get rid of EQ3

Share your wishes for the future of Ableton Live
Livewire
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:41 pm

Post by Livewire » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:17 pm

i think they should keep the eq3. i have no idea why you are asking for an effect to be taken away. eq3 is way easier to do dj style eqing with. if you dont like it then dont use it.

burn your brain cells on either making music, helping others on this forum, or coming up with great ideas for the next version of Live, not complaining :D
: XP Pro Sp2 : 3.2GHz : 1GB RAM : Dell 8400 :
Live:Mawzer:Lemur:X-Station 25:I wish

Chris Cowie
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:46 am
Location: Somewhere In Europe
Contact:

Post by Chris Cowie » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:13 pm

Livewire wrote:i think they should keep the eq3. i have no idea why you are asking for an effect to be taken away. eq3 is way easier to do dj style eqing with. if you dont like it then dont use it.

burn your brain cells on either making music, helping others on this forum, or coming up with great ideas for the next version of Live, not complaining :D

if your happy with mundane and useless then fine. Adam is totally right and hes not complaining. Hes made an observation that many have including me. he just happens to have the Mojo to say it. I never.

Not everything in Ableton Live is wonderful btw.

Chris Cowie
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:46 am
Location: Somewhere In Europe
Contact:

Post by Chris Cowie » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:15 pm

AdamJay wrote:EQ3... do we really even need it?

no.

there's not a single thing it can do that EQ4 can't do, including kills, filters, etc.
it uses much more CPU than EQ4. plus when you use it as a filter, you're losing some major frequencies.

and the new live users who are DJs are always dumbfounded by how its zero'd at 3 o'clock.

flush it! :)
Totally Agree with you. I have always wanted to say this on the forum but didnt in case people thought I was moaning or something.

yep GET RID OF IT or change the way it works.


I find all of Lives bread and butter plugins to be rather hmmmm average (comps delay Eq). I like some of the more esoteric stuff though but in general I would prefer some useable eq and comp plugins.

hey Ableton I know your reading this. Check out something like Hydra tone. Obviously you couldnt implement something exactly like that. But is it possible to sample one hardware unit and give us some basic convultion EQ. This is real analog simulation.

you know its the future


:wink:

Sly One
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Sly One » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:32 pm

I actually find the plugins amazingly useful compared to many other DAWs' bundled FX. The reverb is *great*, and the compressor II has a fantastic characteristic for dance music. Each to their own I spose! They certainly don't stand alone - you have to take them on their own merits as another tool in the armoury. You can't compare to something like the hydratone which markets for a large amount of money for a good reason, and is intended for specific uses, not as a general-purpose "quickie".

Robert Henke
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:38 am
Location: Berlin

Post by Robert Henke » Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:54 am

Chris Cowie wrote:
AdamJay wrote:EQ3... do we really even need it?

hey Ableton I know your reading this. Check out something like Hydra tone. Obviously you couldnt implement something exactly like that. But is it possible to sample one hardware unit and give us some basic convultion EQ. This is real analog simulation.

you know its the future


:wink:

Are you aware of the fact that using convolution is
a) much more expensive then cascading some filter as in EQ3 and
b) introduces a lot of latency
c) cannot be adjusted in realtime via clip envelopes ?

Convolution is great, but it is not an alternative for EQ3.

Robert

btw.: the effect section in Live is growing slow, but it is growing...

Livewire
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:41 pm

Post by Livewire » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:31 am

cool. so i guess we're keeping the eq3. thats good. hey adam, i still dont know why you want it removed. its not like it takes up your cpu sitting in the browser.
: XP Pro Sp2 : 3.2GHz : 1GB RAM : Dell 8400 :
Live:Mawzer:Lemur:X-Station 25:I wish

Chris Cowie
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:46 am
Location: Somewhere In Europe
Contact:

Post by Chris Cowie » Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:03 pm

Robert Henke wrote:
Chris Cowie wrote:
AdamJay wrote:EQ3... do we really even need it?

hey Ableton I know your reading this. Check out something like Hydra tone. Obviously you couldnt implement something exactly like that. But is it possible to sample one hardware unit and give us some basic convultion EQ. This is real analog simulation.

you know its the future


:wink:

Are you aware of the fact that using convolution is
a) much more expensive then cascading some filter as in EQ3 and
b) introduces a lot of latency
c) cannot be adjusted in realtime via clip envelopes ?

Convolution is great, but it is not an alternative for EQ3.

Robert

btw.: the effect section in Live is growing slow, but it is growing...

Im aware of all your points except C. I didnt think convultion EQ was really an option I merely said it just for interest and pushing my luck :wink: Ive been messing around with Hydratone and I simply cannot get over how good this thing is so of course I realise that you cannot add this type of EQ in Live. The time required to sample alone would take you about 3 months working 16 hour days. I think you would rather be on a beach in the bahams, or the Rhine...


:wink:

BTW
Robert, I your not 'Irked' my comment on Eq3. I havent found a use for it (although I have tried). With all due respect Some Live users cannot see past anything Live and getting a proper debate on this forum can be difficult at times. I dont think Adam was really suggesting you get rid of it I think he was merely voicing his opinion that its not as useful as it could be. A minor change on how it works would sove that.

m-laboratories.net
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 11:45 pm
Contact:

Post by m-laboratories.net » Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:44 pm

AdamJay wrote: re: first removal request....
nah, remember the "get this f'ing Operator icon off my screen!" rants?
:roll:
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. At the time I though it was totally inane, but I can honestly see some reasoning for removing native Live effects/instruments from the menu. Perhaps there should be an options dialog for "display yes/no" just to take care of this type of remark forever. it would probably make some people happy, and would definitely lower the amount of complaining :)

and honestly there is some logic to keeping the effects/instrument list minimal for use in live situations.

montrealbreaks
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: Montreal Canada

Post by montrealbreaks » Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:22 pm

C'mon AdamJay. If you don't like it, don't use it. But get rid of it? That's just wierd.

I think a more logical feature request would be a "preferred" folder for your Ableton effects / instruments, like you can group VSTs in folders. That way, you could put it out of sight. As someone said earlier, it's not doing any harm if it's not in your set.

n'est pas?

I have changed my username; Now posting as:


M. Bréqs

psilosly
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:14 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

Post by psilosly » Thu May 05, 2005 7:28 am

Only one major problem with this: you can only get a -15dB drop with the eq4. Not so with the eq3.

forge
Posts: 17422
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:47 am
Location: Queensland, AU
Contact:

Post by forge » Thu May 05, 2005 10:14 am

funny this thread got resurrected - I was thinking last night about posting a disagree - mainly when using the UC33 - it's just much more straight forward to control for good ole trad DJ stylee sweeps - EQ3 definitely has it's merits - I always use EQ4 for pretty much everything else though

anti-banausic
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:15 pm
Location: NYC

Post by anti-banausic » Thu May 05, 2005 3:34 pm

Actually forge, so strange that you would say that, as I was using EQ3, and after this thread am just utterly hopelessly convinced to using EQ4. It is really much more transparent. And this may or may not be a good thing, but if you really wanted to sweep, the auto-filter is a lot nastier for that. Even when used just a little to cut the bottom off.

But what I really love, is that Mr. Henke has given us a glimpse of something....

The effects section of LIVE is slowly growing.....perhaps that means that there has been a fair amount of coding going on behind the green doors at Ableton? And we all know what coding means, don't we? Development. And nobody does that better than Ableton.

I read the quote about Project 5v.2. Someone said, it was groundbreaking and not a "me-too" product. What rock have they been under?

Just a little more excitement.

Thanks Adam for the tip on EQ4, but we definitely have different pens for different men....
Macbook c2d 2.0, 2G RAM, 160G HD 5400 RPM, OSX(10.5.5), XP Home, LIVE6, BCR 2000, UC33e, Yamaha P-200, Logic Studio, KRK V6 II

Spaiz
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:14 pm

Post by Spaiz » Mon May 09, 2005 8:27 am

AdamJay wrote:
Patch wrote:How do yuo set up EQ4 to act like EQ3??? I'm still using Live 2, and haven't even got EQ3, but I cannot get EQ4 to behave like the EQ control on a DJ mixer. Does anyone have settings on EQ4 to get a nice, DJ style sound on the EQ adjustments?
just turn off 1 of the mid bands and adjust the other mid band so that it occupies the mids and give all 3 remaining bands a wider "Q"

now, use the Gain controls of those 3 remaining bands as your 3 band EQ
Adam! Please explain, what exact values on freq and Q should we choose?

Livewire
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:41 pm

Post by Livewire » Mon May 09, 2005 2:04 pm

yea maybe send us a screenshot.
: XP Pro Sp2 : 3.2GHz : 1GB RAM : Dell 8400 :
Live:Mawzer:Lemur:X-Station 25:I wish

ryansupak
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 7:23 pm

Post by ryansupak » Wed May 11, 2005 4:07 pm

i use 2 x EQ3 in series on every track.

The first one acts as a LPF and an HPF in series.

the second one acts as a "variable state" midrange filter -- what i mean by this is that depending on the settings of the LPF and HPF, and the settings of the midrange sweepers relative to each other, the bandwidth, intensity, and center frequency can be adjusted.

it behaves a lot more like an analog parametric eq, in this fashion.

it's more versatile than an eq4 with equivalent settings, and you'd need another knob to do the same thing (but still not as comprehensively) with the eq4, not to mention that it's a lot easier to manipulate quickly --

so, at the end of the day, i think the humble EQ3 has its place.

rs

Post Reply