Reason Could Create the Most Exciting EQ Ever...

[DParris]

The impetus behind this idea is twofold:

First, lots of folks have mentioned that the M-Class devices are a bit long in the tooth, and that the stock devices from other DAWs have long outpaced Reason's own stock offerings. M-Class EQ works (I use it, it's functional and satisfactory), but isn't really in keeping with Reason's modus of exciting and creative use of devices. Of course, it can be exciting if you use it in conjunction with Combinator and some creative cabling and matrixing, etc., etc, etc...

Second, lots of folks were excited by Europa's spectral filter, and misunderstanding the idea that it wasn't really a filter, but rather a sort of wave-shaping device that emulated the behavior of a filter, requested the ability to run audio through it.

Imagine the fine folks at Reason Studios combining these two requests into one. Imagine an oversampled fully-dynamic Spectral EQ with a huge number of bands, complete with envelopes, LFOs, and a modulation matrix. Imagine being able to dynamically alter the response and behavior of multiple bands simultaneously using on-board envelopes and oscillators or control voltage from other sources.

I can think of so many exciting possibilities for a device like this. For instance, tuned resonant peaks with midi-controllable pitches. LFO-controlled sweeping notches that create a moving comb filter. A kind of convolution created by spectral analysis of one source applied to the dynamic bands of another source.

Reason did incredible things with Grain and Europa, and the new Sweeper and Quartet devices show a willingness to surpass the older effects units.

Mattias, Andreas, and Pelle: you guys could make the greatest EQ of any DAW, ever!

I personally would pay a premium for a device like this.

[RandyEspoda]

That would be awesome ! I would be all over such an upgrade ! No brainer...

Though I doubt they ever would...

[selig]

I can think of so many exciting possibilities for a device like this. For instance, tuned resonant peaks with midi-controllable pitches. LFO-controlled sweeping notches that create a moving comb filter. A kind of convolution created by spectral analysis of one source applied to the dynamic bands of another source.

Not to dismiss your idea, which IS cool, but also…
I do stuff like this all the time with ColoringEQ:
…"tuned resonant peaks with midi-controllable pitches"? Check, with up to 7 peaks at a time with MIDI control and pitch bend, glide, velocity, and attack/release controls.
…"LFO-controlled sweeping notches that create a moving comb filter"? Check, with up to 7 notches at a time, either moving together or separately (with multiple LFOs). A tuned comb filter with MIDI control is also a pretty cool effect.

"A kind of convolution created by spectral analysis of one source applied to the dynamic bands of another source"?
OK, this one is a bit trickier, and at the least requires a Combinator and ColoringEQ plus a few other things, depending on exactly what you mean by this! There are already plugins like SurferEQ (Sound Radix) that do a similar thing to the last suggestion, but with a huge latency hit. In my experience it's not something commonly needed, but from a technical standpoint it's way impressive to say the least.

[DParris]

I can think of so many exciting possibilities for a device like this. For instance, tuned resonant peaks with midi-controllable pitches. LFO-controlled sweeping notches that create a moving comb filter. A kind of convolution created by spectral analysis of one source applied to the dynamic bands of another source.

Not to dismiss your idea, which IS cool, but also…
I do stuff like this all the time with ColoringEQ:
…"tuned resonant peaks with midi-controllable pitches"? Check, with up to 7 peaks at a time with MIDI control and pitch bend, glide, velocity, and attack/release controls.
…"LFO-controlled sweeping notches that create a moving comb filter"? Check, with up to 7 notches at a time, either moving together or separately (with multiple LFOs). A tuned comb filter with MIDI control is also a pretty cool effect.

"A kind of convolution created by spectral analysis of one source applied to the dynamic bands of another source"?
OK, this one is a bit trickier, and at the least requires a Combinator and ColoringEQ plus a few other things, depending on exactly what you mean by this! There are already plugins like SurferEQ (Sound Radix) that do a similar thing to the last suggestion, but with a huge latency hit. In my experience it's not something commonly needed, but from a technical standpoint it's way impressive to say the least.

Giles, I have to admit that I've yet to add the Coloring EQ to my rack! It's been on my list of purchases for a while. Soon!

I love building Combinators, and I've built several that do some of the stuff I describe. But it's tempting to think of what a development team could do with some effort.

For the convolution thing: I'm a long-time Max/MSP user, and I'm thinking about Max's group of fft~ objects and all the things I can do with information about energy at discrete frequency bands. In Reason, the code is already there under the hood in anything that uses a spectrum window in the UI. I'd like to be able to use that information. For instance, those frequency-energy values applied to the EQ curve of different signals, or even as CV.

Of course, having 512 CV outs isn't exactly practical! In Max it's easy to duplicate stuff and then bury it in subpatchers. But even 10 or 12 bands would be enough to have some fun.

[selig]

For the convolution thing: I'm a long-time Max/MSP user, and I'm thinking about Max's group of fft~ objects and all the things I can do with information about energy at discrete frequency bands. In Reason, the code is already there under the hood in anything that uses a spectrum window in the UI. I'd like to be able to use that information. For instance, those frequency-energy values applied to the EQ curve of different signals, or even as CV.

Of course, having 512 CV outs isn't exactly practical! In Max it's easy to duplicate stuff and then bury it in subpatchers. But even 10 or 12 bands would be enough to have some fun.

The biggest issue with FFT processing is the lack of resolution on the low end compared to the high end, which you can clearly see on most spectrum analyzers. If you want higher resolution on the low end you have to greatly increase the overall resolution, creating a CPU hog. Plus, higher resolution takes longer to calculate, which results in a device that is more sluggish to respond.

So you can end up with devices that are very inaccurate for lower frequencies and have a sluggish response, or have uneven response across the low end due to the lower resolution - or you end up with a faster response and CPU hog if you go for higher resolution.

So you end up with a compromise in most cases, a good example of the "no free lunch" axiom. To use a common example of using a bass line to duck a kick drum, an FFT would have a more difficult time accurately determining and reacting to the individual bass notes played, giving a result no better than a traditional dynamic EQ and possibly with a slower response time and higher CPU hit.

[DParris]

For the convolution thing: I'm a long-time Max/MSP user, and I'm thinking about Max's group of fft~ objects and all the things I can do with information about energy at discrete frequency bands. In Reason, the code is already there under the hood in anything that uses a spectrum window in the UI. I'd like to be able to use that information. For instance, those frequency-energy values applied to the EQ curve of different signals, or even as CV.

Of course, having 512 CV outs isn't exactly practical! In Max it's easy to duplicate stuff and then bury it in subpatchers. But even 10 or 12 bands would be enough to have some fun.

The biggest issue with FFT processing is the lack of resolution on the low end compared to the high end, which you can clearly see on most spectrum analyzers. If you want higher resolution on the low end you have to greatly increase the overall resolution, creating a CPU hog. Plus, higher resolution takes longer to calculate, which results in a device that is more sluggish to respond.

So you can end up with devices that are very inaccurate for lower frequencies and have a sluggish response, or have uneven response across the low end due to the lower resolution - or you end up with a faster response and CPU hog if you go for higher resolution.

So you end up with a compromise in most cases, a good example of the "no free lunch" axiom. To use a common example of using a bass line to duck a kick drum, an FFT would have a more difficult time accurately determining and reacting to the individual bass notes played, giving a result no better than a traditional dynamic EQ and possibly with a slower response time and higher CPU hit.

Yes, of course. Max's fft~ and related objects are just an example that I'm familiar with. I'm not married to the idea of using FFT as the engine that drives this thing.

I'm going to try to rig up a few Combinators. I've already made a Dynamic EQ Combinator (just for fun, since TDR Nova works great and has a much better UI). That along with some Gain Reduction CV from a bunch of M-Class Compressors might be a way to start.

Let's see how many bands I can cram into this before it becomes unwieldy.

[boingy]

Let me finish the title for you:

… but they probably won't.