How different are most digital EQ's other than GUI and preferance ?

[flowsnice]

I've been looking deeply into the world of EQ plugins and there seems to be a lot to choose from. I work in FL Studio so I have the stock from there plus a ton of free EQs. Id say its one of the most important tools in your tool kit so I really want to make sure I've got the best I can get. My question is, how different really is one EQ compared to the next? Should I have certain EQs for certain situations? Do two EQs with the exact same cuts and boost really produce a different sound? Because I haven't been able to tell much of a difference. It seems to me that the one that comes with my DAW works fairly well but I was wondering if there is any reason I would need anything else. They all seem pretty similar to me apart from the aesthetics and the ability to do the same thing just in a different way. Any thoughts.

[plexuss]

This is all IMO and what I understand, I am not an expert. When we say "digital EQ" we usually mean "linear phase" because using digital is the only way to get linear phase - hardware analogue EQs will always impart some amount of phase shift somewhere in the spectrum. with linear phase EQ one of the biggest issues is ringing. See https://cravedsp.com/blog/linear-phase-eq-explained

Linear phase EQs will generally sound the same if the curves are exactly the same. I think that there are 2 aspects to a linear phase EQ that can change the way they sound, outside of curve shape - the algorithm used and the way ringing may be mitigated in code. Like most things there are pros and cons, constrains and dependencies that restrict getting a "perfect" EQ. An EQ like DMG Equilibrium has options and parameters that are more technical than you usually see which allow you to adjust these pros/cons/etc to dial in the best sound. Also take a look at the Gearslutz thread on the possibly-abandonware Barratt Audio Equavescent for some deeper EQ insight

[Tappistry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OoVnTO3AB4

This is a bit of a long watch, but there's a lot of good information here.

[lajosuti]

Well there are those "regular" and linear phase eqs. Some plugins use full oversampling, some oversample just the diff caused by eqing, and some skip oversampling completely. Some does "decramping" around the nyquist frequency. Some are just pure digital plugins, and others try to model some analog eq with their special quirks and saturation.

[lajosuti]

Oh, and also: the bands can be applied in a parallel way (tdr nova explains it); also you can have a wet/dry control as well. So yeah, there are quite some different approaches.

[codec_spurt]

I don't know and I don't care. I just do this shit for fun.

But having said that, I bought an EQ the other day called Babylon - https://gramotech.co.uk/products/babylon/

And not only does it not work, they don't even reply to you when you send them an email to get an update. Totally locked out of my account. I was going to keep it, but I'm just going to get my money back as one KVR user pointed out in another EQ thread. Sad.



Talk about take the money and run. Ah well, I guess everyone knows now.

Shame, coz it was an interesting interface, and for a tenner, I was prepared to give them a bit of headspace.

But it's rude not even replying to an email weeks later.

All digitial EQs might be the same, but who cares? It's the interface, the behind the scenes processing.

If you want bang for your buck most correct EQ check out Crave EQ.

Also look at DDMF stuff. Low price, high quality.

ToneBoosters.

Get one or two for surgery.

One or two for creativity/sculpting.

One or two for fun/experimentation.

Just make sure you check out Voxengo as you go along.

[Cooker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OoVnTO3AB4

This is a bit of a long watch, but there's a lot of good information here.

Thats a really good one. Eq's to me are like preamps, they show themselves most when stacked in a mix so in realiry they hard to have a strong opinion. Mastering is another approach but very detailed monitors are needed.

But since there isn't a "bad" eq, it makes sense if workflow speed is considered most.

[do_androids_dream]

Very, very little. Which is why I choose an eq more based on how easy/fun it is to use - how quickly can I make the changes I want to make etc.

[Digivolt]

This is a bit of a long watch, but there's a lot of good information here.

That's a fantastic vid, thanks!

[sleepcircle]

the biggest differences pop up when they're made badly, at which point you get all kinds of wild stuff.

that said, a lot of people use different algorithms, different—like—"proportional Q", adaptive thingies, harmonics, different ways of calculating FIR functions.

[Tappistry]

The takeaway from the Worrall video for me was that although some stock EQs like ReaEQ can have some cramping issues at high frequencies, that it can be worked around in the mixing process relatively easily.

The value of aftermarket EQs lie in their improved features and workflow. Sound quality differences between digital EQs (ie ones that don't model a specific piece of hardware) are minimal or non-existent.

[Mr. Spock]

I agree, most of them sound very similar unless they have some special features like Equilibrium or different phase response (Crave or Magpha EQ) but just recently I believed I heard differences between some I own and some I demo. In the end I did null tests and HOFA; Voxengo Gliss, Melda and others sounded down to around -65dB the same. I was SO SURE that I heard Gliss being smoother than Melda. The GUI can also play tricks on me! I couldn't null Magpha Q, no matter what I tried.

In the end I took some time and configured my Melda EQ and Mautodynamic EQ in a way that they feel ideal (I just hate the extra 2 rows on the bottom and on the right. I wish Vojtech would give us the option to click them away )

So, if you read this Vojtech: PLEASE give us a small button on top (or where it fits) so we can enjoy an even more slick GUI (see attached file). Thanks

[MogwaiBoy]

Phase response, internal precision (no truncation), no low passing causing warping of the highest frequency curves, larger frequency range (ie: below 20hz, above 20khz) and higher accuracy (ie: 32.768hz vs 32.7hz)) are all things that set EQs apart in terms of sound. These things matter if you're using on every channel/bus and you care about sonic fidelity.

Then there's CPU, GUI and latency to consider.

Your DAW should have you reasonably covered in all the above areas. Otehrwise... Master-Q/Pro-Q all the way

[ATS]

Voxengo has a lot of neat approaches to different EQs.

[MogwaiBoy]

HarmonEQ is brilliant