At 7:30 AM +1000 6/24/09, vickipowys wrote:
>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.
Hi Vicki--
Yes, its a little difficult identifying the segments and
switch-points. The test segments are in the order pictured:
(1) Recording with apEQ equalization used
(2) Recording with Eqium 2.0 equalization used
(3) Original Recording, Flat (no equalization used) with Eqium 2.0 used
(4) Recording with Eqium 2.0 equalization used
(5) Recording with apEQ EQused
(6) Original Recording, Flat (no equalization used) with Eqium 2.0 used
-- then it loops---
The current position marker in the movie playback window _should_
"line-up" with the points in time when playback switches from (1) to
(2), (2) to (3) and so forth. The accuracy of the current position
marker relative to the switch points is better when you play the
movie from your desktop using QuickTime opposed to viewing it
on-line, in a browser window.
I've put the movie along with other test-related materials in a zip
file for downloading and viewing this way:
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/posting-techniques/media/apEQ_Eqium_Comparison_Materials.zip
>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!
I hope you find it worthwhile. If you download the demo of apEQ you
can experiment with equalizing the same recording and compare your
final settings to mine. There's a particular order for "sculpting"
the exaggerated tones I tend to follow which I briefly outline here:
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/fieldpostblog/2009/04/equalization-technique-for-diffuse.html
>thanks again,
My pleasure. Rob D.
>
>Vicki Powys
>Australia
>
>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 ?
>>>
>>><<http://www.apulsoft.ch/apeq/>http://www.apulsoft.ch/apeq/><http://www.apulsoft.ch/apeq/>http://www.apulsoft.ch/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
>>> one".
>>
>> 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>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
>> efficient.)
>>
>> (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
>> Krause
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
|