What is your go to EQ?

[bduffy]

Very! These guys are kickin' ass in unexpected ways!

[Massimof]

Apulsoft ApEQ :love:

[SuperFly76]

Apulsoft ApEQ

This is my new go-to too!

[punkfest2000]

These posts kill me. Color this, transparent that, vintage this, analog that, and don't forget about Nyquist theory. Give me a break. Whichever EQ you use is insignificant. Nobody will give a rats ass in the final product, and none of you could name the EQ used in a blind test (and if you can then you may be one of those guys who consistently misses the bigger picture). Whether you torrent the newest, most expensive big name EQ or stumble across a freeware EQ from 5 years ago, chances are you can't hear the difference.

It's like detergent. There's a boatload of brands, some well known and some not, but generally containing the same ingredients. Some have spent a lot on advertising, some have spent a lot on the design of the boxes with flashy colors that catch your eye. Funny how they come out with a new and improved version each year.

My advice: don't get the most expensive EQ or the cheapest. Pick something middle of the road that appeals to your eye. That's right. Don't bother listening to it because it doesn't matter. Pick it because of how it looks and you'll be happy. Rinse and repeat with compressors. Whatever KVR.

[metamorphosis]

+1
m@t

[Shy]

Whichever EQ you use is insignificant.

Yes, it is. Different EQs have different characteristics and some work better for some things.

Nobody will give a rats ass in the final product,

I will.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

These posts kill me. Color this, transparent that, vintage this, analog that, and don't forget about Nyquist theory. Give me a break. Whichever EQ you use is insignificant. Nobody will give a rats ass in the final product, and none of you could name the EQ used in a blind test (and if you can then you may be one of those guys who consistently misses the bigger picture). Whether you torrent the newest, most expensive big name EQ or stumble across a freeware EQ from 5 years ago, chances are you can't hear the difference.

It's like detergent. There's a boatload of brands, some well known and some not, but generally containing the same ingredients. Some have spent a lot on advertising, some have spent a lot on the design of the boxes with flashy colors that catch your eye. Funny how they come out with a new and improved version each year.

My advice: don't get the most expensive EQ or the cheapest. Pick something middle of the road that appeals to your eye. That's right. Don't bother listening to it because it doesn't matter. Pick it because of how it looks and you'll be happy. Rinse and repeat with compressors. Whatever KVR.

Best Pile Of Bullshit I Have Laid Eyes On This Year

[napalmbob]

loligans!


Generally speaking, yeah, it doesn't mean shit which EQ you use. But each little pluggie is different in its own little way, so there is no EQ that everyone likes or that everyone should have.

Its like a DAW or a synth or a guitar or drumstick or anything else associated with making music; whatever works best for you is the best solution.

There's no point having a $2000 plugin if you don't like using it. Likewise, why hoard masses of freeware if you don't have the time to sit down and learn each one?


Just find something you like and stick with it until you find something you like more

[zeep]

Well i tested IIEQPro and ApEQ, compared both of them with Live 7's EQ8. What strikes me most is all these eq differ so much with bandwidth/Oct it's almost insane.

Test: I took one source and put all eq's on it (muted). Then with IIEQPro i use one band to cut a certain frequency with a certain bandwidth. Then i try to create that same sound using ApEQ and Live's EQ8. To obtain similar sounds the difference lies very much in bandwidth and gain for all EQ's, ApEQ differs the most. I would have expected something like bandwidth and gain to be somewhat similar for all EQ's but that's not the case.

Live's EQ8 is an overall good sounding EQ and the more i compared the other two, liking IIEQPro the best because it's so intuitive to control, the more i started to appreciate EQ8. ApEQ is too different in gain and bandwidth aspects, i simply don't know which EQ to 'trust' anymore.

I agree that you can't really say this EQ is the best, i surely wouldn't ask for that. That's why i simply asked for go-to eq's in this thread. A go-to eq is one that you feel best about using, regardless the price / specs / whatever.

Although i like ApEQ's gui and all the extra's i'm not going for it. Not because of anything else but the fact that i don't 'feel' it at this time.

IIEQPro is a very good candidate, it's frequency settings are better laid out than Live's EQ8. (Meaning i can pinpoint a certain frequency better). I'm going to test some other EQ's before purchasing though.


Thanks again all for commenting here.

[adl]

Make sure you switched on "Hi Quality-Mode" on Lives EQ8. Actually Lives new EQ8 is considered to be quiet good, so maybe you stick with that one, especially as it is really low on cpu.

[mystran]

Test: I took one source and put all eq's on it (muted). Then with IIEQPro i use one band to cut a certain frequency with a certain bandwidth. Then i try to create that same sound using ApEQ and Live's EQ8. To obtain similar sounds the difference lies very much in bandwidth and gain for all EQ's, ApEQ differs the most. I would have expected something like bandwidth and gain to be somewhat similar for all EQ's but that's not the case.

Now, I don't know any of these, but what you describe is probably just a question of parameterization in the interface. In other words, the way those plugins match the desired bandwidth to the actual filter coefficients isn't exactly equal. Assuming they are all standard linear minimum-phase stuff and second order, you can probably get exactly the same filter by compensating the differences in parameterization by using slightly different nominal bandwidths. There are exactly two degrees of freedom left for a second order parametric cut/boost of given gain, but these don't trivially map to exact cutoff and bandwidth (or they do, but you can define cutoff and bandwidth in a couple of slightly different ways), so while you can probably get the same response, the "screen parameters" are likely to slightly differ.

In higher order filters, you got an extra degree of freedom per order (well two, but I'm naively assuming the zeros are spent on response type), but typically only 2 parameters (same cutoff/bandwidth) so in this case you probably will have a completely different reachable range of settings depending on who wrote the parameterization algorithm; on the other hand, since you can always decompose a higher-order filter into serial or parallel first and second order sections, you can pretty much emulate any response by using multiple bands. Ofcourse it's MUCH easier to use a good pre-made parameterization than to mix and match it from second order sections; and speaking out of experience, designing EQ parameterizations isn't exactly the easiest thing out there, so there are likely to be better and worse ones.

Ofcourse if the plugins are NOT completely linear, then all bets are off, since there's more ways to implement non-linearities than there is a name for (actually there is surprisingly few types of non-linearities with a good name). Internal oversampling can also complicate matters.. but that's besides my point.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

My advice: don't get the most expensive EQ or the cheapest. Pick something middle of the road that appeals to your eye. That's right. Don't bother listening to it because it doesn't matter. Pick it because of how it looks and you'll be happy. Rinse and repeat with compressors. Whatever KVR.

Interesting approach
I suggest to use the same method for buying other things. Go to the shop and pick the cd that appeals to your eye (imho in autumn take something orange). Repeat with cars, computers, food, women (ok, in this case I suggest to think a bit before marrying)

[Christian Budde]

Whichever EQ you use is insignificant.

Having done a lot of research on EQs I feel like writing some words here as well. Probably a bit scientific in the end. There are some hints to our Electri-Q. Not intended to make advertisement, but it's my idea of how an EQ should be like, that's why I will mention it.

Programming an EQ you can't do many things wrong. If you mess up a filter, it will blow up and be completely useless. The filter is unstable. But usually every typical implementation is more or less equal in it's spectral properties. You can apply prewarping to reduce the digital effects around nyquist, or apply an orfanidis correction. The filter is still the same as you can reach by unwarped or uncorrected filters it's only more easy while mixing. The same goes for the bandwidth. There are several bandwidth definitions out there, but in the end they all can lead to the same results. There might be numerical differences depending on the filter number crunch algorithm (nothing more then some additions and multiplications). This can lead from slight variations to heavy limit cycles (which can be found in older fixed point implementations). However, now that everyone uses floating point for calculation it is generally never an issue (since it is below the threshold that DA converters can reproduce).

Further than that there exist things like oversampling (or other clever ways to make the digital EQ curve look more like an analog curve). There hasn't been done many listening tests proving that this is distinguishable (except for some lowpass filters probably), it's just a fancy marketing argument.

Also there is distortion this can have an audible effect. Despite the fact that we called this mode "analog" in our Electri-Q, it is not really a property of good analog EQs to produce distortion (at least not that heavy as you can find in Electri-Q, I simply made an error in calculation. It's usually more heavy then in real devices, but due to continuity we'll leave it as it is).

Another interesting thing is the phase which is sometimes known to be the magic ingredience. With Electri-Q you have the option to choose between several different minimum, linear and even maximum phase implementations. Every implementation has its advantages and disadvantage. With the FIR based modes you can have fancy looking filter (like the 'round' filter for example rendering a half ellipse as filter). It is is fact fancy and a nice gimmick, but nothing you should use for real world application. In those modes you have also the 's-plane' filters that are a implementation of the analog prototypes (might have issues in the low frequencies due to a limited filter kernel length, but "perfect" in the highs).
You can hear the effect of phase if it comes to pre-ringing for example. In case you want a heavy processed punchy sound you should better choose for some minimum phase EQ for example.

What makes each EQ uniqu in my eyes is the workflow. Our Electri-Q works in the frequency domain and has no knobs (in contrast to my Noname-EQ). With Electri-Q you should be able to EQ in every possible way. Minimum, linear or maximum phase with an IIR or FIR approach. Also you are able to do undos and redos (as can be found in others as well). This is important in my eyes if you tweak a lot.
Also it important in my eyes to have a spectrum analyser build in. Not that I recommend you to use it for mixing, but to explore. See how the filters interact with your music and what impact they have. You might find out that some frequency regions are responsible for a special character. We once added a 'range definition' to give unexperienced users an idea for what he can expect in some regions.

Now that I already drifted away making some advertisement anyway I'd like to add a screenshot showing some unusual things you can do side by side with the 'normal' stuff:

[pure advertisement]In curve mode you can create a curve easily without choosing dedicated filter type preserving a smooth transition with less ringing. You can also see the third octave analyser not showing more details then necessary. It works in time domain. This way the phase is ignored in a way, that only temporal issues are visible. Also you can see the range definition.[/pure advertisement]

Sorry for the advertisement in the end, but since Electri-Q is so capable of different things I had to mention it. In my eyes EQs do differ a lot, but featurewise.

Thanks for the audience,

Christian

[shanecgriffo]

My advice: don't get the most expensive EQ or the cheapest. Pick something middle of the road that appeals to your eye. That's right. Don't bother listening to it because it doesn't matter. Pick it because of how it looks and you'll be happy. Rinse and repeat with compressors. Whatever KVR.

lets face it, we're all music tech nerds here and love our little plugins!

[Dean Aka Nekro]

I would love to hear his summary on how all compressor topologies are left sounding the same or perish the thought 'Dynamic Equalization'

New in-depth guide due to drop soon:

"Kuntfest2000's Guide To Mastering Audio: The Arse And Silence"