What's the difference in EQs?

[newjunkcity]

I've recently been looking at several 'mastering' EQ plug-ins.

As far as I can work out, the word 'mastering' doesn't really mean anything in particular, just that the EQ is more apt to the task of mastering than, say, a very basic 3 band EQ. (i.e. More bands than normal, sum and difference (M/S) channels, etc.), in the same way that a GML 8200 is perhaps more apt to mastering than a Pultec. I can't see anything that indicates these EQs can't/shouldn't be used on strips.

It seems to me that an EQ is an EQ is an EQ, and as long as they're well-coded (e.g. don't introduce aliasing, offer neutral phase, etc.), most of them are functionally identical. While each might offer some kind of subtle saturation, I'm not convinced that Fabfilter Pro-Q plus a saturation plug-in wouldn't achieve exactly the same thing. Yes, the interfaces are different, and thus might lead to different creative decisions, but can I achieve the same end-results with any of these plug-ins?

What are the differences between these (if any) in the end-results?

• Fabfilter Pro-Q
• PA AMEK 200
• PA Brainworx bx_digital V3
• PA Brainworx bx_2098 EQ
• Softube Chandler Limited Curve Bender
• UAD Manley Passive

Following a Dan Worrall video yesterday, if I've understood correctly, the parallel nature of these EQs should allow for different (and perhaps more interesting) EQ curves when multiple cuts or multiple boosts overlap:

• Tokyo Dawn Labs Nova GE
• Kush Audio Clariphonic DSP MkII

[Havok]

I think a lot of what makes something a "mastering EQ" (apart from aiming for the highest sound quality possible) is the workflow. Wide curves and a limited gain range so higher level of control. So a "mastering EQ" might only have 6dB of gain while a "Standard EQ" would have 18dB+.
Obviously not all of them follow this and some will just get the "mastering" label for marketing etc

[Trancit]

It´s hard to tell in general...
If we talk about filter curves it´s not just about being steep or wide... there are all kinds of more "weird" behaviour how the filter behaves to produce a "smoother" or more "musical" result...
If you just have a look into the manual of TDR´s Slick EQ how the different filter´s behave it gives a little bit of insight...

Is this really necessary??
Not sure...
At the very end with a good coded digital EQ (which are at least 99% of all available) you will be able to achieve the same result in a good quality...
Besides minor enhancements it´s more about how quick you get the wished results with less user interaction...

I guess that´s what "specialized" plugins are aimed at...
The filtering procedure (the final result a user wants to end up with) for certain tasks is mostly the same and with some clever designed filter curves and behaviour whilst being adjusted you can simplify a lot and doing with one band where you would need normally 2 or 3 bands for to reach the same...
This not only saves time but enables even more unexperienced users to come up with acceptable results...

But other than that I would guess all digital EQ´s are more or less the same and with one you will be able to do what the others do if you know how to use it properly...

[newjunkcity]

I think a lot of what makes something a "mastering EQ" (apart from aiming for the highest sound quality possible) is the workflow. Wide curves and a limited gain range so higher level of control.

That's a great observation. That being said, would there be any point in purchasing multiple 'mastering' EQs?

If we talk about filter curves it´s not just about being steep or wide... there are all kinds of more "weird" behaviour how the filter behaves to produce a "smoother" or more "musical" result...

[...]with some clever designed filter curves and behaviour whilst being adjusted you can simplify a lot and doing with one band where you would need normally 2 or 3 bands for to reach the same...

Actually I think this hits at the crux of my question:

• Do different plug-ins actually offer special EQ curve types that can't be easily recreated in Fabfilter Pro-Q (or at least not without using 3+ bands combined)? Or are they just mostly standard bell-shaped bands with Q adjustment?
• If the different plug-ins, let's say Softube Chandler Limited Curve Bender and UAD Manley Passive, do offer specialised EQ curves, are they significantly different enough from one another to justify purchasing both?

[newjunkcity]

I would add, that in testing a couple of the above plug-ins, I can't hear any difference, at least not with my ears!

Some would say 'That's all that matters.', but I'm still interested if anyone has any knowledge to impart: both objective and subjective.

I've tried playing noise through each of them, and comparing the results in SPAN, but I can't see any differences either. Seeing as some of these plug-ins cost more than a decent snare, I'm wondering if there's more to it than just marketing and brand names...

[kPere]

There are a few things to consider. But if you watched Dan Worrall videos you probably know what its about. To point it out, there are a few things that EQs differ:
-some do cramping (higher frequencies tend to lean to a cutoff point at nyquist), what is pretty much a bad thing
-there are different behaviours when it comes to handling phase (linear, minimum phase)
-UI and workflow
-additional features like tilting, saturation, dynamics, mono etc.

And different curves of course, thats a wide topic, but yeah most can be replicated in Pro-Q I guess, its about workflow and intuitiveness though mostly, sometimes its good to be limited for example, sometimes just the opposite, in eg. Slick EQ M, its parallel equing (if Im not mistaken), so thats something different too - it has some nice options to adjust to human hearing curve or when it was mixed on low volumes frequency-curve that we perceive is different, it is able to replicate it and adjust. Over all, I'd consider it a great example of Mastering EQ. But you can do it manually on ReaEQ as well probably.

[newjunkcity]

there are a few things that EQs differ:
-some do cramping (higher frequencies tend to lean to a cutoff point at nyquist), what is pretty much a bad thing
-there are different behaviours when it comes to handling phase (linear, minimum phase)
-UI and workflow
-additional features like tilting, saturation, dynamics, mono etc.

These are all very valid points. I'd like to think (or at least I hope!) that most of the 'mastering' EQs that cost a pretty-penny have mitigated any cramping and/or aliasing issues. Is the only real audible difference going to be subtle saturation then? (Keeping aside dynamic EQing for the moment... Dynamics control is a whole other can of worms, and they do all seem to have their own character, but then there are a lot more variables involved compared to static EQing.)

And different curves of course, thats a wide topic, but yeah most can be replicated in Pro-Q I guess,

I guess I'm just asking if anyone is aware of any of these premium EQs having custom EQ curves that aren't just the same standard bells offered by most EQs? I mean, I could trial all of them and test, but if someone already knows the answer, I'd be grateful!

As @trancit pointed out:

you can simplify a lot and doing with one band where you would need normally 2 or 3 bands for to reach the same...

As an example, I find it very hard to replicate the curves on Maag EQ4 with Fabfilter - it's possible, but takes at least three bands and time. In that respect, I find Maag EQ4 to be somewhat different, and worth purchasing.

However, as far as I can tell, AMEK 200 and bx_digital V3 both offer standard bell curves. Do any of the higher-tier 'mastering' plug-ins I named have special EQ curves? Or are they just selling on their 'saturation du jour' aspect?

[mixtur.se]

I think a lot of what makes something a "mastering EQ" (apart from aiming for the highest sound quality possible) is the workflow. Wide curves and a limited gain range so higher level of control. So a "mastering EQ" might only have 6dB of gain while a "Standard EQ" would have 18dB+.
Obviously not all of them follow this and some will just get the "mastering" label for marketing etc

And stepped controls typically

[mixtur.se]

There’s been multiple blind shoot outs and it appears that you can make any digital eq:s nul, assuming curves can be setup to match. A full spec EQ (curves, algorithms etc) like like fabfilter can probably match the curves of 99% of all digital EQ:s out there so that’s probably all you’ll ever need. The only difference would be workflow, and as mentioned saturation in some cases.

By the way, I’ve done the same with compressors and have been able to almost nul out most of them against something like waves Rcomp.

[newjunkcity]

it appears that you can make any digital eq:s nul, assuming curves can be setup to match.

I find it very hard to replicate the curves on Maag EQ4 with Fabfilter - it's possible, but takes at least three bands and time. In that respect, I find Maag EQ4 to be somewhat different, and worth purchasing.

In your experience, have you found any EQs that do have more 'interesting' curves by default, with a single-band, than the same bell curves you'd find on Fabfilter?
Even if they can be matched (as proven by a null test) with several bands in Fabfilter, I'm specifically interested in finding EQs that have these kinds of equalisation curves straight 'out-of-the-box'.

[imrae]

SlickEQ M has an interesting and useful "equal-loudness" curve in the tilt section.

[Bodhisan]

u-he's Q is, to me, really different. Does anyone have input as to the pros of how it's designed?

[Agreed]

A lot of EQs can damn near null. Some have one of a kind features. I love Voxengo GlissEQ for the specific way its dynamic harmonic peaking bands behave especially, and how easily tuned the dynamic behavior is, plus my own long familiarity with it as a tool. So I tend to use it a lot. I'd like to get to know TDR's Nova EQ GE a bit better, though, I got it on a really nice sale but I haven't dug into it as much despite being excited about what it could do "on paper."

[tibah]

Interesting topic, as I also recently got into comparing some EQs again, to see if there was a need for a new tool. There are quite a few comparisons around, using DDMF Plugindoctor and alike tools as well. You could use that and see what an EQ actually does to the signal and then try to emulate or get close and decide for yourself. But, as already mentioned, most of it comes down to pre-set curves and a little saturation and how much you like/dislike the UI.

I prefer EQs with fixed frequency bands and a few went on sale. I compared them against my go-to EQ. In the end I didn't buy any, because I like the way I can work with my main EQ. I keep TB Equalizer around for the times I need to do more surgical things and the duo I use is enough for me.

[escalona]

Every time I'm tempted to buy a new EQ, I put a process in motion:

• load anything in my DAW

• get any TDR EQ

• force myself to spend at least 5 mins on it.

Consistent results: No purchase, I always save money.

...then I go back to my mixes and keep using Pro Q3.