Eq emulation Vs. Hardware

How do you think the TPro eq emulation of the Xone, etc, and it's filter types are compared to the real deal mixers they are trying to emulate? Can anyone tell the difference? I mean it sounds close or not really? I cannot tell as I do not own those mixers, but I use a Pioneer DJM-600.

 

No clue either as I don't own any of those mixers (Vestax fanboy here!) but I find the Classic is still my fave anyway.

Perhaps I will try the others and post when my hangover subsides...again.

 

I own a xone62. The djm600 has some of the most brutish eq's I have ever used so the best way to describe those of the x:62 are "exactly the opposite"...

The control over the frequencies you are EQing is extremely smooth and even if you slam the bass in all the way, you're probably not going to completely ruin your mix... whereas on the pioneer house mixers i have used (300rotary, 500 and 600), you have to be really careful with how much you move your EQ knobs... 2 degrees too much of anything and its a mess... and you're lucky if you don't blow your speakers... its almost as if A&H have built in some kind of limiter. (I am pretty retarded when it comes to explaining this kind of thing in anything but layman's terms so don't yell at me if I am not suing the words a professional sound tech would)

Additionally, on the A&H, its impossible to completely cut out any of the frequencies. Theoretically if all your EQ knobs are at zero, no sound should come thru the channel, right? Not the case on the 62. A little of everything is still audible. Haven't tested this on other mixers, so my theory could be wrong.

I have messed with the software EQ's and they sound pretty good, but I prefer to use the ones built into my 62. Seems I can't quite get what I want to hear with the software, but there is never a problem when tweaking the analogs on my mixer.

As for the filters... I have never heard anything (not the software filters in Traktor or the digital effects on a Pioneer) that sound as good and as warm and as juicy as the analog filter built into my x:62. The deck filters in traktor also suffer from a lack of resonance adjustment. This is where you find the real value of the filters on xone mixers. Without being able to tweak resonance, you can't achieve the kind of effects you can on real xone filters.

I am going to try to remap my current knobs that control HPF and LPF on each of my decks to control the Filter:92 effect in the effects section, however, I wont have independent control for each of my decks... which sucks. I am a xone DJ for 6 years and I am addicted to their filters. Its a burned in element of my style. NI needs to give us resonance on each of our channel filters. I even have space saved on my controller for this update when it comes. it has to come.

I'll compare the FX section filter with my xone filters later and tell you what I think.

 

No, because EQs are not Isolators. I say RTFM. It tells you, that a xone:62 features EQs with a range from -26 to +4dB. -26dB leaves some space to the bottom, which means, that some portion of the signal is still left. If you are after a snappier response you should aim for the xone:92 which has a sharper cutoff (down to -30dB). On the other hand: That is why A&H EQs for sure have such a smooth response.
If I want to have frequencies cut out completely, I work with the filters (that's what they are supposed to do ). Either those in T3 or in hardware, if a Xone series mixer is available.

 

I owned an Ecler Nuo4 and used the internal Nuo4 mixer on traktor 3, not pro I know, but I'm not sure whether they have changed the internal mixer in Pro?

There was a definite difference in the sound, as nomaad says I just couldn't get the sound quite right, not sure what it was exactly but something. I think the internal mixer in Traktor is very good but just not as good as well made external hardware.

 

I stand corrected.

RTFM comment unappreciated as I wasn't trawling for an answer to a dumb manual-covered question, but rather trying to add my thoughts to somebody else's question... The syntax of my statement (...,right?) shows that this is what I think, but I'm not sure. Again, I stand corrected.

Dunno... not trying to get blustery here, but "RTFM" is sort of an insult. Should be saved for the many OP's that could easily be solved by reading the manual. Even then, sometimes its not completely appropriate.

 

@nomaad: Keep cool! RTFM is often used in an ironical context and wasn't meant to offend you in any kind. However a bit of manual checking saves time and eliminates all sorts of urban-legend building The topic sounded interesting - that's why I answered. But you're right - there are a lot of other posts that would deserve a more tight way of answering.

 

Yo Sko, RTFM

To reply to the OP's question.
Personally i prefer having the external mixer in front of me. There's something about having the 'unit' in front of me.

I know you might have your VCI 100/300 whichever controller you might have chosen but for me having the mixer there just feels right.

Traktor does a pretty solid job of representing the EQ's but in the back of my head i know it's the computer changing the EQ's.. They're pretty spot on though..

It's a luxury in the end but I worked hard for it and I like my xone

 

I use the software EQ to help with inadequacies with the external mixers EQ or the over EQ of the sound system.

One of my gigs has an Rane Installation mixer that has little EQ +/- so i can assign more top end on the laptop and reduce some of the mid that is naturally over the top on the system.

At my one of my other gigs i use my Xone62 and i have the software EQ all at zero because the mixer does all i need.

This unfortunately isnt possible in Pro as External Mixer Mode disables Eq control in the software.

 

Xone 62

Karlos, I am new to the forum.

I have recently bought a xone62 (used) and am interested in adding traktor / serato to my set. My question is if what you said regarding the EQ with Traktor, that you can't disable the EQ in Traktor. Is this really true? I think the biggest thing I enjoy about the xone62 are the awesome EQs, and I'd hate to lose them.

Thanks...

 

Hi Jeremy welcome to the forum.
I think you may have got me wrong way round.

The issue i have with Pro is that when you use an external mixer the External Mixer mode setting disables the internal mixer/eq in Traktor.

When i use the Xone62 this isnt a problem because as you say the Xones EQ is awesome. You dont need the internal software eq in Traktor when using your mixer.

My problem is when i use a crappy hardware mixer with hardly any EQ control i prefer to tweak the internal EQ in the software to compensate for the lack of EQ on the hardware mixer. This can be done in the previous version of Traktor but not in TSP.

Your mixer will sound effing awesome with Traktor . Trust me, i love the Xone 62.


Karlos

 

My humble opinion says: Don't try to parallel hardware mixer with the software one by the sound, but by the feel. You can never be exact when attenuating the frequency with ANY midi controller. It's just not the same - expecially when you are comparing the software with any analog mixer. The knob is in your hand and you can turn it all the way down, or to make just a very very very short move - the analog mixer will react as you expect, but in the software all you have is steps between 0 to 128. It' s like vinyl vs cd - you all know the difference.
By the way, I work for a chain of clubs, and we have mostly Pioneers 800, but because of me (deep&soulful house DJ) for the lounges they bought 2 Xone 92 and 1 Xone 62. Allen&Heath are the best sounding consoles for me, and untill present days, I never liked the sound of digital DJ mixer, and believe me, I've tryed them all (from the very first Tascam, which was imposible to mix with because of the latency between turning the knob and the real effect on the sound)
Please excuse my english - it' s not my native language.

 

The key word is "emulation".
Yes, I can tell the difference.
This is applies to most soft vs. hardware emulations I have heard regarding synths, eq`s, compressors, etc.

It`s just not the same, but emulations can get very close.

In the case of the Xone filters in TP, I can say that they do not cut off as sharply in the low end, and there is no variable resonance like in the hardware.
That`s why they may sound close, but can not "emulate" the real thing.
IMHO, more of a gadget than a feature.

 

They are great

I have used both and the feel is great and the filters are the best I have used-period

 

At the end of the day the only question to ask: is do you like what you hear?

Sorry guys but I got to chime in here, as I don't think everyone here or anywhere will all ever agree on what sounds better.

Yes the internal emulation is going to sound different to the one its based on, but thats cause it is different. This is not to say its not good enough, worse, better for any individuals purposes. Its just different because they are not the same. So you should treat it like a different option at your disposal.

What you should focus on is: Do you like what you hear when you use the internal in the way you use it?

For me personally I mix internally using the AH92 emulated eqs. I like how it sounds (I definitively don't like any of the other internal emulated eqs though) my mixes sound good to my ears and also my friends think they sound great too, I haven't been found wanting yet for more sensitivity, more cut, more control or more anything else.

I solved the problem of adjustable resonance on the filters by implementing 1 knob dedicated to controlling 1 advanced fx slot on which works great with my work flow.

Good luck with your decision.