The Best VST Track Eq

[whyterabbyt]

No, not for him. Low CPU toll is just mandatory for a track eq.

And where is the standard for this requirement defined, then?

[xander]

So it's subjective Sean as far as the user's ear is concerned -- so what? Semantics 101 again?

There are several types you could try that you might find subjectively pleasing

You could start with trying out the Voxengo EQs, or the Kjerhaus EQs to see what suits your fancy. You can do a search here at KVR to find them. Their product literature explains why their EQs are subjectively/perspectively better than anyone elses.

[headquest]

Kjaerhus Golden EQ GEQ7 is the one I turn to quickest, and which I find sounds best to my ears. In other words, it's the one with which I can personally get the best results the quickest. Or something like that. Although I also use the ones that come built into my hosts (especially the Sonitus fz one in Sonar).

[whyterabbyt]

So it's subjective Sean as far as the user's ear is concerned -- so what? Semantics 101 again?

I have no idea. The original poster asked for 'the best track EQ'. I responded indicating that there is no real way of determining 'best' because thats a subjective matter. As a result of me saying that out, .jon seemingly became strangely obsessed with how much CPU usage track EQs are supposed to use.
I'm still struggling to work out what the relevance of that to 'best' is, given that any given user is going to have different kit from their neighbour, different requirements, and a different preception of what 'low' is, at the very least, but its obviously very important to .jon.

So, please, given that .jon is the one caring about some sort of arbitrary definition of 'Track EQ', and the 'low' CPU usage thats intrinsic to that, please ask him about 'semantics'. I really dont have a clue what his actual point is, apart from to say 'haha you're wrong' for no validated reason. That he's more of an authority on the definitions of EQ's perhaps?

[Christian Budde]

I use PLParEQ3 and sometimes Poshifopit, which are probably the highest quality free eqs, but use a lot of CPU.

I have to defend, that posihfopit's digital/economy mode can compete in terms of CPU performance with any other EQ. In fact it's sometimes a lot faster than others.

Christian

P.S.: Anyway I suggest: "Electri-Q" of course

[.jon]

And where is the standard for this requirement defined, then?

In the Universal Book of Standards, where else?

[Jafo]

On a subjective level, I really like the tones of the Classic, Posihfopit, and Paris eqs; their sounds feel warmer and creamier to me than most digital ones. Being modeled well on analog HW, they add colors and characters which appeal to me. Nyquist and A0 also sound fantastic: smooth, warm, natural, and unobtrusive; they don't impose a character, so they can be used in more situations.

On an objective level, these are all free, and light on the CPU. The costs of buying and using definitely matter! Hmm, and other than the Classic, they're all parametric, which should be considered a feature.

I feel that the best option is to invest the time and effort, and experiment. There is no shortcut; you have to learn to play an effect -- the same as you'd learn to play an instrument.

[.jon]

So it's subjective Sean as far as the user's ear is concerned -- so what? Semantics 101 again?

I have no idea. The original poster asked for 'the best track EQ'. I responded indicating that there is no real way of determining 'best' because thats a subjective matter. As a result of me saying that out, .jon seemingly became strangely obsessed with how much CPU usage track EQs are supposed to use.
I'm still struggling to work out what the relevance of that to 'best' is, given that any given user is going to have different kit from their neighbour, different requirements, and a different preception of what 'low' is, at the very least, but its obviously very important to .jon.

So, please, given that .jon is the one caring about some sort of arbitrary definition of 'Track EQ', and the 'low' CPU usage thats intrinsic to that, please ask him about 'semantics'. I really dont have a clue what his actual point is, apart from to say 'haha you're wrong' for no validated reason. That he's more of an authority on the definitions of EQ's perhaps?

You know, for a second I thought that you were obsessed about everything being subjective

I doubt that you even want to understand my point, but once again - a track eq that consumes 65% of your CPU doesn't make a lot of sense, no matter how good it sounds. Equalizing a 20-track mix becomes very difficult, if you have to bounce your eq settings.

I also said that you probably don't have to use an eq on every VST track.

But anyway, if you want to get into semantics, which you often seem to do - something that is actually measurable, like CPU consumption, is not subjective. How individuals perceive the importance of such thing is of course subjective, but the term "track eq" really refers to an eq that is/can be used on every track, like on mixer boards or host mixers.

[shamann]

No, not for him. Low CPU toll is just mandatory for a track eq.

And where is the standard for this requirement defined, then?

It isn't a standard per se, but the idea behind a track EQ would be something that could be used on every track. If it consumed a lot of CPU, it would hinder its ability to be used multiple times at once.

Also, a high latency EQ would probably not be successful as a track EQ, simply because tracking tends to be a real-time process, where mixdown/mastering doesn't need to be.

[xander]

So it's subjective Sean as far as the user's ear is concerned -- so what? Semantics 101 again?

I have no idea. The original poster asked for 'the best track EQ'. I responded indicating that there is no real way of determining 'best' because thats a subjective matter. As a result of me saying that out, .jon seemingly became strangely obsessed with how much CPU usage track EQs are supposed to use.
I'm still struggling to work out what the relevance of that to 'best' is, given that any given user is going to have different kit from their neighbour, different requirements, and a different preception of what 'low' is, at the very least, but its obviously very important to .jon.

So, please, given that .jon is the one caring about some sort of arbitrary definition of 'Track EQ', and the 'low' CPU usage thats intrinsic to that, please ask him about 'semantics'. I really dont have a clue what his actual point is, apart from to say 'haha you're wrong' for no validated reason. That he's more of an authority on the definitions of EQ's perhaps?

There's this sort of 'human thing' that happens when people ask such questions. It's part of a sociality event (the tendency to associate with others and to form social groups). It's inevitable -- we humans will often seek the opinions of those in our social group (or the group we are desirous to become part of) -- even for the most trivial of facts/advice/opinion.

.jon, no doubt, perceived this and acted benevolently as the second-order zeta male is want to do in these sorts of situations.

The outcome of this spontaneous tryst could/might result in a kind of 'virtual friendship' common in these parts, i.e. the sharing of 'EQ experiences', like/dislike of GUI, CPU consumption, etc.

In such situations, what is subjective to 'one' may very well be part of a 'group gestalt consensus' -- the ultimate goal of consciousness.

Cheers,
Dr. Alex

[whyterabbyt]

I doubt that you even want to understand my point, but once again - a track eq that consumes 65% of your CPU doesn't make a lot of sense, no matter how good it sounds.
Equalizing a 20-track mix becomes very difficult, if you have to bounce your eq settings.

No, I just dont understand your point, full stop. Im asking you quite clearly to explain what the CPU usage of a track EQ has to do with saying that the choice of 'best track EQ' is subjective.

I also said that you probably don't have to use an eq on every VST track.

You did, yes.

But anyway, if you want to get into semantics, which you often seem to do - something that is actually measurable, like CPU consumption, is not subjective.

On the other hand 'low CPU usage' would be subjective.

How individuals perceive the importance of such thing is of course subjective, but the term "track eq" really refers to an eq that is/can be used on every track, like on mixer boards or host mixers.

And? Someone asked about 'best track EQ'; I responded "there is no single 'best' track EQ" If a given EQ cant be used as a track EQ, that has no bearing whatsoever on my response. If a given track EQ uses less CPU than a different track EQ, there is still no indication of a universal 'best'.

If you decide that a given EQ isn't a 'track EQ' because it uses 65% of your CPU, but I decide it is because it only uses 7% of mine, then that still means that there is no definition of 'best track EQ'.

Y'see I actually suspect you're responding as though I somehow jumped outside the original poster's context in my response. Just remind me where I supposedly wasn't responding to him about track EQ's, please? Because if track EQs need to have low enough CPU usage to, say, use one per track, and I'm directly responding regarding track EQs, what exactly is the relevance of CPU usage? That you might not be able to use two per track or something, so it cant be subjective as to which is 'best'.
No really, I still dont see your point.

[whyterabbyt]

It isn't a standard per se, but the idea behind a track EQ would be something that could be used on every track. If it consumed a lot of CPU, it would hinder its ability to be used multiple times at once.

If an EQ used enough CPU to hinder its usage per track, then it wouldnt be a track EQ. So it would kind of be outside those things encompassed by the response 'there's no best track EQ', wouldnt it.

Also, a high latency EQ would probably not be successful as a track EQ, simply because tracking tends to be a real-time process, where mixdown/mastering doesn't need to be.

You're probably right. Remind me what this iteration of 'items which dont belong in category A' has to do with my statement that the definition of the best example of something in category A is subjective, please.

[whyterabbyt]

There's this sort of 'human thing' that happens when people ask such questions. It's part of a sociality event (the tendency to associate with others and to form social groups). It's inevitable -- we humans will often seek the opinions of those in our social group (or the group we are desirous to become part of) -- even for the most trivial of facts/advice/opinion.

.jon, no doubt, perceived this and acted benevolently as the second-order zeta male is want to do in these sorts of situations.

The outcome of this spontaneous tryst could/might result in a kind of 'virtual friendship' common in these parts, i.e. the sharing of 'EQ experiences', like/dislike of GUI, CPU consumption, etc.

In such situations, what is subjective to 'one' may very well be part of a 'group gestalt consensus' -- the ultimate goal of consciousness.

Cheers,
Dr. Alex

So are you saying that by saying 'nope there's no one single answer' I somehow disrupted this process, and .jon's erstwhile-unposted benevolence was thus transcended into his conscious effort to undermine my credibility on the basis of that statement? Hmmm, I dont see why. Surely a debate on whats potentially good or useful isnt that easily derailed?

S'funny cos I havent noticed anyone even trying to garner information on the OP's kit, for example, which I would have thought was a logical first step for establishing that same rapport by determining what might be useful to him, given that his CPU, say, might be older and underpowered and incapable of running some of the things people are blithely recommending to him as a 'track EQ'. Which would have been the useful relevance of .jon's obsession with CPU usage, IMO, not just some sort of odd context-free counterargument to my own thoughts...

[shamann]

Remind me what this iteration of 'items which dont belong in category A' has to do with my statement that the definition of the best example of something in category A is subjective, please.

Wasn't talking about your definition, merely responded to your question "And where is the standard for this requirement defined, then?"

But no, there is no way to quantify what track EQ is best. Looking over the responses of others though, mostly seem to be emphasizing to the origianl question that not all EQs are good at being a track EQ. So, for example, PlParEQ isn't really a great track EQ because it has a high CPU requirement and introduces latency on most (if not all) settings.

[whyterabbyt]

Wasn't talking about your definition, merely responded to your question "And where is the standard for this requirement defined, then?"

Ah, okay. Starting to get a little paranoid here, I guess. Mea culpa....