People who have Synapse GQ-7

[selig]

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?

I “admitted” it from the start. If an EQ curve matches exactly then it’s exactly the same sound. And if the curves don’t match, it’s unlikely they will sound the same (depending no how different they are, of course).It’s all I’m saying. It’s simple science.
Not trying to “fool” anyone so there’s nothing to “admit”.
I’ve been saying exactly the same thing for many years now, repeated for every new audience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[selig]

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

If you compare the output as analyzed with a high resolution analyzer and they look the same, they are the same. Otherwise, there are so many variables as to make the act of matching panel settings or display curves irrelevant. That is to say, the display on an EQ doesn’t always represent what the EQ is actually doing, and the knob settings definitely don’t match (a common mistake I call “I set the knobs the same but they sounded different” syndrome).



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[O1B]

If you compare the output as analyzed with a high resolution analyzer and they look the same, they are the same.
Yes, I believe that. Yes, thats your caveat,

"so many variables as to make the act of matching panel" - Nope.
Should've stopped while you were ahead.

Sorry... Selig.... Im not buying that Schtick.



Two similar EQs ... with the same design can sound different. I understand your caveat though...

"there are so many variables"

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

If you compare the output as analyzed with a high resolution analyzer and they look the same, they are the same. Otherwise, there are so many variables as to make the act of matching panel settings or display curves irrelevant. That is to say, the display on an EQ doesn’t always represent what the EQ is actually doing, and the knob settings definitely don’t match (a common mistake I call “I set the knobs the same but they sounded different” syndrome).



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[selig]

If you compare the output as analyzed with a high resolution analyzer and they look the same, they are the same.
Yes, I believe that. Yes, thats your caveat,

"so many variables as to make the act of matching panel" - Nope.
Should've stopped while you were ahead.

Sorry... Selig.... Im not buying that Schtick.

Buy it or not, your choice. I’m talking facts, not opinions. Can back up what I’ve said with data, as I have many times before when this exact subject has come up.

Just to be clear, what part of what I said do I need to further qualify?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

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?

I “admitted” it from the start. If an EQ curve matches exactly then it’s exactly the same sound. And if the curves don’t match, it’s unlikely they will sound the same (depending no how different they are, of course).It’s all I’m saying. It’s simple science.
Not trying to “fool” anyone so there’s nothing to “admit”.
I’ve been saying exactly the same thing for many years now, repeated for every new audience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So all the buzz about M-class being suited for mastering is bullshit? A pure digital EQ propably doesn't sell as much, so they rather give em a fancy name?

[selig]

I “admitted” it from the start. If an EQ curve matches exactly then it’s exactly the same sound. And if the curves don’t match, it’s unlikely they will sound the same (depending no how different they are, of course).It’s all I’m saying. It’s simple science.
Not trying to “fool” anyone so there’s nothing to “admit”.
I’ve been saying exactly the same thing for many years now, repeated for every new audience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So all the buzz about M-class being suited for mastering is bullshit? A pure digital EQ propably doesn't sell as much, so they rather give em a fancy name?

That question would be better asked of the folks who designed and named the product.

I’ve never been a huge fan of any of the MClass devices other than for pure utilitarian applications (The MClass compressor is great as an envelope detector for triggering dynamic responses in other devices via CV, as one example).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

So you don't like the MClass EQ's curves?

[selig]

So you don't like the MClass EQ's curves?

Actually no, I don’t like the way the shelf works since you cannot smooth the response (the dip is alway present) as you can do with most other EQs.

The parametric bands are fine, they just don’t have enough range (for all parameters) to be ideal for every application.

OTOH, I’m a huge fan of the SSL EQ, probably because I learned on it back in the 1980s and so am “stuck” on how well it works for me (and know it very well).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

So you said I should keep using the MClass as it sounds the same as Synapse, but you personally dislike it, haha!

[selig]

So you said I should keep using the MClass as it sounds the same as Synapse, but you personally dislike it, haha!

Did I say that? Where did I say that? I don’t remember saying that.

I never said you should keep using the MClass. I never said it sounds the same as Synapse. I never said I personally dislike the MClass.

What I DID say was that if the curves match, then the sound matches (and I showed one example of settings to use so the curves will match). I DID say I didn’t like the high and low shelf EQ from the MClass.

Just to be clear…

Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

So you said I should keep using the MClass as it sounds the same as Synapse, but you personally dislike it, haha!

Did I say that? Where did I say that? I don’t remember saying that.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

You kind of did ask me that why don't I boost with the MClass, and I said it sounds harsher. Then you provided an a/b file and said they are the same. I made mine and proved they ain't.

[selig]

Did I say that? Where did I say that? I don’t remember saying that.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

You kind of did ask me that why don't I boost with the MClass, and I said it sounds harsher. Then you provided an a/b file and said they are the same. I made mine and proved they ain't.

I remember I proved they sounded exactly the same when the curves matched exactly.

Did I miss something you posted that proved they didn’t sound the same when the curves matched, or are you talking about something different?

Certainly willing to take a look again if I overlooked something.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

I posted a Reason save whereas I made my own a/b out of your combi. I did test the highs and got a clear difference in the sound. Didn't you check it?

[selig]

I posted a Reason save whereas I made my own a/b out of your combi. I did test the highs and got a clear difference in the sound. Didn't you check it?

Let’s review what I said a while back, because I believe you created a test that proved my point

From earlier:
“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.”

As I’ve already reminded you, I said from the start that the MClass Shelf EQ CANNOT MATCH other shelves I’ve seen.

If your test proves that, then yay - we totally agree!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Heigen5]

Ok. Yay, but that's why Synapse EQ was my choice, a softer sound in the highs. Yay!


















Yay.... yay!!!1!

[selig]

For the curious, here's the reason you cannot match the high shelves in MClass to (most?) other EQs.
MClass in BLUE, GQ7 in GREEN:

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 11.15.14 AM.png (160.44 KiB) Viewed 1893 times

This took a while to fine tune the settings to even come close, but as you can see there is still the "dip" on the MClass that's not able to be replicated. Plus the actual curve is not as close as is possible on other curve types.

Also note the major discrepancy between the actual knob settings, as well as the difference in what the display shows vs the measured (actual) EQ plot:
The MClass plot doesn't even show the dip in the high shelf response (the dip will appear with higher Q settings):

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 11.19.05 AM.png (65.76 KiB) Viewed 1893 times

The Synapse shows the top of the curve being almost flat (it's not):

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 11.19.12 AM.png (260.39 KiB) Viewed 1893 times

Then there's the knob settings.

MClass EQ:
Freq: 6kHz
Gain: +6dB
Q: 0.5

GQ7:
Freq: 2.9kHz (over an octave LOWER)
Gain: +6.8dB (almost a dB higher)
Q: 2.1 (who knows as "Q" is not a 100% standardized setting in the industry)

So even if you set the knobs to the same values, and even if you make the curves "look" the same on the EQ display, you can still be quite a bit off from matching the actual curves you hear.

And in the case of the MClass shelf curve, you can never match the actual curves. This is why (and is the ONLY reason why) the MClass shelf EQ will always sound different from other EQs in Reason. Unless you can find one that can match this unique curve shape.

[selig]

Another example of curve matching where the values are nowhere close to matching:
RPEQ "Air" band (BLUE) and ColoringEQ High Shelf (GREEN)

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 11.39.37 AM.png (139.48 KiB) Viewed 1890 times

In this image, the curves are so closely matched you hardly can see both curves.

But the values vary greatly.

The RPEQ settings:
Frequency: 39,999 Hz
Amount: +100%

The ColoringEQ settings:
Frequency: 6,644.9 Hz (G#7, 116)
Gain: +5.6dB
Q: -0.45

As the curves all match (magnitude, distortion, phase) and there are no other parameters to measure, it's therefore impossible for them to sound any different.

Throw the GQ7 into the mix, and you'll see the curves are off by less than 0.1dB at the max deviation (in two places), which is HIGHLY unlikely to be heard but you WILL see the curves not exactly matching as in the previous example:
(GQ7 in RED)

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 11.47.28 AM.png (153.52 KiB) Viewed 1890 times

The GQ7 settings:
Frequency: 5,900 Hz
Gain: +5.6
Q: 2.0

All to say that IMO it's worth educating yourself as to what is actually happening, and to take the EQ values and displays with a grain of salt when comparing devices.

[Heigen5]

One question: as I told about the EQ-diversity i.e. band-amount, do you claim they all have the same number of bands?

[Heigen5]

And another question: so you go to a nerd-board, copy an example code of an EQ, make a gui for it and just start selling it?

[selig]

One question: as I told about the EQ-diversity i.e. band-amount, do you claim they all have the same number of bands?

Not sure I understand the question - is it as obvious as it seems?

If so, the number of bands is sometimes different, sometimes the same. The GQ7 has (no surprise) 7 bands. The classic Pultec EQP-1A is a two band EQ. The SSL is a four band EQ. The API 550b is also a four band EQ while the API graphic is a ten band EQ.

Not sure how you would think I'm claiming all EQs have the same number of bands, which makes me think I've totally misunderstood the question (EQ "diversity" is not a common industry term, and a google search brings up nothing related to EQ and "diversity", so maybe I'm unable to understand the question?).

[Heigen5]

One question: as I told about the EQ-diversity i.e. band-amount, do you claim they all have the same number of bands?

Not sure I understand the question - is it as obvious as it seems?

If so, the number of bands is sometimes different, sometimes the same. The GQ7 has (no surprise) 7 bands. The classic Pultec EQP-1A is a two band EQ. The SSL is a four band EQ. The API 550b is also a four band EQ while the API graphic is a ten band EQ.

Not sure how you would think I'm claiming all EQs have the same number of bands, which makes me think I've totally misunderstood the question (EQ "diversity" is not a common industry term, and a google search brings up nothing related to EQ and "diversity", so maybe I'm unable to understand the question?).

I mean how many bands there is in a full frequency range that are next to eachothers? As example, if I boost something and the Q is 2.0 - how many bands I raise / EQ-curve?

[selig]

And another question: so you go to a nerd-board, copy an example code of an EQ, make a gui for it and just start selling it?

There is no code example for a finished EQ. That like asking if you go to a nerd-sample site, and copy an example song and put a picture with it and start selling it - doesn't work like that.

There ARE common filter types, which have common code since they are based on mathematical formulas. So if you want to make a certain filter type, there's really only one formula that will produce that filter type.

Like if you want to play middle C, you pretty much need to create a frequency of 261.6256 Hz - it's based on math.

Here's a quick outline of the process:

The first decision is to choose the filter types and then the way you use the filters to create EQs, such as whether it is symmetrical or asymmetrical, whether you are using proportional Q or not (and how you are controlling the Q from the gain knob - lots of options there), what else you are doing with regards to control interaction (one of my old shelf designs adjusts frequency with gain to give a constant slope rather than constant curve response), how you combine the bands (typically serially, but also parallel like KUSH audio), how many bands, how many shapes, how you address advanced shapes like tilt EQ, what additional features you may give the filters (mine use an extremely custom and unique "variable slope" design for years now, which I've not yet seen other EQs use), or how you add other features like how I added a depth control for the notch filter, etc.

Then beyond the filter, and the curve, and then the band design (I choose ±24 dB gain, semitone control of frequency, and implemented negative feedback for the Q control - all of which are uncommon), whether you choose to allow each band to cover the entire range or a restricted range, etc. - THEN there are the global control options.

My EQ uses master controls for the Gain, Tune, Q, and Saturation controls, something not every designer chooses to do. I also added control of the EQ via CV and MIDI, with many options including velocity, glide, attack, and decay controls. I also created a 100% unique approach to how saturation is implemented in my EQ, something no other product has done, plus the ability to continuously move from odd harmonic generation through a blend and on to even harmonic generation.

Then there's the choices for how to design the front panel - what ranges to give each control, it's resolution, it's appearance on screen, it's options, it's interactions with other controls (in my EQ the master gain also compensates the output level automatically), the external control options, their ranges, and how you deal with CVs that exceed the front panel controls, and on and on. At some point you also choose the layout and things like colors and size of each control, all which contribute to the end result: the final product.

And in my EQ I also decided to do something else not done by other EQs: allow total patching access to each and every band, which was a VERY complex coding problem to address because of the additional saturation outputs and the need to remove the EQ from the main audio path when it was patched externally and the need to add visuals for the patched bands while removing them from the main visual display. And you also need to address and prevent possible feedback loops - basically you need to anticipate every possible useful and random thing a user might do with your product and put in place the code that will prevent these actions from producing "unhappy paths".

Then you work on optimization of the code so that you can run more than one of these monsters, which brings up all sorts of time consuming testing iteration procedures that in our case ate up a large amount of time (partly owing to the routing complexity. At some point you start testing with outside users and all sorts of suggestions are made, bugs are found, limitations discovered and all are addressed and then you do it all again until it's ready for release. And THEN the fun starts - tidying up the user guide, creating the store pages, tutorials, videos, audio examples, etc. Then it's released and you begin the process of customer support and on-going tutorials - all the while ALSO working on support for past products and development for future products.

Hopefully this all made sense (and addressed your question), as it was kinda a stream of consciousness writing adventure…

[selig]

Not sure I understand the question - is it as obvious as it seems?

If so, the number of bands is sometimes different, sometimes the same. The GQ7 has (no surprise) 7 bands. The classic Pultec EQP-1A is a two band EQ. The SSL is a four band EQ. The API 550b is also a four band EQ while the API graphic is a ten band EQ.

Not sure how you would think I'm claiming all EQs have the same number of bands, which makes me think I've totally misunderstood the question (EQ "diversity" is not a common industry term, and a google search brings up nothing related to EQ and "diversity", so maybe I'm unable to understand the question?).

I mean how many bands there is in a full frequency range that are next to eachothers? As example, if I boost something and the Q is 2.0 - how many bands I raise / EQ-curve?

First you have to define "bands" (the term has many meanings in audio production), as it's like asking "how many frequencies are there".

To your specific question, it would totally depend on the design of the EQ/filter used, and how much you boosted and what definition of "Q" you're using (it's not a clear industry standard measurement, unfortunately).

[Heigen5]

And another question: so you go to a nerd-board, copy an example code of an EQ, make a gui for it and just start selling it?

There is no code example for a finished EQ. That like asking if you go to a nerd-sample site, and copy an example song and put a picture with it and start selling it - doesn't work like that.

There ARE common filter types, which have common code since they are based on mathematical formulas. So if you want to make a certain filter type, there's really only one formula that will produce that filter type.

Like if you want to play middle C, you pretty much need to create a frequency of 261.6256 Hz - it's based on math.

Here's a quick outline of the process:

The first decision is to choose the filter types and then the way you use the filters to create EQs, such as whether it is symmetrical or asymmetrical, whether you are using proportional Q or not (and how you are controlling the Q from the gain knob - lots of options there), what else you are doing with regards to control interaction (one of my old shelf designs adjusts frequency with gain to give a constant slope rather than constant curve response), how you combine the bands (typically serially, but also parallel like KUSH audio), how many bands, how many shapes, how you address advanced shapes like tilt EQ, what additional features you may give the filters (mine use an extremely custom and unique "variable slope" design for years now, which I've not yet seen other EQs use), or how you add other features like how I added a depth control for the notch filter, etc.

Then beyond the filter, and the curve, and then the band design (I choose ±24 dB gain, semitone control of frequency, and implemented negative feedback for the Q control - all of which are uncommon), whether you choose to allow each band to cover the entire range or a restricted range, etc. - THEN there are the global control options.

My EQ uses master controls for the Gain, Tune, Q, and Saturation controls, something not every designer chooses to do. I also added control of the EQ via CV and MIDI, with many options including velocity, glide, attack, and decay controls. I also created a 100% unique approach to how saturation is implemented in my EQ, something no other product has done, plus the ability to continuously move from odd harmonic generation through a blend and on to even harmonic generation.

Then there's the choices for how to design the front panel - what ranges to give each control, it's resolution, it's appearance on screen, it's options, it's interactions with other controls (in my EQ the master gain also compensates the output level automatically), the external control options, their ranges, and how you deal with CVs that exceed the front panel controls, and on and on. At some point you also choose the layout and things like colors and size of each control, all which contribute to the end result: the final product.

And in my EQ I also decided to do something else not done by other EQs: allow total patching access to each and every band, which was a VERY complex coding problem to address because of the additional saturation outputs and the need to remove the EQ from the main audio path when it was patched externally and the need to add visuals for the patched bands while removing them from the main visual display. And you also need to address and prevent possible feedback loops - basically you need to anticipate every possible useful and random thing a user might do with your product and put in place the code that will prevent these actions from producing "unhappy paths".

Then you work on optimization of the code so that you can run more than one of these monsters, which brings up all sorts of time consuming testing iteration procedures that in our case ate up a large amount of time (partly owing to the routing complexity. At some point you start testing with outside users and all sorts of suggestions are made, bugs are found, limitations discovered and all are addressed and then you do it all again until it's ready for release. And THEN the fun starts - tidying up the user guide, creating the store pages, tutorials, videos, audio examples, etc. Then it's released and you begin the process of customer support and on-going tutorials - all the while ALSO working on support for past products and development for future products.

Hopefully this all made sense (and addressed your question), as it was kinda a stream of consciousness writing adventure…

And after all this, they sound still matches?

[selig]

And after all this, they sound still matches?

Yes: CAN match, but only IF the curve matches 100%, and I hope my examples of matching vs not matching have made sense.

Pretty cool, no? There really are no "magic" EQs out there, but there are many "cleaver" designs that can do things others cannot (but "could" if the followed the same design).

But since there are only so many filter designs that work well (and are stable) for music applications, these "building blocks" define the products you can make with them.

And to be absolutely clear and specific, we're talking about one type of filter design, though it's by far the most common, and that is IIR filters (those based on analog designs).

There are also FIR filter designs as used in linear phase EQs, which are only possible to build in the digital domain and are less common in the audio world (but have their applications).

There are also "spectral" filters (see: Europa and Parsec and Noxious and others) which work on individual harmonics of synthesized audio (rather than 'raw' audio signals).