Is there an alternative to "MaxxBass" by Waves?
- Thread starter MFCM
- Start date
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
krushing
Moderator
It'll do pretty much the opposite, in fact. MaxxBass generates harmonics so the bass will be thicker; lowpassing will eliminate those.
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
^^^You're sure of that?
I'm not the expert in everything Waves, but from my experience, I remember it being equivalent to putting a filter on a send channel. I remember testing that once when it was new(maybe 2005?)and the filter boosted over a send channel sounded waaaaayyyyyy better but ultimately they both did the same thing.
I'd be willing to do it again if someone provided the audio file and An A/B with Maxxbass, I'll provide the same with a simple stock filter.
I'm not the expert in everything Waves, but from my experience, I remember it being equivalent to putting a filter on a send channel. I remember testing that once when it was new(maybe 2005?)and the filter boosted over a send channel sounded waaaaayyyyyy better but ultimately they both did the same thing.
I'd be willing to do it again if someone provided the audio file and An A/B with Maxxbass, I'll provide the same with a simple stock filter.
City Beats
Twizted Muzic
Yeah, I use Maxxbass all the time... it just adds harmonic distortion at higher mathematical intervals to imply that there's more low end, even though there isn't... psychoacoustics.
MaxxBass - Bass Enhancer Plugin | Waves
MaxxBass - Bass Enhancer Plugin | Waves
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
Ok, again, maybe i'm not using the correct termanologies.
If you have 2 stereo tracks of the same song, leave 1 untouched. Boost lows on the other and use filters to bring focus to the low end you want boosted and mix the 2 stereo tracks, you get the same results as using maxxbass.
The same results can be accomplished with a single track and a send with filtering in place. FL has the "fruity bass boost" with similar results as well. These tools are the results of guys "making it easier" when it was already a simple practice.
The techniques I'm speaking of are 90s hip hop 101. All that "parallel EQing/comping" can be done in a digital era with a send.
I could be wrong, but pretty sure on this one.
If you have 2 stereo tracks of the same song, leave 1 untouched. Boost lows on the other and use filters to bring focus to the low end you want boosted and mix the 2 stereo tracks, you get the same results as using maxxbass.
The same results can be accomplished with a single track and a send with filtering in place. FL has the "fruity bass boost" with similar results as well. These tools are the results of guys "making it easier" when it was already a simple practice.
The techniques I'm speaking of are 90s hip hop 101. All that "parallel EQing/comping" can be done in a digital era with a send.
I could be wrong, but pretty sure on this one.
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
^^^Not even a good one. Any stock multiband EQ with LPF/HPF and "q"(sharpening)can be shaped identical to Maxxbass on a send or a doubled track of what you're "applying the sound to".
This one isn't rocket science, Waves bamboozles the hell out of guys with some of these "state of the art processors".
Don't get me wrong some Waves plugs are great(emulations of hardware come to mind...still outdone by IK and UAD IMO, but great), but as much as I wanna doubt my memory, I'm sure I've outperformed Maxxbass results with stock EQ. Keep in mind this is an almost(if not)decade old plug. It capitalized off the move from hardware processors to software.
Again, I could be wrong, but pretty sure on this one that I'm not back on my crazy pills.
This one isn't rocket science, Waves bamboozles the hell out of guys with some of these "state of the art processors".
Don't get me wrong some Waves plugs are great(emulations of hardware come to mind...still outdone by IK and UAD IMO, but great), but as much as I wanna doubt my memory, I'm sure I've outperformed Maxxbass results with stock EQ. Keep in mind this is an almost(if not)decade old plug. It capitalized off the move from hardware processors to software.
Again, I could be wrong, but pretty sure on this one that I'm not back on my crazy pills.
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely and completely wrong about this one, deRaNged.
I was reading this thread as a guest and was going to let you go ahead and be wrong, but when you started bashing Waves based on your faulty knowledge, I had to speak up so that anyone else reading this will get the truth.
You absolutely cannot do what MaxxBass does with filters and/or EQ. I'm not saying what you are doing cannot be useful or even better than MaxxBass, depending on the situation, but you are not doing the same thing by any means.
First of all, by your method, what you are doing is blending more subbass back in with the original. That's it. Even if you used more filters to match up 2nd and 3rd harmonics above the fundamental frequency, it still would not work, because MaxxBass adapts to the source material whereas your filters would be at a static frequency unless you automated them for every single note of the song and every single harmonic of that note.
MaxxBass adds higher frequencies at source-dependent harmonic intervals to produce a psycho-acoustic effect whereby you are hearing more fundamental frequencies that don't exist. The whole point of this plug-in is to produce a healthy sounding bass on small speakers that don't have low bass extension.
So, I'm sorry, but I was offended by your comment that Waves is "bamboozling" its customers, when it seems that you haven't even taken the proper time to learn about what the plug-ins actually do, harmonics, psycho-acoustics, and - the icing on the cake - even what your own methods are doing. Those seem like things a moderator of a music production forum should know, don't they?
I was reading this thread as a guest and was going to let you go ahead and be wrong, but when you started bashing Waves based on your faulty knowledge, I had to speak up so that anyone else reading this will get the truth.
You absolutely cannot do what MaxxBass does with filters and/or EQ. I'm not saying what you are doing cannot be useful or even better than MaxxBass, depending on the situation, but you are not doing the same thing by any means.
First of all, by your method, what you are doing is blending more subbass back in with the original. That's it. Even if you used more filters to match up 2nd and 3rd harmonics above the fundamental frequency, it still would not work, because MaxxBass adapts to the source material whereas your filters would be at a static frequency unless you automated them for every single note of the song and every single harmonic of that note.
MaxxBass adds higher frequencies at source-dependent harmonic intervals to produce a psycho-acoustic effect whereby you are hearing more fundamental frequencies that don't exist. The whole point of this plug-in is to produce a healthy sounding bass on small speakers that don't have low bass extension.
So, I'm sorry, but I was offended by your comment that Waves is "bamboozling" its customers, when it seems that you haven't even taken the proper time to learn about what the plug-ins actually do, harmonics, psycho-acoustics, and - the icing on the cake - even what your own methods are doing. Those seem like things a moderator of a music production forum should know, don't they?
Last edited:
WeissSound
Engineer
Lot of low end enhancers - many in the hardware world. Aphex big bottom and aural exciter. DBX 120 (?)... there's a DBX one.
Weiss,
I don't know about Aphex Big Bottom or Aural Exciter, and don't feel like looking them up.
However, I do know that DBX 120 is not the same thing. It is a subharmonic generator, which is basically the opposite of MaxxBass. It adds even lower frequencies beneath the fundamental to produce true sub-bass, not psycho-acoustic harmonics. The purpose of DBX 120 is to make more actual bass in your sub speaker. The purpose of MaxxBass is to seemingly make more bass on small speakers that can't reproduce sub bass.
This thread is making me rage a bit. DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE!
I don't know about Aphex Big Bottom or Aural Exciter, and don't feel like looking them up.
However, I do know that DBX 120 is not the same thing. It is a subharmonic generator, which is basically the opposite of MaxxBass. It adds even lower frequencies beneath the fundamental to produce true sub-bass, not psycho-acoustic harmonics. The purpose of DBX 120 is to make more actual bass in your sub speaker. The purpose of MaxxBass is to seemingly make more bass on small speakers that can't reproduce sub bass.
This thread is making me rage a bit. DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE!
Last edited:
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
@delano
As wrong as I thought I may have been because I wasn't familiar with Maxxbass original. i have to call BS on Waves Marketing on this one.
After researching the functionality of the plug, i realized all that "harmonics" talk is just marketable wording. It's nothing more than a 'freq booster" that focuses on low end.
MaxxBass - Bass Enhancer Plugin | Waves
Same as duplicating a track and boosting the specified freqs on the duplicate. I even downloaded the demo and "a/b'ed" it with a parallel EQed track the way I'm describing. Try it yourself if you won Maxxbass.
Never understood why people think Waves plugs are anymore than a bunch of fx meshed into a plug to sound like cooler more innovative FX.
That's not saying there's no convenience to it. That's not saying that every effect doesn't sound slightly different. So EQing with the 7-Band EQ in Pro Tools is gonna sound slightly diofferent than Maxxbass like both will sound different than EQing with Bomb Factory's Pultec plugs. But they're all capable of the same functions.
We could just as easily argue that LA2A isn't the same as IK's LA2A which isn't the same as Bomb Factory's/UAD's/ect. ultimately it would be the same futile argument of semantics.
Know nothing of the DBX exciter, but get the idea it does the same. FL Studio's Bass boost ultimately does(and yes, I'm aware it's missing certain intricacies that Bassboost has like a 3 band EQ vs a 7...but both are ultimately the same frikkin thing.
As wrong as I thought I may have been because I wasn't familiar with Maxxbass original. i have to call BS on Waves Marketing on this one.
After researching the functionality of the plug, i realized all that "harmonics" talk is just marketable wording. It's nothing more than a 'freq booster" that focuses on low end.
MaxxBass - Bass Enhancer Plugin | Waves
Same as duplicating a track and boosting the specified freqs on the duplicate. I even downloaded the demo and "a/b'ed" it with a parallel EQed track the way I'm describing. Try it yourself if you won Maxxbass.
Never understood why people think Waves plugs are anymore than a bunch of fx meshed into a plug to sound like cooler more innovative FX.
That's not saying there's no convenience to it. That's not saying that every effect doesn't sound slightly different. So EQing with the 7-Band EQ in Pro Tools is gonna sound slightly diofferent than Maxxbass like both will sound different than EQing with Bomb Factory's Pultec plugs. But they're all capable of the same functions.
We could just as easily argue that LA2A isn't the same as IK's LA2A which isn't the same as Bomb Factory's/UAD's/ect. ultimately it would be the same futile argument of semantics.
Know nothing of the DBX exciter, but get the idea it does the same. FL Studio's Bass boost ultimately does(and yes, I'm aware it's missing certain intricacies that Bassboost has like a 3 band EQ vs a 7...but both are ultimately the same frikkin thing.
WeissSound
Engineer
Ah - ok, so dbx120 is more like LoAir or Lowender. My bad. Relax man, all is well.
---------- Post added at 05:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 AM ----------
Purportedly, that's not what it does. Nor how it sounds. The idea is that it filters the frequency internally at the prescribed bands, and from that filtration it creates a harmonic generation, giving the targeted frequency more perceived presence.
WeissSound: You are correct. DBX120 is exactly like LoAir and Lowender.
deRaNged: No. No. No. No. You are still not getting it. Thank you for linking me to the site, but I own it, have a/b'ed it as well as analyzed it with a spectrum analyzer and I actually understand the meaning of the words that you call "marketing BS". A static EQ absolutely cannot do what maxxbass does. The added harmonics (or boosts in certain frequencies above the fundamental at mathematically musical intervals) CHANGE depending on the source material being fed into a plugin. An EQ does not do that. It will boost only whatever frequency you set it to boost, unless you automate it for every single note at every single amplitude in the song. And, you'll need more bands than any EQ would have and you'd need to automate all of those bands every single time there is a change in frequency. This would be entirely impossible if you're using it on a whole mix or even just a track that wasn't a pure sine wave - even then it would be an outrageously difficult and tedious task.
Last edited:
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
Keep in mind, they also tell you the L Series "maximizers" are more than just...LIMITERS. I own the L3, and as great as it is...it's a frikkin limiter, and I have heard better while it is definetly worth acknowledging as awesome.
The Wave Rider...isn't just a leveler.
Their artists series plugs aren't just...channel strips. LOL.
Again, if I duplicate a stereo track of a song, leave one track untouched, and LPF/HPF the other track to get only the signal I want boosted, I am ABSOLUTELY doing the same thing MaxxBass does. I can also do it using an effect send. Ever heard the phrase "more than 1 way to skin a cat?" They will tell you otherwise because it's Waves, home of a million plug ins that do the exact same thing as stuff you have stock in just about any DAW, but left at your fingertips with presets and one knob turning techniques. Nothing wrong with that, but we tend to get the idea these things are doing some "new found technology" when they're just making plugs to do multiple step processes in a few steps.
As for your spectral analyzer debate...this shows you're booksmarts while being quite green to the field(absolutely no offense intended), if you use 2 different brand single band EQs to cut/boost/filter/ect. at the exact same settings they won't be identical because of the characteristics of each EQ in question. Just 1 frikkin BAND!!! Lol. Use your ears and quit lying to yourself...or letting them lie to you for that matter.
I'm not trying to down the program or lessen it's worth, I'm just saying it boasts of using magical fairy dust on your mix when it does nothing that can't be accomplished with a stock EQ that had LPF/HPF and some channel routing within a DAW.
---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------
EDIT: and to clarify, if people are still referring to my very 1st post, I was WRONG. I said it just took an LPF to match it. I just reread that, my fault, I from time to time screw a term(I'm sure that counts as not knowing what I'm talking about). I meant HPF. I often get those wrong when talking/typing without thinking. I should just say "filter til there's only lows left".
My bad, and apologies to Krushing who said that was the total opposite, you sir are right. I meant HPF. After demoing it I realized you would also need an LPF to correctly filter out the sounds you want "enhanced" and have said so in every post I made after demoing it.
The Wave Rider...isn't just a leveler.
Their artists series plugs aren't just...channel strips. LOL.
Again, if I duplicate a stereo track of a song, leave one track untouched, and LPF/HPF the other track to get only the signal I want boosted, I am ABSOLUTELY doing the same thing MaxxBass does. I can also do it using an effect send. Ever heard the phrase "more than 1 way to skin a cat?" They will tell you otherwise because it's Waves, home of a million plug ins that do the exact same thing as stuff you have stock in just about any DAW, but left at your fingertips with presets and one knob turning techniques. Nothing wrong with that, but we tend to get the idea these things are doing some "new found technology" when they're just making plugs to do multiple step processes in a few steps.
As for your spectral analyzer debate...this shows you're booksmarts while being quite green to the field(absolutely no offense intended), if you use 2 different brand single band EQs to cut/boost/filter/ect. at the exact same settings they won't be identical because of the characteristics of each EQ in question. Just 1 frikkin BAND!!! Lol. Use your ears and quit lying to yourself...or letting them lie to you for that matter.
I'm not trying to down the program or lessen it's worth, I'm just saying it boasts of using magical fairy dust on your mix when it does nothing that can't be accomplished with a stock EQ that had LPF/HPF and some channel routing within a DAW.
---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------
EDIT: and to clarify, if people are still referring to my very 1st post, I was WRONG. I said it just took an LPF to match it. I just reread that, my fault, I from time to time screw a term(I'm sure that counts as not knowing what I'm talking about). I meant HPF. I often get those wrong when talking/typing without thinking. I should just say "filter til there's only lows left".
My bad, and apologies to Krushing who said that was the total opposite, you sir are right. I meant HPF. After demoing it I realized you would also need an LPF to correctly filter out the sounds you want "enhanced" and have said so in every post I made after demoing it.
Last edited:
Deranged:
You're still flat out wrong for 2 reasons:
1) By your method, you are boosting an entire, continuous section of frequencies NOT frequencies at harmonic intervals.
2) You have not accounted for the SOURCE-DEPENDENT changes. You are only boosting the frequencies that you have selected within your band using a HPF and/or LPF. Those frequencies aren't changing even if the material is changing. MaxxBass changes where the boosts happens so that they stay in line with the harmonic intervals.
Think of it this way. Imagine you have a sine wave. 1 single frequency. By your suggestion, if you duplicate that, HPF it and add it back to the original, you will quite literally be adding nothing. No sound at all, because the frequency you boost was above the fundamental note. With MaxxBass, you will have added in new frequencies that didn't exist before - AKA harmonic distortion.
I really don't know how to make it any more clear to you. If you don't understand that this is a huge difference in functionality, then you really need to read some books and step your game up quite a bit before you go debating with people on forums. You're just making yourself look silly at the moment because this is not a debate at all. What you are saying is misinformation. You even misunderstood what Krushing said to you. Go back and read his comment - he understands that MaxxBass is adding harmonics. Why are you not acknowledging this fact? A band filter, whether high-pass or low-pass is not the issue. A band filter has nothing to do with harmonics.
Please google and read the article on SoundOnSound about MaxxBass for more information. I'm done "debating" with you.
You're still flat out wrong for 2 reasons:
1) By your method, you are boosting an entire, continuous section of frequencies NOT frequencies at harmonic intervals.
2) You have not accounted for the SOURCE-DEPENDENT changes. You are only boosting the frequencies that you have selected within your band using a HPF and/or LPF. Those frequencies aren't changing even if the material is changing. MaxxBass changes where the boosts happens so that they stay in line with the harmonic intervals.
Think of it this way. Imagine you have a sine wave. 1 single frequency. By your suggestion, if you duplicate that, HPF it and add it back to the original, you will quite literally be adding nothing. No sound at all, because the frequency you boost was above the fundamental note. With MaxxBass, you will have added in new frequencies that didn't exist before - AKA harmonic distortion.
I really don't know how to make it any more clear to you. If you don't understand that this is a huge difference in functionality, then you really need to read some books and step your game up quite a bit before you go debating with people on forums. You're just making yourself look silly at the moment because this is not a debate at all. What you are saying is misinformation. You even misunderstood what Krushing said to you. Go back and read his comment - he understands that MaxxBass is adding harmonics. Why are you not acknowledging this fact? A band filter, whether high-pass or low-pass is not the issue. A band filter has nothing to do with harmonics.
Please google and read the article on SoundOnSound about MaxxBass for more information. I'm done "debating" with you.
Last edited:
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
^^^And again, while I get what you are saying ON PAPER, from my demoing Maxxbass, I got the same results using HPF/LPF.
It has a switch on it where you can hear just the original bass and what maxxbass is doing. I heard the "boost in harmonics" you're referring to, maybe I "demoed it wrong" maybe I should've targeted mids to see your point, I targeted low end because it's called "MaxxBass". I heard small differences in the mixes like you would comparing a Pultec EQ plug in to a Digi/Avid EQ plug.
But I'm gonna ask again, how is my method not a substitute for Maxxbass? It's like saying the 7-EQ, Maxim, and Dither plugs in Pro Tools aren't substitutes for the L3.
I will admit I didn't use it on mids. I loaded a couple hip hop songs and focused on the bass. I probably should've tried it on a wider range of freqs and a few other genres of music, maybe I'm underestimating it because my test was flawed. I remember testing it years ago as well and coming to the same conclusion. I also couldn't use it heavily because it sounded like crap, so maybe used heavily I would've heard a bigger difference, but that's not logical. That's like me saying "these 2 tools don't sound the same at shytty unusable levels, but they sound damn near identical in any useful scenario".
If I thought it was a useful tool, I'd own it. Remembered debating getting it numerous times and after testing it realizing it wasn't needed. Now because of this talk, I'm questioning it again like I did a week or so ago when I just tested it again. LOL. I'm always looking for new stuff, it just never made the cut IMO. Just my opinion, i recognize tons of engineers find it to be an irreplaceable tool.
As for reading a sound on sound article, again, that's like reading one on Antares Mic mod and coming to the conclusion it's "enhancements" cannot be duplicated with an EQ as well because of it's "specs" on how it works.
I'll see if I can download the Demo again and try it one more time, but i'm still pretty sure I'm right. I'll post results this time. Don't mean to frustrate you, I'm sure I sound like I don't know what i'm talking about, and I'm doubting myself because you're very convincing, but I doubt my ears are lying to me repeatedly.
No hard feelings, just a disagreement. But from reviews and forums I've just looked up, I'm not the only one who feels this way, while there are also tons of others that think it's the greatest plug ever. Guess it's left to the engineer.
It has a switch on it where you can hear just the original bass and what maxxbass is doing. I heard the "boost in harmonics" you're referring to, maybe I "demoed it wrong" maybe I should've targeted mids to see your point, I targeted low end because it's called "MaxxBass". I heard small differences in the mixes like you would comparing a Pultec EQ plug in to a Digi/Avid EQ plug.
But I'm gonna ask again, how is my method not a substitute for Maxxbass? It's like saying the 7-EQ, Maxim, and Dither plugs in Pro Tools aren't substitutes for the L3.
I will admit I didn't use it on mids. I loaded a couple hip hop songs and focused on the bass. I probably should've tried it on a wider range of freqs and a few other genres of music, maybe I'm underestimating it because my test was flawed. I remember testing it years ago as well and coming to the same conclusion. I also couldn't use it heavily because it sounded like crap, so maybe used heavily I would've heard a bigger difference, but that's not logical. That's like me saying "these 2 tools don't sound the same at shytty unusable levels, but they sound damn near identical in any useful scenario".
If I thought it was a useful tool, I'd own it. Remembered debating getting it numerous times and after testing it realizing it wasn't needed. Now because of this talk, I'm questioning it again like I did a week or so ago when I just tested it again. LOL. I'm always looking for new stuff, it just never made the cut IMO. Just my opinion, i recognize tons of engineers find it to be an irreplaceable tool.
As for reading a sound on sound article, again, that's like reading one on Antares Mic mod and coming to the conclusion it's "enhancements" cannot be duplicated with an EQ as well because of it's "specs" on how it works.
I'll see if I can download the Demo again and try it one more time, but i'm still pretty sure I'm right. I'll post results this time. Don't mean to frustrate you, I'm sure I sound like I don't know what i'm talking about, and I'm doubting myself because you're very convincing, but I doubt my ears are lying to me repeatedly.
No hard feelings, just a disagreement. But from reviews and forums I've just looked up, I'm not the only one who feels this way, while there are also tons of others that think it's the greatest plug ever. Guess it's left to the engineer.
Last edited:
You're right that the method you are describing can produce desirable effects - I'm not arguing that. I'm also not arguing that MaxxBass is better or worse for any kind of bass processing. I'm only arguing that it's a completely different tool who's full range of effects cannot be duplicated by a clean EQ. There is obviously more than 1 way to process your bass. There are thousands.
I'll let you in on the real truth, though. MaxxBass can be replicated exactly by any old harmonic distortion device. A saturator, tube/tape sim, really anything. The harmonics might be slightly different but the idea is the same. In this case, you actually can duplicate the track, high-pass it, and bring it back in and the results will be the same - so I wouldn't really recommend anyone to buy MaxxBass if they already have a couple different distortion devices. If your EQ is adding in harmonics that are on par with a distortion device, then I recommend a new EQ!
Of course no hard feelings. If we were in person I probably would have been a lot more civil, lol, but it's hard to get people's attention on the internet sometimes.
I'll let you in on the real truth, though. MaxxBass can be replicated exactly by any old harmonic distortion device. A saturator, tube/tape sim, really anything. The harmonics might be slightly different but the idea is the same. In this case, you actually can duplicate the track, high-pass it, and bring it back in and the results will be the same - so I wouldn't really recommend anyone to buy MaxxBass if they already have a couple different distortion devices. If your EQ is adding in harmonics that are on par with a distortion device, then I recommend a new EQ!
Of course no hard feelings. If we were in person I probably would have been a lot more civil, lol, but it's hard to get people's attention on the internet sometimes.
The way i've always done this is to double the bass track and filter and process the copy and mix that in with the filtered original. I've done this many times for clients on my Fiverr gig: Trkkazulu will play bass on your track for $5, only on fiverr.com to give them massive, over-the-top bass tracks. I have a new gig on Fiverr where i make screencasts demonstrating different production techniques in Logic Pro here: Trkkazulu will show you how to do anything in logic pro for $5, only on fiverr.com I can go into more detaill with a screencast.
As for Waves plugs, i have tested those plugs through an ocilloscope. It's not wise to use a plug - no matter how pretty - if you don't know what it's really doing to a signal. I wouldn't use Waves plugs myself. They're too "tricky". There's a lot more going on than the virtual knobs would lead you to believe. I do all of my work in GNU. Harrison Mixbus is my main mixing platform. If i need a special effect plug, i build it myself. Anyway, just my two cents.
I hope this helps
As for Waves plugs, i have tested those plugs through an ocilloscope. It's not wise to use a plug - no matter how pretty - if you don't know what it's really doing to a signal. I wouldn't use Waves plugs myself. They're too "tricky". There's a lot more going on than the virtual knobs would lead you to believe. I do all of my work in GNU. Harrison Mixbus is my main mixing platform. If i need a special effect plug, i build it myself. Anyway, just my two cents.
I hope this helps
chris carter
New member
I never really liked Maxbass. The only one in that category of effect that I ever really liked was the aphex box (hardware). I have one and use it from time to time on urban records. Mostly I just use EQ though.