People who have Synapse GQ-7

[Heigen5]

Dopetank_Mastering_X_28.png (521.29 KiB) Viewed 3382 times

Here's my latest patch for mastering. Everyone who has a Synapse GQ-7, could you plase try this out and give me some feedback?

So yeah, as you see from the screenshot there's 3 (three) M-Class Maximizers on the top of this chain.
When you try this out, you should turn the input of every 3 Maximizers, so all the three of em will be limiting the signal down for one bar or max two. <-- This usually makes all MY tracks great.

All the other knobs and buttons - are also there for you to use, BUT right now I did my best to have a chain, that is suppose to make your music sound good. So one more time: The 3 Maximisers - have em all limiting your signal down for 1 bar or so, and tell me how it sounds.

The third Maximizer is the last one in the chain and can be used to gain the maximum loudness. Maximizer 1 and 2 are there to tame down some pikes, before the signal goes to rest of the chain.

Here's the combi: www.reflexion-x.com/downloads/Dopetank_ ... ng_X28.cmb

Thanx!

[Heigen5]

This got my mastering even better, it's a bit cleaner - and because the both Reason's EQ's are better for to cut, I only did cut, and used the Synapse for boosting:

www.reflexion-x.com/downloads/Dopetank_ ... 8_VOL2.cmb

[Quiloc Lim]

I down loaded it & will give feed back soon. Thank you for sharing.

[Heigen5]

I down loaded it & will give feed back soon. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks.
This patch has my interest as it distorts and Tape-compresses the source. Been tweaking lots of my songs to give it some more color and processing my music to glue all the rawness together a bit.

[selig]

This got my mastering even better, it's a bit cleaner - and because the both Reason's EQ's are better for to cut, I only did cut, and used the Synapse for boosting:

How would you say Reason EQs are better for cutting? What happens when you boost?



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[FLVZ]

This got my mastering even better, it's a bit cleaner - and because the both Reason's EQ's are better for to cut, I only did cut, and used the Synapse for boosting:

How would you say Reason EQs are better for cutting? What happens when you boost?



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

In my experience the Mclass EQ is quite resonant (when boosting) and I find that particularly useful when identifying problem frequencies and since it has quite a surgical Q its also my go to for cutting because of the low dsp footprint and simple interface for quick results...

[Heigen5]

This got my mastering even better, it's a bit cleaner - and because the both Reason's EQ's are better for to cut, I only did cut, and used the Synapse for boosting:

How would you say Reason EQs are better for cutting? What happens when you boost?



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Actually it's good sometimes to give the source some "Edge", but my chain already has all those Scream4's, so I think that's why I prefer Synapse EQ for boosting as it sounds a lot cleaner and softer to me.

[selig]

How would you say Reason EQs are better for cutting? What happens when you boost?



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Actually it's good sometimes to give the source some "Edge", but my chain already has all those Scream4's, so I think that's why I prefer Synapse EQ for boosting as it sounds a lot cleaner and softer to me.

Interesting, and if it sounds good, it is good, so keep on doing what works for you!
You're not saying the Reason EQs sound better cutting, are you? Why not use the GQ7 on everything if not?

FWIW - on the technical side, there's nothing in either EQ to affect the cleanliness or "softness/hardness" of the results you get - they're just giving you slightly different curve shapes. The Synapse is certainly no cleaner or softer as an effect. With analog gear one EQ could be cleaner because it had more headroom in the surrounding circuitry (not because it's curves were "cleaner"), and another could be "dirtier" by having less headroom and breaking up easier. But that's about the active stages not the EQ stages…

But I "get" that EQs are a personal thing, that each curve can cause you to EQ differently, or one curve type can get you closer to the sound in your head quicker than another - which is why I've always gravitated towards EQs that provide more than one curve option!

[Heigen5]

Actually it's good sometimes to give the source some "Edge", but my chain already has all those Scream4's, so I think that's why I prefer Synapse EQ for boosting as it sounds a lot cleaner and softer to me.

Interesting, and if it sounds good, it is good, so keep on doing what works for you!
You're not saying the Reason EQs sound better cutting, are you? Why not use the GQ7 on everything if not?

FWIW - on the technical side, there's nothing in either EQ to affect the cleanliness or "softness/hardness" of the results you get - they're just giving you slightly different curve shapes. The Synapse is certainly no cleaner or softer as an effect. With analog gear one EQ could be cleaner because it had more headroom in the surrounding circuitry (not because it's curves were "cleaner"), and another could be "dirtier" by having less headroom and breaking up easier. But that's about the active stages not the EQ stages…

But I "get" that EQs are a personal thing, that each curve can cause you to EQ differently, or one curve type can get you closer to the sound in your head quicker than another - which is why I've always gravitated towards EQs that provide more than one curve option!

There's more into it than just curve-shapes I think. As far as I know there can be band-diversity too.
But why do you think you know, what have Props and Synapse done to their EQ's?

[selig]

There's more into it than just curve-shapes I think. As far as I know there can be band-diversity too.
But why do you think you know, what have Props and Synapse done to their EQ's?

What’s “Band Diversity”? What else can be going on other than band shapes, if there’s no analog style saturation (and there is none in the EQs we’re discussing)?

There can be “Band Interaction” in some vintage EQ designs, most notably the Trident EQ. Is that what you’re talking about? That’s not happening in any of these EQs fwiw.

What I know is neither have done anything to their EQ.
That’s the point I was trying to make, probably poorly but sincerely!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

There's more into it than just curve-shapes I think. As far as I know there can be band-diversity too.
But why do you think you know, what have Props and Synapse done to their EQ's?

What’s “Band Diversity”? What else can be going on other than band shapes, if there’s no analog style saturation (and there is none in the EQs we’re discussing)?

There can be “Band Interaction” in some vintage EQ designs, most notably the Trident EQ. Is that what you’re talking about? That’s not happening in any of these EQs fwiw.

What I know is neither have done anything to their EQ.
That’s the point I was trying to make, probably poorly but sincerely!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Ok, you have developed a color-eq, and I'm pretty much like sure that lots of the EQ's may color the source too, but they didn't tell us they did. Simply.

[Heigen5]

What’s “Band Diversity”? What else can be going on other than band shapes, if there’s no analog style saturation (and there is none in the EQs we’re discussing)?

Are you sure there's no diversity differences in EQ's i.e. a different amount of bands like REQ131 but in parametric stylee?

[selig]

Ok, you have developed a color-eq, and I'm pretty much like sure that lots of the EQ's may color the source too, but they didn't tell us they did. Simply.

But the ones we’re talking about do not, and that’s what I was addressing.

In the digital world, few EQs I’ve tested (and I’ve tested a lot) do any sort of additional saturation. Most use the same base filter code from bilinear to zero delay. It’s how they’re combined to create the final device that makes the difference, including things like asymmetry or proportional Q - but nothing that affects the “tone” or “color”. That’s one of the things that led me to create the ColoringEQ, as there was little to no competition in that market!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[selig]

What’s “Band Diversity”? What else can be going on other than band shapes, if there’s no analog style saturation (and there is none in the EQs we’re discussing)?

Are you sure there's no diversity differences in EQ's i.e. a different amount of bands like REQ131 but in parametric stylee?

Oh, do you mean the number of bands?
I assumed our discussion was about whether one EQ as “cleaner” or “softer” than another, and what qualities affected that opinion?

Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

Are you sure there's no diversity differences in EQ's i.e. a different amount of bands like REQ131 but in parametric stylee?

Oh, do you mean the number of bands?
I assumed our discussion was about whether one EQ as “cleaner” or “softer” than another, and what qualities affected that opinion?

Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

If you really think about it then more diversity in bands has a smoother sound - at least in theory. Less band's in a frequency range should have more radical "stairs", no? But hey, if you can prove M-class EQ sounding the same as Synapse, why don't you do it then? Maybe my ears lie then, or then you don't know all of it yourself?

[selig]

Maybe I don’t understand the use of the term “diversity”.
Smoother sound is generally a factor of the bandwidth of the EQ in use, not the number of bands, no?

To clarify, you’re the one saying they sound different, and I’m the one saying “WHY” they sound different (the different curve shapes). It’s because of the different curve shapes that you cannot make them sound exactly the same at all settings, especially the shelves which are totally different and cannot exactly match at any settings.

It’s been proven many times that if the curves match (not the knobs or the number, but the RESULT), then there are no other factors that could cause the “sound” to be different (assuming we’re not comparing a linear phase EQ with these, for example).

The parametric curves can easily match between the MClass and GQ7 EQ. Set the MClass to it’s defaults for a mid band: 883.9 Hz, Q=5.7. Set the GQ7 to 885Hz (or use automation to get closer, but this is close enough IMO) and Q=8.0. At a boost (or cut) of 6 dB they will match exactly. Other gain setting will not match due to different proportional Q settings, but they CAN be made to match by adjusting Q.

I use FuzzMeasure for testing and comparison, which shows not only frequency response but also phase and distortion to an extremely high degree of precision. That’s the only reason I feel 100% confident in what I’m saying.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

There could be also some DSP like don't boost the 20th highest spike upwards and only boost the rest. There could be also a combination of a compressor and EQ. But hey, so you claim that I if I boost the same amount of decibels in both these two, the M-class doesn't scream more than Synapse?

[selig]

There could be also some DSP like don't boost the 20th highest spike upwards and only boost the rest. There could be also a combination of a compressor and EQ. But hey, so you claim that I if I boost the same amount of decibels in both these two, the M-class doesn't scream more than Synapse?

Yes - there's no other quality that could make one sound different. EQ curve is determined by phase - curve matches, so does phase, and there's no distortion being added. What else is left in a digital EQ circuit?

I could show you the two EQ plots from FuzzMeasure, overlaid for frequency/phase/distortion - but you'd only see one since they line up at the settings I gave previously, so there'd be no point in doing so as you'd only see one curve!

Here's a Combinator to compare - I even did a quick null test just to be sure, which you can do with a little extra patching if you need further evidence. Use automation to get the frequency even closer to the MClass if you want an even better null test.

CompareEQ.cmb.zip

(1.91 KiB) Downloaded 70 times

[Heigen5]

I wish there would be CV-Curves ins in the EQs so we could have a Synapse curves in M-class and vice versa etc.
Checking your combi tomorrow.

[Heigen5]

Ok, I tested this comparison file and further-tweaked these to match as well as possible.
I uploaded a reason save, where I boosted highs instead of the mids, as the highs are better for a comparison like this to really hear the difference.

My own testing summary is that there's a difference - M-class clearly has more "listen to me character" than Synapse. Or should I say some kind of character that almost starts to torture nerves. And if that nerve thing is multiplied by using M-class a lot, then the difference is even more obvious.

But here's the file: www.reflexion-x.com/downloads/EQ_Comparison.reason

[aeox]

Ok, I tested this comparison file and further-tweaked these to match as well as possible.
I uploaded a reason save, where I boosted highs instead of the mids, as the highs are better for a comparison like this to really hear the difference.

My own testing summary is that there's a difference - M-class clearly has more "listen to me character" than Synapse. Or should I say some kind of character that almost starts to torture nerves. And if that nerve thing is multiplied by using M-class a lot, then the difference is even more obvious.

But here's the file: www.reflexion-x.com/downloads/EQ_Comparison.reason

Seligs cmb clearly shows that the EQs null and there is no color at all

[selig]

Ok, I tested this comparison file and further-tweaked these to match as well as possible.
I uploaded a reason save, where I boosted highs instead of the mids, as the highs are better for a comparison like this to really hear the difference.

My own testing summary is that there's a difference - M-class clearly has more "listen to me character" than Synapse. Or should I say some kind of character that almost starts to torture nerves. And if that nerve thing is multiplied by using M-class a lot, then the difference is even more obvious.

But here's the file: www.reflexion-x.com/downloads/EQ_Comparison.reason

The files already matched to 0.1dB across the entire curve. As I said, if I display BOTH frequency plots at the same time, you only “see” one curve because they are THAT close! If you have changed anything they now don’t match “as well as possible”, which a quicik null test would prove if you don’t have accurate test software.

I already mentioned the high shelf on MClass cannot be matched with GQ7 - of course, they WILL sound different no matter how you adjust them.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

Ok, I tested this comparison file and further-tweaked these to match as well as possible.
I uploaded a reason save, where I boosted highs instead of the mids, as the highs are better for a comparison like this to really hear the difference.

My own testing summary is that there's a difference - M-class clearly has more "listen to me character" than Synapse. Or should I say some kind of character that almost starts to torture nerves. And if that nerve thing is multiplied by using M-class a lot, then the difference is even more obvious.

But here's the file: www.reflexion-x.com/downloads/EQ_Comparison.reason

The files already matched to 0.1dB across the entire curve. As I said, if I display BOTH frequency plots at the same time, you only “see” one curve because they are THAT close! If you have changed anything they now don’t match “as well as possible”, which a quicik null test would prove if you don’t have accurate test software.

I already mentioned the high shelf on MClass cannot be matched with GQ7 - of course, they WILL sound different no matter how you adjust them.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

So why did you choose to test the mids as in my earlier statement I told you about the softer highs and now you admitt it yourself then?

[foxthreads]

For what it’s worth, I now know more about EQ thanks!

[O1B]

For what it'w worth -

I loaded up REQ131 and an MClassEQ splitting an F#01 note from a Subtractor (default BASS GUITAR)

I turned ON the HPF of the REQ131 so that they would NULL on inversion.
I then lowered the 250Hz fader on the REQ131 by -10.1dB.
Lowering the MClass at 250.7 to -12.6 with a Q of 6.1 was closer to null than lowering it to...
...say -10.3 - at any Q that i checked (quickly)
TEST it YOURSELF

EQs are different. Even when they look the same.
I loaded the REQ131 and RRS RE302 on an inverted track. Same EQ filters... turn ON HPF (REQ131) for Null..
Now, lowering/raising similar bands at similar dBs will not null.

EQs are different and can SOUND different. Even when they look the same.

It was easier to Null the REQ131 w/an MClass than the RE302.