-
Welcome to the General Discussion forum for UAD users! Please note that this forum is user-run, although we're thrilled to have so much contribution from Drew, Will, and other UA folks! Feel free to discuss both UAD and non-UAD related subjects! 1) Please do not post technical issues here. Please use our UAD Support Forums instead. 2) Please do not post complaints here. Use the Unrest Forum instead. They have no place in the the General Discussion forum. Threads posted in the wrong forum will be moved, so if you don't see your thread here anymore, please look in the correct forum. Lastly, please be respectful.
Can we have a bigger Gui on 1073 please :)
- Thread starter Spacey
- Start date
Giles117 DP
Active Member
What is your montior resolution???? 1600x1200?? or higher???
I agree - authenticity is nice , but grabbing that frequency ring is a pain.
BTW if you get a microsoft 3000 optical mouse it has a cool Magnifying glass feature that pops up when click a special button by your thumb. It causes a few crackles though. Its also useful for editing some Sampletank settings which crams everything into a single compact screen
BTW if you get a microsoft 3000 optical mouse it has a cool Magnifying glass feature that pops up when click a special button by your thumb. It causes a few crackles though. Its also useful for editing some Sampletank settings which crams everything into a single compact screen
I'd really like to have a numeric value display that pops up when adjusting the value.
Yes, I know this all about modelling analog gear and that not having numbers is part of the \"charm.\" But, for me the charm is the sound not the hard to use dials. This would speed up work flow.
Yes, I know this all about modelling analog gear and that not having numbers is part of the \"charm.\" But, for me the charm is the sound not the hard to use dials. This would speed up work flow.
ed_mcg said:
i couldn't say it better myself. i have brought up this topic in the past.
not to hijack the thread but i WISH they would just put a button for an optional eq graph. this way we non golden ear people can click the button and look at the gragh for a little help. (yeah i KNOW the pultec eq curve would'nt look like this...its just an example.)
Sure, for a single track in isolation that fine.BTLG said:
The point is that when you're working on dense mix and you'd like to balance multi-track drums with the bass and a rhythm guitar and you want to try variations to work out that 150Hz to 350Hz mud zone and you'd like to systematically adjust instruments eq in each sub zone and to be able to quickly move back to the baseline, having numbers will stream line the process.
Dialing in a knob by ear can take, say 10 to 15 secs when listening by ear, doing it by number is 3 secs. Mutliply by 10 knobs by 10 adjustments each. I'd prefer to save the time, how about you?
contramark
Active Member
yeh i would be interested in a eq graph option as well. It would defidently be a big help and give me more understanding to how my UA plugs are functioning. I understand that your ears are your most important tool, however not everyone is blessed with a $3000 monitoring system and a perfect acoustic sounding room, therefore i cant always rely on my ears 100%. When mixing the low end i often check how my mix is standing up to others by sight cause thats all i can use. Well hopefully this will al be changing when i move my studio next month to a bigger room, however my point is a visual aid could be helpful.
A Gruesome Discovery
Active Member
Why would you EQ a track in isolation?ed_mcg said:
The ten seconds spent adjusting by ear is far shorter than the months or years it takes to realize that those numbers are essentially meaningless, and making a decision based upon them is futile. It's not math; knowing that there's a 4.94dB cut at 163.73Hz on the bass track won't help you EQ the drums in any way. The spot where something will "poke through" is never so simple as matching two numbers.ed_mcg said:
duh, of course i'm going to use my ears genius. it just helps alittle to see numbers and graphs.BTLG said:
then why the f%#k do most plugins include graphs and knob values? (waves, oxford, PSP, ect.) because its helpful.
but like i said, it should be an option. so the people that want to PRETEND that its a real pultec or neve can sleep better. :roll:
Why would you EQ a track in isolation?A Gruesome Discovery said:
The ten seconds spent adjusting by ear is far shorter than the months or years it takes to realize that those numbers are essentially meaningless, and making a decision based upon them is futile. It's not math; knowing that there's a 4.94dB cut at 163.73Hz on the bass track won't help you EQ the drums in any way. The spot where something will "poke through" is never so simple as matching two numbers.[/quote:3gu5d5w5]A side from displaying numbers, we are actually in agreement:ed_mcg said:
Why would you EQ a track in isolation?Agreed, this was my point: there is usually iterations across tracks to get mix to work.
And I'll grant that the value of 6.2 may be meaningless in absolute terms, I'd like to get back the that value of 6.2 again if I want to play with a various set of parameters across tracks.
Granted I could save dozens of presets and versions of the projects, but that gets messy.
Taken to the extreme, the "just use you ears" camp would use presets, like a default bass, kick, etc. since you just need your ears, just dial it in fresh every time, all dozen parameters.
Why would you EQ a track in isolation?A Gruesome Discovery said:
[/quote:397w58zz]
i eq in isolation alot and then fine tune it while listening to the mix. sometimes i just listen to everything and eq. it all depends.
if you go see the UAD Neve 1073 video, the guy isolates the kick drum and eq's it.
Whether UA adds it to other plugins or not, graphical EQs are faster for me at least and hence get more use (sound being another reason for the ones I end up using) - I often know what I want and grabbing a node on a graph with mod key Q and level adjustments at the same time is way faster than fiddling with three separate knobs on a recreation of a vintage panel. Emulations are great for what they are, but the reason Neves and Pultecs didn't have a more user friendly interface (graphical LCD for example) is that it hadn't been invented, not because pots/knobs were cooler or sounded better.
I'm not knocking these plugins, or respective hardware - just strikes me as funny that we want emulations of old gear, but quickly realize that it did have limitations. Advancements in technology are actually a good thing.
Yes, soloing a track isn't just a good idea, it's a pretty standard way to mix when you know what a track needs to sound like to make the mix work.
I'm not knocking these plugins, or respective hardware - just strikes me as funny that we want emulations of old gear, but quickly realize that it did have limitations. Advancements in technology are actually a good thing.
Yes, soloing a track isn't just a good idea, it's a pretty standard way to mix when you know what a track needs to sound like to make the mix work.
Tony Ostinato
Active Member
I have to agree about the gui size on a lot of the plugins, space echo for instance i can barely make out what it says on a lot of the knobs.
If the EQ plugin is truly hardware modeled at the circuit board level, then a graphical style EQ gui would be sort of strange to create. This hardware only allows certain frequencies to be selected at certain Q settings. These frequencies were selected through a series of smart decisions and I imagine, some compromises by the original circuit designer.
It was just not feasible to design a parametric EQ into a channel strip, or module that had many more choices for EQ. Not to mention the ideal that modern users have of limitless (or nearly limitless) adjustment capabilities.
In some ways it's all just a matter of how you want to, and are used to working.
I know several old school guys that are much more competant and fast with channel strip EQ than digital graph type ones. And almost every one of these folks were amazed at the potential of the graph style EQs when they first started showing up, but eventually were happy to have the old option back in one form or another.
In some ways the constraint creates a template for art as opposed to something with limitless specs.
One reason I fell in love with the LA2A and Pultec emulations on my computer was that there were only these few knobs and it sounded good.
And there is a HUGE advantage to your ears if you spend time on EQ that does not show you a graph. It forces you to listen more closely.
On top of that, most frankly, a well recorded track does not need a 25 point EQ with 20db.
I think what you want is a Cambridge II. Like the cambridge but with the option of upsampling, and better filter design in general. I wouldn't mind this either.
Bottom line, I think most folks who really prefer graph style EQs do so mostly because they are USED to them. I have no problem with that. The same is true of knob style.
But as it has been said, in the end it is your ear that has to do the work.
(And I think some of the vintage emulations that you can buy are popular more for the vintage ideal and the name/gui than the actual sound of the plugin.)
cAPS
It was just not feasible to design a parametric EQ into a channel strip, or module that had many more choices for EQ. Not to mention the ideal that modern users have of limitless (or nearly limitless) adjustment capabilities.
In some ways it's all just a matter of how you want to, and are used to working.
I know several old school guys that are much more competant and fast with channel strip EQ than digital graph type ones. And almost every one of these folks were amazed at the potential of the graph style EQs when they first started showing up, but eventually were happy to have the old option back in one form or another.
In some ways the constraint creates a template for art as opposed to something with limitless specs.
One reason I fell in love with the LA2A and Pultec emulations on my computer was that there were only these few knobs and it sounded good.
And there is a HUGE advantage to your ears if you spend time on EQ that does not show you a graph. It forces you to listen more closely.
On top of that, most frankly, a well recorded track does not need a 25 point EQ with 20db.
I think what you want is a Cambridge II. Like the cambridge but with the option of upsampling, and better filter design in general. I wouldn't mind this either.
Bottom line, I think most folks who really prefer graph style EQs do so mostly because they are USED to them. I have no problem with that. The same is true of knob style.
But as it has been said, in the end it is your ear that has to do the work.
(And I think some of the vintage emulations that you can buy are popular more for the vintage ideal and the name/gui than the actual sound of the plugin.)
cAPS
Paul Woodlock
Established Member
I prefer to get it sounding right. Graphs don't save time in the long run. The brain subconciously goes for the best looking curve. All the time you're lokuing at graphics your not practising listening properly with visual distractions in the way.ed_mcg said:Sure, for a single track in isolation that fine.BTLG said:
The point is that when you're working on dense mix and you'd like to balance multi-track drums with the bass and a rhythm guitar and you want to try variations to work out that 150Hz to 350Hz mud zone and you'd like to systematically adjust instruments eq in each sub zone and to be able to quickly move back to the baseline, having numbers will stream line the process.
Dialing in a knob by ear can take, say 10 to 15 secs when listening by ear, doing it by number is 3 secs. Mutliply by 10 knobs by 10 adjustments each. I'd prefer to save the time, how about you?
If you're talking about time spent. I actually get the right sound QUICKER without distracting visuals.
Why not try the approach of listening only? Once you get used to it I'm sure you'll find your mixes improve. Giev it a go. It is music after all.
I've been asking UA to provide a button on the cambridge to HIDE the graph precisly for this reason.
"Dialing in a knob by ear can take, say 10 to 15 secs when listening by ear, doing it by number is 3 secs."
Amazing!
Paul Woodlock
Established Member
contramark said:
How the hell can graphics help compensate for an out of wack montioring system?
Whatever happened to learning the room? Using commerical reference tracks? And playing your mix on a variety of systems in a variety of rooms?
Reminds of someone who once said they compared the frequency response of their mixes to pink noise.
ROFL
Mark Edmonds
Active Member
I would really welcome that. Cambridge is a brilliant plugin and my #1 go-to EQ but I know without any shadow of a doubt that the graph often makes it more difficult to tune the EQ because the eyes lead the ears. This will lead to a fight between the senses which takes time to resolve in favour of the ears.Paul Woodlock said:
I like the curve to see what I've done or how the EQ settings work but ultimately, the better skill to learn is tuning without visuals. Far quicker in the long run.
Mark