If one has FF ProQ3, does one really need other EQs?

[Raddler1]

OP, I'd be looking to boost my EQ plugin folder with some carefully chosen offerings from the Acustica Audio catalogue. There is something special about those AA EQs that I can't get from my Pro-Q. Ever since I discovered AA EQs, I tend to use Pro-Q only for cutting. I have a few go-to AA EQs for mix duties, and a few for mastering. The CPU hit can be huge, and there are workflow issues but I'm fine with that as the sound is definitely worth it. The only thing is, if you haven't been exposed to AA plugins, it can be overwhelming at first due to the sheer number of products on offer.

So which AA eq's do you recommend?

For general mixing duties, my go-to AA EQs are Gold and Pink. I also reach for Viridian, Ruby. I have more AA EQ plugins, they are all great sounding, but I really aim to limit how many I use and Gold + Pink + Diamond EQ see the most action of all of them.

Sometimes I will try Diamond EQ on individual sources, but I mostly use it during mastering. The sound of Diamond EQ is so powerful, so immediately useful. Although, care is needed as it's easy to overdo things. So for mastering I alternate between Azure, Scarlet, Magenta, Ivory and Diamond EQ.

I don't have any of the latest releases. There are many that I haven't tried like Jade, Coffee, Blond, Camel, Cola, Erin, etc. Coffee is next on my list. Apparently it's the Chandler collection which includes the Chandler Limited Germanium Tone Control and the Curve Bender.

What I would also say is that all those EQs work depending on your program material, and as I have found out, there are instances where something like Pro-Q works just perfectly. Other times, on a different track, AA EQs will be preferred. The thing is, I don't want to waste time endlessly comparing which EQ is better for any given track/instrument, so I will automatically use certain AA EQs to 'boost' and Pro-Q to 'cut'.

But to summarise, at this point I wouldn't want to be without Gold (Neve), Pink (API) and Diamond EQ.

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to take some time to demo some of those you mentioned

[Michey]

OP, I'd be looking to boost my EQ plugin folder with some carefully chosen offerings from the Acustica Audio catalogue. There is something special about those AA EQs that I can't get from my Pro-Q. Ever since I discovered AA EQs, I tend to use Pro-Q only for cutting. I have a few go-to AA EQs for mix duties, and a few for mastering. The CPU hit can be huge, and there are workflow issues but I'm fine with that as the sound is definitely worth it. The only thing is, if you haven't been exposed to AA plugins, it can be overwhelming at first due to the sheer number of products on offer.

May I ask what is your working samplerate ?

[PieBerger]

OP, I'd be looking to boost my EQ plugin folder with some carefully chosen offerings from the Acustica Audio catalogue. There is something special about those AA EQs that I can't get from my Pro-Q. Ever since I discovered AA EQs, I tend to use Pro-Q only for cutting. I have a few go-to AA EQs for mix duties, and a few for mastering. The CPU hit can be huge, and there are workflow issues but I'm fine with that as the sound is definitely worth it. The only thing is, if you haven't been exposed to AA plugins, it can be overwhelming at first due to the sheer number of products on offer.

So which AA eq's do you recommend?

For general mixing duties, my go-to AA EQs are Gold and Pink. I also reach for Viridian, Ruby. I have more AA EQ plugins, they are all great sounding, but I really aim to limit how many I use and Gold + Pink + Diamond EQ see the most action of all of them.

Sometimes I will try Diamond EQ on individual sources, but I mostly use it during mastering. The sound of Diamond EQ is so powerful, so immediately useful. Although, care is needed as it's easy to overdo things. So for mastering I alternate between Azure, Scarlet, Magenta, Ivory and Diamond EQ.

I don't have any of the latest releases. There are many that I haven't tried like Jade, Coffee, Blond, Camel, Cola, Erin, etc. Coffee is next on my list. Apparently it's the Chandler collection which includes the Chandler Limited Germanium Tone Control and the Curve Bender.

What I would also say is that all those EQs work depending on your program material, and as I have found out, there are instances where something like Pro-Q works just perfectly. Other times, on a different track, AA EQs will be preferred. The thing is, I don't want to waste time endlessly comparing which EQ is better for any given track/instrument, so I will automatically use certain AA EQs to 'boost' and Pro-Q to 'cut'.

But to summarise, at this point I wouldn't want to be without Gold (Neve), Pink (API) and Diamond EQ.

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to take some time to demo some of those you mentioned

There is an unofficial list (link below) that the community keeps up to date, matching the original sampled hardware to Acustica's colour naming scheme. For example Purple = Pultec, Magenta = Manley, Pink = API etc.

https://justpaste.it/AcusticaAudioAcquaMasterList

[Igro]

If you have q3 then No, you don't need another one.
If you have Melda Dynamic EQ, then No, you don't need another one.

I like digital EQ. I don't need any character from the EQ, because I've got dedicated plugins for that. Character EQs were good maybe 20 years ago, now, i think, it's not that relevant anymore.

[Dombaeb]

EQ with fixed bands and without visual interface still relevant in mixing because they allow to stick to 3-4 key instrument frequency areas and tweak them using ears. Less distraction and more focus on musical context, this is important thing if you want to mix faster and better. I don’t need coloration as well but EQing with analog style EQ is still very useful.

But, of course, you don’t need more than one. My advice - choose one with no less than four bands and you’ll be set.

[dumbledog]

I certainly have never been working with Q-3 for non-character stuff and said to myself "Hm, I wonder if another non-character EQ would work better."

A non-character EQ is strictly utilitarian for me. Q-3 does the job, so I (and my muscle memory) don't see why I'd reach for another at this point.

[Trancit]

EQ with fixed bands and without visual interface still relevant in mixing because they allow to stick to 3-4 key instrument frequency areas and tweak them using ears.
...

And there you need a different EQ plugin for???

What about knowing these frequencies and dialing them into a normal parametric EQ...save them in a preset and just work with gain and Q on this preset...

[MogwaiBoy]

I agree a good analog emulated fixed-EQ with no visual is very useful in combination with something clean/digital like Pro-Q for more utilitarian uses.

[Dombaeb]

No doubts you can use stock DAW EQ all the way. From this view you don't even need Pro-Q. The main point is not only about setting up bands. Even if you do not pay attention to the fact that using such a preset is inconvenient, catch sight of without visual frequency analyzer you actually have to find these key bands, and make a decision faster judging by ears.

Anyway, you can work as you wish, I suppose you haven't tried to follow your own advice Good if it works for you. For me, 4-band analog style EQ is a very useful tool.

EQ with fixed bands and without visual interface still relevant in mixing because they allow to stick to 3-4 key instrument frequency areas and tweak them using ears.
...

And there you need a different EQ plugin for???

What about knowing these frequencies and dialing them into a normal parametric EQ...save them in a preset and just work with gain and Q on this preset...

[jonalyn]

i have Pro Q3 but voxengo primeeq is my favorite EQ, why ? i don t know but i love it.

[Ploki]

I have Pro-Q3 but recently been grabbing after Voxengo more and more. HarmoniEQ is my fav character EQ, now with additional lampthruster algos it's just gorgeous.
I have way more EQs than i actually use anyway (including all weiss) but in the end it's proq3 or HarmoniEQ most of the time