Shocking results: 16 EQ plugins tested. Do they all sound the same?! (Part 2)

My website: www.apmastering.com
After many requests on my first EQ video to put newer plugins to the test, like the slate digital, softube and plugin alliance stuff, I took up the challenge and tested 16 more EQ plugins so show that a normal digital EQ can be used to replicate all of these analogue modelling EQs.

[@APMastering]

See this update video for quantified results with a more robust methodology: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nmqypIiJjbCcesk

[@XS10SEALS]

I don't think people understand just how good we have it today compared to how it used to be back then. This is a good reality check.

[@Bittamin]

People also completely forget how expensive studio setups were to have a full hardware situation. The transformers and natural flavor are cool but, so is stock logic when you really figure it out 😂

[@supercompooper]

When I was just a kid I had to walk 5 mi to the river and then down to the bottom of the cliffs to get the tone that I needed.

[@doodoogtube]

Facts! ….We have it really good.👍🏾 👍🏾

[@doodoogtube]

Ok hold on. 1. Yes you can get away with just using one EQ if you had to…you don’t need 20 EQ’s. 2. In the video he’s playing white noise and when listen to it’s Delta, you hear a muffled hiss at a lower volume…People, that “is” the difference (this is normal). If he was playing music, you’d hear the music’s delta. If it was 100% silent using multiple EQ tweets, then those 2 EQ’s would scientifically sound exactly the same. 3. All EQ’s do NOT have the same “Q” factors and curves which makes them different from one another which also makes them unique. 4. If you own an EQ that could replicate different Q’s and curves, you could replicate any EQ (it’s saturation is another story). 5. A seasoned engineer is not going to waste his or his client’s time trying to make a stock EQ (w/no saturation) sound like a Pultec using 20 steps when he could just use a Pultec plug-in(that he bought on sale) that could do the job in 4 knob turns (with its saturation included). “These are Facts”. Bottom line: -Yes you don’t need 20 EQ’s and the best EQ is the one you got. -If you don’t know why you’d use one EQ over another, don’t worry about it if you’re only a producer, do your thing. -If you’re a Mix and/or Mastering Engineer, you’ve been doing this a while and you already know. -My advice to buying plug-ins is to only buy what you need and know why you need it.✌🏾

[@yajrobot]

The only real matter is the user experience and comfort beteen different plugins. Most of the audiophilic crap a lot of sound engineers fool themselves with is illusion to tease ego.

[@nicolaistrandet830]

1000%

[@DrProgNerd]

I needed this 50 plugins ago. 🙃

[@JT-qc2nb]

Ha! Indeed.

[@chriswaltonmusic]

Me too! 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@RANGDAP]

😂

[@coldskoolbeatz]

🤣🤣🤣

[@axxojaxx2510]

😮‍💨😅🤣

[@joa1232]

When I started, I told myself, that I will only look for new plugins as soon as Im able to hear differences between plugins. Turns out I never had to look for a new eq, ableton stock eq does the job 90% of the time for me

[@headspacetheace]

nevermind the fact that Ableton eq has an amazing workflow, having your whole channel strip be visible and tweakable as soon as you click on a track is so much more efficient than opening and closing each plugin indiviually

[@Anktual]

Gullfuss, acon digital defilter, zynaptiq unfilter. While gullfus sounds the same as every iq its very adaptive but unfiter and defilter cant be replicated with any other standart eq.

[@edesbalazs]

I'm just a hobbyist, but this is so nice to hear. I had the same sentiment for a while: If you hear a problem, and know what tool is suitable to fix it, then it doesn't really matter which exact tool you've got, you can get the result you want.

[@APMastering]

a bad workman blames his tools. a good workman makes cool stuff with bad tools

[@BrianSJames]

Excellent and insightful. Love your enthusiasm... Keep it up!!

[@Wizardofvoz2]

Been preaching this forever. Marketing brilliance from the plugin makers. I fell for it myself for a while. I have been recording/mixing/mastering since 1976, so I have lived the changes. Y’all just don’t know!

[@APMastering]

nice one. i bought fancy power cables and all sorts over the years

[@davegamble1694]

As an EQ designer who doesn't believe in the marketing, I'm deeply familiar with all the points you raise here. I also fully endorse null testing, and you're doing it right. One thing that might help you out is the difference between parallel and serial band topologies. Things like a Sontec or Massenburg EQ have parallel bands, so when you engage them they sum differently to a series EQ. Likely the issues canceling the Curve Bender stem from that, though I confess to not having checked the schematics. I don't know if your preferred EQ offers a parallel mode, but it's not too hard to add. Regarding the issue of particular things having interesting shapes and engineers preferring them, I'd draw your attention to the "SSL knob-colour wars". Engineers moving from studio to studio would get very used to things like Q tightening as they increased gain. Then going to a different room with a different coloured knob, the channel EQ behaved differently. If you're a gigging mix engineer (not that such a job really exists any more) and you're expecting your board to work one way, and suddenly you're faced with one that works differently, you feel hamstrung and slowed down. So I do believe that for people who are very used to a piece of kit working a certain way, there's value in them being able to continue to do so. If you've learned one EQ deeply, you will likely be faster with that EQ than with one that works differently. For me this has meant needing to be able to emulate all the subtle and varying weird shapes and offering them in one place. Phase cancellation in the mids and low end is, indeed, something to take for granted. The thing that drew me to EQ as a problem was the issue of getting the high end right. I refer you back to the "cramping" "warping" wars of the 2010s. You'll definitely find phase cancel content up near nyquist between some of these EQs. This is much less of an issue nowadays than it used to be, thankfully. But the 90s and 2000s were PLAGUED with EQs that warped at the top end. Bells were unsymmetric at high frequencies. This did make life a bit miserable. Using a second band to correct for it was not unusual, and in those days when you didn't have so many bands to play with, that was bad. That's something that contributed to the notion of digital sounding "cold" or "sterile" - the top end wasn't where you expected it to be! All the best with your endeavours. It's nice to see someone doing some science :)

[@APMastering]

nice one, thanks for your comment, that was an interesting read! I honestly dont know all that much about the coding side of making a great sounding EQ. I can only code at a pretty basic level and if I wrote my own EQ plugin from scratch it would probably have all of the problems you mentioned, which is why I'm going to get lots of help when designing a plugin that I've got an idea for

[@ScottRadkeMusic]

Leaving this here…. DMG Equilibrium rules 🤘🏽 (If I could have only one…. this is my “desert island” choice!)

[@HR2635]

cramping is still an issue for some..Nova does is but not really bad though. Some expensive EQs do it too and way worse. But OK. Many wont hear it. Unless you put such an EQ on 20-30 tracks and wonder why the top end ounds weird in some places. Again: most wont hear it and dont care AND its not way as bad as before.

[@alkaiosmusic]

Loving this type of content, nice roasting maaan. Thank you!

[@markkellen2392]

I believe it was Dave Gamble of DMG who said something like "All EQs sound the same except for the make-up amplifiers" and advocates for Clean EQs followed by a saturation plug if you so desire.

[@APMastering]

YES. don't know who that is but he sounds like he knows what he's talking about

[@nem4822]

@@APMastering Hes the creator of Equilibrium, the best eq plugin on the market.

[@Woji52]

@@nem4822extremely ironic response given the video and this original comment lol

[@nem4822]

@@Woji52 never said best in term of sound, its the features and the curve options that make it the best.

[@alexdiplock71]

Yes you really should know DMG Dave is a legend and equilibrium as I commented on your other video has all the curve snd Q responses of many fave eqs ready to go you should probably do a video with that as well as it’s a go to single eq to rule them all 😊

[@deepsynth3495]

Hitting people where it hurts. Enjoying the honesty man. Thank you

[@Catandbeats]

Oh this is lovely, good job!

[@DavidGalardiPro]

This is awesome, thank you!

[@hansmemling2311]

I just tested the Iron plug in you recommended on some drums. Holy cow, what an amazing plug in.

[@ProjectVastness]

Priceless ! You got a subscriber

[@Laserus]

Thanks for showing what I have always suspected.

[@sanxulian7714]

Subscribed. I like the format

[@APMastering]

thanks

[@zachvalenti]

Keep going! This is such valuable content. Would love to see a similar video for compressors debunking the “vintage”/“warm” marketing hype around so many offerings.

[@APMastering]

I want to do this because there is a lot of hype... the problem is, with EQs its relatively easy to do some kind of a null test but with compression its near impossible to do the same kind of test because there are too many variables. the main way I can go about this is visually showing what they are doing with long time constants, but thats not going to make for compelling content for people who believe in the snake oil.... there's people commenting here that dont believe in null tests lol, so demonstrating graphically what compressors are doing to the sound is going to be a hard sale

[@tapuwaprince]

Fascinating video! Those null tests were really interesting. It makes me wonder about Acustica Audio's EQ plugins since they're based on sampling rather than algorithms. Do you think they would null out the same way? Curious to see the results if you have the time and energy!

[@tettorotto]

3:16 Dan Worral recently made a video with some Softube plugin, showing that they were using a FIR filter for oversampling. If that Curve Bender has any modeled saturation maybe they're using the same OS filter and that would explain the phase weirdness. Great video btw!

[@APMastering]

thanks. yeah, im sure he's dug into it more. I'm mainly interested in debunking the broader claim rather than the specific coding details

[@omegalitico]

I'm glad that at 26 years old I can still hear that high frequency noise lol. Nice video too.

[@APMastering]

yeah, by 40 most people wont hear that. its quiet for me, i need to turn it up

[@PlottingTheDownfall]

@@APMastering in my 50s...I get my hearing checked every other year. still hear cleanly up to 18k +/- a few dBs. I was always sensitive to loud noises as a kid, and UHF sounds. had to wear custom ear plugs a lot of the time. Then once in a band, always wore them, and to this day, I wear them in the car. Blessed to be able to hear that high...now, my probably frequency is 3k, I have a dip since getting covid in 2020, of 3dB on the right side.

[@seenbelow]

Guess you've inspired me to test out more plugins if they are worth using. I specifically only bought EQs with tasty saturation, but then again sometimes I might have made the mistake of hearing with my eyes :)

[@atellsoundtheory8774]

PART TWO For the first point, we need to answer the question if your input signal is able to probe the entire signal space relevant to audio signals and equalisers. If the system under investigation is completely linear, which also excludes any kind of quantisation errors that are always present in digital realisations, then you can correctly argue that white noise statistically probes the input space in a way that creates a complete picture of the system’s processing. But as discussed earlier, actual linear system implementations do differ in their quantisation handling, which won’t be detectable with this method. Even if you decide to ignore these effects on the signal outcome because you argue that they only make an audible difference (we’ll come to the meaning of that later) in certain pathological scenarios, your conclusion is still invalidated by the fact that you did not look at this case. But the main interest here is really the performance of modelled non-linear equalisers, so let’s focus on those. With non-linearity in place, you can no longer argue that white noise is probing your system sufficiently because the important step of decomposing into a sinusoidal basis does not commute with non-linear systems in general. In fact, there is no way to exhaustingly sample the input space of a non-linear processor and therefore any conclusion that a system is not deviating from linearity based on observation of a finite number of inputs and outputs is invalid in a strict sense. That is, unless you make certain assumptions about the kind of nonlinearity to expect, which allows you to look in the right places. So, does the white noise signal you are using look in some of the right places for the kind of non-linearity that is to be expected in EQs? Unfortunately, no. The nonlinearities of an EQ typically are in the pre or post stages or in the resonant feedback loop of the filters. Common to all these locations is that the (smooth) nonlinearity is tuned such that it shows at high amplitudes, usually at around -6 to 0 dBfs in a digital realisation. Your white noise signal peaks at around -6 dBfs and appears to follow an approximately Gaussian sample distribution, which is consistent with the rather low RMS level of -16 dBfs. The RMS level is equivalent to the expected amplitude that is driving the nonlinearity. A fairly typical memoryless distortion using a hyperbolic tangent comes with a power series expansion that has a cubic dominating non-linear term with a coefficient of 1/3 or -9.5dB. That means you would expect distortion products to appear roughly below - 3*16 - 9.5 dBfs = 57.5 dBfs. Your metering only goes to -24 dBfs and you never show the noise floor of your null-test, so your result is inconclusive, at best. Had you tested at an RMS level of -6 dB instead, we could have seen and heard the first distortion effects at -27.5 dBfs, which would have made a great difference in terms of audibility. Another way to clearly expose non-linearity is to make sure the gain loop is driven at a high level. That would require both a reasonable input gain and a filter setting that produces a significant feedback path gain. Such settings come with high Q and high band gain. You have avoided both in your tests. If you consider non-linearities with memory, which you should, then using a wide-band stationary signal like your noise signal can actually prevent the internal state of the non-linear system from ever getting into the region of significant nonlinearity. For example, a number of nonlinear circuits only reacts to transients. Others only react to strongly coherent signals like tones. You’ve eliminated both these possible results by your choice of using white noise. Let’s get to the point of perception. You asserted that small deltas are inaudible. And you’re right for your noise signal. A small difference signal does not change the perception so that both results would sound the same. The problem is that this conclusion does not generalise. To understand the significance to perception we need to look at the phenomenon of auditory masking. We can hear a quieter signal component only if it is not being masked by a louder signal component. The level difference for which the quieter signal is still audible follows from the masking relationship of the two signals, which depends on both distance in frequency and in time. Your noise signal masks everything, both in time and in frequency, such that any difference less than roughly 6dB below the noise level cannot be perceived. That is a pretty poor choice for trying to argue about a perceivable difference. A much better choice would have been using a severely band-limited signal, like for example critical band noise at different frequencies, and use that to see if there are any difference components outside of the masking volume of the test signal. Just for comparison, narrow band noise at around 1kHz allows for the perception of signal components at below 500 Hz at a level of more than 80dB below the primary stimulus level, or alternatively for the perception of components above 4 kHz at a level of more than 40dB below the primary stimulus level. That’s a lot more than what you have demonstrated. A linear EQ would only generate quantisation artefacts outside of the band, which you have also not looked at. A non-linear EQ may produce signal components that are making an audible difference and are being perceived as pleasant. You have not ruled out the existence of these components in any way using your methodology. The third and final concern regards your choice of system samples. The question here is, have you tried to maximise the difference between the EQs you have matched and thereby attempted to falsify your hypothesis? Good science must always try to falsify, otherwise you don’t proof anything apart from your confirmation bias. I’m trying to be perfectly fair here, but it doesn’t look like you didn’t really try very hard to challenge your hypothesis. Throughout your demonstration you have used single bands at moderate settings. You avoided high gains, high Qs, high center frequencies. From what I explained above, it is obvious that you have steered clear of band interactions like you have in alternative non-serial topologies, you have avoided filter warping due to poorly designed filters without compensation for response distortion or response aliasing, you have avoided non-linear effects. This is already a much too long response, so let me come to my conclusion. Your methods were only superficially scientific, despite your claims. Your strong conclusion and accusations have no foundation in what you have shown. I do not say that you conclusion is wrong, but you certainly have failed to prove it. To be fair, there are black sheep in the plugin industry, just like everywhere. However, your generalisation is false and just as unfair as suggesting you just did your video to manipulate people into buying your classes. Which of course is not true. So, if you do science, you have to go all the way. There’s no such thing as a little rigour. And if you don’t have the necessary insight, then I would suggest you do some research first and read a selection of the plentiful papers that deal with modelling of non-linear analog circuits. If you ever intend to do a follow-up video that corrects your mistakes and tries to arrive at a conclusion that is not agenda driven, then please get in touch. I’m more than willing to work out a scientific protocol that would actually try verify your hypothesis.

[@APMastering]

thanks for the detailed two part comment. For most long comments I will only read the first sentence or ignore it entirely because in my experience, the longer the comment generally the more of a waste of time it is to read, but yours was not so I stuck with it and read all of it. Your comment is the most thorough and high quality critique of my video, and actually I agree with you for the most part (with my pushbacks below), but I feel a bit like you are hitting in a picture hook with a sledge hammer. I'll first reply in a more broad sense and then I'll reply to technical point below. My video was aimed at a wide audience and the idea was pretty much "hey look, you don't need to buy all these different EQs because they sound pretty similar for the most part and why would anyone care about pultec curve or whatever anyway because each song and sound needs its own specific EQ treatment, so better to learn how to use one EQ before buying 10 different ones". When you put this concept under a microscope, you see that not only was my test fairly primitive but it also demonstrates the EQs I tested are all different to some small amount even with the limited testing methodology employed. However, my aim was never to show that they are all mathematically identical, use the same code or make false claims in their marketing about modelling X piece of hardware. The video concept is more about the practical application of EQ in sound design, mixing and mastering for a broad or even lay audience. I never expected to be having discussions with DSP professionals. The idea I'm trying to convey is, even if a company models a vintage EQ in a compelling way, so what? From a practical standpoint, if you know how to use one good EQ properly, you don't need various different simulations of hardware EQ in an attempt to get different "flavours". Before the high quality plugins we have today, engineers needed to use different gear for different purposes because those pieces of gear all had hardware limitations. When I do a mix on a neve, I love the sound of the board, and the EQs and the compression can be cool, but I often find myself reaching for outboard because of the limitations and imprecision of that tool. With plugins, such as Nova, I don't need to reach for different EQs because I can get where I need to go easily, quickly and with precision. That's the idea here. It's not a comprehensive proof that the entire plugin industry is engaging in false marketing. They do convince people to buy their plugins though with unquantifiable, untestable, subjective type claims and language about their character and use influencer to provide the illusion that a different EQ will lead to radically different results in their mixes etc. But that's a different topic to my testing methodology and the claim you are most interested in. In response to the more technical points, I don't understand what "hyperbolic tangent comes with a power series expansion that has a cubic dominating non-linear term with a coefficient of 1/3" means. Despite being a proficient python programmer, my nerd powers are less powerful than yours here, and I dip my hat. Moving on, you write a lot about white noise but overlook the fact that I offer a moderately long AB test between two plugins, in two different ABs in my video, in which I switch back and forth quite a lot of times, and there is not a huge audible difference. I'm open to people hearing differences here but I think they are similar enough that most people would fail an ABX test. And anything which most people would fail an ABX test for, is probably not not something which I will care a lot about. So although you are right, I did not play any material that would demonstrate the time domain features of these EQs in all of the tests, I did play music for two of the plugins and I'm use you agree that music, in this case a full rock pop band instrumental passage, is adequate test material for plugins aimed at music production. In terms of the interaction between bands, extreme Q settings and high gain revealing increasing divergences between the qualities of the plugins, I honestly find this practically uninteresting and I'll explain why. I come from a mastering background. When I see people use 10 bands of EQ with tight Qs and extreme gain settings, I instantly assume they dont know what they are doing. As a mastering engineer, I use as few bands as possible, reasonably often a single band, with as smooth a Q as possible, with conservative gain. In my opinion, that is the key to a good sounding EQ treatment. So I am interested in the sound of plugins given that kind of treatment. If someone is using many tight Qs at extreme gain settings, they are almost certainly destroying whatever it is they are EQing and then the more subtle differences in the band interactions is like examining the quality of the finish on a cup before a bull runs into the china shop.

[@atellsoundtheory8774]

@@APMastering I think you have a fair point. I agree that knowing how to use an EQ properly is much more relevant than owning a particular EQ model. However, this is not quite that point that came across in your videos. Particular in the first video, you are quite clearly speaking of an ongoing scam by plugin manufacturers and in your second video you put a lot of emphasis on the scientific methodology you employ. I think both these points cannot be upheld and if you are in fact honest to your audience, you should make that clear. Otherwise one could argue that it is you who is trying to scam people into buying your course material, which I'm not going to suggest, but it might appear a reasonable hypothesis. So may I kindly suggest you make a third follow up video where you address these issues. If not, me and other plugin developers will certainly suffer from the spread of mistrust and the customers' attitude towards innovative plugins and proper research.

[@atellsoundtheory8774]

Oh, and I have deliberately ignored your audio examples comparison because it is not scientific to start with. We all know that comparisons like that are extremely subjective, especially if not performed blindly. And is also did not contribute anything to my point, as you have not shown the Delta and all my other points regarding the sampling of the parameter space etc. still hold.

[@fromherebeyond]

Thanks for this video. I feel like something like this would be pretty interesting with synths, filters and effects as well.

[@corriefraser]

We've all fallen into the plugin rabbit-hole. They're leading us up the primrose path. The most important aspects of a track will always be the writing and musicianship/lyrical genuis, followed by the production/arrangement.

[@JT-qc2nb]

Good stuff. I was the one who commented on having the quick curves handy for Pultecs, bax, etc. As a rebuttal, I didn't say they're used randomly. They're used when needed and with purpose, so you misconstrued the comment. I do, however, know what you're saying, which is basically that you need 1 good eq to handle everything. That's true. However, that's like saying that you only need 1 good knife to cut all your food. Yes, a good chef's knife will handle pretty much everything, but if you have a variety of knives, they are built to perform specific functions. Both get the job done. That's my point. On another token, thanks for the null tests. Hopefully I'm able to resell all my other non-specific EQs now before people see this video ;)

[@nekrodamusas]

Doing gods work, thank you

[@JoshuaLuellen-rg8xp]

Well done, very well done

[@TheGarageRecordingSC]

Great video, and I must admit, I have been sold a couple of times by slick marketing. I just signed up for the pre-order for your course. I feel relatively confident in my EQ ability, but I feel like there’s something that I could learn from you. Looking forward to the course launch. 👍🏻👍🏻

[@DaveDemayClips]

I will say that I am hearing some noise differences in the delta null results of a few of the EQs. But is that enough to mean anything at all? Who knows at this point. I’ve been mixing in Nashville for 30 years and never thought to challenge these EQ plugins with null tests. Mainly because I assumed they each had unique curves and inherent tones due to the modeled circuitry. But I have tested “True Peak limiters with null tests to see if they were truly clipped peaks without overshooting with digital distortion. I’ve been too occupied turning out mixes to put time into null-testing the massive pile of EQs I’ve been using. 😂 Thanks for your boldness to challenge the ears of even seasoned engineers along the entire plugin industry. I like challenges. That closing metaphor with you banging on the guitar made me laugh out loud. 😂 You have a new subscriber with an open mind. You’re never too old to hear fresh and new ideas, perspectives, and challenges that step outside popular narratives. Cheers!

[@5adb0iMusicOfficial]

So glad to see a "no-bs" followup video!

[@yannickriedl4226]

Would absolutely love more content on transformers and amplifiers! nice one.

[@sheutkhaibit5332]

I love how you approach non-sense comments with facts and science. Thanks for the content!

[@rickscott1309]

Well done. Got to love your guts and the truth of cold hard scientific evidence. 👏👏

[@tonyrapa-tonyrapa]

Right on the money, dude!

[@BorisBarroso]

Excellent comparison. We are bombarded by companies to buy and we don’t do any tests to see what we are buying. I was buying a lot of plugins and I was doing it more because of an itch to buy and not really learning how to use my plugins

[@AzurBaumi]

Very relatable. I went out to become an EDM producer and so far ended up as a plugin and preset collector 😅

[@renejrhodes88]

I f*cking laughed my ass off. This is as entertaining as enlightening. Well done mate!

[@jcpuga]

I learned 2 things from this video. 1. I have “Golden Ears”. 2. Yea…I like the GUI basically. I’m aware ReaEQ can probably suffice 😅

[@jcpuga]

@@antrave nice, wasn’t aware of that one 🎊🎉

[@mirkomarkovic3438]

ReaEq has horrible cramping issues

[@jcpuga]

@@mirkomarkovic3438 I personally use Kirchoff and Signum Audio-Comp, Clipper, and Limiter

[@justinhoffman1111]

good points - thats why i only use the fab filter proQ pretty much for eq and if I want something more ill use my Analog Empress Tube EQ or one of my other analong units for enhancement. Ive used digital for saturation but there is always something missing with digital and i use the tru iron ( sounds the best) but usually have to use multiple plugins - its just not the same with high quality analog units sorry if you think it is :)

[@APMastering]

no i think analogue does do distortion best but digital has the best control and choice. its my dream to manufacture some gear though

[@Erix77]

Nice vid! As a noob with to many plugins, this is golden👍🏻

[@moksoundstudios]

Ooooooh I love you for this!!

[@Whiteseastudio]

Science! Love it! 💛

[@TDDmusique]

Good job!

[@saucebyte3196]

Man..thank u so gawd damn much!!! You are a hero now, no mistaking it

[@APMastering]

thanks for watching!

[@SenseiKreese]

The delta varied a bit there, some nulled really well, some not so much. There was def some difference in some of them. I largely agree, except I would say you talk about EQing stuff surgically, but sometimes we use it for flavour and just having nice curves at a knob is nice to have. I've got multiple desk EQ plugins, and sometimes I just get a slightly better sound from one or another on a source.

[@FRANKMUSIKOFFICIAL]

Does this apply to hardware mastering EQ's too?

[@APMastering]

its more complex here. half the EQs are designed to be as transparent.as possible (maselec etc), in which case it sounds like fab filter but in a box, and the other half (manley etc) are designed to have secret magic harmonic something or other

[@FRANKMUSIKOFFICIAL]

@@APMasteringfreaking amazing. Love your presets on the Elevate plug-in. Use them all the time in conjunction with out things. I appreciate you not being a wimp like most music you tube channels because they don’t want to hurt the feelings of their pay masters. No pun intended. Keep up the great work. You got my sub.

[@APMastering]

​@@FRANKMUSIKOFFICIAL wait, what? I didn't make any presets for any plugins... maybe there is someone else with my name? confused lol

[@tbonebeats6429]

In the back of my mind I always believed those "vintage" eq emulations were just a standard eq with those vintage eq curves dialed in but the GUI convinced me that It was real emulation that had mimicked all of the internal components. I've foolishly spent thousands chasing "that" sound when all I really needed was a stock eq & a saturation plugin.

[@kawinshivasoman]

You are brilliant. I use Aquatica Audio Salt and some Plugin Alliance analog models like the Amek 200, Amek 9099, and Knif Soma, among others. I also use Pro Q3. Actually, the analog models sound better than Pro Q3 when I boost. Pro Q3 is best for surgical cuts, but if you boost it above 6 dB, it introduces an artificial tone in the high frequencies. Try this: there are a few analog model EQs that you can boost even over 10 dB, and they still sound natural. Test this.

[@tettorotto]

Most of the time the analog modeled EQs have a really wide Q and apply less boost or cut than the controls say. That's probably why you find them more natural.

[@APMastering]

hmmmm i dont know. i never bought pro Q 3 and have been using pro Q 2 basically since it came out and before that I was using pro Q 1. So I dont know if they messed something up with version 3. But pro Q 2 doesnt seem to exhibit this behaviour, i can boost 30db and then get another FF instance and cut 30db and it nulls with the original signal at -70db and I cant hear any difference ABing with music.

[@KOjoe1k67]

No way. Boosting and cutting is the opposite thing of the same coin

[@ashleydines144]

Fab filter eqs are super easy to use though and i love how you can make bands dynamic. I now mainly only ever use dynamic eq which i wouldnt have done b4 using it. I think most analog eqs add some komd of colour, not sure if distortion would show up in your graph? I have an actuall neve 1073 and for some reason the eq on it sounds alot different to just using a standard plugin eq

[@ufox77]

This all figures. I’ve gathered several different EQs from various plugin packages over the years, and only ever found myself using Ozone EQ for flexibility, the DAW for convenience, or one of the Overloud EQs that allows you to saturate specific bands (sometimes nice, sometimes lousy). I feel bad for the plug-in manufacturers because they covered most of the useful ground they could over a decade ago. I wonder if people like the vintage-style ones because they wouldn’t normally bother to mess with bandwidths, so just end up wider, more pleasant sounding curves, quickly achievable with a broad brush and less opportunity to over-correct?

[@APMastering]

i dont know if i feel sorry for the plugin devs any more than i feel sorry for drop shippers trying to sell lightweight shippable plastic bullshit from china to people on the internet and not making any profit after they pay their facebook ads. well... i guess its a saturated industry. find another niche.

[@MuzdokOfficial]

You deserve subs for speaking your opinion without fear and its also a unique take that's worth listening to. Always give every sides a fair chance in a trial lol

[@APMastering]

to be honest, I've got a very loud mouth and it might get me in trouble and damage my reputation, but if I'm going to be on social media at all, I might as well not water myself down because theres already enough watered down participation trophy style content on the internet.

[@MuzdokOfficial]

@@APMastering ☝👌🙏

[@MuzdokOfficial]

@@APMastering My very loud mouth that speak honestly gives me ennemies i know that for a fact. But also more respect from the smaller precious circle around me that matter. Cheers my friend.

[@trond-oien]

@@APMastering Hear, hear!

[@monkmusic5994]

What might Dan Worral and Paul Third say to this???

[@RayFerretti]

Paul Third has responded to this video. Also called him out on the curve bender.

[@UVG212]

Thank you for the head's up about True Iron.

[@APMastering]

yeah im pretty impressed by it tbh

[@jorgejordan8865]

I mean if it helps me get the job done, then whats the problem, you still have them and use them here and there. Like you can recreate a curve in any dynamic EQ, thats pretty known but if I have an EQ that can help me get there quicker than just wasting my time finessing Pro Q3, then Ill opt for that EQ

[@kylemccombmusic]

Agree with everything except I think having some EQs for quick go-to "colors" can be useful. Pultec, Maag EQ4 (I use Luftikus, which is free), 1073 high end are about all I ever need. Just one/two knobs usually gets it pretty close.

[@Fwuzeem]

Exactly right. All plugin developers have are algorithms, not hardware. They all have access to the same ones, except for developers who use convolution and volterra vector kernels, or Neural Amp Modeller

[@Studio22mix]

Neural 6 ms. latency modeler 😂

[@tonygunz21]

It was always funny to me how you'd hear someone say that one company's 0's and 1's were "warmer" or "more open" than another's lol.

[@doubleaceprod]

Very informative! I want to know if the same applies to compressor and preamp emulations as well.

[@APMastering]

might do a video on this soon

[@doubleaceprod]

@@APMastering please do! I'll be watching

[@xavierlucas8776]

@@APMasteringwas just getting ready to go through your channel and see if you had did this test with other styles of plugins like Compressors and Saturators

[@APMastering]

​@@xavierlucas8776 my channel is still pretty new, like a month old

[@xavierlucas8776]

@@APMasteringyeah this I learned and subscribed, looking forward to the journey!

[@user-vb4ou7mk3g]

Thank you for doing Gods work

[@kittycloudz813]

Good video 👌🎵, but I do find the coloring on the amek 200 by P.A. to sound obviously nice compared with my stock options in Bitwig and Ableton, I think if you pushed the high end enough you would find some differences between certain eq’s

[@rickfowler3710]

I love that you own that multicoloured zylophone.

[@APMastering]

😎

[@m.o.n.d.e.g.r.e.e.n]

can you do null tests between a proQ3 and some hardware eq's?

[@phladjki]

Thanks for doing this. Several of these didn’t null nearly as well as I expected. Definitely heard substantial hiss / noise on a few after attempted null. In terms of being scientific, I would say that leaving audible noise behind means that you haven’t demonstrated that these are equivalent. Equivalent would mean: there’s no audible difference. What you’ve demonstrated is most literally an audible difference.

[@ABbruh]

He addressed this in the video

[@sinenkaari5477]

I like to use Fl studios EQ1 and EQ2 basicly they are the same but 1 does not have a visual monitor for the sound that saves screen area and makes you listen with your ears and other times i like to see the frequencies

[@tryingtotryistrying]

phew he didn't use my magic eq, so clearly i'm still safe to call it warm and detailed.

[@APMastering]

lol

[@user-zr5xy5pv8w]

Yeah! I finally know it. This explain why most of the time I only use daw stock eq instead of these famous eqs. I try to add these eqs and get confuse why they add odd "vintage/warmth" to the sound or they not did the eq curve that normal eq does, that's not what I expect them to do.They makes me work more to fix the "problem" that they create. I know most people like these famous eqs, but it just doesn't work for me.

[@flavmusicman]

Have to agree on the ST Bender , can never use that on Master Bus , but their Limiter lives on the Master and does what no other Limiter Comp can do.

[@TangleWireTube]

“Old metal box though.” 😂 I still love the Pultec.

[@APMastering]

sure, its fun

[@Studio22mix]

A lot of plugin developers won’t be happy with this, when Andrew Schepps designed a plugin for Waves they found that it didn’t match with the emulated hardware but on a 40 grand spectrum analyzer it did looked exactly the same but it sounded different. They ended up putting a high pass filter on 3 Hz and a low pass filter on 25 kHz and it matched. The filters were emulating the transformers 😉🤫🫡 Still I’m going to buy an analog equalizer for around 2 grand because I know it’s going to sound better than a plugin, maybe it’s the tube circuit and the transformers who cares.

[@qoiet6049]

Quality content, havent seen such a nice video in a while

[@ema6897]

Thank you so much for making this. Snake oil in the audio industry is so normalized it drives me insane.

[@eren3390]

when it comes to eqs, i always said this but people were like: nah

[@ABbruh]

It’s way easier to fool someone than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.

[@michaelmonroe8314]

As an engineer who has developed audio circuits for industrial products in the past, I agree in nature that ones focus should be on most effective use of tools, not purchasing this years hot plugin. I take exception with the general assertion that passive devices and simple semiconductors would not have affect on signals passed though them. Engineers need to consider the effects of Johnson noise- thermal noise on all of the devices that you referenced as fully linear, as a matter of daily practice when designing high performance equipment.

[@APMastering]

for radio or audio? i never considered this for audio but i'm not an electronics engineer despite being familiar with a soldering iron

[@aatreybhatt1999]

I use analog style EQs more for tone shaping Then use a proper EQ when I wanna be more surgical

[@hcl8836]

I pretty much agree but i am not sure about „some“ EQs that mimic specific behaviour from an analog counterpart to speed up the workflow. When i first put a trial version of the UAD Manley Massive Passive on an insert slot that high shelf was magic. It put a sweet shine on the top end i couldn’t achieve with other EQs without getting harsh. Yes, it could maybe be reproduced with Pro-Q3 (my go-to EQ) but absolutely don‘t know how 😂 For saturation i am totally with you … no need in EQs since there are Top Saturation plug-ins available.

[@hansdampf3702]

Cool video :D HiFi guys are on the top of the voodoo pyramid. Is the same true for compressors?

[@APMastering]

similar, will do a vid soon

[@hansdampf3702]

@@APMastering nice, looking forward to that!

[@bioviolencedubstep2418]

I’ve always thought this to be the case with eq. However I mix better with something like an SSL channel strip because I can’t see the eq visually. I know this is a me issue and I could just not turn on the visual on new eq’s. Same with a Pultec I haven’t got a fucking clue what the curve is, but sometimes I know that +5 on the sub then attenuating by 5 is going to sound great. I can’t be assed to look up what it’s doing then replicate it on another eq.

[@PlottingTheDownfall]

and that becomes workflow, rather than science. I'm the same way, I use primarily Pro-Q3 or Nova, but my drums tracks are almost always using CLAMixhub, because I can get the sound I want fast without looking at things - turn a knob, smile, or turn a knob and frown

[@PatrickStefan]

I think the limitations of older stuff facilitated creativity. I’m a musician so that works for me but if you’re mixing / mastering perhaps less so. I recorded in a studio with pretty much all pre 1970s mics & pres and it sounded unbelievable - to my ear anyway. Modern gear can be really harsh sounding and that’s why I like slapping tape emulators / saturators with HF roll off on. Re: EQ I’m with you on the marketing but when I use my Pultec it’s feels more creative than ProQ3 (I use both for different jobs)

[@zachary963]

3:58 um my mother in law, who has zero experience with any music production anything and who currently has a cold and is therefore stuffy and unable to hear well and who is listening on my old iPhone, can CLEARLY hear the difference. I think you might need new speakers if you think that all of these null.

[@VectorSpaceElement]

Free Reaper repositories FTW💪

[@joejordan4246]

Great video with excellent information. Thank you!

[@rusj5273]

Why does my external EQ sound different than emulation. it's a WA73eq. I know it's not much I rather focus on it's strength rather then it's weakness I'm happy with it. Anyways it feels to have more depth or is that a miss conception?

[@APMastering]

gain structure maybe

[@aestheticsignificance]

every time you swap the phase I hear a different noise is not this a proof that they sound different? a small difference indeed but none of them cancel another entirely. Am I wrong? thanks

[@APMastering]

yeah 100% null isnt expected

[@israabeats]

Long time ago I compare Ableton's EQ eight with fabfilter and sonically I found ProQ sounds much cleaner. Probably you have an answer to that.

[@Dr-Stu]

Can you hear the 'noise approaching 20KHz'?

[@constantinelifts4935]

It would be interesting to include some uad plugins in the test. You can demo the uad spark substription for 15 days so it would be fairly easy to do it on a next video if you are interested!

[@APMastering]

last time i looked you needed a hardware box. or did they abolish that?

[@nedring987]

UAD plugins are now available native

[@madlopherliy]

Spark only

[@APMastering]

ok cool. i don't know what spark is but i'll look into it

[@constantinelifts4935]

​@@APMastering It's subscription based and you get all the native plugins (they keep updating their native library) for 20$ per month (or 150$ per year). They have a free trial for 15 days but you have to give them your billing info to get it (card or paypal). If tou cancel before its expiration date you will not get charged. The most safe way of doing this is by giving your paypal and removing the automatic payments permission from UAD.

[@gonzalez2568]

I think limitations are the one true difference, the “pre-chosen” curves are in a way a design choice. The artistic decisions we make while applying some EQ are influenced by this. Plugins today give us all of the options but none of the limitations, 1000 tracks sound great but I guess we thrive when our brain needs to make 4 tracks sound like a full song. Just my humble opinion 😅

[@papabrancamastering]

I ❤ everything about this video 😃 I agree with all of it.

[@synapticschism]

I hope you can agree that there are features that make some plugins unique in their funcionality. Two examples are Scaler EQ and Surfer EQ. I'm not debating or rejecting the results of the null tests, those are not up for debate, and I use only 3 EQs not for their sound but their functionality. However, I think that functionality or usability features matter when choosing plugins.

[@APMastering]

100%, which is why i recommend nova

[@gabrielmoreno3008]

I've got so many questions since I'm in no way or shape a professional in this field. I can basically hear the delta in every one of the tests you did, is this because of the randomness of white noise? or because the curves are mathematically different? Also, when it comes to EQ plugins that mimic harmonic distortion, let's say Acustica Audio, who are know for their Hyper 3 sampling technology, would you also say that's a gimmick? I've tried different EQ's on my mixbus yet there's some that boost and cut more "musically" even at extreme settings. Is this psychological? or does the harmonic distortion emulation play a part in this? I have no scientific data or curve measurement to back any of this.

[@APMastering]

it's mostly Q implementation. you should hear some delta because none of the plug-ins are identical. but that's not my point to prove they are identical. my point is that the delta is sufficiently low to not produce meaningful audible differences in sound quality when it comes to the eq flavour. the saturation is a separate topic and one i discuss later in the video

[@gabrielmoreno3008]

@@APMastering And don’t you think that those small differences add up to substantial weight and definition in a whole mix when used in several tracks? And regarding the harmonic distortion topic, I dis watch the whole video, you recommended using a plugin dedicated to distortion specifically, although I would like to know if all digital distortion algorithms and emulations are equally created just as you explained with the EQ curves? Are digital recreations of non-linearities a gimmick? Could you make a video about that and / or analog compressor emulations?

[@APMastering]

no i think digital distortion is perfectly valid and can be very good. i don't think that the differences mount up in such a dramatic way tbh with plugins. they mount up on a neve or tape because of the transformers but a shit song on a neve is still shit, i'd rather listen to a good song recorded on an iphone

[@kawinshivasoman]

brilliant

[@ts4gv]

inexplicable phase shift in high end some plugins have might be be from minimum phase oversampling.

[@plake01]

As an mastering engineer with 15 years of experience, imho he should have known that.

[@juhakuvajainen6453]

Now, this understandably ruffled some feathers. The marriage of subjective art and objective facts is a difficult one, and to be honest, both are needed and they do not cancel each orher out. I do understand the premises of your null test science and the sort of disillusionment it brings. But I also understand the many of us preferring the ”sound” (i.e. curves) of various eq plugins, as they all treat our precious music differently (because of the different curves - if we consider only the eq and put everything else aside). Personally, I prefer a few eq plugins because I know their curves by ear and get quick results with them. But anyways, your presentation is the flip side of this plugin business, but as we all know, the front side is more than just a nice interface: at its best it’s an immersive wow-experience that makes your music alive - despite of the cold facts underneath. Bought your course. Let’s see what you got! 😃

[@APMastering]

hope you will enjoy the course, thanks!

[@immtonmischer]

The phase shift in the Curve Bender Plug-in likely comes from an anti-aliasing filter. BUT It could also be unique to the circuit of the hardware unit. When you measure older hardware you'll see these ripples quite often. Those can come from a transformer which (in principle) acts as a low pass filter and the ripple comes from the transformers inner resistance interacting with frequency dependent changes in the impedance of the circuit.

[@nerds-nonsense]

to me this sounds like: "if you're decorating a cake don't use different piping tools, just use the basic one and you can shape it." if you have to do work to make an eq sound like another then why not just save time and energy and use that eq. Also, doesn't the fact that you can make one eq sound like another mean they objectively do not sound the same? only half way thru the video tho so maybe this gets addressed. but as a producer i don't find that this is less confusing Edit: finished the whole video, while I agree with you, I don't see it as a reason not to use a analog modeled eq if it has a sound you like

[@JT-qc2nb]

Agreed. That was my point also. I got called out on one of the other EQ videos for this and being "inexperienced." Actually, it's speed. Some EQs are designed to do a very specific thing. Others, general EQing. Looking for the best and fastest tool for the job.

[@simonbarth3181]

In all the examples where you played music, I could always tell them apart 100% and enjoyed the emulated hardware more. And I don't even use emulated EQs, I only use FabFilter. I think now I have to do some serious blind testing. Thanks a lot, you sold me on the stupid thing you wanted me not to buy, lol. I wonder what it is though, maybe some sort of distortion in the frequency band or phase shifts? I truly don't know....

[@sparella]

That's great. As long as you're taking the time to make an informed decision, you get to decide where the diminishing returns threshold is.

[@StevieBoyesmusic]

Are inductors really linear? Magnetic core materials could make them behave like transformers??

[@merlinproductions7374]

I haven't bought a plugin emulation in years, with the exception of reverbs/delays. I agree Plugin compressors and EQs that are meant to be digital like TDR products I think are worth the dough. Emulations are snake oil. Analog is my preferred choice for its saturation offerings and tactile more natural experience workflow wise

[@tangente00]

As a bedroom producer I still do not get why mixing and mastering should be two separate stages? I just fiddle around with the stuff until it sounds right to me, right? I have full control over every instrument and even when what others would consider mastering I can still have changes in the composition if I want to. I never quite understood the concept of mastering!?

[@APMastering]

the point of mastering is essentially fresh ears. the people who see mastering as this magical process which is somehow necessary but they dont know why, probably have a bad mastering engineer. the engineer should reject bad mixes and offer mix revisions. thats the point mainly but most mastering engineers are frauds and just run shit through a limiter to make it louder and send the invoice

[@tangente00]

@@APMasteringthanks for your answer. makes sense. if I think about it for an album or ep it makes 100% sense to send it to a professional

[@partlysimpson5154]

Bedroom 808 and 16th hihats