Re: [QLab] EQ for QLab

[Smith, Andy]

Just had another thought that seems to be easily overlooked...

The thing I love about Qlab is the ease with which new users are able to
get on very well after a very short space of time. The thought of
'training' them on any plug ins in addition to Qlab seems a very long
way round things. Sure, professional users have access to lots of toys
that are controllable via MIDI or access to multi tracking software or
licences, but for the newby, the stressed, the low budget users, Qlab
has thus far given real power to get creative, and personally, that's
what it is about. Qlab is so simple to use as a package, I don't want to
go outside to play!!

Any thought on the EQ Cue? Surely to pop in a 31 band EQ is as simple as
setting 31 levels, just each band is filtered to a certain frequency, or
am I missing something? Of course, doing this for multi track files
might be somewhat of a challenge!!

Andy C. Smith
Technical Manager
South Holland Centre
Market Place
Spalding
Lincolnshire
PE11 1SS

01775 764872

Andy...@sholland.gov.uk

--------------------------------------------------

SAVE PAPER, SAVE TREES - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!

"This Email, and any attachments, may contain Protected or Restricted information and is intended solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy, print or relay on any of the information contained in it or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own anti-virus checks before opening any documents. South Holland District Council will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail. All GCSx traffic may be su
bject to recording and / or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation."

________________________________________________________
WHEN REPLYING, PLEASE QUOTE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED. Thanks!
Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.figure53.com/listinfo.cgi/qlab-figure53.com

--
Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:
http://groups.google.com/group/qlab

[Andy Dolph]

It also depends on use - I really don't like graphic EQ - I really
want parametric - 4 parametric bands with the top and bottom able to
act as shelving and/or HPF/LPF like an 01v96 would be ideal - at least
for me....

Andy

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Smith, Andy <andy...@sholland.gov.uk> wrote:
> Any thought on the EQ Cue? Surely to pop in a 31 band EQ is as simple as
> setting 31 levels, just each band is filtered to a certain frequency, or
> am I missing something? Of course, doing this for multi track files
> might be somewhat of a challenge!!

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 21, at  Apr 21, 2010 3:07 PM, Smith, Andy wrote:

Any thought on the EQ Cue? Surely to pop in a 31 band EQ is as simple as
setting 31 levels, just each band is filtered to a certain frequency, or
am I missing something?

Not sure if you are kidding. EQ always comes with phase distortion no matter how well its done. Plus everyone of those 31 bands is a resonator prone to ringing, harmonics etc.  These are just some of the reasons why most EQ's just don't sound very good. Parametric EQ's are preferred in many cases because they do less harm (fewer bands) and they are more flexible.  That being said there are very few good sounding parametric EQs around either.   

Chris is a pretty smart guy but if he pulls off a great sounding EQ it will likely be the result of many hours of study, trial and error.

Steve

[Christopher Ashworth]

On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Steven Devino wrote:
>
> Chris is a pretty smart guy but if he pulls off a great sounding EQ
> it will likely be the result of many hours of study, trial and error.

EQ in QLab would almost certainly be based on the built-in EQ provided
by CoreAudio (which comes in the form of Audio Units), or at least the
ability to host Audio Units and thus support any EQ Audio Unit (beyond
just the built-in EQ AUs in CoreAudio).

A beta version of v2 actually included this support on a per-cue
basis, and it was pretty fun. There were some tricky issues to
resolve which is why it was pulled before the final release. I'm
looking forward to attacking it again and seeing if we can resolve
those issues.

-C

[Jeremy Lee]

Not entirely true. Take a listen to Waves' Linear Phase EQ. Amazing. But it does cost you something like 2/3 of a second in latency...

On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Steven Devino wrote:

> Not sure if you are kidding. EQ always comes with phase distortion no matter how well its done.

--
Jeremy Lee
Sound Designer, NYC - USA 829
http://www.jjlee.com

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 22, at Apr 22, 2010 4:16 AM, Jeremy Lee wrote:

> Not entirely true. Take a listen to Waves' Linear Phase EQ. Amazing. But it does cost you something like 2/3 of a second in latency...

Yes I own it. I also own the Massenburg. These are $1000 or more either individually (Massenburg) or over $2000 as part of a package, not part of the free AU package included.

And the as you say the latency makes it useless for live work.

Steve