Selig ColoringEQ In The Shop!
Saturation is derived per band, and then runs in parallel to the EQ path. So in a way you are correct, filtering post saturation is not post EQ.Voyager wrote:I notice that when i'm high pass post saturation i'm not longer post eq. Shouldn't it be the case ?
But since the saturation is post EQ (for any band being saturated), it’s “sort of” post EQ too.
Here's a graphic that shows all possible Filter positions in the CEQ (not that they can all be active at the same time since there are only two filters):
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
Can you re-phrase this, I'm not following because a filter cannot be both post saturation and pre EQ (or post EQ, for that matter). It's got to be only one of three possible positions in the signal path as per my signal flow graphic.
There are two filters - what is the selected routing for each filter, and how are you determining whether it's correct or not?
Sorry for all the questions, trying to be sure I understand what your asking to be sure I give a correct answer!
Selig Audio, LLC
I replied before you edit your message, couldn't see the illustration and i also read the manual which was helpful. So basically i misinterpret those function. From what i understand now is that if using high pass set on Pre eq it will cut both main signal and saturation while on post eq it cut the main signal and ignore the saturation. Finally Post sat will cut the saturation only and ignore main signal.
Yes, that’s it with the clarification that Pre EQ will cut the signal before it can hit any saturation sections (rather than saying it cuts the main signal and the saturation).Voyager wrote:I replied before you edit your message, couldn't see the illustration and i also read the manual which was helpful. So basically i misinterpret those function. From what i understand now is that if using high pass set on Pre eq it will cut both main signal and saturation while on post eq it cut the main signal and ignore the saturation. Finally Post sat will cut the saturation only and ignore main signal.
What this can mean is that if you filter something out with Pre EQ filtering, it cannot be fed to any saturation stages since it’s now gone!
This can be handy for low frequency garbage that you don’t want to feed into any saturation (and don’t want to hear in any case). Make sense?
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
I was in trial mode for the past few weeks and I was kind of hoping to avoid spending the money, even though I knew in my heart I was going to be spending the money.
No such luck avoiding it.
Turns out that in my extended tests, in many cases the Selig Coloring EQ was a better sounding single unit replacement for multiple devices in the mastering chain. For example, on one track, I went from 7 devices (including EQ, multi-band compressor, leveler, limiter, master compressor, etc) in the mastering section down to nothing but a Coloring EQ and a Kratos 2 Maximizer. The result was cleaner (even with selective band saturation), more transparent AND punchier. I also feel like I have much more control, without having to constantly balance interplay of multiple devices on the mix as I'm tweaking.
EDIT: I put the Selig Leveler back in the chain because it cleanly evened out the levels between the quieter vocal-oriented verse section and the "bangin'" chorus section. So, Selig Coloring EQ -> Selig Leveler -> Kratos 2 Maximizer. Really digging the simplicity.
One thing in particular that I like is that, given the way the EQ works, I was able to pull the multi-band compressor out of the chain on some tracks. Per-band control of saturation in the EQ served just as well (actually better), at least for the tracks in question, and was easier to deal with in terms of control.
I did experiment with many different mastering chains in comparison over the past month, but kept coming back to the Selig EQ. I even sent variations of masters to another audio engineer to make sure I wasn't hallucinating the difference (what with ears being fickle analog devices), and in his blind tests, the Selig EQ-ed versions were the ones he consistently preferred.
So, I bought it. Darn you!
No such luck avoiding it.
Turns out that in my extended tests, in many cases the Selig Coloring EQ was a better sounding single unit replacement for multiple devices in the mastering chain. For example, on one track, I went from 7 devices (including EQ, multi-band compressor, leveler, limiter, master compressor, etc) in the mastering section down to nothing but a Coloring EQ and a Kratos 2 Maximizer. The result was cleaner (even with selective band saturation), more transparent AND punchier. I also feel like I have much more control, without having to constantly balance interplay of multiple devices on the mix as I'm tweaking.
EDIT: I put the Selig Leveler back in the chain because it cleanly evened out the levels between the quieter vocal-oriented verse section and the "bangin'" chorus section. So, Selig Coloring EQ -> Selig Leveler -> Kratos 2 Maximizer. Really digging the simplicity.
One thing in particular that I like is that, given the way the EQ works, I was able to pull the multi-band compressor out of the chain on some tracks. Per-band control of saturation in the EQ served just as well (actually better), at least for the tracks in question, and was easier to deal with in terms of control.
I did experiment with many different mastering chains in comparison over the past month, but kept coming back to the Selig EQ. I even sent variations of masters to another audio engineer to make sure I wasn't hallucinating the difference (what with ears being fickle analog devices), and in his blind tests, the Selig EQ-ed versions were the ones he consistently preferred.
So, I bought it. Darn you!
Last edited by cognitive on 18 Jun 2018, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome aboard.
Personally the EQ itself is totaly worth the price tag but integrate a parallel saturation to it was definitely a clever idea. Once i started to play with the saturation it was an insta-buy for me. I was amazed how effective and well controlled was this saturation and can give any thin and boring sound a total different dimension and presence. From now and on everytime i need to give fatness and grit to a sound Selig saturation has become my go to device.
After watching a promotional video of Nectar 3, I thought to myself that the EQ-follow feature (boosting the fundamental and having the hpf just right below it) maybe is something that ColoringEQ can pull off, if getting some help from Neptune's CV pitch and amplitude out.
After first trying the routing with some CV-REs, I found Peff's combinator which conveniently makes Neptune's bipolar CV pitch output to conform to Note CV (using Thor): http://www.peff.com/journal/2010/08/25/ ... ate-combi/
Routing this converted signal to ColoringEQ did the trick. After setting the tuning to E3 (and I also had to boost the Note CV signal via Selig Gain before it reached ColoringEQ) I am now able to "surf-boost" the fundamental as well as having a hpf just below it (I also threw in a "surf-cut" a bit higher up in the spectrum just for fun). It looks beautiful!
But.. it doesn't sound very good. At first I thought that this was because of timing issues between Neptune's CV signal and ColoringEQ. I never got under 375 samples of latency (the audio route) through Neptune, but I wonder if it's the same for its' CV out? I'm sure I need to slightly delay the audio signal before it reaches the ColoringEQ, but the question is by how much? Anyway... the sound was crackled and it didn't quite sounded like phase issues.
Then I noticed that I could see rumble in the spectrum whenever a crackled sound was produced. This rumble disappeared when bypassing ColoringEQ.
What's going on here? It would be fun to get rid of this crackled sound in order to assess whether ColoringEQ can be used as a follow/surf eq.
After first trying the routing with some CV-REs, I found Peff's combinator which conveniently makes Neptune's bipolar CV pitch output to conform to Note CV (using Thor): http://www.peff.com/journal/2010/08/25/ ... ate-combi/
Routing this converted signal to ColoringEQ did the trick. After setting the tuning to E3 (and I also had to boost the Note CV signal via Selig Gain before it reached ColoringEQ) I am now able to "surf-boost" the fundamental as well as having a hpf just below it (I also threw in a "surf-cut" a bit higher up in the spectrum just for fun). It looks beautiful!
But.. it doesn't sound very good. At first I thought that this was because of timing issues between Neptune's CV signal and ColoringEQ. I never got under 375 samples of latency (the audio route) through Neptune, but I wonder if it's the same for its' CV out? I'm sure I need to slightly delay the audio signal before it reaches the ColoringEQ, but the question is by how much? Anyway... the sound was crackled and it didn't quite sounded like phase issues.
Then I noticed that I could see rumble in the spectrum whenever a crackled sound was produced. This rumble disappeared when bypassing ColoringEQ.
What's going on here? It would be fun to get rid of this crackled sound in order to assess whether ColoringEQ can be used as a follow/surf eq.
I would have to see/hear the issue myself to know what's causing it.raveled wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018After watching a promotional video of Nectar 3, I thought to myself that the EQ-follow feature (boosting the fundamental and having the hpf just right below it) maybe is something that ColoringEQ can pull off, if getting some help from Neptune's CV pitch and amplitude out.
After first trying the routing with some CV-REs, I found Peff's combinator which conveniently makes Neptune's bipolar CV pitch output to conform to Note CV (using Thor): http://www.peff.com/journal/2010/08/25/ ... ate-combi/
Routing this converted signal to ColoringEQ did the trick. After setting the tuning to E3 (and I also had to boost the Note CV signal via Selig Gain before it reached ColoringEQ) I am now able to "surf-boost" the fundamental as well as having a hpf just below it (I also threw in a "surf-cut" a bit higher up in the spectrum just for fun). It looks beautiful!
But.. it doesn't sound very good. At first I thought that this was because of timing issues between Neptune's CV signal and ColoringEQ. I never got under 375 samples of latency (the audio route) through Neptune, but I wonder if it's the same for its' CV out? I'm sure I need to slightly delay the audio signal before it reaches the ColoringEQ, but the question is by how much? Anyway... the sound was crackled and it didn't quite sounded like phase issues.
Then I noticed that I could see rumble in the spectrum whenever a crackled sound was produced. This rumble disappeared when bypassing ColoringEQ.
What's going on here? It would be fun to get rid of this crackled sound in order to assess whether ColoringEQ can be used as a follow/surf eq.
Here's a simpler conversion (by one mod matrix line!) which gives high pass filter tracking to pitch using Neptune, with Filter 1 set to do the tracking: The Combinator isn't set up to do anything from the Rotaries or buttons, it's just to save the CV routing.
I've mentioned this before in other threads, that the best way to do vocal pitch tracking is to first convert the vocal to notes with the Pitch Editor. That way you get more precise and predictable tracking, which is not always the case with Neptune using CV.
Selig Audio, LLC
Just noticed this thing here: https://www.wavesfactory.com/spectre/
So, who was first?
The interresting thing is the different models, but for the rest its quite behind the features of ColoringEQ. But i guess that video with the whoopy bass will catch attention of lots of ppl and they say "whhhoooaaa"
So, who was first?
The interresting thing is the different models, but for the rest its quite behind the features of ColoringEQ. But i guess that video with the whoopy bass will catch attention of lots of ppl and they say "whhhoooaaa"
Reason12, Win10
I had em beat on the release by over a month - but I’ve been using and talking about the idea for over 5 years before that. But I certainly don’t think they copied my idea, unless they were on the PUF or RT forum (which is unlikely). I really am surprised no one else thought of this before.Loque wrote:Just noticed this thing here: https://www.wavesfactory.com/spectre/
So, who was first?
The interresting thing is the different models, but for the rest its quite behind the features of ColoringEQ. But i guess that video with the whoopy bass will catch attention of lots of ppl and they say "whhhoooaaa"
As for features, they are parallel EQ only, and I do serial EQ with parallel saturation (or parallel EQ with a Combinator). I also have even/odd harmonics which gives you complete control over variations between classic tube and transistor saturation. I found the EQ itself was responsible more for the tonal differences than saturation “type”, having tried many different saturation types and ended up picking the one that works best at all frequencies, and adapted best to the even/odd control.
I also found having control over saturation drive and level was essential to dialing up the more subtle variations, as was the solo button (don’t see that on theirs).
It’s also interesting IMO to have the separate outputs for saturation, which can be used even when saturation is off, which allows you to use any saturation type you like.
I would expect to see more of this type of EQ in the future - remember where you saw it first!
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
selig wrote: ↑31 Jan 2019I had em beat on the release by over a month - but I’ve been using and talking about the idea for over 5 years before that. But I certainly don’t think they copied my idea, unless they were on the PUF or RT forum (which is unlikely). I really am surprised no one else thought of this before.Loque wrote:Just noticed this thing here: https://www.wavesfactory.com/spectre/
So, who was first?
The interresting thing is the different models, but for the rest its quite behind the features of ColoringEQ. But i guess that video with the whoopy bass will catch attention of lots of ppl and they say "whhhoooaaa"
As for features, they are parallel EQ only, and I do serial EQ with parallel saturation (or parallel EQ with a Combinator). I also have even/odd harmonics which gives you complete control over variations between classic tube and transistor saturation. I found the EQ itself was responsible more for the tonal differences than saturation “type”, having tried many different saturation types and ended up picking the one that works best at all frequencies, and adapted best to the even/odd control.
I also found having control over saturation drive and level was essential to dialing up the more subtle variations, as was the solo button (don’t see that on theirs).
It’s also interesting IMO to have the separate outputs for saturation, which can be used even when saturation is off, which allows you to use any saturation type you like.
I would expect to see more of this type of EQ in the future - remember where you saw it first!
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Reason12, Win10
This thing get's so much use from me, I honestly don't know what I'd do without it.
-
- Posts: 3764
- Joined: 20 Oct 2017
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Same here!
I bought it during the Black Friday sale. This device does not get nearly the attention it deserves!
You always see people talk about the Selig Leveler and how brilliant it is but I would argue this thing is EQually as great
I'd been avoiding trying it out since I knew I didn't have the money to get it, so I still had the trial left. Tested it out on multiple sources (mostly recorded stuff like guitar and vocals) and there is nothing that doesn't benefit from a little selective saturation! You listen to a vocal and you know in your head how you want it to sound, well with the ColoringEQ you can easily sculpt it to sound exactly like that.
When I look at the store page it says it has 28 ratings which indicates to me that the sales can't have been glowing (I don't know what a normal conversion rate from ratings to customers are but I compare it to other devices).
To me that's a real shame considering it's one of those devices that actually tries to give you something new.
Hats off to Selig and Pitchblende for creating such a great rack extension!
You always see people talk about the Selig Leveler and how brilliant it is but I would argue this thing is EQually as great
I'd been avoiding trying it out since I knew I didn't have the money to get it, so I still had the trial left. Tested it out on multiple sources (mostly recorded stuff like guitar and vocals) and there is nothing that doesn't benefit from a little selective saturation! You listen to a vocal and you know in your head how you want it to sound, well with the ColoringEQ you can easily sculpt it to sound exactly like that.
When I look at the store page it says it has 28 ratings which indicates to me that the sales can't have been glowing (I don't know what a normal conversion rate from ratings to customers are but I compare it to other devices).
To me that's a real shame considering it's one of those devices that actually tries to give you something new.
Hats off to Selig and Pitchblende for creating such a great rack extension!
- MannequinRaces
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: 18 Jan 2015
Ratings have nothing to do with sales, lol. I hardly put any weight on ratings unless... they are all low. Agree that this device is great and should get more attention.
So the amount of individual ratings (which is obviously what I was referring to in my post with the number 28) is absolutely NO indication of how well a device has sold?MannequinRaces wrote: ↑02 Dec 2019Ratings have nothing to do with sales, lol. I hardly put any weight on ratings unless... they are all low. Agree that this device is great and should get more attention.
The Selig Leveler has 305 ratings compared to ColoringEQ which has 28, but you still think there is a chance that they both sold equally as many units?
That's not how statistics work...
Packed to the rafters with functionality that is extremely useful and unique! It's one of those things where you don't realize how insane it is until you've read the manual(even without reading it )or watched all the videos on the youtube and used it a lot on all kinds of material and experimented with the crazy features.Ottostrom wrote: ↑02 Dec 2019I bought it during the Black Friday sale. This device does not get nearly the attention it deserves!
You always see people talk about the Selig Leveler and how brilliant it is but I would argue this thing is EQually as great
I'd been avoiding trying it out since I knew I didn't have the money to get it, so I still had the trial left. Tested it out on multiple sources (mostly recorded stuff like guitar and vocals) and there is nothing that doesn't benefit from a little selective saturation! You listen to a vocal and you know in your head how you want it to sound, well with the ColoringEQ you can easily sculpt it to sound exactly like that.
When I look at the store page it says it has 28 ratings which indicates to me that the sales can't have been glowing (I don't know what a normal conversion rate from ratings to customers are but I compare it to other devices).
To me that's a real shame considering it's one of those devices that actually tries to give you something new.
Hats off to Selig and Pitchblende for creating such a great rack extension!
People don't talk about it because it's everyone's secret weapon.
I also feel stupid for ever comparing this to Saturn. Different machine!
Yes, it tells you how many people have rated that particular device. But only people who either try or buy that device can actually give it a rating, which means you can still derive a very general sense of popularity from that number as we have many different devices with their own rating number to compare with.
Another example:
VK-2 Viking Synthesizer has 107 ratings.
Electrons Synthesizer has 10 ratings.
Although I have no idea how many people actually bought each individual synth I can pretty confidently draw the conclusion that VK-2 has generated more interest.
- MannequinRaces
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: 18 Jan 2015
Well, it hasn’t been out nearly as long so it probably hasn’t sold as much. It’s pointless to speculate. It’s not important to me how much a device has sold and I don’t use the ratings system as an indication of sales. It’s cool if you do! People should try and then decide if it’s worth it to them to buy.Ottostrom wrote: ↑02 Dec 2019So the amount of individual ratings (which is obviously what I was referring to in my post with the number 28) is absolutely NO indication of how well a device has sold?MannequinRaces wrote: ↑02 Dec 2019Ratings have nothing to do with sales, lol. I hardly put any weight on ratings unless... they are all low. Agree that this device is great and should get more attention.
The Selig Leveler has 305 ratings compared to ColoringEQ which has 28, but you still think there is a chance that they both sold equally as many units?
That's not how statistics work...
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: josb and 3 guests