ReaEQ issues with analysis

[Narayan]

Hi folks

Anyone notice a massive difference in the performance of ReaEQ levels compared to other Eqs/analysers or just me? I got told my highs on a solo were too loud, but I was adamant they were fine. Then I compared Eq by putting span on the master next to reaeq, and found the guy was right. Both images are from the same part of the track:

https://ibb.co/FzRz72X
https://ibb.co/yB2894k

[serr]

The opinion over the highs in your guitar solo has absolutely nothing to do with what eq you might want to adjust that track with. Switching to a different eq and/or altering the modification you were doing should not have anything to do with with said opinion.

You looked at a different analyzer display and now it sounds different to you? Huh?

I've certainly heard different responses from different eq's. That could lead to an opinion over which one lets you dial your highs down the way you want. But this sounds like a good old fashioned disagreement over a mix element that has nothing to do with the tools.

[DVDdoug]

I got told my highs on a solo were too loud,

Listen with your ears! Do you have good monitors? Does the other person have good monitors? Are you using a reference track? Is the other person using the same reference track?

EQs are pretty similar (but never identical) unless you are making extreme or "surgical" adjustments.

Spectrum analyzers probably vary more depending on their time-windowing and averaging. If you're hearing "something odd" a spectrum analyzer might help to identify the problem frequencies but your ears are the best tool for judging overall sound and frequency balance.

[Narayan]

Originally Posted by serr

The opinion over the highs in your guitar solo has absolutely nothing to do with what eq you might want to adjust that track with. Switching to a different eq and/or altering the modification you were doing should not have anything to do with with said opinion.

You looked at a different analyzer display and now it sounds different to you? Huh?

I've certainly heard different responses from different eq's. That could lead to an opinion over which one lets you dial your highs down the way you want. But this sounds like a good old fashioned disagreement over a mix element that has nothing to do with the tools.

It’s not about adjustments it’s about what it’s visually displaying. Did you look at the images?

[Narayan]

Originally Posted by DVDdoug

Listen with your ears! Do you have good monitors? Does the other person have good monitors? Are you using a reference track? Is the other person using the same reference track?

EQs are pretty similar (but never identical) unless you are making extreme or "surgical" adjustments.

Spectrum analyzers probably vary more depending on their time-windowing and averaging. If you're hearing "something odd" a spectrum analyzer might help to identify the problem frequencies but your ears are the best tool for judging overall sound and frequency balance.

It’s not a question of not using my ears. Production uses both eyes and ears generally.

[serr]

Originally Posted by Narayan

It’s not about adjustments it’s about what it’s visually displaying. Did you look at the images?

Originally Posted by Narayan

It’s not a question of not using my ears. Production uses both eyes and ears generally.

Sorry, I was assuming this had to do with a music mix and what the mix sounded like. Is this more a video or visual project?

[Narayan]

Originally Posted by serr

Sorry, I was assuming this had to do with a music mix and what the mix sounded like. Is this more a video or visual project?

Nope, but the post was meant to highlight that there seems to be a vast difference in the way ReaEq And Voxengo Span are displaying a signal’s frequency levels.

[domzy]

Originally Posted by Narayan

Nope, but the post was meant to highlight that there seems to be a vast difference in the way ReaEq And Voxengo Span are displaying a signal’s frequency levels.

i could be wrong, but i'd always assumed that ReaEQ was an EQ plugin, not meant for metering - if you need a plugin to give good visual feedback then surely something like Span, which is designed for this task, is what you want to be using?

[Narayan]

Originally Posted by domzy

i could be wrong, but i'd always assumed that ReaEQ was an EQ plugin, not meant for metering - if you need a plugin to give good visual feedback then surely something like Span, which is designed for this task, is what you want to be using?

This is a distinction which I’m pretty clueless about in as much as I had presumed that an EQ would display signals just as accurately. �� ( I know what an eq tool does and the limitations of visual only spectral analysis)

[Fabian]

here you have ReaEQ and Span measuring the same white noise.



(Click the image to get a larger pic)

You see the difference, right...?

[ErBird]

Originally Posted by Narayan

This is a distinction which I’m pretty clueless about in as much as I had presumed that an EQ would display signals just as accurately. �� ( I know what an eq tool does and the limitations of visual only spectral analysis)

Accuracy is deceiving. There are a lot of variables at play in the way the spectrum is displayed. Span does things that look very nice but aren't necessarily completely true to reality. Still, I think Span is the best, most useful analyzer around.

Make sure ReaEQ's analyzer slope is set to 4.5 dB/oct. That's the only thing you have control over in ReaEQ.

[Narayan]

Originally Posted by Fabian

here you have ReaEQ and Span measuring the same white noise.



(Click the image to get a larger pic)

You see the difference, right...?

....😮

[sonicowl]

Every analyser has setting for slope. You need to set that properly, usually 3db to 4.5 db.

[Philbo King]

Originally Posted by Fabian

here you have ReaEQ and Span measuring the same white noise.



(Click the image to get a larger pic)

You see the difference, right...?

It looks like ReaEQ implements a 3 dB/octave analyser slope, which matches human hearing. Try it with pink noise...

[ashcat_lt]

On the contrary, SPAN is the one with the 3db slope in that pic. ReaEQ isn’t doing that here. 3db slope makes pink noise look flat.

[phoo]

I can see why some may interpret the original post as being a "sound-what is heard" issue.

Someone told you that your guitar was too bright and you saw the peak in SPAN, so they were right, but you hadn't noticed before and some of the reasoning is that the peak wasn't visible in ReaEQ. That clearly is a hearing issue, even though conformation was corroborated visually later. It took a visual aid to be sure. Nothing wrong with that for sure. We all do it, and we need to feel comfortable using these visual tools to tell us things we can't always hear. It's relative and it's perception. A second set of ears is a MUST and visuals can be that second set at times.

I will put a ReaEQ in a track, usually the master, just to do just that regularly, then have a way to tweak the EQ to see what needs to be adjusted in other tracks. There are other plug-ins that do spectrum, but having the EQ right there is good. If it needs to be adjusted to sound right then the underlying tracks probably should be worked on, instead of using a master EQ.

I'm deaf and MUST use visuals for many things. High-end - I got none. Yea - this is huge handicap for an audio engineer.

[Philbo King]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

On the contrary, SPAN is the one with the 3db slope in that pic. ReaEQ isn’t doing that here. 3db slope makes pink noise look flat.

Ha! As usual, I got it bassackwards on the first try...

[sonicowl]

You can set the slope in ReaEQ, 3db or 4.5db. Rightclick for options. For Span you can set any value for slope in options.

[Narayan]

So I’m just going to ask some dumb sounding questions because I’m still unclear.

One of them matches human hearing and one of them matches actual loudness?

One is slightly more accurate but slope settings being adjusted can give similar visuals?

Eq like ReaEq is used when putting a track together but span tends to be used on the master track at the end?

Or is Spans FFT technology a significant difference?

[sonicowl]

Originally Posted by Narayan

So I’m just going to ask some dumb sounding questions because I’m still unclear.

One of them matches human hearing and one of them matches actual loudness?

One is slightly more accurate but slope settings being adjusted can give similar visuals?

Eq like ReaEq is used when putting a track together but span tends to be used on the master track at the end?

Or is Spans FFT technology a significant difference?

Ehm, it is an analyser, math. It is a measuring device. Like thermometer or clock... You need to know a bit how to use it, and have realistic expectations. If you know what to do with it, it is helpful. Otherwise it can be confusing. Like thermometer, it measures temperature, but you could try to measure distance with it, it would just be a bit odd...

[jrk]

The analyser in ReaEQ is best looked on as a visual aid when doing EQ.

If you want an analyser to do analysis - use a dedicated analyser. They tend to have features that you might find useful, which ReaEQ's "analyser" lacks.

[Philbo King]

Originally Posted by sonicowl

You can set the slope in ReaEQ, 3db or 4.5db. Rightclick for options. For Span you can set any value for slope in options.

Cool tip, did not know this about ReaEQ.

[ErBird]

Originally Posted by Philbo King

Cool tip, did not know this about ReaEQ.

It's fairly new.