Selig ColoringEQ In The Shop!

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
User avatar
Ottostrom
Posts: 285
Joined: 13 May 2016

Post 02 Dec 2019

aeox wrote:
02 Dec 2019
People don't talk about it because it's everyone's secret weapon.
I like this explanation! :lol:
Aim for progress, not perfection.

User avatar
Ottostrom
Posts: 285
Joined: 13 May 2016

Post 02 Dec 2019

MannequinRaces wrote:
02 Dec 2019
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.
It's definitely true that time would also play a big factor in this number. And don't get me wrong, I would never let the number of units sold affect my own judgment if it's worth it.
What I'm concerned about is that I know the ColoringEQ was in development for a long time and that's not cheap.
Aim for progress, not perfection.

TritoneAddiction
Posts: 2026
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

Post 02 Dec 2019

My thoughts on why ColoringEQ isn't more talked about. I can only speak for myself of course, but for me simplicity wins. I want something quick and easy, nothing more. Especially for something so fundamental as EQ.
Having more options than I need will just become clutter to my eyes. That's why I personally prefer GQ-7 over Seligs Coloring EQ. Also GQ-7 just looks better/cleaner. Yes superficial I know, but this matters to me, especially since EQ is something I reach for all the time.
The saturation from ColoringEQ is very nice but still I prefer the exciter from Ozone for that. Yes I have compared them to each other.

Not trying to downplay ColoringEQs greatness here, just bringing my own personal perspective on the topic. So to sum it up GQ-7 probably suites dumbasses like me better who just want to move on quickly and get the job done, while ColoringEQ is for those that want to go into details and explore alternative ways. At least that's how I see it.

User avatar
friday
Posts: 233
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 02 Dec 2019

I bought it on blackfriday, and so far it sounds good, and has a interesting approach. As sayed before by others, I also was very positively surprised how good the saguration sounds.

What i found out on the negative side and really need to find a solution for, it is not possible to automate the tune in a line i need to paint every singele step? Hope that there is a workaround with CV or in a combinator.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8118
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 02 Dec 2019

friday wrote:
02 Dec 2019
I bought it on blackfriday, and so far it sounds good, and has a interesting approach. As sayed before by others, I also was very positively surprised how good the saguration sounds.

What i found out on the negative side and really need to find a solution for, it is not possible to automate the tune in a line i need to paint every singele step? Hope that there is a workaround with CV or in a combinator.
Automating the Tune slider is stepped because the slider is stepped. But the CV input is smooth and can handle audio rate modulation. One quick way to get smoother automation (and not have steps in the automation editor) is to use a Combinator and automate the Rotary in the combinator.

You can also use a CV signal - I often have a Pulsar LFO hooked to various CV inputs for filter sweeps, comb filter chorus/flanging, etc. Or you can hook a Selig Gain (or Thor Rotary) up to the CV Tune input of any band (or the master) to be able to draw automation in the time line with no steps. Lots of options!
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8118
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 02 Dec 2019

TritoneAddiction wrote:
02 Dec 2019
My thoughts on why ColoringEQ isn't more talked about. I can only speak for myself of course, but for me simplicity wins. I want something quick and easy, nothing more. Especially for something so fundamental as EQ...
I LOVE the SSL EQ, and use it often. What I wanted to build with the ColoringEQ was a specific alternative to the SSL. That is to say, an EQ that did things the SSL could not do - because otherwise, I'll use the SSL. I love the GQ7, but it's too close to being like the SSL to warrant using it over the SSL IMO. That was my motivation, FWIW - whether or not anyone thinks I hit that target is another story…

One idea I have for an update (to simplify things) is a "full screen" mode, where all you see is a giant graphical interface, with modifier keys to access additional functions (modifier keys were not an option in the custom display with the SDK we used to build the ColoringEQ).
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
friday
Posts: 233
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 03 Dec 2019

Thanks for your inputs about the stepped automation of tune!
selig wrote:
02 Dec 2019
One idea I have for an update (to simplify things) is a "full screen" mode, where all you see is a giant graphical interface...
This sounds like a great idea.

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 641
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Norway

Post 03 Dec 2019

selig wrote:
02 Dec 2019
TritoneAddiction wrote:
02 Dec 2019
My thoughts on why ColoringEQ isn't more talked about. I can only speak for myself of course, but for me simplicity wins. I want something quick and easy, nothing more. Especially for something so fundamental as EQ...
I LOVE the SSL EQ, and use it often. What I wanted to build with the ColoringEQ was a specific alternative to the SSL. That is to say, an EQ that did things the SSL could not do - because otherwise, I'll use the SSL. I love the GQ7, but it's too close to being like the SSL to warrant using it over the SSL IMO. That was my motivation, FWIW - whether or not anyone thinks I hit that target is another story…

One idea I have for an update (to simplify things) is a "full screen" mode, where all you see is a giant graphical interface, with modifier keys to access additional functions (modifier keys were not an option in the custom display with the SDK we used to build the ColoringEQ).
Looking forward to this!

User avatar
aeox
Posts: 2351
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 03 Dec 2019

PhillipOrdonez wrote:
03 Dec 2019
selig wrote:
02 Dec 2019


I LOVE the SSL EQ, and use it often. What I wanted to build with the ColoringEQ was a specific alternative to the SSL. That is to say, an EQ that did things the SSL could not do - because otherwise, I'll use the SSL. I love the GQ7, but it's too close to being like the SSL to warrant using it over the SSL IMO. That was my motivation, FWIW - whether or not anyone thinks I hit that target is another story…

One idea I have for an update (to simplify things) is a "full screen" mode, where all you see is a giant graphical interface, with modifier keys to access additional functions (modifier keys were not an option in the custom display with the SDK we used to build the ColoringEQ).
Looking forward to this!
:thumbs_up: :thumbs_up:
Random songs/ideas go here:
https://soundcloud.com/ae-ox/polar/s-Ocxtj

User avatar
raveled
Posts: 78
Joined: 08 Jul 2016

Post 07 Dec 2019

selig wrote:
02 Dec 2019

One idea I have for an update (to simplify things) is a "full screen" mode, where all you see is a giant graphical interface, with modifier keys to access additional functions (modifier keys were not an option in the custom display with the SDK we used to build the ColoringEQ).
Yes! Would be a great update to an already great RE.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 4 guests