Premium Membership - All Voxengo Plugins at a Fixed One-Time Fee - Click Here For More Info
Forums     Discussions     Announces, Releases and Discussions GlissEQ beta 2.0





Update list for v2.0:

1.  A major update of the user interface.  This newer version does not support previous version's presets and so its DLL is named VoxengoGlissEQ2.DLL allowing you to use previous version DLL, too, thus simplifying migration.

2.  Output FFT spectrum analyzer with variable block sizes and update speeds implemented.

3.  It is now possible to overlay spectrums obtained from one to four another instances of GlissEQ running in parallel in the same project.

4.  Now automation should work smoother.

5.  Low-pass and high-pass filters can be automated now without unmusical clicking happening.

You can download this beta at:


Great.  The extra editing functionality is very useful.  Also the realtime control of the filters without glitches is a massive improvement.  However unlike other Voxengo plugins which I've been testing the last few months Gliss EQ has not crept into my workflow.  This is because I've been using the Kjaerhus Audio Golden EQ.  I've tried and tried with Gliss but the Kjaerhus plugin sounds a lot more like my hardware EQ but Gliss still seems to sound more like software.  I want to buy Warmifier and I like Lampthruster so I'm in two minds about what to buy since there is the Colouring Suite with Gliss EQ.  Has anyone else tried the Kjaerhus plugin?  Why is this sounding so good to me and can I set Gliss EQ to sound more like this?  What are the differences?  I don't like the dynamic control on Gliss EQ.  I think the Kjaerhus is colouring the sound more like hardware which I like.  It also has filters with slopes to 48 dB which sound great but this is not the whole story.

Ryan - GlissEQ is a dynamic EQ (you know this) that is fixing a ride cymbol that's masking my snare so it has it's uses that way.  I don't have a [real] hardware EQ so I can't help ya there.  Different EQs for different things - you need a few anyway don't ya ?  What monitors are you using - just out of curiousity, I'm sure they beat mine anyway...

Aleksey - I think the slope on GlissEQ2 doesn't match the slope in CurveEQ.  In other words when I run pink noise thru them both I get a pretty horizontal line in CurveEQ at 3dB which is correct - in Gliss2 I get a horizontal line at 1.5dB slope...

I like the sound I'm getting in the uppermids and highs (that's where I'm focusing tonight).  Good Job...


My monitors are not proper monitors.  My setup goes through some Linn speakers which does colour the sound but they are not bad.  I have tried several different routings, Also with various headphones.

It's probably this dynamic thing.  I don't fully understand all these technicalities since I've used an analog mixer and maybe this is why I like software which sounds like this but I think this dynamic EQing is not generally what I want.  It say's on the site about Gliss EQ:

"Using almost any existing equalizer, you always get what you have set: e.g., if you specify a +6 dB boost at 100 Hz you get exactly a +6 dB boost at 100 Hz, also visible on the spectrum analyser.

This `dynamic nature' of GlissEQ gives you a much more friendly, assisting filtering experience.  Boosting up the highs will not necessarily create the fatiguing effect of overload.  Instead, you will get a pleasant transient-emphasizing effect bringing life and dimension to your track: thus, GlissEQ sounds simply musical."

I think maybe this is what I don't like and it's what makes me hear a type of processing that sounds more like software so to speak because of this smoothness.  I actually want exactly what I set.  I don't want things smoothed out.  I don't think my music style suits this.  I especially am not keen on Gliss's effect on highly rythymic material whereas the Kjaerhus just makes my drum tracks burst with energy.  It's a matter of taste and different uses for different purposes.  Maybe one day I will see the purpose of Gliss's effect and will need it.


Maybe I'm starting to "get" Gliss better.  It takes some getting used to.  It's effect is much more obvious when used in multiple instances across many tracks hence the reason for the new overlayed graphs for several instances.  My sounds tend not to be split up to such a degree.  Turning the dynamic down doesn't seem to completely kill the dynamic nature.  Is this true?

I think since this EQ is so different in nature there needs to be a more comprehensive explaination as to it's exact workings and possible useages.  The average hardware mixer user may take some time to get used to this.  I think explaining things in short technical terms is more confusing than laying out the whole thing in detail.  This may be so for a few of the Voxengo plugins.

I've just experimented with using Gliss 2 on a final stereo track -- it seems to work very effectively as a mastering EQ.  I'm very impressed.  It certainly is different to normal EQ's.  Aleksey -- I understand what the dynamic thing does when you boost th EQ, but what about when you cut EQ -- how does dynamic function then?

One thing I tried was a more or less flatline boost over the whole spectrum -- just three points engaged -- it adds a subtle sparkle to the mix, very nice.  It's sort of odd how Gliss, unlike normal EQ's, seems to work better with boosts rather than cuts (though I haven't had time to really compare cutting and boosting because of the time it takes to ensure final vloume levels are equalised).

I don't understand the A, A+C etc. weighting -- in the display it's boosting the highs and lows, the opposite of what should be happening, no?

Kyle, sorry to tell it, but in CurveEQ there is a mistake in the slope parameter.  It is not fatal, of course, but it is not precise right now (i.e when you specify +3.0dB you actually get something round +2.4dB/oct).  This will be fixed soon. v2.0 release of CurveEQ won't feature spectrum overlays, though.  I planned this, but its pretty hard to implement these with the current CurveEQ design.  I'll leave this feature for CurveEQ 3.0 when I rewrite everything almost from the scratch.

Andrew, cuts work the same way - GlissEQ limits the amount of cut happening.  I think cutting and boosting should work equally.

A+C weighting is C weighting curve mixed with the A weighting.  It is a 'freeway' curve which may be suitable or may not.  C weighting curve is a pure C-weighting curve.  They work as they should.  I.e. without weighting your higher and lower ends should be lower than the mids.  With the weighting enabled you should try to get the straight line while weighting will ensure both the higher and the lower ends have the necessary slope.

Ryan, GlissEQ is indeed a 'different' equalizer.  Due to its 'dynamic' nature it is a totally non-linear equalizer.  You simply can't get the same effect with any other 'non-dynamic' equalizer.

Also, I think that GlissEQ is described in deep enough detail.  Getting any deeper will simply unleash some so called 'trade secrets'.

On your note about Dyn 1, even the lowest dynamic setting does not disable the dynamic behaviour.

Aleksey - what I'm saying is GlissEQ2 slope is off - it shows pink noise completely horizontal with a slope of 1.5dB/octave.  It should be flat using a 3db/oct slope setting.

Pink noise shows a horizontal 'spectrum' in Soniformer2 also (when using the 3dB/oct input slope).

This topic was last updated 180 days ago, and thus it was archived.  Replying is disabled for this topic.