Synapse GQ-7 Equalizer

[deepndark]

I really like GQ-7. It's got everything I need to be my go-to EQ. The high and low shelf on the Mclass EQ sounds like crap compared to the way GQ-7 handles it. Mclass creates these horrible dips before the boost and it sounds like s***, so harsh sounding. Also you cannot set the Q band setting as wide. Also it looks really dull and has no spectrum display.

With some additional work and effort I can make GQ-7 sound as bad as Mclass but I can't make Mclass sound as good as GQ-7.

Personally I see no reason what so ever to use Mclass if you already own GQ-7 , well maybe for DSP reasons, but honestly GQ-7 is very light on the DSP as well so it's never been a problem.

This is just how i see this EQ too. Hopefully people won't start making "fun" over you as well though.

[Runner2x]

Personally I see no reason what so ever to use Mclass if you already own GQ-7 , well maybe for DSP reasons, but honestly GQ-7 is very light on the DSP as well so it's never been a problem.

For me it just seems unnecessary to use the GQ-7 to dip a little harshness in a clap drum sound. Little individual channel tweaks like those are good for M-Class and GQ-7 is better for broad strokes considering the visual aide, shelving and curves.

[Runner2x]

I play mostly physical instruments and have good mics with a good analog mixer. These days, I either don't use any EQ (well ok my amps are dialed in) or I use it to turn down the muddy frequencies in the mix. Granted I'm not currently in the final stages of making a record, still finishing up the writing process, but in general I try to avoid using any EQ until later stages where I've already recorded the take at the best possible settings and still feel like it needs to be tweaked to fit in the mix better. Currently, the McDSP EQ's are my go to for subtle tweaks. GQ7 for surgical needs. But both sparingly. Been hoping Selig's coloring EQ goes on sale for may madness because I don't need another EQ but kinda want to play with that one.

Oh yeah that makes more sense. I had a feeling you were a real musician and it seems that saving EQ tweaks for the later stages is generally the rule of thumb.

Selig's coloring EQ looks interesting indeed and I'm specifically interested in seeing what tracking EQ is all about.

[TritoneAddiction]

Personally I see no reason what so ever to use Mclass if you already own GQ-7 , well maybe for DSP reasons, but honestly GQ-7 is very light on the DSP as well so it's never been a problem.

For me it just seems unnecessary to use the GQ-7 to dip a little harshness in a clap drum sound. Little individual channel tweaks like those are good for M-Class and GQ-7 is better for broad strokes considering the visual aide, shelving and curves.

Well whatever works for you

But if I remember correctly I even thought narrow cutting sounded better with the GQ-7 too.
There's just something about Mclass that sounds harsh to me. But it's not like you're gonna hear a track mixed with Mclass, react and go "omg it's the Mclass EQ"

[selig]

Personally I see no reason what so ever to use Mclass if you already own GQ-7 , well maybe for DSP reasons, but honestly GQ-7 is very light on the DSP as well so it's never been a problem.

For me it just seems unnecessary to use the GQ-7 to dip a little harshness in a clap drum sound. Little individual channel tweaks like those are good for M-Class and GQ-7 is better for broad strokes considering the visual aide, shelving and curves.

I personally love the SSL for the quick general tweaks, if just for speed. Where it lacks IMO is for the more surgical/narrow applications.

FWIW, I've never heard the MClass as "harsh", especially on cuts (it's actually slightly more narrow than GQ7 path the highest Q, but otherwise sounds the same to me).

As for it's shelves, the GQ7 and ColoringEQ can also add peak/dips to the shelf EQ - but with the MClass, it's always there a bit even at the lowest Q settings. It's this quality that may be off-putting to some. That, and the fact that even at the same frequency settings the GQ7 has a much higher frequency ( and thus more subtle) boost, which avoids boosting the "harsh" frequencies.

For example, if you set both EQs to 6 kHz and boost by 15 dB (MClass Q=0.5, GQ7 Q=2.0) , the MClass is boosting 2dB more, and roughly a full octave LOWER (which boosts more of the 'harsh' upper mid-range frequencies by 6 dB compared to the GQ7!):
MClass in RED, GQ7 in BLUE:

Screen Shot 2018-04-25 at 12.55.18 PM.png (151.33 KiB) Viewed 2735 times

To get something more comparable, you have to adjust the MClass to a frequency of around 9.6kHz, and a 12 dB boost, like this:
MClass in RED, GQ7 in BLUE:

Screen Shot 2018-04-25 at 12.57.46 PM.png (149.08 KiB) Viewed 2735 times

The difference (in the dip) is only around 1 dB, which means these curves sound very similar to each other - but you wouldn't likely use these settings to compare, right?

MClass EQ is also just too limited for many applications that I don't think to reach for it. The only exception would be when building a Combinator to share with a wide audience, since everyone has the MClass EQ, and you can't put the SSL EQ into a Combi.

[selig]

For the curious…
Here's a Combinator that compares the high shelves of the MClass EQ vs the GQ7. Use Button 1 to compare, use Rotary 1 to set boost, cut. Matches the best at full boost, which references the last frequency plot in my previous post. Cuts do not match well, so don't judge the cuts!

CompareShelves.cmb.zip

(1.91 KiB) Downloaded 54 times

[drno]

Selig, what application draw these graphics?

[selig]

Selig, what application draw these graphics?

I use FuzzMeasure, which is unfortunately Mac only. It is also great for room analysis (using a $50 Behringer test mic). It also shows distortion, phase, and timing data (impulse response), using a swept sine technique (very accurate!).

Have used this for years, initially for acoustics work, then realized you can run it through anything in real time. You can also create a file that can be used remotely, such as for car speaker tests, where you merge the data after the fact (you need a player AND a recorder for this application).

I've also used it to test a friend's diffuser products, by looking at the impulse response to see how much it was smeared in time by the diffuser.

Can be lots of fun, if you're into this sort of thing…

[deepndark]

It's good this thread went back to discussing EQs.
When i use M-class high-shelf to add more highend, over mastering section, I always feel like I don't get close enough to "sweet-spot" situation - soundwise. But, there have been also situations, whereas M-class served me well enough.
Oftenly I need to boost the highs to add more "energy" into the sound. Not too much, just a subtle boost oftenly. So yeah, seems like a small highshelf boost with GQ-7 kind of fixes the sound (KIND OF).

[Runner2x]

I personally love the SSL for the quick general tweaks, if just for speed. Where it lacks IMO is for the more surgical/narrow applications.

I've actually been getting into the SSL more, although without E Mode, but at least I'm moving beyond filtering! I like the SSL for dipping some low mids in musical elements and as mentioned I like the M-Class for dipping drum spikes (mostly) that can be problematic while also requiring some narrow Q's.

Well whatever works for you

I think of the tools as paint brushes. Why would an artist restrict themself to one paint brush (even in "mastering")? I have a bunch of EQ's as indicated with my avatar but I've narrowed my toolbox down to a few - the loyal M-Class being one of them!

My go-to EQ's in the rack are

SSL - filtering + low mids
M-Class - mostly drums + narrow Q's + 1.3kHz and 2.5kHz offending ranges
Synapse GQ-7 - shaping
Kuassa MP5 - low end mostly

Then I accompany with some plugins

Brainworx bx_hybrid v2 - this is actually my shelving EQ (even better than GQ-7 imo) + being able to automatically hear the range that is being tweaked is wonderful + the joysticks produce very interesting results (see below)
Brainworx dyna_EQ v2 - dynamic EQ for complicated situations
Brainworx bx_digital V3 - mid-side mastering EQ that I'm just barely dipping into
Ozone 8 Advanced EQ's when I'm finalizing a track
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually quite like the Ozone Dynamic EQ for taming the overall range that seems to come through naturally just a little too harsh for me. I think that is due to the frequency response of my headphones though as I can see the engineered boost in frequency response with my Sonarworks Reference plugin (see correction curve below which is the opposite of my headphone response of course). Of course the Sonarworks is used for monitoring and it is bypassed upon export.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sonarworks.jpg (50.55 KiB) Viewed 2680 times

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is Sonarworks relevant to this discussion? Because our listening environments and tools are going to have a significant impact on the decisions we make of course. All this discussion about "mastering EQ", "smoothing", "density", "harshness", doesn't really amount to much if it is not approached with an objective perspective. Using reference tracks is also strongly advised and maybe even creating a custom tonal balance (iZotope) reference as a guideline. I also feel the need to mention this because somebody told me the other day they don't use reference tracks. Just a little something for the OP to consider when thinking about "master" EQ.

Sorry if this is coming off as rambling and being full of myself. I'm hyped up off the coffee and getting ready to start a new project. Down the rabbit hole we go now.

[Runner2x]

I use FuzzMeasure, which is unfortunately Mac only.

Is there any kind of option for Windows? I would certainly like to run some tests with the various options I have.

[TritoneAddiction]

I think of the tools as paint brushes. Why would an artist restrict themself to one paint brush (even in "mastering")? I have a bunch of EQ's as indicated with my avatar but I've narrowed my toolbox down to a few - the loyal M-Class being one of them!

I agree with you. I use several EQs too. It's just Mclass in particular that I hate

But again we should all use the tools that works for us. There are several REs that I love that others don't seem to care for at all here at RT. That's fine. The important thing is we figure out what tools we like.

[Runner2x]

There are several REs that I love that others don't seem to care for at all here at RT. That's fine. The important thing is we figure out what tools we like.

You mean like Disperser and CrapRE? To give you some credit - I haven't tried those.

[TritoneAddiction]

There are several REs that I love that others don't seem to care for at all here at RT. That's fine. The important thing is we figure out what tools we like.

You mean like Disperser and CrapRE?

Yes and Carve too.

[selig]

I use FuzzMeasure, which is unfortunately Mac only.

Is there any kind of option for Windows? I would certainly like to run some tests with the various options I have.

Check for software that uses "swept-sine" techniques, there are plenty but I don't have direct or indirect experience with any of them to know which to recommend.

[deepndark]

Hey Selig, relax though, I sometimes also want to keep my yard clean. (i.e. no pun intended).
I'm sure your help has it's place and I trust when you said, "This is not me at all" - carry on my friend-!

[aeox]

Not sure where you got your information from, there are some EQ's that also compress, color etc. when boosting.

Yes there are EQs that color, but until VSTs and my ColoringEQ, there were none in Reason that did this (which is why I did it!).

But back to your claim the GQ7 sounds different from the MClass EQ, it's tricky to compare fairly. Here are the two EQs with the EXACT same settings according to the knobs: +6 dB, 6 kHz, Q = 2.0:

MClass = Yellow, GQ7 = Purple
Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 2.42.11 PM.png


Of COURSE they are going to sound very different, but it should now be more clear WHY they sound different (and it has nothing to do with color).

In this case, you won't be able to exactly match the shelf EQs because they use different underlying filters. But you can easily match the parametric bands because they use the same filter types.
Here they are with the same settings (+6 dB, 3.2 kHz, Q = 2.0), which are quite close to start with:

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 2.51.27 PM.png

And here they are "matched" by adjusting the MClass Q to 1.5:
Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 2.54.29 PM.png

And here they are matched by adjusting the GQ7 Q to 2.7"
Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 2.56.28 PM.png

In these cases you will not hear the difference between the two because they match in both their frequency response curve and their phase response curve - there are no other variables with these EQ, so there cannot be any variation in how they sound unless you can hear the less than 1/10th of one decibel difference at the peak of the boost (which I didn't compensate for, but could have done so!).

Again, the take away is you cannot compare two EQs based on settings alone, and if the curve matches, the sound matches. Also, as with the shelf example, sometimes you cannot make the curve match, so you also cannot expect them to sound the same!

As with all EQs, it's about having the curve shapes that work for you, which is why (shameless self promotion) an EQ with more curve shape options is more likely to get you the results you seek!

I remember when you tried doing this with the RE3Q (Trying to mimic the "air band" with SSL EQ). Although you could get the curves the same with the SSL EQ, it sounded nothing alike. I know there isn't some "magic" going on, so I wonder what actually causes that?

[selig]

Yes there are EQs that color, but until VSTs and my ColoringEQ, there were none in Reason that did this (which is why I did it!).

But back to your claim the GQ7 sounds different from the MClass EQ, it's tricky to compare fairly. Here are the two EQs with the EXACT same settings according to the knobs: +6 dB, 6 kHz, Q = 2.0:

MClass = Yellow, GQ7 = Purple
Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 2.42.11 PM.png


Of COURSE they are going to sound very different, but it should now be more clear WHY they sound different (and it has nothing to do with color).

In this case, you won't be able to exactly match the shelf EQs because they use different underlying filters. But you can easily match the parametric bands because they use the same filter types.
Here they are with the same settings (+6 dB, 3.2 kHz, Q = 2.0), which are quite close to start with:

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 2.51.27 PM.png

And here they are "matched" by adjusting the MClass Q to 1.5:
Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 2.54.29 PM.png

And here they are matched by adjusting the GQ7 Q to 2.7"
Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 2.56.28 PM.png

In these cases you will not hear the difference between the two because they match in both their frequency response curve and their phase response curve - there are no other variables with these EQ, so there cannot be any variation in how they sound unless you can hear the less than 1/10th of one decibel difference at the peak of the boost (which I didn't compensate for, but could have done so!).

Again, the take away is you cannot compare two EQs based on settings alone, and if the curve matches, the sound matches. Also, as with the shelf example, sometimes you cannot make the curve match, so you also cannot expect them to sound the same!

As with all EQs, it's about having the curve shapes that work for you, which is why (shameless self promotion) an EQ with more curve shape options is more likely to get you the results you seek!

I remember when you tried doing this with the RE3Q (Trying to mimic the "air band" with SSL EQ). Although you could get the curves the same with the SSL EQ, it sounded nothing alike. I know there isn't some "magic" going on, so I wonder what actually causes that?

We remember differently then! I don’t recall the details (was it the SSL?), but do remember it sounded exactly alike to me - or maybe I’ve lost my ‘edge’, or maybe I don’t care any more and just want to make music! We agree there’s no “magic” going on, so I’ll leave it at that!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[O1B]

I had a feeling...
Yes, that's Denzel from Training Day. That scene conveys ' I Concur.'

I have collected so many analog equalizers over the years. I EQ on the way in and get my phase-smearing at the source!

"Something like a 6dB wide Q 22kHz boost sounds WAY different..."
"The “air” around the sound isn’t pinched off and harsh..."
"... feels like the sound floats on top of the mix."

I don’t get it....you placed a picture of Denzel Washington in the middle of my post and then highlighted some parts in red. Was this meant to convey information or were you just trying to be funny? If the latter, I believe the joke is lost on me.

[jimmyklane]

In this case, you won't be able to exactly match the shelf EQs because they use different underlying filters.

I never was a fan of the MClass shelving but this is some good info. Thanks!

This is just freaking NUTS! Why does the graphic show a smooth curve and yet create such a different curve? Other EQ plugins can create these same types of curves but they also reflect that in the graphic. Perhaps since I only use MClass in minute amounts I’ve just never seen the graphic that shows this curve???

[jimmyklane]

I had a feeling...
Yes, that's Denzel from Training Day. That scene conveys ' I Concur.'

I don’t get it....you placed a picture of Denzel Washington in the middle of my post and then highlighted some parts in red. Was this meant to convey information or were you just trying to be funny? If the latter, I believe the joke is lost on me.

Now I got you. Training day was a badass movie.

[O1B]

I couldn't come up with a better way to agree with someone!

Now I got you. Training day was a badass movie.
[/quote]

[selig]

I never was a fan of the MClass shelving but this is some good info. Thanks!

This is just freaking NUTS! Why does the graphic show a smooth curve and yet create such a different curve? Other EQ plugins can create these same types of curves but they also reflect that in the graphic. Perhaps since I only use MClass in minute amounts I’ve just never seen the graphic that shows this curve???

FWIW-That graphic was with the MClass Q up higher than the default, but the fact is many EQs (GQ7 included) do not always show 100% accurate response curves. Best to use the displays as a guide only, just in case you’re not sure what’s really going on.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[guitfnky]

Not sure where you got your information from, there are some EQ's that also compress, color etc. when boosting.

Yes there are EQs that color, but until VSTs and my ColoringEQ, there were none in Reason that did this (which is why I did it!).

I’m a little late to the party, I know...not to be pedantic (okay, maybe a little), but there are definitely rack extensions that have colored the audio by adding saturation. RP EQ and one of the Kuassa extensions (AT-5, I think?) both do, at the very least. not quite in this way though, and it certainly doesn’t take away from the impressive feature set and sound in this thing. nice job!

[aeox]

Yes there are EQs that color, but until VSTs and my ColoringEQ, there were none in Reason that did this (which is why I did it!).

I’m a little late to the party, I know...not to be pedantic (okay, maybe a little), but there are definitely rack extensions that have colored the audio by adding saturation. RP EQ and one of the Kuassa extensions (AT-5, I think?) both do, at the very least. not quite in this way though, and it certainly doesn’t take away from the impressive feature set and sound in this thing. nice job!

Doesn't Moo Q do tube saturation as well?

Either way, ColoringEQ kind of took it to a new level with loads more features.