MEQ review

[Chandlerhimself]

I did a short review of MEqualizer where I tried to go over some of the features that aren't readily apparent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuVcH7Gq5x8

[.jon]

Nice little overview. I think it's one of best EQs of this type on the market, and the few that could be considered marginally better in some areas cost way, way more.

Q isn't exactly quality though

[Chandlerhimself]

Thanks. I always see people ask for features in EQ plugins and many don't seem to realize MEQ can do what they want. Lots of people don't realize how powerful it is.

Also I don't know why Q is called a quality control. Maybe it should be B, bandwidth. Too late to change now I guess.

[.jon]

It isn't called quality or quality control, it's Q for "Q factor", or rarely "quality factor". Maybe best just to stick with the correct form Q, since quality is more than misleading in mixing context.

[Svama]

Would it not be simpler to show this value in octaves?

[.jon]

That's a valid question, bandwidth in octaves make sense in a musical context. I personally use MEQ only when I need it's awesome visuality (I use SlickEQ without the display most of the time to train my ears), so the numbers matter less than the graphical curves to me.

Maybe Q is just more common?

[steve2KVR]

...in the context of equalization I've only ever heard the term "Q" in reference to the mathematical ratio if gain to bandwidth...in the context of "midi" or "timing of events to a time grid" referred to as quantization...but never as "quality"...although by metaphor it sorta makes sense.../s~

[MeldaProduction]

Aaaaah, I didn't get that . Yeah, Q is a mess... there's like a dozen of definitions, while audio industry got used to Q, which actually isn't the best at all, as it says, well, nothing really . But we have to live with our ancestors' decisions