Voxengo Premium Membership - All Voxengo Plugins For a Fixed One-Time Fee
Forums     Plugins     CurveEQ The Curve EQ Interface

This topic was created before release of the latest product version, and it may contain details irrelevant to this version.  Replying is disabled for this topic.





As anyone can tell from my previous posts on this forum and elsewhere, I am a big fan of the Curve EQ, so don't take what I'm about to say as a rag, only as a query about possible improvement.

I recently purchased the Cambridge, and whatever you may think of its sound, you have to agree that the interface is amazingly easy and usable, highly practical, one might almost say graceful.  So I'd like to respectfully speak on the one issue which the Curve EQ does not, in my opinion, address well, and that's the interface at its most important function -- setting up points to adjust frequencies.

Every time I go to set up a new point, it's not just one point, it's the point to the right and left of it, in order to shape my cut/boost, and actually I usually wind up having to create *two* points to each side if I really want to control the dip or boost.  This never fails to change my frame of mind from a "lets adjust frequencies" artistic perspective into an unwelcome "lets PREPARE the interface so that we can THEN adjust frequencies" analytical sort of perspective.  I'd like to suggest that we can find a better solution.

Yes, we have the ability to set up presets, but if you care to add points to a preset, we're back in exactly the same boat.  And yes, granted, a click here and a click there is not exactly a huge, crippling deal.  But surely, SURELY, there's some form of automation we can devise which will remove the need to perform what amounts to "administration" every time we simply want to boost or cut.

Here's one idea.  How about this?  A mode that one can enable, whereby every double-click on the line will produce three or five points, say set to a 5 db cut at a Q of something resembling 2, all the points of which will appear jointly selected, so that one may then sweep up and down with that cut.  If there are other points to the curve, one can simply drag the selected points to a clear area and configure the cut or boost which one actually desires (this would be the most primitive application of this idea.  Ideally one could set cut or boost, amount, and Q before one makes the double click, but lets take one idea at a time).

The thing that strikes me about the Cambridge is that all you have to do is point your mouse at the screen and lift and you have beautiful sounds to play with (well, provided you've recorded something beautiful).  That's unbelievably sexy.  The interface of CurveEQ, on the other hand, requires you to perform administration tasks and really make a whole slew of -- admittedly minor, but nonetheless significant -- judgments about shape and size before you can *begin* to hear beautiful sounds.

And the tragedy of that is that CurveEQ has great sounds to offer, fully in the same ballpark as Cambridge!

I hope these comments are taken in the spirit in which they are intended.  I love my CurveEQ.  It would just be nice to be able to use it more intuitively.

Thanks for listening.

Thanks for your idea.  I'm not sure about the practical side of it though.

I'm thinking of the following approach which is very close to what Firium offers:

At first, a set of 30 or more equally-spaced points is created (I can add an alternative 'reset' option for this).  Using some button (e.g. 'shift') you can adjust the gain of any of these points.  In parallel, several closely-located points will be also adjusted like with a magnet.  I also think that equal spacing won't be a necessity for smooth adjustments.

Your initial idea is great, but please understand that CurveEQ is not an analog-style equalizer with some number of filter bands, it is a spline equalizer instead, and that makes it better for some tasks and worse for others.

I agree, though not so sure about the implementation you suggest.  How about if you double-click to make a point, then a right click on that point will allow you to set a bandwidth -- when the bandwidth is selected extra points are added at the appropriate place on the zero dB line.  These points, however, are coloured blue because they only move horizontally and they all move in frequency together with the original point.  Just a thought.

I'm sorry, but 'bandwidth' concept is not suitable with the spline nature of the CurveEQ.

Oh, I get you.  No bandwidth.  That makes the "advanced version" of my idea impossible.  Well you know, I'm not really concerned about octave accuracy across the range of frequencies.  I'm just thinking how nice it would be to do one click, or one double click, and be able to enjoy CurveEQ's sound right away.  You know, just a completely linear measurement of two points created "a small space away" from the initial click would suit me just fine.

But maybe your idea or the blue point idea is better -- hey, it's just nice to be able to shoot ideas about it back and forth.  The built-in EQ on the hideous Windows Media Player ver 9 (which I have here at work) has an option to work the same way as the one you described.

Sounds like a bit of a bitch to code, though, which I was trying to avoid.

It's probably good to define the problem clearly so we don't get bogged down with methodology -- for me that would be to simply be able to click or double click, pull in either direction, and be able to enjoy CurveEQ doing what it does.  There is probably more than one solution to this one.

No replacement for this eq, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to giving a bass sound character.


Aleksey, our posts crossed in time -- just to clarify, my comment "... not so sure about the implementation " was in reply to EP's post, not yours.  I think your idea sounds good, if you can implement it easily.  Although "bandwidth" may not be the mathematically correct term, I think it's a pretty easy concept for people to grasp (and it's a better term than Q) -- I would imagine that a "bandwidth" of one octave would mean placing the zero level points a half-octave either side of the main point.  I don't think anyone would have a problem if the term is used loosely :-) Even with your idea, there would have to be some notion of bandwidth, because I assume you would be simulating a gaussian curve with the movement of the points, and obviously the user would require control over that bandwidth.

Andrew, you are right.  I will have to add that kind of 'bandwidth' control too.

I wonder if it would be best to make this process hidden to the user, so that they do not see the points which are automatically created to simulate a normal EQ curve -- it would make the interface less cluttered.  This would suggest two modes of UI for the EQ -- the normal one (as it is now) where all points are displayed and can be moved [great for precise and unusual EQing], and the new one where the automatically created "curve-simulating" points are not shown (but the EQ curve is displayed) [great for quick and intuitive alterations].  Just a thought.

I'll see what I can do in this field, but I can't guarantee 'transparency' of the controls.  Anyways, let's see what I can do (just got a pretty elegant idea).

BTW, I'm still planning to implement an analog-style FIR equalizer like Waves LinEQ.  But I'll make it suitable for up to 192kHz processing (8192-point filter kernel).  From CurveEQ I'll take minimum-phase filtering only.  Possibly, I will also add an IIR processing as an option.  Bands will be created simply with a mouse click.  While the right mouse button is pressed, Q of the filter will be changed instead of its freq and gain.

Of course, this will be mostly the mastering type of EQ due to a sample delay (at least 512 samples), and possibly a considerable CPU demand.  Hovewer, I believe it will offer an unprecedented sonic quality.

I originally bought CurveEQ because I wanted an (affordable) linear phase EQ, but I quickly became impressed by the Gear Match and the other sound-shaping options.  What I have also found amazing is how good the minimum-phase option is -- I find that I can make drastic, but good-sounding, tonal alterations which on any other EQ sound bad.  It's also great to have the choice betweeen FIR and IIR, they each have a different sound, though I prefer linear phase at the mastering stage.
This topic was created before release of the latest product version, and it may contain details irrelevant to this version.  Replying is disabled for this topic.