Here's a list of EQs with static gain compensation categorized by the (subjective) quality of their implementation, for anyone who finds this useful. If I missed any (which I certainly have given the insane amount of equalizers released over the years) please let me know and I'll update the post.
Dynamic gain compensation is NOT included, it alters the dynamics of the signal which static gain compensation does not do
A tier | Static gain compensation based on an equal loudness curve. Hi/low-pass filters unaffected. Cuts have less compensation than boosts. Q accounted for:
TDR SlickEQ /M
TDR VOS SlickEQ /GE
A.O.M Factory tranQualizr /G2
Crave EQ
B tier | Static gain compensation based on an equal loudness curve but with hi/low-pass filters effected, or some other small nitpick:
TDR Nova /GE
Pulsar Massive
Pulsar Poseidon
Pulsar 8200
Pulsar Audio W495 (No hi/low-pass filters or Q control. Limited functionality.)
Fabfilter Pro-Q 3
TBTech Kirchhoff EQ
Acon Digital Equalize
DMGAudio Equilibrium (Needs verification, doesn't run on latest WINE releases.)
ZL-Equalizer (Still in active development, unrefined UI.)
D tier | Static gain compensation NOT based on an equal loudness curve, too aggressive, or some other major gripe:
Luftikus
Kazrog True 252
Newfangled Equivocate
TB Equalizer v4/Pro (Based on an ELC but requires per-band activation for gain compensation, which is a major gripe.)
??? Tier/Untested:
HoRNet Total EQ (Software center/installer doesn't run on my PC)
I have not tested some of these plugins in awhile, they may have updated behavior.
Q: Why is SGC affecting hi/low-pass filters a bad thing?
A: There's a few technical reasons I've come up with that I'm not able to elegantly put into words, but I encourage you to simply try it out and judge for yourself. In every scenario I've come across, all it does is make the unfiltered signal louder and it doesn't make sense to my ears. There's never been an instance where I've felt the need to increase the gain to compensate after applying a filter, except for those with resonance.
Q: Why should we compensate cuts less?
A: Typically, cuts are made for more "corrective" purposes, such as resonance suppression, in which case we're not substantially affecting other regions of the audio or overall volume and thus they don't need as much compensation. This is in theory, of course, but in my experience there's a better chance of it sounding "right" with this behavior. In other words, it's easier for boosting areas of the signal to create issues that need correction than cuts. This ties into Q&A 1.
Dynamic gain compensation is NOT included, it alters the dynamics of the signal which static gain compensation does not do
A tier | Static gain compensation based on an equal loudness curve. Hi/low-pass filters unaffected. Cuts have less compensation than boosts. Q accounted for:
TDR SlickEQ /M
TDR VOS SlickEQ /GE
A.O.M Factory tranQualizr /G2
Crave EQ
B tier | Static gain compensation based on an equal loudness curve but with hi/low-pass filters effected, or some other small nitpick:
TDR Nova /GE
Pulsar Massive
Pulsar Poseidon
Pulsar 8200
Pulsar Audio W495 (No hi/low-pass filters or Q control. Limited functionality.)
Fabfilter Pro-Q 3
TBTech Kirchhoff EQ
Acon Digital Equalize
DMGAudio Equilibrium (Needs verification, doesn't run on latest WINE releases.)
ZL-Equalizer (Still in active development, unrefined UI.)
D tier | Static gain compensation NOT based on an equal loudness curve, too aggressive, or some other major gripe:
Luftikus
Kazrog True 252
Newfangled Equivocate
TB Equalizer v4/Pro (Based on an ELC but requires per-band activation for gain compensation, which is a major gripe.)
??? Tier/Untested:
HoRNet Total EQ (Software center/installer doesn't run on my PC)
I have not tested some of these plugins in awhile, they may have updated behavior.
Q: Why is SGC affecting hi/low-pass filters a bad thing?
A: There's a few technical reasons I've come up with that I'm not able to elegantly put into words, but I encourage you to simply try it out and judge for yourself. In every scenario I've come across, all it does is make the unfiltered signal louder and it doesn't make sense to my ears. There's never been an instance where I've felt the need to increase the gain to compensate after applying a filter, except for those with resonance.
Q: Why should we compensate cuts less?
A: Typically, cuts are made for more "corrective" purposes, such as resonance suppression, in which case we're not substantially affecting other regions of the audio or overall volume and thus they don't need as much compensation. This is in theory, of course, but in my experience there's a better chance of it sounding "right" with this behavior. In other words, it's easier for boosting areas of the signal to create issues that need correction than cuts. This ties into Q&A 1.
Statistics: Posted by DNAudio — Wed Nov 27, 2024 2:24 am — Replies 1 — Views 61