Waves H-EQ

[jipchen]

http://www.waves.com/content.aspx?id=11818

H-EQ is a uniquely powerful hybrid equalizer, featuring vintage and modern EQ inspired by the finest British and American consoles; seven different filter types per band, including a newly-developed, one-of-a-kind asymmetrical bell filter; an intuitive keyboard graphic that lets you choose frequencies by clicking on notes; an exclusive MS Mode so you can apply different EQ to Mid and Side content; and a flexible real-time frequency spectrum analyzer with multiple display options.

Waves H-EQ. It’s the best of all worlds.

Features:
Seven filter types per band: US Vintage, UK Vintage 1, UK Vintage 2, US Modern, UK Modern, Digital 1 and Digital 2
Newly-developed asymmetrical bell filter
Exclusive MS matrix mode: Apply different EQ to Mid and Side content
Keyboard graphic: Choose frequencies by clicking on notes
Real-time frequency spectrum analyzer

Hm. This looks decently interesting. While I never liked the Q10 at all for lack of Analyzer, M/S stuff, and ease of use, the whole different filter types thing got me interested. Basically most - if not all - digital EQs "sound" exactly the same, therefore features are more important to me than their sound, and with the FabFilter Pro-Q I've got the most awesome EQ plugin I could ever imagine. It has fucking everything, and has the easiest and most good-looking GUI I've ever seen. Now that Waves realized pretty much every other company has EQs with real time analyzer and M/S, I guess they wanted to make an interesting product once again, instead of relying on their name The H-EQ lacks linear phase operation, though.
Price in the Waves store is $99 for now, that seems actually reasonable.

 

[BLUElightCory]

I was just looking at this, it's pretty awesome. It seems they thought of pretty much everything. $99/149 seems like a steal if it sounds good.

 

[HaydenLM1]

Voxengo got the GlissEQ which almost does the same thing but much cheaper..

 

[Audiosprite]

GlissEQ is $100 too.

 

[Jaymz]

Looks great!

 

[crillemannen]

look interesting but im kind of feed up with eq's. Im using EqIII and SSL Duende channelstrip. Its like everything i really need. And i almost never boost instruments, cuts 99% of the times.

But waves atleast got the price right.

 

[MetalSound]

Basically most - if not all - digital EQs "sound" exactly the same

did you ever compare a uad neve emulation with a pultec or waves req? i don´t think they sound the same at all.

other than that i think the h-eq is quite interesting but like crilleman said i already have more than i really use.

 

[jipchen]

did you ever compare a uad neve emulation with a pultec or waves req? i don´t think they sound the same at all.

No, I don't own any UA plugins unfortunately :/ I hate the dsp thing, if they don't go native I'll probably miss out on a couple of great plugins but that's life.
And what I meant was the "normal" digital EQs, not those trying to emulate the flavor of a certain analogue EQ by adding harmonic distortion of course. And the Q10, the Logic Channel / Linear Phase EQ, FabFilter Pro-Q don't really color the signal in an audible way (at least I never heard it). So yes, they don't all sound the same but most of them sound at least very very similar imo. What I tried to say was that to me, the functions and workflow of said EQs is more important than a supposed coloration of some kind. Because it's not like the Cubase,Logic,Reaper EQs sound like shit compared to a Q10 for example.
That's where I think the H-EQ is interesting: You can switch between the clean digital EQ and the EQs with a little, or a little more harmonic distortion.

An analogue EQ will affect the signal even when on bypass, I have never witnessed a plugin EQ affecting the frequency response / hardmonic distortion content of a signal without having cut or boosted any frequencies.
I'd be most interested in a shootout between the EQs you mentioned, though!

other than that i think the h-eq is quite interesting but like crilleman said i already have more than i really use.

Yeah the same applies to me, though the option to change the characteristics with a few clicks and with the same settings etc is pretty cool, you could go through the different models and choose the one that suits best very easily. Allthough I doubt the difference will be obvious.

Have a look at this test: http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=361

 

[MetalSound]

that was quite an interesting read. especially this answer:

Let me add an analogy with cars to clear my point. What you’re saying is : every car can make you go to point A to B. And you’re right. With your tests, you prove that a commercial who say “with my car you’ll can reach a point the other cars can’t” is wrong.

But they can say “with my car, it will be faster, more comfortable, and you’ll not loose yourself cause we have a GPS”. So YES you’ll arrive to the same point B with a Porsche, Mercedes, Hyundai or the new TATA Nano (or even bicycle !). The point is, when you’re work is traveling, or if you have enough money and likes to travel, some cars are really better than others at what they do. It’s not about the design of the car…

maybe i will be doing a small comparison with some uad stuff later.

 

[MetalSound]

here is the (very quick) comparison.

 

[jipchen]

Yeah, I think I agree with his car analogy. At least for a large number of them, the more expensive EQs are easier to work with, faster to handle, offer more comfort or "luxury" options (analyzer, M/S, linear phase, visual representation of the EQ curve, etc) and they're not necessarily entirely different sounding -- or you could get the exact sound with another EQ and different settings but it would take a lot of effort.
Thanks for the shootout, downloading right now.

 

[crillemannen]

^

Well if you are any good at what you do, you should be able to use a simple EQ ,atleast when it comes down to instruments. M/S eqing etc in mastering is a different story

 

[RiF]

did you ever compare a uad neve emulation with a pultec or waves req? i don´t think they sound the same at all.

I have the UAD Pultec, Neve 1084, Waves SSL and tried to emulate them with the stock Digidesign EQ (Digirack EQ3) by matching the curves with the help of a spectrum analyzer.
The results can be found in this thread:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/624973-my-1000th-post-emulating-ssl-e-channel-neve-1081-pultec-eq-curves-digi-eq3.html

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

Hm... it makes sense... But what about analog EQs against digital EQs? Transistors, 3rd or 2nd order harmonics, etc etc, is that all replicable via just EQ? Meaning, is every single saturation effect, etc replicable by EQ?

I understand those digital EQs being all the same, since all that varies are fixed Qs, etc, so some EQs will get you to the ballpark for a certain source quicker than others, but what about analog stuff?

 

[jipchen]

Imho, analog EQs will sound pretty different from each other due to the attributes of the parts used to build them, harmonic distortion, phase shifting and changes frequency response even when they're not boosting or cutting the signal at all. That's what gave them "their" sound. That's what some digital equalizers try to emulate (H-EQ, UAD Pultec,Neve, Waves SSL, Waves R-EQ). Naturally, like almost every emulation they don't sound exactly the same but can get close.
I think you could try to get an "SSL" sound with an API equalizer, but it won't be as similar as trying to get the sound with digital EQs and frequency matching EQs etc. One reason being the limited possibilities of actual hardware, like semi-parametric EQs only, preset frequency bands, lack of numerous EQ bands (most classic EQs don't seem to have more than 4 or 5 bands) or simply because they can only cut/boost in +2dB steps rather than offering you even 0.1dB steps. After working with the analog SSL EQs I'm tempted to confirm the old "analogue EQs sound better when boosting" saying. I don't know if that's a statement you could measure or proof with physics

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

I understand that Max, but what I mean is, say you have just ONE API EQ for example, can all the colouring caused by all the transistors inside it etc, be 100% fully emulated with a Digi Eq like in this case for example? That's my question in this, is saturation, harmonic distortion in the end, all replicable by EQ? Obviously saturation and harmonic distortion are dynamic since it's a signal flow going through the PCB of the hardware EQ, but if you take a "snapshot" of it, will it be possible to actually replicate? That's what's doing my head in

 

[jipchen]

Ah now I get what you were asking. I have far to little knowledge to answer it unfortunately My guess is no - at least not at the moment. Or perhaps it is but it would be too complicated. In order to fully recreate the behaviour of a certain analog EQ (or any analog gear really) you'd have to take thousands of those snapshots with every possible combination, because the harmonic distortion isn't just there and stays at a certain degree but varies depending on what you're doing with the EQ. That's just what I imagine it like, though.. could be completely wrong.

Doesn't Nebula offer you to load the sampled impulse response of analog EQs (and virtually any other piece of gear) and then virtually use this EQ with its specific behaviour etc? I guess it's the same as with guitar cabinet impulse responses or reverbs basing on an IR, it's very close but not the same (yet).

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

Not exactly what I was asking still

Imagine you take ONE snapshot of an API EQ and try to match the curve with a DIGI EQ, my question was, will it sound EXACTLY the same as that single snapshot? Thus getting into the conclusion of, is saturation as well as harmonic distortion, in the end, all replicable by EQ? Being then, EQ by itself?

 

[ahjteam]

Not exactly what I was asking still

Imagine you take ONE snapshot of an API EQ and try to match the curve with a DIGI EQ, my question was, will it sound EXACTLY the same as that single snapshot? Thus getting into the conclusion of, is saturation as well as harmonic distortion, in the end, all replicable by EQ? Being then, EQ by itself?

try Waves Q-clone or Voxengo Curve-EQ

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

try Waves Q-clone or Voxengo Curve-EQ

Not exactly what I was asking