Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: EQ audio plugin

Expand Messages
  • justinasia
    ... Hi Mike I just tried the trial of SEQ2. It s $119 so I would like to be sure it works well. It seemed more controllable than the Apple one and so should be
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 22 2:43 AM
      Thanks everyone for your input about EQ plugins. I've followed up on all suggestions as follows:

      > I use SEQ2 From Neugen audio for the EQ part,

      Hi Mike
      I just tried the trial of SEQ2. It's $119 so I would like to be sure it works well. It seemed more controllable than the Apple one and so should be good for me. However, I had a problem. I used it to EQ the track, then flattened the layer (that's how it works in Wave Editor), and then saved the track (with a few more steps in between such as dither and so on). When I sent it to a friend he noticed that at 2 points in the track there were silences, lasting less than 0.03 seconds which give a very annoying click. This evidently occurred during editing (they are not in the original recording). Do you think that could have been due to the SEQ2? Otherwise it is a strange coincidence as it has never happened before that I have noticed, although, it could have been due to Wave Editor in one of the other editing steps. I would not like to use SEQ2 if it may introduce random errors like that.

      > If there's an AU plugin that cannot be found through this resource:
      > http://www.kvraudio.com/
      > it won't be missing too long.

      Hi Rob
      They seem to have hundreds! I would really like to go by personal recommendations though, so I know there should not be any troubles. Any suggestions?

      I searched their site and this one was recommended, "ddmf IIEQ pro". I thought the curves seem like they cannot be made very steep, for example the curve for the high pass filter shows that if you want -20db at 20Hz, it starts the curve going down at over 200Hz. Even the notch filter for the same starts at just below 200Hz. Is that considered steep enough? SEQ2 at least was able to make a far steeper curve. Plus, it makes a worrying thump sound through my speakers when turning on a filter.

      As for the LADSPA EQ plugs, I am hoping to stay in one application if possible (Wave Editor, with which I assume they will not work).

      I tried Blue Cat triple EQ, but it doesn't seem to load into Wave Editor. Waves Renaissance EQ is $200 which I am hoping to not have to spend. Trackplug I am investigating now.

      > 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/

      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".

      Thanks everyone
      Justin
    • Rob Danielson
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 23 12:02 AM
        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/
        >
        >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 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.








        --


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kim Cascone
        a few plugs/apps I like: - GRM Stereo Graphic EQ -- for OS X http://www.grmtools.org/products/stbundle/stbundle.html - Jamin -- for Linux
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 23 8:15 AM
          a few plugs/apps I like:

          - GRM Stereo Graphic EQ -- for OS X
          http://www.grmtools.org/products/stbundle/stbundle.html

          - Jamin -- for Linux
          http://jamin.sourceforge.net/en/about.html

          - Baudline -- for Linux
          http://www.baudline.com/
        • Scott Fraser
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 23 9:24 AM
            <<I just tried the trial of SEQ2. It's $119 so I would like to be sure
            it works well. It seemed more controllable than the Apple one and so
            should be good for me. However, I had a problem. I used it to EQ the
            track, then flattened the layer (that's how it works in Wave Editor),
            and then saved the track (with a few more steps in between such as
            dither and so on). When I sent it to a friend he noticed that at 2
            points in the track there were silences, lasting less than 0.03
            seconds which give a very annoying click. This evidently occurred
            during editing (they are not in the original recording). Do you think
            that could have been due to the SEQ2? >>

            I use the NuGen SEQ2 & it's among my favorite EQ plugins, especially
            for mastering. It's a pretty subtle EQ. I haven't run across any
            dropout issues using it with Digital Performer. I find the owner of
            the company to be very responsive to questions or recommendations, so
            it would be worth following up with him.

            Scott Fraser

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • vickipowys
            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
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 23 2:30 PM
              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!

              thanks again,

              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/
              >>
              >> 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 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.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
              > sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
              > Krause
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • Rob Danielson
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 16 , Jun 23 6:42 PM
                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.
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> --
                >>
                >>
                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> ------------------------------------
                >>
                >> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
                >> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
                >> Krause
                >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >


                --


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • picnet2
                Hi, Ive only noticed drop outs / choppy behavior from wave editor and SEQ2 when the source is mono / single channel being exported to stereo. As mentioned its
                Message 7 of 16 , Jun 29 3:28 AM
                  Hi,
                  Ive only noticed drop outs / choppy behavior from wave editor and SEQ2 when the source is mono / single channel being exported to stereo. As mentioned its a shame these two dont work better together, when they are stable its great - but Ive lost count how many times Ive spent over an hour fiddling with SEQ2 only to hit save and then it crashes... litereally... I managed to grab SEQ2 when there was a group buy going on, i think it was 49 dollars. Which was some time ago and Ive not noticed any updates since.
                  Both have major stability issues. Which is why I opted also for Amadeus pro, shame it doest have a real time plug in architecture the same as waveeditor - but for editing without eq its far faster. And the sonogram feature is worth the asking price alone.

                  BR;
                  Mike.



                  --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "justinasia" <justinasia@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Thanks everyone for your input about EQ plugins. I've followed up on all suggestions as follows:
                  >
                  > > I use SEQ2 From Neugen audio for the EQ part,
                  >
                  > Hi Mike
                  > I just tried the trial of SEQ2. It's $119 so I would like to be sure it works well. It seemed more controllable than the Apple one and so should be good for me. However, I had a problem. I used it to EQ the track, then flattened the layer (that's how it works in Wave Editor), and then saved the track (with a few more steps in between such as dither and so on). When I sent it to a friend he noticed that at 2 points in the track there were silences, lasting less than 0.03 seconds which give a very annoying click. This evidently occurred during editing (they are not in the original recording). Do you think that could have been due to the SEQ2? Otherwise it is a strange coincidence as it has never happened before that I have noticed, although, it could have been due to Wave Editor in one of the other editing steps. I would not like to use SEQ2 if it may introduce random errors like that.
                  >
                  > > If there's an AU plugin that cannot be found through this resource:
                  > > http://www.kvraudio.com/
                  > > it won't be missing too long.
                  >
                  > Hi Rob
                  > They seem to have hundreds! I would really like to go by personal recommendations though, so I know there should not be any troubles. Any suggestions?
                  >
                  > I searched their site and this one was recommended, "ddmf IIEQ pro". I thought the curves seem like they cannot be made very steep, for example the curve for the high pass filter shows that if you want -20db at 20Hz, it starts the curve going down at over 200Hz. Even the notch filter for the same starts at just below 200Hz. Is that considered steep enough? SEQ2 at least was able to make a far steeper curve. Plus, it makes a worrying thump sound through my speakers when turning on a filter.
                  >
                  > As for the LADSPA EQ plugs, I am hoping to stay in one application if possible (Wave Editor, with which I assume they will not work).
                  >
                  > I tried Blue Cat triple EQ, but it doesn't seem to load into Wave Editor. Waves Renaissance EQ is $200 which I am hoping to not have to spend. Trackplug I am investigating now.
                  >
                  > > 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/
                  >
                  > 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".
                  >
                  > Thanks everyone
                  > Justin
                  >
                • justinasia
                  ... I have also noticed how the sonogram is good with Amadeus Pro, and how that is missing in Wave Editor. I noticed that the sonogram also works fine with the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jun 29 7:32 AM
                    Thanks for everyone's advice. I am meaning to get back to some people (sorry for my delay) but now I'll just respond to this:


                    > Which is why I opted also for Amadeus pro, shame it doest have a >real time plug in architecture the same as waveeditor - but for >editing without eq its far faster. And the sonogram feature is worth >the asking price alone.

                    I have also noticed how the sonogram is good with Amadeus Pro, and how that is missing in Wave Editor. I noticed that the sonogram also works fine with the trial of Amadeus Pro, so I just open a file with that if I want the sonogram function. Very handy.

                    Justin
                  • Paul Jacobson
                    Hi Rob, I don t believe there is a global balance setting for apEQ but you can change/set master gain by dragging the black dot at the far right of the eq
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 1, 2009
                      Hi Rob,

                      I don't believe there is a global balance setting for apEQ but you
                      can change/set master gain by dragging the black dot at the far right
                      of the eq curve vertically.

                      A simple way to alter the balance is to use Destroy FX's freeware
                      "Monomaker" AudioUnit plug in which can be downloaded at http://
                      destroyfx.smartelectronix.com/audiounits.html
                      By setting "mono merge" to zero and changing the pan mode to
                      "balance" the plugin works very well for balance adjustments.

                      cheers
                      Paul


                      >>>
                      >>> (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?
                    • Scott Fraser
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 2, 2009
                        <<Ive only noticed drop outs / choppy behavior from wave editor and
                        SEQ2 when the source is mono / single channel being exported to
                        stereo. As mentioned its a shame these two dont work better together,
                        when they are stable its great - but Ive lost count how many times Ive
                        spent over an hour fiddling with SEQ2 only to hit save and then it
                        crashes... litereally... I managed to grab SEQ2 when there was a group
                        buy going on, i think it was 49 dollars. Which was some time ago and
                        Ive not noticed any updates since.
                        Both have major stability issues. >>

                        I would look at Wave Editor as the source of instability, since SEQ2
                        works with other hosts quite well. If SEQ2 didn't properly implement
                        the AU specs it would have similar problems elsewhere. I suspect if
                        Wave Editor is having this issue, it will have issues with other AU
                        plugins as well. Wave Editor is a relative newcomer on the scene &
                        doesn't have the long background & established user base that makes an
                        editor like PEAK an industry standard.

                        Scott Fraser

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.