or PEACE is also nice, but dynamic EQ is what sold it for me.

 

[OCC7N]

Not every genre comes out very unforgiving into the Hifimans
Experimenting with this saturation plugin, my source has become more precise and cleaner, on hifimans its beyond listening senses.

Im in surprise it not only took the Hifimans "sharpness" away it boosted more body into the cans without the feel of altering/choking the sound/stage!

"Damping" around the lowest.. "Presence" and "Saturation"


EDIT: After 1 hours of demo, this plugin is a buy for me! - I likessss it!- Saweeeet! - Its amazing what it can do on the Susvara so far.

To anybody who has AryaV2. This plugin did a whole lot. Even though I just sold it, I can not deny this one gave more body to the instruments!

 

[OCC7N]

I have 6 days left on my demo If I had to choose between 1 this and EQ. I would choose this. Its so much overall. WOW! 108 dollars(50% sale right now) is not cheap but half price. The DSP card has not crashed yet/UAD-2 Solo(for atleast 3 running plugins). I should have bought the duo for more power. I run Sonnox Oxford EQ before this saturation, and it just improves, more details and warmer sound.

For the ones who have a pc and a free space pcie and 100dollars. I would definitly get this card! - I dont have experience with Native plugins. I wont ever try them because they run on CPU.

My next 14 day demo will be this

*free 14days demo of all plugins!

 

[gregorio]

I run Sonnox Oxford EQ before this saturation, and it just improves, more details and warmer sound.

Of course, that’s just a matter of personal taste. Saturation doesn’t give “more details”, it does the opposite, it distorts the details. And, if the recording required saturation to subjectively improve it, then the mix engineer, mastering engineer or both would have applied some.

For the ones who have a pc and a free space pcie and 100dollars. I would definitly get this card! - I dont have experience with Native plugins. I wont ever try them because they run on CPU.

I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense. With a native/host instance of the plugin it will run on a processing core (in your computer). With a “DSP” version it will run on a processing core (on the card). There’s no difference, in both cases it’s the same mathematical functions, calculated with a processing core, with exactly the same result.

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

Just wanted to share my two cents on equalizer types

im pretty certain after some tests that :

1. Linear Phase (FIR) has audible preringing
2. Minimum Phase (IIR) has audible phaseshifts
3. be careful with Linear Phase preringing, resampling, equalizer plugins and the reconstruction filter of the dac can all 3 introduce preringing if all are linear phase, which will "add up"
4. imo its best to use a minimum phase filter on the dac since there will be no EQ which can introduce phaseshifts
5. use linear phase on EQ to keep the phase linear as you change frequencys with filters
6. i havent compared minimum vs linear phase resampling yet, the one minimum phase resampler i found has quite bad phaseshift on its own starting from 4khz or so up to 20khz

Conclusion: Take your poison, both can be quite bad depending on the EQ applied (but imo even mild EQ`s already show both effects quite well (if you know what to listen for))
best is to just try it for yourself what you prefer more
imo the phase shift is more bad then preringing, linear phase eq sounds way more natural and "forward" but you also hear that the signal gets mildly "smeared" by low frequencys (which is basicly the preringing)

Edit: this video has helped me understand what preringing sounds like, after that video i was able to spot a kinda more washed out version on actual music with for example the dac filters or eq type

 

[castleofargh]

Just wanted to share my two cents on equalizer types

im pretty certain after some tests that :

1. Linear Phase (FIR) has audible preringing
2. Minimum Phase (IIR) has audible phaseshifts
3. be careful with Linear Phase preringing, resampling, equalizer plugins and the reconstruction filter of the dac can all 3 introduce preringing if all are linear phase, which will "add up"
4. imo its best to use a minimum phase filter on the dac since there will be no EQ which can introduce phaseshifts
5. use linear phase on EQ to keep the phase linear as you change frequencys with filters
6. i havent compared minimum vs linear phase resampling yet, the one minimum phase resampler i found has quite bad phaseshift on its own starting from 4khz or so up to 20khz

Conclusion: Take your poison, both can be quite bad depending on the EQ applied (but imo even mild EQ`s already show both effects quite well (if you know what to listen for))
best is to just try it for yourself what you prefer more
imo the phase shift is more bad then preringing, linear phase eq sounds way more natural and "forward" but you also hear that the signal gets mildly "smeared" by low frequencys (which is basicly the preringing)

Edit: this video has helped me understand what preringing sounds like, after that video i was able to spot a kinda more washed out version on actual music with for example the dac filters or eq type

Conclusion, forget anything that was recorded with more than one mic to avoid the EQ poison caused by mixing. Never band limit anything, never listen to any album that got resampled, just get a guitar and play your own stuff...