Sonalksis EQ. . .

tw1nstates · Post by **tw1nstates** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:55 pm

Ive got this and used it for ages, almost on default really.

Anyway I noticed that it's changing the *sound* of things that it eqs, possibly bit of phase shifting going on.

Now that i have noticed it I find it quite noticable, I also use URS' Channel Strip pro which sounds to my ears much much better. . .

Are my ears deceiving me, anyone else notice this?

I don't think its a case of the emperors new clothes as i have had both for a ges, the sonalksis mostly gets used cos of the spectrograph (why dont all EQ's have this? btw?)

and to be honest i thought that the URS wasn't all it was cracked up to be, now using on a bit different programme material (sample sets of marimbas etc) i am really noticing the difference.. ..

Tarekith · Post by **Tarekith** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:19 pm

Hard to say what you're hearing, but to my ears the SV-517 is one of the least phasey EQ's out there. I use it all the time, even in my mastering business because I think it sounds so clean. How much gain are you using on an EQ band when you hear it, and which bell type?

Richierich4321 · Post by **Richierich4321** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:39 am

im with tarekith once i found this eq i couldnt recommend it more due to in my opinion is the most transparent eq ive found

Chang · Post by **Chang** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:19 am

I was looking into Sonalksis EQ the other day and came across this from one of top respected engineer/producers on gearslutz whom all respect.

"I did a thorough test between the Sonalksis SV-517 EQ, Elemental Audio Eqium, Waves Renaissance, Waves Q-series, and Logic Pro EQ.

In this test there was no doubt that the Sonalksis was in another league sound wise. I tested for phase shifting using the HPF, both listening and measuring. I also tested for transient response, general behaviour, and very high frequencies (15kHz+).

In all tests the Sonalksis EQ both sounded most natural and had the least artifacts, and the best transient response. Logic EQ came out last in every test.

I was quite surprised the Eqium didn't sound better in the high frequencies, the Sonalksis easily blew it out of the waters. In terms of flexibility the Eqium had some nice features, however - much to my surprise - it didn't offer any slopes on the HPF, which makes it totally unusable for me. Nice customer services from Elemental Audio though. The high end in the Eqium sounded digital and nasty compared to the Sonalksis.

Waves Renaissance EQ has an okay sound but is too limited in use to be an all-round EQ, especially due to the fixed resonance peaks/dips. The Waves Q-series simply doesn't cut it IMO both in terms of interface and sound, and is close to rock bottom.

So I would whole heartedly recommend the Sonalksis EQ, it's probably the best native EQ you can get without resorting to extra hardware. Of course, if you have aniLok or PowerCore/TDM you can get the URS or Oxford EQs. I especially like the Oxford EQ.

The Sonalksis EQ also offers nice flexibility in terms of interface and features, such as choice of knob behaviour, types of resonance behaviour, etc. Therfore it is perfect as an all-round EQ, and in combination with the excellent Sonalksis compressor is a pretty unbeatable package."

So.

tw1nstates · Post by **tw1nstates** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:11 pm

THanks for the comments guys,

Well that's the thing, I just always used the Sonalksis without really questioning it, however switching in and out of a couple of bands (this was cutting as well) I really noticed the sound of the EQ.

now I know these things are subjective and whatknot. So, i'll try over the weekend to recreate and post somehting here.

I also use the URS and noticed that on the *same* settings (obviously not exactly the same, just dialed in to match) it sounded much more transparent. ..

My results may vary though

Tarekith · Post by **Tarekith** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:38 pm

MAke sure you try the different bell curves on the SV517, they can have a big impact on how it sounds. Type III should be pretty transparent.

tw1nstates · Post by **tw1nstates** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:51 pm

Yip,

Will look into them,

As I recall eqing the track was changing the stereo balance of the track.

That shouldnt really happen, right?

It was a funny one as it was a stereo track sent into a rack, split and panned hard left and hard right and sent to amplitube on each side. Amplitube was exactly the same (basically this is how I get stereo guitar distrotion on tracks)

So it shouldn't be messing with the stereo imaging, right?

djsynchro · Post by **djsynchro** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:15 pm

You need to go by your ears boyyo all EQs and filters mess with the phase that can be good and it can be bad, if something sounds better to your ears just use it. Why don't all EQs have a spectrogizmo? Graphs and analysers are bullshit! Don't believe me? Let me prove it to you.

1: We'll both master a track, but you can only use your eyes and all the analysers you want, and I can only use my ears. Guess who's going to do a better job?

2: Still don't believe me? Load up Spectrum, and a track. Mastering is typically making very small tweaks, if you're doing radical changes something is wrong with the mix. So, let's say we're making a small dip at around 5k to make stuff a bit smoother. (The engineer who used to cut my vinyl would always tell me stuff like that) I'm talking a SMALL dip. Now A/B so you can hear the difference, it's subtle, but it's there. Now A/B and look at Spectrum. Can you see any change? No you can't. And that' how useful spectrum analysers are. They can show you subsonic rumble or a warped high shelf filter close to the Nyquist frequency but they're not going to help you make anything sound good.

Tarekith · Post by **Tarekith** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:20 pm

Analysers are great for finding the exact frequency to cut if you hear something that's too peaky. You can do it with your ears too of course, but for people who haven't developed that skill yet an analyzer can be a great tool to help them learn.

tw1nstates · Post by **tw1nstates** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:59 pm

djsynchro wrote:You need to go by your ears boyyo all EQs and filters mess with the phase that can be good and it can be bad, if something sounds better to your ears just use it. Why don't all EQs have a spectrogizmo? Graphs and analysers are bullshit! Don't believe me? Let me prove it to you.

1: We'll both master a track, but you can only use your eyes and all the analysers you want, and I can only use my ears. Guess who's going to do a better job?

2: Still don't believe me? Load up Spectrum, and a track. Mastering is typically making very small tweaks, if you're doing radical changes something is wrong with the mix. So, let's say we're making a small dip at around 5k to make stuff a bit smoother. (The engineer who used to cut my vinyl would always tell me stuff like that) I'm talking a SMALL dip. Now A/B so you can hear the difference, it's subtle, but it's there. Now A/B and look at Spectrum. Can you see any change? No you can't. And that' how useful spectrum analysers are. They can show you subsonic rumble or a warped high shelf filter close to the Nyquist frequency but they're not going to help you make anything sound good.

Thanks for the advice, I have been making music for quite some time and I am fairly happy with my working methods

I was actually talking about using my ears rather than my eyes (in a rather elliptical fashion) been reading loads about Sonalksis and how good it is as an EQ and did a little A/B ing read the thread for more and discovered it was noticably changing the stereo field of one of the channels. . .

The whole use your ears thing is important but I don't understand why you wouldn't want to use both I find a spectrum analyser and my fairly well tuned ears are a good combo.

My room isn't perfect, I know how it sounds however I will want to check decisions, and if the analyser is showing a bloody great peak at 333 hz I am between 300 and 400 then it makes sense to dial in for accuracy. . .

It's speed as much as anything. I don't want to spend time on the tech parts, rather the creative parts. .

tw1nstates · Post by **tw1nstates** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:00 pm

djsynchro wrote:You need to go by your ears boyyo all EQs and filters mess with the phase that can be good and it can be bad, if something sounds better to your ears just use it. Why don't all EQs have a spectrogizmo? Graphs and analysers are bullshit! Don't believe me? Let me prove it to you.

1: We'll both master a track, but you can only use your eyes and all the analysers you want, and I can only use my ears. Guess who's going to do a better job?

2: Still don't believe me? Load up Spectrum, and a track. Mastering is typically making very small tweaks, if you're doing radical changes something is wrong with the mix. So, let's say we're making a small dip at around 5k to make stuff a bit smoother. (The engineer who used to cut my vinyl would always tell me stuff like that) I'm talking a SMALL dip. Now A/B so you can hear the difference, it's subtle, but it's there. Now A/B and look at Spectrum. Can you see any change? No you can't. And that' how useful spectrum analysers are. They can show you subsonic rumble or a warped high shelf filter close to the Nyquist frequency but they're not going to help you make anything sound good.

Thanks for the advice, I have been making music for quite some time and I am fairly happy with my working methods

Also how did we get in to a discussion about mastering???

I was actually talking about using my ears rather than my eyes (in a rather elliptical fashion) been reading loads about Sonalksis and how good it is as an EQ and did a little A/B ing read the thread for more and discovered it was noticably changing the stereo field of one of the channels. . .

The whole use your ears thing is important but I don't understand why you wouldn't want to use both I find a spectrum analyser and my fairly well tuned ears are a good combo.

My room isn't perfect, I know how it sounds however I will want to check decisions, and if the analyser is showing a bloody great peak at 333 hz I am between 300 and 400 then it makes sense to dial in for accuracy. . .

It's speed as much as anything. I don't want to spend time on the tech parts, rather the creative parts. .

djsynchro · Post by **djsynchro** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:43 am

Tarekith wrote:Analysers are great for finding the exact frequency to cut if you hear something that's too peaky. You can do it with your ears too of course, but for people who haven't developed that skill yet an analyzer can be a great tool to help them learn.

Sorry in my very very very humble opinion I totally disagree. There are two things you need to train: Your ears! Let me say it again: If there was a master coming your way and it sounded too peaky somewhere, would you be confident EQ-ing it looking at an analyser but without the monitors turned on? Of course not! Would you be confident EQing using just your ears and no displays? You might even do a better job because all your minds resources "CPU" will be focused on listening instead of listening and processing pocessing visual information.

Again IMVHO YMMV YCDWYWOC (you can do what you want of course)

tw1nstates · Post by **tw1nstates** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:51 am

???

What's all this talk about mastering?

If a master came my way i'd probably touch his feet and ask for his blessing

I do most of my mix checking without 'looking' at the mix.

Anyway different strokes I guess. You are happy working your way me with mine. It's all good.

Tarekith · Post by **Tarekith** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:57 am

djsynchro wrote:
Tarekith wrote:Analysers are great for finding the exact frequency to cut if you hear something that's too peaky. You can do it with your ears too of course, but for people who haven't developed that skill yet an analyzer can be a great tool to help them learn.
Sorry in my very very very humble opinion I totally disagree. There are two things you need to train: Your ears! Let me say it again: If there was a master coming your way and it sounded too peaky somewhere, would you be confident EQ-ing it looking at an analyser but without the monitors turned on? Of course not! Would you be confident EQing using just your ears and no displays? You might even do a better job because all your minds resources "CPU" will be focused on listening instead of listening and processing pocessing visual information.

Again IMVHO YMMV YCDWYWOC (you can do what you want of course)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "I" use analyzers like that, I'm saying that using one is a great way to help people train their ears who don't know their frequencies well yet. And mastering engineers do use them IN CONJUNCTION with their ears sometimes, obviously you don't rely JUST on the spectral display to make decisions.

tw1nstates · Post by **tw1nstates** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:36 am

ooops,

Sorry Synchro, didnt notice you were replying to Tarekith. . .