That is really interesting Rob, thanks for the demo. Can you tell me
though, with the A-B sound track, I am assuming this is the
unfiltered sound then the apEq filtered track, and keeps switching
back and forth between the two. I wasn't sure if an Equium version
was also included.
I have never tried this sculptured method of applying many small
incremental filters to 'sculpt' around the shape of the sounds, but I
certainly do plan to try it now!
On 23/06/2009, at 5:02 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
> At 9:43 AM +0000 6/22/09, justinasia wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>> I'm sorry that I can't remember who it was at the moment, but one
>>> alert list reader suggested an EQ app that had unlimited bands
>>> of EQ
>>> (or many) that sounded very similar to Eqium to me.
>> I searched. Was it apulSoft apEQ ?
>> US$74.88. Seems to be good. You can also zap really narrow sections
>> of frequency - they call it "band reject". I expect that can be
>> useful. Does anyone have opinions of this plugin? Perhaps it is "the
> That's it, Justin. Thanks for searching down Paul's discovery.
> I've been wanting to compare apEQ to Eqium 2.0 (now sold as
> UNIQUEL-IZER for considerably more than ApEQ)
> To conduct an A/B test, I made a recording of the dusk interactions
> in a rural setting including car traffic and hubbub from a village a
> mile away in order to create a sample of a recording that would
> likely benefit from EQ.
> As I've mentioned on the topic of field recording equalization
> before, "I never met a lower octave I did not like." I rarely use
> "roll-off" filtering of the type Justin is experimenting with because
> I feel that I can better address the most exaggerated frequencies,
> individually, with narrow-ish parametric EQ "curves." Its
> time-consuming, but I feel this technique preserves more of the
> fundamentals of the sound waves that are helpful in recreating useful
> overtones in the lower mid-range.
> Here's the comparison as a 7mb QuickTime movie.
> http://tinyurl.com/lerjgp Click on the image to jump right to the
> movie. The soundtrack is full resolution (16 bit/48K).
> A few observations:
> (1) I'm really surprised at how differently the two EQ plugins affect
> the recording-- especially within the range of 80 Hz to 500 Hz. The
> result of attenuation made with a single apEQ "peak" curve has more
> impact. Even with very careful "Q" or width settings, apEQ tended to
> remove a little more of the "body" and adjacent tones than I'd prefer
> at times. However, the difference is subtle and only shows up after a
> more complex curve is in effect. With a wider boost/cut range of 40
> dB, its easier to use a + dB "peak" in apEQ to audibly locate an
> offensive tone or bandwidth than with Eqium. Recordists who like to
> attempt to "remove" man-made drone sounds as might like the greater
> expediency of apEQ. I found that I could get impressive improvement
> in the field recordings I experimented with as few as 5 to 8 curves.
> apEQ might be preferable when needing to quickly but effectively
> equalize a recording. I'll probably stick with Eqium when I'm trying
> to coax "space" out of an ambience recording, but the sound quality
> differences are curious and worth more experimentation for sure.
> (2) The controls of apEQ are fantastic. After you create a Peak EQ
> curve by clicking anywhere on the master curve, you can click on one
> control variable in the floating box to drag-change that setting
> without affecting the others. This is very handy for fine tuning Q
> and the Gain after you find the frequency. I also like the "bypass"
> button for A/B comparing just one setting. I didn't find a "B" buffer
> option for comparing two sets of EQ's; maybe I missed this.
> (3) The superimposed FFT display of apEQ is also fantastic-- I found
> that I referred to it a lot. (I have to open a separate FFT window
> when I used Eqium and this clutters the screen and is not as visually
> (4) I could not find a master gain knob in apEQ. Also, I couldn't
> find a global balance setting. Stereo mic pairs usly need some
> tweaking. Of course, both of these corrections can be achieved with
> the plug setting document. Or, maybe I missing them too?
> (5) I'm not sure how many bands of EQ one can create with apEQ but it
> seems like plenty. (One can create 99 bands with Eqium.) apEQ
> probably taxes the CPU more than Eqium but the preview audition mode
> seemed very responsive on my 2004 model 2GHz Dual G5 PowerPC Mac.
> I would definitely give the free demo of apEQ a try if you are
> contemplating spending some money on EQ. Rob D.
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Yahoo! Groups Links