<Admin - [OT] label removed. As we are running a group buy involving eqium at present, this is definitely ON topic, whether you are a highlander or not :-)> Yes yes yes! DL'ed the demo, did detailed a-b-c comparing (Eqium/Sonalksis/ChannelEQ, same settings on all) and to cite the legendary MacLeod (or Kurgan, as you wish): "There can be only one!" To those wondering; go download the thing, this is what it's supposed to sound like. O.

O wrote: >DL'ed the demo, did detailed a-b-c comparing >(Eqium/Sonalksis/ChannelEQ, same settings on all) and to cite the legendary >MacLeod (or Kurgan, as you wish): "There can be only one!" Same thing here, really good. I´m definately gonna buy them - come on let´s get at least 65 buyers to get that great discount. At 129 $ it´s a bargain, I do wonder how much DSP these guys suck up though, not so much the Firium but the Eqium which I will most likely use on as many tracks as possible. Henrik Krogh henrikkrogh@...

>come on let´s get at least 65 buyers to get that great discount. At 129 >$ it´s a bargain, I do wonder how much DSP these guys suck up though, >not so much the Firium but the Eqium which I will most likely use on as >many tracks as possible. I've already purchased the Firium/Eqium and paid the $149.00. However, I have thrown in my purchase as part of this Group. I hope everyone can afford to get these excellent EQ's! Logic Forum Raux!

> I've already purchased the Firium/Eqium and paid the $149.00. However, > I have thrown in my purchase as part of this Group. > > I hope everyone can afford to get these excellent EQ's! > > Logic Forum Raux! Sure does. Darn, I wish I'd taken a peek at it before I bought the Eqium. I chipped the $129 for it. If I can jump in too just to get to that 65, someone let me know how ok? Afterall I got pointed to it by the LUG. (Not to get the discount, just to help out!) O.

> DL'ed the demo, did detailed a-b-c comparing > (Eqium/Sonalksis/ChannelEQ, same settings on all) Beware, 'same settings on all' won't give you apples to apples... every eq I've ever used (especially these confounded digital ones!) have quite different ideas of what each freq is, and what q value does what. It's no different than ratios on compressors, gain on mic pres, etc. That being said, I'm not refuting your conclusion, just your methodology. I was getting in-depth the other night with Sonalksis vs. Channel EQ, toying with the air bands on overheads. I had to use quite different settings on the two eqs to get the same freqs touched and untouched. Sonalksis behaves more like analog in that smaller adjusments are necessary to get me where I need to go. Someone said earlier that the difference between these two eq's isn't such a big deal. My response is that there is definitely a difference, and in a game where every millimeter counts, an inch here or there is important, and in modern productions those inches add up fast. I'm glad plugs are finally moving into a place where things coming out don't just sound different, they sound better. I've been an analog purist for too long, it's nice to feel like I can reach for a plug-in without fearing the results. Now if only digital summing were advancing as much as the plugs! u b i k

Following the recent discussion about EQ, centering on Firium, I thought I'd put my one cents worth in. I had a look at the Firium documentation - it looks like a well thought out mastering type of EQ, of the kind that is good for making remedial tweaks. In a mastering room, digital EQ is often used for surgical ops, removing unwanted resonances and so on; while beautifying - top and bottom lifts and cuts, and broad bandwidth curve shaping - is often left to analogue EQ. You can tell the difference in use: digital EQ with its low phase shift will often require 10 dB (usually cut) before you can really hear the difference, while about 3dB is in many cases about as much as you can usefully get before coloration with an analogue EQ. Anyway, here's the thing: If you want to use these precision corrective EQs properly, you need your monitors to be reliable and properly calibrated, otherwise that tweak you make at, say, 2K7, might just be adjusting some idiosyncrasy of your monitoring. Do you really want to spend lots of time (and money) EQing your monitors while you're trying to do your mix? Furthermore, if you bought your speakers within recent memory (Iwas going to say 'living memory' but I thought that might get negative comments from those of us whose monitoring dispatched us across the big river), the chances are they're OK, and the problem is to do with the acoustic properties of the room in which they're located. Let me put it this way: if you're willing to spend $129 on an EQ, are you willing to the same (and more) on acoustic analysis and treatment of the environment on which the EQ will be heard? Otherwise, chances are you're pissing in the wind, or worse, it's just toys for boys. Sorry if I seem adversarial, but I've spent enough time in recording studios to know that using EQ is a relatively small part of what's involved in getting good sound. Best regards David Young

>Let me put it this way: if you're willing to spend $129 on an EQ, are >you willing to the same (and more) on acoustic analysis and treatment >of the environment on which the EQ will be heard? Otherwise, chances >are you're pissing in the wind, or worse, it's just toys for boys. > >Sorry if I seem adversarial, but I've spent enough time in recording >studios to know that using EQ is a relatively small part of what's >involved in getting good sound. > This is a really good point (especially if we are using cheap monitors). However, I would have to say if we are mixing using higher quality near-field monitors, as we would in small project studios, then acoustic analysis/treatment become less important (not unimportant, just less so). My monitors are literally 3 feet (1 meter) from my ears given my physical setup. I am sure my mixing would benefit from good acoustic treatment, but how much benefit would I actually get? I would think that in this case money is better spent on good monitors (as you stated) and good processing (EQs etc). I am not a pro sound engineer, so I may be incorrect, but it isn't immediately clear to me that a lot of people (using good near-fields in a small studio) would see as much a benefit from acoustic modifications as suggested. Kind regards, Dave

> However, I would have to say if we are mixing using higher > quality near-field monitors, as we would in small project > studios, then acoustic analysis/treatment become less > important (not unimportant, just less so). Dave, Whether you're using near-fields or not, if you've got them turned up to any reasonable listening level, you are listening much more to your room than the monitors. The impact of the acoustics of your space cannot be overstated. At 3 feet away, you will likely have early reflections hitting your ears in 2-3ms, second order reflections not long after. Comb filtering, head end ringing, resonances, nulls... if you're in a small room, you can't avoid them, and they are dramatic. > My monitors are literally 3 feet (1 meter) from my ears given my > physical setup. I am sure my mixing would benefit from good > acoustic treatment, but how much benefit would I actually get? Depends on the room, different LxWxH ratios have different potentials for sounding good, but the short answer is that you will receive more benefit from proper acoustic treatment than you could imagine. Proper being the operative word! Good eq's and good monitors won't do you much good if the space you're using them in is lying to you; you'll make nice sounding adjustments of all the wrong things. I would prefer so-so monitors in an accurate room than accurate monitors in a so-so room... in the former I at least have a fighting chance. My .02, u b i k

<quotes trimmend by admin> Hi, i_love_ubik wrote: > > Good eq's and good monitors won't do you much good if the > space you're using them in is lying to you; you'll make nice > sounding adjustments of all the wrong things. > > I would prefer so-so monitors in an accurate room than > accurate monitors in a so-so room... in the former I at least have > a fighting chance. > > My .02, > > u b i k > I completely support what ubik says - you can get used to your monitors' idiosyncrasies in a neutral, i.e. acoustically controlled room, and deliver good mixes, but if your room is lying through its teeth, you've had it. Believe me, I've worked in some godawful rooms using excellent speakers. A totally unreliable mixing situation! Cheers, Recky ________________________________________________________ Fortéfied Productions tel: +49-228-34 62 23 mob: +49-173-51 577 57 recky@...

David Shaffer wrote: > > I am not a pro sound engineer, so I may be incorrect, but it isn't > immediately clear to me that a lot of people (using good near- > fields in a small studio) would see as much a benefit from > acoustic modifications as suggested. In my experience the two most important factors influencing the sonic quality of a production are: 1. the abilities/talent of the people involved - the musicians, engineer, producer 2. The acoustic environment in which it takes place - how the recording room and the control room sound. What comes next - equipment etc. is, in comparison to these two, occupying a distant 3rd place. Having said all that, I love Eqium and Firium :-)). kind regards Mark Cahill

>I would prefer so-so monitors in an accurate room than >accurate monitors in a so-so room... in the former I at least have >a fighting chance. > >My .02, > >u b i k > > Makes a lot of sense. I have always convinced myself that my small studio (which seems relatively "dead sounding" to my ears) is reasoably neutral. Perhaps not. The next question is, who/how you go about getting an acoustic analysis and at what cost? This is interesting to me because the projects I work on usually begin in my studio, then get moved to a larger studio. But the mix usually has to be readjusted, even though we have similar (but not identical) systems. This seems to be a completely underrepresented topic on this user group. Given its stated importance, it probably should be discussed much more. [ADMIN - this topic, while certainly interesting, is not directly logic-related, therefore is ideal for the OT group - may I invite you to carry on with it over there?] Dave