What's the difference in EQs?

[ramseysounds]

An Eq is an Eq. It cuts or boosts frequencies at different Q values. Others will disagree. Sure, some vst's have other functions, but they all do the same basic thing. Doesn't mean I don't have about 20 gotos

[jancivil]

I'm looking for transparent, the only difference for me has been steeper Q values in what I use. It's not something to throw money at, for some time, for me.

[MogwaiBoy]

I tend to think of mastering EQs as having a more limited (potentially even stepped) gain range, probably more gentle curves etc - typically minimum phase, mid/side ability helps and definitely no Nyquist cramping. The Dangerous BAX is a classic example. The hardware I mean, because the Plugin Alliance version doesn't even product harmonics

"Mastering grade" in analog is a real scientific thing, but in digital it is usually just marketing - I usually roll my eyes when I see it. Crave EQ, Equilibrium (64-bit double internal precision for starters) etc are way more "mastering grade" than most of those BS algorithms with fake hardware GUIs.

[ericzang]

Concerning phase changes and bell shape cramping behavior while approaching maximum frequency, I made a list for myself of various eqs' results after testing in PluginDoc. The behavior of 'Analog' phase mode of some eqs implies it is the ideal, due to the frequency and phase staying consistent while approaching max freq. My list of course is only a selection of eqs, but perhaps it may be useful for some:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1InG ... sp=sharing

[meloco_go]

An essential feature of the Mastering EQ in the analog domain is stepped or even switched parameter controls. This is needed for recall, and also high-quality rotary switches have simply better performance electronically.

In the digital domain, recall is instant, and most plugins allow simply typing in desired parameter values, so those factors are of no concern.

As for the question in the OP, many of the EQs he's mentioned have some analog modeling, which may (or may not) produce a noticeable difference in tone even with the EQ curve matched. But will it be a useful difference? I think the user themselves can only answer this question.
Depending on where you are on the trajectory of your personal growth and development as an audio engineer, you may want to limit your choices and spend time learning a few tools but on a very deep level.
Over time you may get bored and want a different-looking toy, which is normal too.
One thing is for sure IMO, now we have many excellent choices, and even stock DAW EQs can give professional sounding (if there is such a thing) results.

[Calagan]

The Slick EQM from Tokyo Dawn Labs is just amazing for mastering. Maybe it sounds different or better than Pro-Q 3, I don't know (I own them both), but I'm sure that the workflow is perfect for mastering duties : it has many great features (autogain being one of them) and the "feel" is perfect for subtles change.
And it's cheap.

[newjunkcity]

Warning! Long post!

---

An Eq is an Eq. It cuts or boosts frequencies at different Q values. Others will disagree. Sure, some vst's have other functions, but they all do the same basic thing. Doesn't mean I don't have about 20 gotos

I have to say that was my initial impression also (I even stated it). But it turns out that some EQs do offer different curve types, that would take several bands to emulate in Pro-Q for example. In testing, it turns out Maag EQ4 is one such example.

However, the vast majority of all other EQs I've tested have offered nothing different than the same standardised bell-curves as Pro-Q - I presume that it's because such a bell-curve is linked to a simple mathematical function, i.e. even on both sides, and with a standard curvature based on the Q setting. Whereas some of the cuts/boosts with Maag EQ4 seem to be effectively multiple bell-curve bands summed together.

This is what I'm looking for: an EQ that offers something different that would otherwise require me to create 3+ bands in other EQs. After all, it's possible to achieve pretty much everything with the default DAW tools, but the point of plug-ins (at least to me), is to provide quick/fast ways to implement changes that would otherwise require me to design something every time I want to use it (e.g. design a custom EQ curve using multiple bands; design a custom compressor with FF or with FB, custom attack/release curves; etc.).

---

Concerning phase changes and bell shape cramping behavior while approaching maximum frequency, I made a list for myself of various eqs' results after testing in PluginDoc. [...]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1InG ... sp=sharing

Great information, thanks for sharing

---

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

I'll test that one out.

---

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.

I'm curious - what is it about Tokyo Dawn Labs EQ that prevents you purchasing, and why do you go back to Pro-Q instead afterwards? (I presume that if TDR was good enough to prevent you from purchasing another EQ, you would use TDR instead of Pro-Q.)

---

Crave EQ, Equilibrium (64-bit double internal precision for starters) etc are way more "mastering grade" than most of those BS algorithms with fake hardware GUIs.

I've got to say, after doing some further research yesterday, DMG Audio's EQuilibrium looks like just the ticket. As easy to use as Pro-Q, but with several different curve types available (which is exactly what I was looking for), replicating older equipment.

---

[cron]

... can I achieve the same end-results with any of these plug-ins?

IMO the salient question is not whether you can, but whether you will.

A mate of mine talks about an engineer he worked with who would, completely blind, issue absurdly specific EQ instructions (e.g. cut a thin 1.5 dB notch at 740 Hz) which always turned out be transformatively brilliant judgements. If you're this guy (I know I'm not) then sure, all EQs are the same. For the rest of us, the make-up artists to his plastic surgeon, I think it's how EQs behave when used in a looser, more general sense that makes up the bulk of the difference between them.

I mentioned something similar in another thread, but I think sonic qualities ascribed to various EQs are really workflow qualities in disguise. An EQ is described as 'musical' because it doesn't get in the way of making music, it's set up by default in a way which guides you toward desired results quickly, whether through stepped parameters, nicely chosen built-in curves, or anything else. Until you're issuing 1.5 dB notches at 740 Hz without looking at a screen, that's a very useful quality for an EQ to have.

[newjunkcity]

... can I achieve the same end-results with any of these plug-ins?

IMO the salient question is not whether you can, but whether you will.

I perhaps wasn't particularly clear when I wrote that. I mean, I can theoretically achieve the same end-results as any other EQ, using the native EQs and compressors in my DAW, multiple buses/sends, and some kind of saturation. It'll just take hours of my time, when I'd rather be designing the sound than designing a new EQ.

I don't remember where I heard it, but someone was saying that while they certainly think that Waves H-Reverb is a great reverb - clean and consistent - to get the results they want, they'd have to use a couple of instances of H-Reverb, with sends, and a compressor in front. Whereas Valhalla can achieve the same thing with a single-click.

What I really meant to ask was if any of the EQs I listed produce different curve types with a single-band, or if any of them have bands that interact between themselves in a way that is interesting and different from the other plug-ins. ...because as far as I can work out, there's nothing special about most EQs, they're identical (save some saturation differences), with the exact same simple curve types.

[ramseysounds]

If you're just mixing for music, I'd suggest you're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Mix a track with your convoluted method and then just mix a track using your standard DAW EQ. Show me in the fullness of a mix that you can hear the difference. If I was you, I'd just concentrate on getting music done

[newjunkcity]

If you're just mixing for music, I'd suggest you're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm not looking for solutions, I have no problem to solve as such

I'm just always curious to expand my paintbox, and if there's a particular colour or shade that allows me to achieve something different more easily, in spite of the fact that I could make it myself using several other paints mixed together, then I'm at least interested in trying it out.

What I'm not interested in is having three versions of exactly the same colour green, each costing the same as an easel.

[AGIGA]

... can I achieve the same end-results with any of these plug-ins?

IMO the salient question is not whether you can, but whether you will.

I perhaps wasn't particularly clear when I wrote that. I mean, I can theoretically achieve the same end-results as any other EQ, using the native EQs and compressors in my DAW, multiple buses/sends, and some kind of saturation. It'll just take hours of my time, when I'd rather be designing the sound than designing a new EQ.

I don't remember where I heard it, but someone was saying that while they certainly think that Waves H-Reverb is a great reverb - clean and consistent - to get the results they want, they'd have to use a couple of instances of H-Reverb, with sends, and a compressor in front. Whereas Valhalla can achieve the same thing with a single-click.

What I really meant to ask was if any of the EQs I listed produce different curve types with a single-band, or if any of them have bands that interact between themselves in a way that is interesting and different from the other plug-ins. ...because as far as I can work out, there's nothing special about most EQs, they're identical (save some saturation differences), with the exact same simple curve types.

Maybe passive EQ designs like SPL Passeq or SPL EQ Ranger Plus are what you are searching for.
starts at 0:40

[gaggle of hermits]

A mate of mine talks about an engineer he worked with who would, completely blind, issue absurdly specific EQ instructions (e.g. cut a thin 1.5 dB notch at 740 Hz) which always turned out be transformatively brilliant judgements.

the brain is really good at pattern matching. i'm going to make the wild guess that in these situations these were known problems he'd seen, er, heard before - for example, i wouldn't be surprised if it was guitar and that the instruction was because this was a quick way of dealing with a resonant frequency for a Fender or Marshall speaker cab.

I mentioned something similar in another thread, but I think sonic qualities ascribed to various EQs are really workflow qualities in disguise. An EQ is described as 'musical' because it doesn't get in the way of making music, it's set up by default in a way which guides you toward desired results quickly, whether through stepped parameters, nicely chosen built-in curves, or anything else.

totally agree. the maag eqs have crazy default curves even with nothing turned up or down, which tend to make people think they sound good "just turned on". the fact they make stuff slightly louder also helps.

and sometimes it's quicker and easier to use the predefined eqs because setting up the curves in Pro-Q happens to be a bit of a faff (though there's nothing stopping the engineer from creating some presets and just tweaking the frequency and gain).

the extreme of that is where the original circuitry, generally in passive implementations, has quirks that mean the controls interact with each other - the famous example being the Pultec. unless you've got a really good idea of what the Pultec does at every combination, it's just easier to load up an emulation than a full parametric.

[ghettosynth]

I mentioned something similar in another thread, but I think sonic qualities ascribed to various EQs are really workflow qualities in disguise.

Exactly so.

[newjunkcity]

[...]the maag eqs have crazy default curves even with nothing turned up or down
[...]
the extreme of that is where the original circuitry, generally in passive implementations, has quirks that mean the controls interact with each other - the famous example being the Pultec. unless you've got a really good idea of what the Pultec does at every combination, it's just easier to load up an emulation than a full parametric.

This is exactly what I was asking about!

In effect, if there are any of the 'mastering' EQs that offer such behaviour: something fun, exciting, interesting, unusual or unique (while still being consistent).

I was curious about these plug-ins specifically to begin with, but I'm more than open to other suggestions. DMG Audio EQuilibrium, and Tokyo Dawn Labs Slick EQ M seem to be great suggestions thus far.

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

I've scratched the PA plug-ins from my list, as after testing, they all just do bog standard EQ curves.