I’m proud to announce a new beta release of EQ10Q plugins which includes these new features:
I hope you enjoy the added features and encourage all users to update to the new version. Please visit:
Thanks sapista, sounds smoother eq’ing and no pops so far.
Great work.
Just did a quick test, and I’m glad you seem to have gotten rid of the distortions the EQ used to cause. So it finally becomes useful for some more critical stuff as well. 
My only critiqe so far is that the interpolation/smoothing when changing a bands gain feels a little too slow for my taste.
Overall a really great improvement. Thanks a lot
@sapista: Your GUI display does not seem to match the measured response for the HF shelving filter.
For example, if you set an HF shelf with a high frequency, the graph appears to show the (expected) analogue filter response, implying the DSP is correctly decramped and has the expected equivalent (analogue) gain at Nyquist.
However, the measured response seems very different - e.g. that of a more conventional cramped HF response as might be expected from a standard (RBJ et al. ‘cookbook’ EQ). This is one of the key differentiators among commercial EQs, many of which more closely model the expected gain at Nyquist - e.g. Fab FIlter etc - and the latest release of my own AF2-10 EQ
This may seem pedantic, but it is the result of significant design effort, therefore it seems important to me that your graphical display should be more “WYSISWYG” and actually show the DSP filter response (be that decramped or not), rather than what seems to be some ‘theoretical’ analogue response.
http://www.overtonedsp.co.uk/screenshots/EQ10Q-measured/EQ10Q-HF-Shelf-Display-01.png
http://www.overtonedsp.co.uk/screenshots/EQ10Q-measured/EQ10Q-measured-01.png
@linuxdsp: I’m very grateful for your interest and the time you’ve expended testing and measuring my plugins. I’ve just checked your equalizer and in fact, the frequency response for the high shelving is very accurate. But, I’m not able to find a mono version of your EQ, I believe that having the chance to choose between mono or stereo versions of a plugin is a good thing because in real mixing sessions there are lots of mono tracks so using mono plugins keeps CPU usage low.
About the “decramping” filters I want to point that my peaking filter is “decramped” and the real response corresponds with the plotted curve accurately. In case of the peaking filters the “decramped” implementation is very important because the classical digital peaking filter based on bilinear transform presents a 0 dB gain at Nyquist frequency independently of the filter settings, then a digital equalizer without peak filters “decramping” is actually a useless tool to equalize high frequency range (briefly info about that on my website: eq10q.sourceforge.net). In case of the classic high shelving filter the situation is not that bad, the gain of HF shelving at Nyquist frequency is always the expected gain only the slope shape can slightly variate when the setted frequency is near the Nyquist frequency (above 10 kHz for a sample rate of 44.1 kHz). Here, the rational is that despite of the slope deformation the filter still behave like a HF shelving so it’s still possible to successfully equalize the material without noticing that the filter shape is not exactly what is represented on the graph.
All of this is my argument to implement in first place the “decramped” peaking filter and bring a free and open source equalizer to everyone. For sure, I have plans to implement the “decraming” for the HF shelving but currently I provide a reliable solution to users who I hope will wait a little for the “decramping” HF shelving which is not essential to be successful in music production. Taking all this into account, I would like to encourage you to participate a bit more in open source community since you use this kind of software to make money, and maybe a good starting point would be sharing some of your knowledge in digital filtering and revel your secrets about how you’ve implemented the “decraming” in your HF shelving filter.
@sapista: Is it possible to add seperate sidechain-inputs to your compressor-plugin? Otherwise it is of no use for me…
PS: Keep up your great work!
@sapista: Your justification for the EQ shelving response make sense, and I did notice that the peak filters are decramped (after Orfanidis et al) although if I’m not mistaken the graph matches in that case not because its actually plotting the response of the digital filter but because the digital filter now happens to match the equivalent theoretical analogue response (which is what the graph is showing).
My point is not so much the semantics of whether the shelf filters should be decramped, but more that the display should show the actual response of the digital filter (in part this is because otherwise it is misrepresenting what the EQ is capable of, and which is a significant differentiator when considering e.g. the merits of a free plugin vs a commercial one, and one in which significant expense has been invested in trying to make it as accurate as possible. In part its just because it makes better sense. I’ve long advocated that people should use their ears not their eyes when mixing, but unless there is some correlation, we may as well just put random numbers on the controls).
I would like to encourage you to participate a bit more in open source community since you use this kind of software to make money...I'm not going to get into this debate again, its been done to death before, only that I will reiterate the following, in case the implication was that I might in some way be profiting unjustly from open-source (rather than just trying to earn a living with what skills I might have) :
I don’t use any open-source code or libraries in my software, it’s original code, in the case of my EQ, I personally wrote every line, from the UI toolkit and all the pixel pushing routines all the way through to the DSP algorithms (in two different programming languages), so I dont believe I’m freeloading off the open-source community in that respect.
You can use my software with open-source applications, if you choose, but there are now several commercial host applications for linux too, so it wouldn’t be fair either for anyone to say that I need open-source host applications to make my products usable / saleable or that I’m profiting from open-source in that respect. There are commercial alternatives and people can choose which combination of plug-ins / applications / politics etc they wish to use. I make software, and it happens that you can use it on linux if you want.
Making software - any software - costs money, real money, the tools required to do the job properly are not free, neither is the multiplicity of hardware required to support / test all the OS / application platforms etc required to have a hope of actually selling enough of anything to cover those costs in such a niche market.
Therefore the product has to pay its way. I’ve said many times before, and I can’t believe I’m explaining it again, if you make the code / IP available for free, it no longer has any commercial value. In no other business would anyone think of spending money to make a product and then give it away. Yet that, supposedly is what software developers are all too often ‘encouraged’ to do.
(If I wasn’t doing this to earn a - modest - living, there is almost zero chance I would continue to do it at all, certainly not in any ‘public’ capacity)
In the meantime, I am encouraged to see plug-ins like the EQ10 - more software provides more choice for users - and I wish you success with it.
I just tried it for first time. I found it really practical and effective, it did the job really well on my current mix. For sure it will replace the Black eq that i was using before and that won’t be supported anymore soon.
