This is the reply I was hoping as I've made it purely to make your tests more conclusive in the future. If you take it all on board which from this response I think you will. White noise nulls are most likely the reason why your nulls are audible in your videos. If you use pink noise then the mid to high end differences are mitigated and thats fine as it related to the sources that people will use on the plugins which are based on acoustic sound. Where with using white noise, the mid to high end is at equal energy to the low end which means that from a null perspective it'll show those high end differences in anti aliasing filters bla bla to be as audible as the low end differences which in reality isn't the case. If you feed a plugin with audible non linearities white noise then it will saturate equally and the difference will show when in reality, musical sources have a fundamental and then corresponding octaves and harmonics. So when passing an acoustic guitar through a coloured eq, the low end energy of the guitar will trigger the input most and thus saturate more in that area and less in the highs. What you'll find using pink noise is that the null will be perceived quieter than the white noise null because we are more sensitive to mid and high end frequencies. So in a white noise null we are hearing differences that we shouldn't because the mid to high end shouldnt be at the same energy of the fundamental. Id harbour a guess if youd have used pink noise on your tests, we most likely wouldn't have heard the nulls. In regards to the curve bender, you've used an all pass filter which is not an anti aliasing filter. You said that science is unforgiving so you understand that from a science point of view, you need to do apples vs apples. An anti aliasing filter significantly attenuates the amplitude of frequencies above it's cut off frequency. It's main aim is to incur the least amount of phase shift whilst removing the frequencies above the cut off. That's why the implementation of the anti aliasing filter is very important, Kit moQ being a big example of how NOT to implement an anti aliasing filter. The issue is that even an FIR filter can incur a little bit of phase shift but it's so minimal and in such high regions that it's not to worry about, especially considering more sources won't make anything as considerable that high up the frequency spectrum. Sample rate is also another contributing factor as at higher sample rates, that phase shift will be way above the audible hearing range. So with the curve bender, that phase shift you see at 44.1 or 48k will not be where it is at 96k because niquist is now 48khz. The issue with 44.1 and 48khz is that niquist is 22 & 24hz which means that the filter has to be JUST above 20khz and super steep to not encroach into the audible range. That's what they mostly all use linear phase filters because minimum phase filter at 44.1 & 48k will incur big phase shifts all the way down to like 5k. At 96k, that minimum phase shift moves up to 10khz, and then 20khz at 192khz. An all pass filter is used purely to manipulate the phase response without altering it's amplitude. It's main purpose is to rotate the phase as you said but it doesn't attenuate any frequencies, unlike an anti aliasing filter. So you've used an all pass which has manipulated the phase, which you've then had to fix with another eq. It's nowhere near apples for apples. You've tried to reverse engineer an anti aliasing filter using incorrect methods cause you are trying to get the phase to match differences you see in a white noise null that has massively emphasised these high end differences. You are trying to fix differences in a frequency range that hardly anybody can hear where if you used pink noise you wouldn't even hear it. My main advice is to watch the whole eq course selling thing. Trying to sell a $50 EQ course on a platform that already has thousands upon thousands of free videos on the topic, whilst trying to make a message that you don't need to fall for audio marketing sounds hypocritical because you are kind of using the same methods "but this to become more 'pro'" that's where I've seen most backlash to your video. If your new to youtube in this community then you need to learn fast that shilling is a massive issue and as youtubers we are all trying to find that balance because the audience are now fully done with content being made purely to sell a product. If you want to grow on this platform then just start giving everything away with no strings attached. That will build you an audience. Nicholas from Panorama mastering is a great modern example, and a fellow mastering engineer. I have completely stopped all paid reviews on my channel, and tbh mostly all reviews. If a product ends up in a video it's because it's unavoidable due to the topic but there's not a hidden agenda. Its a difficult gig to try and make the time investment quantifiable from a financial point of view but selling eq courses being a relatively unknown mastering engineer in the community isn't gonna help your message. Work at just giving the best information you can purely to help others. If I was in your position, I would genuinely refund the people that bought the course and and stick it up for free on youtube for everybody. You'll be amazed at how much respect that will give you in this community. Just an idea, depends on what is more important, reaching a wider audience to educate and get your name out there or make a bit of side money from what you know. Just be careful, don't make the wrong enemies, and if you are unsure about something, don't talk about it. If it's plugins ask a dsp engineer or somebody that knows a lot about this stuff as when you assume... Well you'll know the saying. (and trust me, there's been the odd occasion where I've made an ass out of myself and had to redo something or take it out) Hope things work out for you in the future

​@@PaulThird Thanks for your detailed reply! I guess the main point I want to address there is the course selling thing. I think many people have hang ups about charging for stuff. Many youtubers do it for a hobby or passion and are happy to spend years of their lives making free content to increase their subscriber count and gain more respect in the community, and that's totally cool. But the idea that selling stuff is somehow ethically wrong is just bizarre to me. Imagine going to an evening class on cooking to learn how to make better food at home and then someone comes up to you and says "you're getting conned out of your money here, and the chef/teacher should refund all of the students and teach this for free because there are free cooking videos on youtube". Like, what? The reality is, most people dont want to wade through 10 hours of dog shit on youtube for every minute of valuable content. And if they wanted to learn something new, how would they know if the information was legit or leading them down the wrong path? It's fine to say "it's on youtube for free". But in reality people are ecstatically happy to pay 19 quid ($49 with 50% early bird discount in GBP) for the massive time saving convenience of a high quality comprehensive course, in a structured, focused, logical presentation on the topic they want to learn, taught by a qualified industry professional with 15+ years working in the industry. The people who bought my course have demonstrated with their credit cards that they prefer a coherent well taught course to sifting through endless random youtube videos of wildly varying quality. It's like going to tescos and standing in front of the mushrooms telling people "don't buy these mushrooms! 4 quid is a rip off! just go into the woods and find some yourself for free!". But it turns out, if you go into the woods, you find a lot of mushrooms but you don't know which are good and which will make you ill and after you've trawled through google trying to learn which ones are good, joined the local fungus experts group and had two stomach pumps at the local A&E, you will have wished you bought the mushrooms at tescos. And sure, it's possible that I could spend months of my life putting together high quality courses and then instead of selling them to extremely enthusiastic buyers for peanuts like I'm doing, I could just release that all for free and incur a $500 loss per year on my course hosting fees and never recoup the cost of the camera equipment. Sure I could do that, but I'm not going to, and there's no rational reason why I ought to. I'm not hiding anything. I'm very open that I'm selling high quality courses for a reasonable price and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Bear in mind that I currently charge $65 to master a single track. The effort I put into my courses and the value you get out of them for less than the price of one single master is pretty disproportionate, but nobody is bashing me for being a mastering engineer. And my mastering clients are digging my courses to the point where I've stopped doing my mix critique service which was $35 per track and replaced it with my mix prep course, and they are getting more value from that course than paying me for mix critique on individual tracks.

@APMastering OK. So the question is.. What makes your course any better than any of the free content that's out there from reputable names in the industry? Produce like a pro has multiple eq videos, sonic scoop has over an hour long video dedicated to just EQ. Rick Beatto has one. In the mix with over 1m subscribers (who's also a mastering engineer). All free and all you have to do is type in how to eq on youtube. If they are giving away so much of these things for free then why are you expecting others to pay you? As much as you've said that plugin devs expect you to pay for the same thing that you can get for free... You are doing the same thing. Are you saying that your eq course is better than youtube videos from recognised professionals? It would take me less time to consume their teaching and cost me nothing Just Think about the hypocracy of what you are trying to justify compared to what plugin devs try to justify

The free market

​@@PaulThird OK so the Produce like a pro one with Mark Rubel seems to be a lead magnet for the $200 subscription. It's a half hour video where he says a few really awesome things, but some of it I strongly disagree with and I actually demonstrate in my course why you shouldn't do those things. Sonic scoop EQ video is a cut down version from a paid course which is $169. In this free cut down KZfaq version, skipping through, it's not in the same universe as my course. Not even close. He's just rambling some loosely structured barely rehearsed stuff live to camera in one hurried session. He might be an awesome engineer but this isn't particularly great educational content. Rick Beatto has a playlist of long form whiteboard videos which is a lead magnet for his $100 course. There seems to be zero hands on EQ. Again, I'm not saying this is bad, this content is probably extremely deep and something I'd be interested in watching but its dry and even I don't have the attention span or time for that kind of dry white board content. If I want to know how to use an EQ like a pro, I'd rather pay 19 quid and get a fast track, logical, concise, well structured course, going through every aspect that I need, rather than some lucky dip bag of unstructured long form white board stuff or some dude chatting unscripted to camera. I'm sure some people have enjoyed that lead magnet content but from a pedagogical perspective it's just not good at providing a well rounded education on the topic for people who just want to get the information with minimum friction. I used to be a private tutor, teaching audio synthesis to BA and MA students at my old uni. And I have even done some actual university lecturing (industry guest lecturer), so I'm coming at it with some prior teaching experience as well as having earned the majority of my income over the last 16 years from actually doing mastering. So if those are your top recommendations, I'm actually relieved because my course is in a different universe to this free stuff and costs much less than their courses.

Sigh... I will forever be the plugin guy on youtube haha

Laymans audio guy with proper science @@PaulThird

​@@PaulThirdnah, it's just that we less plugin sellers and more geeks and nerds again.

🤜🤛

🤜🤛

🤓🤓

🤜🤛 (ps I may need to pick your brain about something in the future)

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

🤜🤛

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

cubase? ewww gross. jk! lol

@@hithere4289 Ha! Pro Tools potentate? Logic lord? Reaper regent? SONAR snob? StudioOne-percenter? 🤔

Ableton cause we are Able of Tons 😂 Cubase seems great, Studio One is becomint the best Daw though

Becoming* Also please do a video, f if there drama or not ! Do things !! Especially if you want to do it ! GO FOR IT !!! Don't think about it do it man !!

I had to edit quite heavily and do a few takes so it came off very fact based and non confrontational. I tried to take my personality out this one and just stick to facts that I know

Acustica is a bit like wine to me. There's tons of different flavours but at the end of the day, they all get you pissed regardless so you need to take time to study their sound to ascertain whether they are actually beneficial. Its really all down to taste with Acustica. Some people like rose, some like red, some like white, and some like different variations of each. Just be careful not to go nuts cause I've seen people spend thousands on them

That’s a very bad rabbit hole to be in. They’ve got good stuff but their fandom is insane. Having 1 or 2 EQ from them is good enough.

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

I just find it funny that it's the same cockney accent I've been doing for years 😂

@@PaulThird It's too funny, keep it up! ;)

👍

I've learned that the hard way haha

Correct!

🤓🤓

🤜🤛

😅

The best thing about EQuilibrium is that it allows YOU, the user to specify exactly what kind of EQ response you want. You can have it in parallel, you can have it in series.. you can force the filters to ring out a lot, or you can make them incredibly tight with almost no ringing. You can go from full minimum phase to inverted phase (so instead of ringing you get pre-ringing only!). You can abuse all of these settings to fit the purpose. Example: If you have a really clicky and nasty closed hihat that needs to be softened up a bit, you could cut a narrow bell where you have most of the transient energy with a filter that is ringing like crazy. Then you can null that cut with another instance in the opposite direction, with an identical filter and Q, and have that bell ring like crazy as well! The end result is that the filters will smear the hihat at this particular point you selected and thus smooth out the hihat click by basically destroying the transient. :)

🤜🤛

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

It's quite an easy conclusion tbh Digital filters are technically all the same but that is only 1 part of an eq plugin and the theory only applies if you have a linear eq that can offer a large number of bands which cater for all frequencies, filters & q factors. However, Q behaviour, anti aliasing filter/internal oversampling, eq cramping are variables that the user has no control of in most cases. Some plugins give you an aspect of control but these dsp choices are what can make an eq plugin sound and function different from a standard fixed digital parametric eq. So whilst multiple fixed filters can be matched with a high band count plugin like kirchhoff or proq3, there are other coded factors which can affect the filters after the fact. non linearities in an eq aren't all the same. This is the biggest difference in eq plugins as you have variables of THD, IMD, noise, group delay, aliasing, dynamics, oversampling, clipping, phase anomalies via modelling line amps, transformers etc Only part of his video that is correct, is that all fixed filters in the digital domain can be replicated with proq3. That's it really

@@PaulThird Agree with pretty much all of that - what about FIR and IIR filters though? and different impulse lengths and shapes like DMG Audio Equilibrium allows you to edit? A guy called sseb has the BEST video on how EQ works that I've ever seen, well worth watching if you haven't seen it before. Really good channel, but sadly not much content.

I've not got time for the equilibrium rabbit hole yet haha the phase of the filter will always change the sound but fabfilter and kirchhoff have like 3 or 4 different phase options. I like kirchhoffs mixed phase option as it's quite a clever idea.

@@PaulThird Yeah I love Fabfilter and Kirchhoff. The FIR/IIR stuff is different from their mixed phase modes which are combining linear and minimum phase for different parts of the spectrum. The channel I mentioned above is cool for explaining them. It explains the difference in plugin doctor when you use the impulse view on a frequency response.

Hyper tech is kinda the same thing. As far as I know it's about how you manually model and measure the compression. As we all know, Tim got that down to a fine art from the beginning. He would measure and measure until he got all the compression behaviour correct. As far as I'm aware, hyper tech is really just Acustica admitting that they were measuring compression incorrectly over the years (as we've all heard for ourselves) and finally caved in and started measuring and implementing compression correctly. That's all it is really. Hyper tech is essentially "old tech" 🤣

Me and Ed talked about GAS on the working audio tools

@@PaulThird thanks Paul, will check it.

Depends on exactly what you want to do on the mixbus.

DMG EQuilibrium 😊

You probably already have what you’re looking for.

Yeah, you are correct. Depends on the bit depth of your session but it was said more to give the difference between the clipping points of linear eq's vs some analog emulations. Some emulations will internally soft clip and the ceiling will be determined via the internal calibration of the plugin. This whole video was just completely off the dome.

I can't deny that! 😂

@@PaulThird no its not. they are poor in the mix . get a tele a Strat and a les Paul.

also thinking more about different behavior, mine is for a graphic eq which has significant overlap in the filters, i have no plans to label decibels on the ui in large part because they overlap so so so much. +3db on 4 bands in a row might be +9 in the middle for all i know

If you really want it, find a way of getting an IR of the passthrough so you can see what's going on. It could be a multitude of things.

And youtube is the only place that cares 🤣 my knowledge is absolutely wasted elsewhere. I had my mate round to the studio on Friday night and everything went over his head haha

@@PaulThird I understand haha, my son is developing a game engine and it’s hard to visualize code for me. But when I talk about audio he has the same problem. I think we both punish ourselves listening to each other’s gibberish 😂

Yes but it's not what softube or any other developer are using as anti aliasing filters.

No. AP mastering.

@@PaulThird It's weird. Loads of people that are doing videos like this moment. Mix busTV just tried to null an analog Wes Audio EQ to Pro Q this morning.

​@@RJ1Jprobably because KZfaq heavily promoted that AP mastering video and people are jumping on the algorithm bandwagon.

​@RealHomeRecording that's a good point

Starsky Carr's video was really lacking unfortunately..

Tbf to him I think he talked about non linearities in the 2nd video but was really dismissive and said if he wanted a transformer sound he'd use kazrog true iron so he had more control, which is only one part of the non linearities. Doesn't really matter if you use different saturation, all the audible non linearities of the eq is part of the sound whether you like it or not

@@PaulThird yeah exactly! barely talked about it and dismissed it. like wtf dude?! I feel like he may just be very young and it's worth it to recognize that the tools we have now are capable of way more than what we had before, but at the end of the day it comes down to the sound we have in our head and translating that into what comes out of the speakers. and for those of us who grew up with more analog counterparts it's easier and faster to get that sound from analog emulations/hardware. where as other people don't even get that and can probably get it faster with just putting an EQ and saturation on vs using an all in one plugin. since they won't know which one to reach for. Just because you can doesn't mean it's the best option. I started mixing with only logic's plugins as well as pro tools DAW plugins (which were shit). It took me forever to dial in things to get what i was looking for. 12+ hours for a mix (even after upgrading my monitors and other things). as soon as i went with decent analog emulations though, my workflow sped up by 4+ hours. then when i added in a control surface i saved even more time.

Same here I called him out for the harmonic distortion from the neve example he used which proves it’s different and not transparent. Can literally put it in plug-in doctor and see it which he didn’t show at all.

It's early days. I'd like to think he's got the right intentions (bar the $50 eq course) and will hopefully learn from the situation. It's the wild west when you start making big scientific claims in audio. Just when you think you've got it somebody comes along with something you didn't know and the rabbit hole continues haha I'm still in the whole conversion rabbit hole! 🤣😅

It's been the same intro for over 3 years haha

I was just gonna leave it but after the 8th DM I was like OK fine haha

@@PaulThird you nailed all of the points. Great job on the video Paul!

That's why I'm not a developer haha

Didn't know Dan Worral was in the video 😜 haha

🤓🤓

🤓🤓

Well now you know haha

@@PaulThird do i tho? Do Iiiiiiii

Analog is a bitch though cause of the tolerances. It genuinely isn't a cop out. You can sample a piece of gear and then 6 months later sample it again, and get a different Result. Humidity, power, heat, age, wear. It's the nemesis of the null test, but you can still do curve matched, level matched AB's. That should be enough so I agree

The mere inclusion of human perception is sciences biggest hurdle haha

love that one, a game changer for sure.

Not tested that one... Yet

Use Michelangelo on everything these days lol. The extended section with the M/S, Trans/Sus, all dynamic etc. shit is just so versatile. Genuinely amazing plugin, so well thought out,

@@PaulThirdIt's the best thing out there, in my opinion. Mind blowing. I think they used IRs.

I'm also genuinely surprised with it... And I claim to be very skeptical about "analogue"...

No. It's all digital with plugins

Just early days on youtube I think. It's easy to get carried away in the first year

He says as he defends all of the huge companies curating the pr on their overpriced snake oil.

When I provided links to videos I've done proving that you don't need lots of plugins ie Harrison, waves, kit, plugin alliance. Been there, got the t-shirt I've bashed acustica plenty in the past for buggy shit and and their anti piracy shit. I'm aloud to actually like a plugin or 2.

Never mattered who did it first. He mentioned it in a video a few weeks later. The main thing was that we both had the same findings which absolutely destroyed Harrisons marketing claims. That was the most important

Yeah but not the same as motown or api. I tried to replicate it using proq3 propQ when I did the videos but unfortunately it had a different proportional q behaviour. Still a very handy feature though

That'll need a fucking super computer to run 🤣

​@@PaulThird yeah, 1 per instance...

This is me actually trying to help him haha I hope it's not came across as an out and out hit piece. I think as soon as he pushed the $50 eq course it really rubbed the community the wrong way cause the message is good, but using that message to sell a course in the same breath basically dilutes the "fight the marketing" shout. Tbf he's probably looked at loads of other youtubers and thought.. What's the difference, they are all selling shit. And he's probably got a point but the issue is the conflicting nature of "you don't need to spend money on eq plugins cause they are all the same, free and paid" but "you need to spend money on me teaching you how to eq cause my course is different" Basically doing the exact same and capitalising on people that dont know any better

@@PaulThird Don't spend those $50 on some cool new plugins! Spend them on the AP Masterclass on how to use your stock EQ. Yipee! 😭😭😭😭😭😭🤣🤣

🤣

Years ago. Think I did snow vs celestial or something.

🤓🤓

After having only super positive energy from everybody that's been in my room. I'd say so. Not one person has viewed it as a gimmick, but I do have a very good atmos playlist

Depends which one. There's tons of pultec variations

No. Unless you class 3 hours as close

@@PaulThird ah. I was on tik tok and one of the streamers’ accents from there reminded me of yours. Cheers.

🤓🤓

That's cause I've been taking 2 weeks on a video that's required a lot of testing. If you want videos with conclusions that are done correctly then you have to be patient. Otherwise it's just easy one take videos every week. Remember Ive also got the Working Audio Tools Podcast which is on here, apple, amazon etc. That's every Saturday without fail

You are the man!! We shall be patient and continue to expect greatness.

👍

Agreed

Yes.

I'm not fussed as long as its done right. If it's not done right then it kinda pisses on the hard work I've done previously

@PaulThird Paul u make me laugh but in a good honest way. I appreciate it. And exactly

🤓🤓

Have fun paying 100s of dollars for the same thing you can do with stock plugins!

🤓🤓

True but it's nothing near to API or motown, but still annoyed that I forgot about that

Yes, that's basically it. Well, unless it's convolution. You can't code convolution. There isn't an algorithm for convolution

@@PaulThird to be fair convolution is the algorithm for convolution, it just requires an input, gets the same input, and gets the same sound. And for the analog stuff, they were trying at the time to get distortion and noise down. We live in a funny world. I'm more on the analog side of sound processing, but I did look into high-level DSP programming with stuff like Faust, and you definitely can get DSP really close to analog stuff, convolution and circuit modeling are big in that world. But in a way I'm in the same camp as Harrison, I'm not sure it's really worth the processing power, I also wouldn't sell it as an analog reproduction, but that's me. People would be better served by an eq plugin a distortion plugin and a few different combinations for different needs. Get the right order and you can build a guitar amp minus speaker IR. Or on the funny end, go learn LT spice, get some good models of vacuum tubes and components, and build the schematic, you can then run audio through it, and presto changeo you get a circuit modeled, albeit nonreal time, guitar amp or any analog device. Edit: having remembered the Spice thing, googled around a bit and there is a tool called Live Spice apparently that actually allows you to play the models in your DAW. So there you go the ultimate analog emulation tool.

Yeah if you can have all the exact same digital parameters then you can do it, but at the end of the day it's not something that can be done with every eq I can get close with melda mxxx cause I can add in mconvolution to the equation and chain stuff in certain ways but I need a lot of tools and a shit ton of measurements in order to get everything to null. At the end of the day, the guy was trying to say that you can do everything with proq3. You can't. You can recreate a lot. If you learn dsp or get into mxxx then the world is your oyster but unless you've got that.. Good luck trying to recreate every eq plugin in existence with proq3 haha

👍

@@PaulThird Paul, I really really miss watching and listening along with you to blind tests comparing plugins/hardware. I hope you'll do this again...

Dinna be slaggin my gretsch's!! 🤣

@@PaulThird fife4life amigo. gan ower the circle till yeh see a bridge ower the watter. is it eh? peace neebs.

I did mention it in the original edit but decided to take it out. I'm still debating whether that was the right decision cause I really don't agree with the premise of his whole eq course thing..

I don't understand why it matters. He plays the null so you can decide for yourself how significant it is. He seems to think that which EQ you use is not significant compared to knowing how to use it, so his own company sponsors the video, offering relevant educational material. That's better than a VPN or some other irrelevant sponsor, imo. In medical research, it's often the companies that could profit who fund the research. As long as they are up front about their potential conflict of interest, the experiments and results can be evaluated on their own merit. It's happens all the time and is just the way incentivizing works. I don't see how this is any different.

It's diluting his message that you shouldn't be duped by audio marketing when he himself is using the exact same method to try and sell the audience something that is already out there.. Paid and free.. Eq courses and videos about eq are ten bob a penny. If we are genuinely saying that a random guy on the Internet's course on eq is a worthwhile investment then I really beg to differ. What he should have said was "WHAT tool you use isn't as important as knowing HOW to use an Eq. Invest in time, not money. Learn for yourself how to get the most out of your daw plugins via mixing yourself and over time you'll be amazed at how far you can get with stock plugins. You don't need to spend ANY more money right now. Period. There is a plethora of free trusted resources on KZfaq and it costs nothing to experimenting in the daw and learning from your mixes and references" But instead he used the same marketing tactics as the plugin devs and audio manufacturers talking about how his eq course shares 'secrets', tips and tricks from pro engineers. It's the same clickbait formula. Plugin dev; Pro engineers endorse this plugin. Be a pro but buying the tools of the pros!! AP; Pro engineers use these eq moves. Be a pro by learning how to eq like the pros. Let's be honest between us. If you were talking to a young 17 year old looking to start audio. Would you advise him to buy AP Mastering $50 course on how to EQ?

Be careful with that... Dunked on companies marketing in order to try and sell a $50 EQ course... Just sayin

He wasn't the first and he won't be the last. He does make a good point though regarding using the tools you already own to the best of their abilities to achieve great mixes. About to call all equalizers equal, no pun intended, is ignorance.

It's really all about terminology. It's genuinely just if an eq is linear or non linear. That's really all it boils down to

First at....

🤓🤓

I think he's just a bit over exuberant about his message. This will be uncharted territory for him. I learned the hard way over the years. That's why I think it's best to give the needed info now to help his content in the future.

I'm not gonna lie. All that stuff goes over my head. I probably need to buy a diy kit to learn what everything does. Or look up schematics or something

You've COMPLETELY missed the whole point of the video. He showed a drop in signal on a -24db master fader. Only proves that the delta signal is quieter than -24dbds which I don't get as most daw master faders show signal down to -60dbfs. I'm trying to help him by showing him how easy it is for people to question his results. I have no doubt that the nulls are very quiet but they aren't full nulls, cause I can hear them. Theres a difference between a null and full null. That's when it starts to become misleading when you don't show numeric data. If he used a -60dbfs daw fader and combined that with span going down to like -130dbfs we would be able to concretely determine just how audible the difference is. The main issue I can see is that I spoke partially positively about acustica this time round and you have a bee in your bonnet about it. Get over it. AP mastering said himself that science in unforgiving as its all hard facts. I'm providing the unforgiven hard facts he's left out. Fair game and done to help him in the future. Purely cruel to be kind. Knowledge is knowledge and will stop him from having devs tear his tests apart cause he's left too much assumption on the table. It's better to come from me now than a big company like ssl or whoever who hold a lot of weight in the industry. I know what it's like to have them try and pick you apart. You need to have all the data to back your shit up. The video is purely a heads up, like what Worrall done with me in my early days

And also where does he use pink noise. Checked both videos and can only see one using music, and another using white noise

@@PaulThird to be fair it's pretty easy to hear the difference between for example Pro-Q3 and Tube-Tech Eq or Curve-Bander eq from Softube when you match the curves in the plugin doctor. The saturation is pretty obvious and the tone is different. If he really does mastering I wouldn't want to be his client..

Tbh I could even hear the difference between proq and the tube tech on my phone. It was quite audible in the top end. If I can hear it on my phone then I normally say it's a difference worth taking into consideration. However, the curve bender difference was definitely more to do with how he processed the track using an all pass filter and then skewed the frequency response trying to match the anti aliasing filter. He should've just left it alone and matched the bell. The issue with the pultec test is that he intentionally left out the low end part which is what we all know is where the sound of a pultec really lies. It's difficult to match the low end perfect with stock eq's cause you need more that 2 bands. The process was a hassle in real time trying to recreate the interaction. I know cause I've tried in the past. That's why kirchoff was a bit of a revelation having that interaction built in with its linear modelled analog curves so you could use the same amount of bands as any eqp1a emulation and get the same curves with more variability. AP mastering 100% should've matched every function of that tube tech, not the mid boost which is purely a standard bell found in any digital parametric eq