In all the Firium talk I didn't really see anyone compare Eqium to the Channel EQ - I'm checking out the demo now, but for those whose ears are better than mine do you think the quality of the EQ is much better? I definitely see the usability advantage (Eqium seems to blow the doors off of the Channel EQ in terms of functionality, and simplicity). TIA for any more experienced insight than mine! 8^) Brian ___________________________ Logic Audio Platinum 6.3.3 PowerMac G4 933MHz OS X 10.3.1 1 GB RAM M-Audio Delta 24/96 (fed via S/PDIF from a Yamaha DSP Factory)

I felt the Equim destroys the channel eq as well.... I also compared it to the t-racks eq, as well and also the apple eq, and waves ren. eq ... hands down Equim rules them without a doubt... rilen13

On Jan 1, 2004, at 10:04 AM, Brian Pylant wrote: > In all the Firium talk I didn't really see anyone compare Eqium to the > Channel EQ - I'm checking out the demo now, but for those whose ears > are better than mine do you think the quality of the EQ is much better? > I definitely see the usability advantage (Eqium seems to blow the doors > off of the Channel EQ in terms of functionality, and simplicity). I just bought the package yesterday. I'm not convinced that Eqium "sounds" any better than Logics Channel EQ, in fact, the biggest reason I bought the package was for the Firium, which I'm told will make a huge difference in mixing and mastering because of it's Lnear Phase model. So far, though I've spent most of my time with eqium. I do think it's way better in terms of adaptability..(you can use as many bands/types of filters as you like. It also makes complete sense to me. I spent about an hour reading the manual, and I'm 90% comfortable with how to use it. I'm very happy I made the purchase. There's also one more reason... I've been using Logic for about 8 years.. I'm not too terribly sure what the future will bring with Stevie running the show. Might be nothing but great things for Logic users, or it may end up being not so great. Who's to know for sure? I just know that I don't like the idea of total platform dependence, so any time I can find a great tool that isn't just Apple, I feel a little safer! Anyway, after cleaning some house today, I plan to finish going thru the Firium manual and playing around with it. I'll let the group know what I really think then. Stefan

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Brian Pylant <bappo@b...> wrote: > In all the Firium talk I didn't really see anyone compare Eqium to the > Channel EQ - I'm checking out the demo now, but for those whose ears > are better than mine do you think the quality of the EQ is much better? > I definitely see the usability advantage (Eqium seems to blow the doors > off of the Channel EQ in terms of functionality, and simplicity). To my ears, Eqium gets rather harsh at high boosts. Never really got along with the Channel EQ, myself--always took me a long time to get in the ballpark, NEVER really felt I nailed what I was looking for. Personally, I'd put in a good word for Wavearts' Trackplug (EQ section, comp's more of a special case use for me). I like the sounds I get from it, and I feel I get to the sound I like quicker. The new PSP MasterQ sounds really lovely in some demo tests, too (although lacking in the user interface niceties of a lot of soft EQs--draggable handles, noteably). Peece, Dexter

> In all the Firium talk I didn't really see anyone compare Eqium to the > Channel EQ - I'm checking out the demo now, but for those whose ears > are better than mine do you think the quality of the EQ is much better? > I definitely see the usability advantage (Eqium seems to blow the doors > off of the Channel EQ in terms of functionality, and simplicity). > > TIA for any more experienced insight than mine! > 8^) > > Brian Much better. With just a little boost here and there, tracks really come out sound pristine and clear. Really cleans up the mix, but beware - there is a pretty substantial latency factor. It won't do for live input. You can insert them into a track and predelay the track to compensate. Still, even with that, its a must have. James

> > In all the Firium talk I didn't really see anyone compare Eqium to the >> Channel EQ - I'm checking out the demo now, but for those whose ears >> are better than mine do you think the quality of the EQ is much better? >> I definitely see the usability advantage (Eqium seems to blow the doors > > off of the Channel EQ in terms of functionality, and simplicity). I actually did mention at the beginning of the thread that I had compared these two and to my ear eqium comes out a little ahead. >Much better. With just a little boost here and there, tracks really come >out sound pristine and clear. Really cleans up the mix, but beware - there >is a pretty substantial latency factor. It won't do for live input. You >can insert them into a track and predelay the track to compensate. Still, >even with that, its a must have. You are mixing up what he asked. You are talking about firium which has a delay and he was asking about eqium which does not. Also BTW if you put firium in a track insert the compensation is done automatically by logic you don't have to do a thing.

>On Jan 1, 2004, at 10:04 AM, Brian Pylant wrote: > >> In all the Firium talk I didn't really see anyone compare Eqium to the >> Channel EQ - I'm checking out the demo now, but for those whose ears >> are better than mine do you think the quality of the EQ is much better? >> I definitely see the usability advantage (Eqium seems to blow the doors >> off of the Channel EQ in terms of functionality, and simplicity). > >I just bought the package yesterday. I'm not convinced that Eqium >"sounds" any better than Logics Channel EQ, in fact, the biggest reason >I bought the package was for the Firium, which I'm told will make a >huge difference in mixing and mastering because of it's Lnear Phase >model. Eqium and Firium use two different technologies. To my ear firium sounds a little different/better than channel eq but the difference is not all that huge in fact it is quite small. I basically believe that what we are hearing here is a difference between two entirely different processes and the non linear phase eqs such as are simply *never* going to be in the same class with the linear phase eqs. >So far, though I've spent most of my time with eqium. Why?!?! >I do >think it's way better in terms of adaptability..(you can use as many >bands/types of filters as you like. It also makes complete sense to >me. I spent about an hour reading the manual, and I'm 90% comfortable >with how to use it. I'm very happy I made the purchase. There's also >one more reason... I've been using Logic for about 8 years.. I'm not >too terribly sure what the future will bring with Stevie running the >show. Might be nothing but great things for Logic users, or it may end >up being not so great. Who's to know for sure? I just know that I don't >like the idea of total platform dependence, so any time I can find a >great tool that isn't just Apple, I feel a little safer! Anyway, after >cleaning some house today, I plan to finish going thru the Firium >manual and playing around with it. I'll let the group know what I >really think then. I suggest you spend some time learning the interface of firium. It is actually a way more powerfull interface than that of any other EQ I know of but there are a couple of tricks that are not immidiately apparent. When you first touch the window you will find yourself drawing curves in just like using a pencil. But the interface does much more than that. The most important thing to do to get quick handle on what it can do is to look at the little box at the middle left and set it to DYN/Gauss. Now grab a node and move it straight upwards and see how you get a sharp peak. Now without letting go of the mouse button see how the curve now turns into a smooth bell whose with varies according to how far to the left or right you drag the node. Now grab a node in the middle and you can drag it straigh up or down without effecting the nodes next to it at all. So you have a bell shaped mountain with a sharp hole right in the middle of it. Now hold dow the option key and you will see a couple of arrows appear in the interface, grab a node and drag to the right or left and watch your mountain and valley move perfectly intact up or down the frequency spectrum. Groovy huh?

>--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Brian Pylant <bappo@b...> wrote: >> In all the Firium talk I didn't really see anyone compare Eqium to the >> Channel EQ - I'm checking out the demo now, but for those whose ears >> are better than mine do you think the quality of the EQ is much better? >> I definitely see the usability advantage (Eqium seems to blow the doors >> off of the Channel EQ in terms of functionality, and simplicity). > >To my ears, Eqium gets rather harsh at high boosts. Never really got >along with the >Channel EQ, myself--always took me a long time to get in the >ballpark, NEVER really >felt I nailed what I was looking for. Eqium and Firium use two different technologies. To my ear firium sounds a little different/better than channel eq but the difference is not all that huge. I basically believe that what we are hearing here is a difference between two entirely different processes and the non linear phase eqs such as are simply *never* going to be in the same class with the linear phase eqs.

[Note from admin: since Channel EQ is Mac only this is technically not [GEN], but nothing (what would have been [LAM]).] > I actually did mention at the beginning of the thread that I had > compared these two and to my ear eqium comes out a little ahead. Oops, so you did, my bad - the original thread was a bit long, I got a bit lost reading it all. I'm playing with the demos now, and I'm very impressed, esp. with the usability of Eqium, which to me is far more intuitive than the Channel EQ (which in itself is one of the more intuitive EQs I've used). I haven't used Firium too much yet, that's on the table for today. (Dennis, thanks for the extra tips on the not-se-evident features, too!) I'll wager that I'll likely plonk down my $149 (it looks like that deal has been extended past the end of December) pretty damn soon. Thanks for everyone's input and reviews of the plugs - if it hadn't been for the original thread I'd have never known these two plugs existed! Thanks for spending my money for me, heh heh... 8^) Brian ___________________________ Logic Audio Platinum 6.3.3 PowerMac G4 933MHz OS X 10.3.1 1 GB RAM M-Audio Delta 24/96 (fed via S/PDIF from a Yamaha DSP Factory)

On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:42 PM, Dennis Gunn wrote: > Also BTW if you put firium in a track insert the compensation is done > automatically by logic you don't have to do a thing. just to be clear... there is no delay compensation in Logic on busses and what else? Thanks, Stefan

On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:02 AM, Dennis Gunn wrote: >> So far, though I've spent most of my time with eqium. > > Why?!?! I didn't make myself clear! I bought the package mostly because of Firium and the perceived advantages of Linear Phase, but I want to use both. I've only had the package for one day. When I said so far, I simply meant that in the process of reading/studying the 2 products, I started with the Eqium first! I'm going to be working with the Firium today, and I'll definitely try the things you suggest. Stefan

>On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:42 PM, Dennis Gunn wrote: > >> Also BTW if you put firium in a track insert the compensation is done >> automatically by logic you don't have to do a thing. > >just to be clear... there is no delay compensation in Logic on busses >and what else? I guess the better way to put it is that there is only delay compensation on the "track" and "instrument" objects in the environment and none on anything else.