What's the difference in EQs?

[MogwaiBoy]

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

100% true and looking back on my own experience, I made way more music using stock plugins before I became obsessed with researching/hoarding 3rd party plugins. Save time and money and use stock plugins... maybe augment with a few select 3rd party pieces that cannot be replicated easily in the DAW (ie: Soothe / Trackspacer). Ahh, if I could go back and do it all again...

[escalona]

Warning! Long post!

---

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.)

---

Sure thing. First of all, when I am tempted to try the newest PA hyped eq, I get the trial version, then I fire up the DAW, load a song, A/B the new, shiny plugin with SlickEQ or Nova or... and then immediately I realize TDR is still sounding more pleasant and gives me all the flexibility the other one offers as well.
And then, when I'm not A/B-ing, I just use Pro Q3 just because it sounds as good as TDR and it's also faster for me and it has more bands. Can't get very surgical with SlickEQ. Only for mastering at times I abandon FF Pro Q3 and go with SlickEQ Mastering... or others (Acustica, Sonimus, Voxengo even)
Basically: something as simple (only on the surface) as SlickEQ makes me not fall into the trap of the new shiny eq. But then, for daily work, Pro Q3 is the usual workhorse for almost all tasks.
So to respond your opening question, "what's the difference in EQs?"... not much, just quality -make sure is well coded- and its usability (or workflow) is suited to your needs.

[Agreed]

I agree, it really comes down to what you connect with and can do the job you're trying to do quickly with. Not to say there isn't a place for colorful plugins or what have you, EQ is a task we need to do frequently and with precision and I prefer, myself, for that not to take very long so to me it's worth finding one you gel with in terms of workflow and getting comfortable using it a lot

[newjunkcity]

I agree, it really comes down to what you connect with and can do the job you're trying to do quickly with. Not to say there isn't a place for colorful plugins or what have you, EQ is a task we need to do frequently and with precision and I prefer, myself, for that not to take very long so to me it's worth finding one you gel with in terms of workflow and getting comfortable using it a lot

Agreed that this is the case for the vast majority of EQs, which, as already stated, seem to provide exactly the same simple impulse responses as one another. However some EQs seem to provide complex/stacked impulse response adjustment, i.e. 'preset' configurations of several bell curves summed together, affected by a single-band adjustment in the interface.

I'm not interested in discovering the differences in workflow between EQs with identical impulse responses. I think you'd have to try each one to find out what suits you. Yes, Fabfilter Pro-Q3, Sonible SmartEQ, most channel strips, etc. all have different workflows/interfaces, but if you set a single-band of the EQ to a particular frequency, and fiddle with the Q and amplitude settings, you can generally null one out against the other.

I am however interested in discovering EQs that provide the complex single-band adjustments noted above, i.e. single-band adjustments that would require multiple bands in, say, Pro-Q3, to achieve a null. Otherwise, the only difference is, indeed as you state, workflow and/or interface.

So far, following others suggestions as well as my own discoveries:

• Pultec (and thus any Pultec sim, e.g. Softube Tube-Tech, Black Rooster VEQ-1P, PA Bettermaker, etc.)
• PA Maag EQ 2/4
• DMG Audio EQality/EQuilibirum

[Ploki]

PA Maag doesn't need several bands to get null
it needs one band and global gain

[newjunkcity]

PA Maag doesn't need several bands to get null
it needs one band and global gain

Huh, you seem to be correct Sir!


I was missing the adjustment of global gain when I tried before...

[Ploki]

yeah, it's a sneaky PA trick to make the default just a tiny bit louder when doing "practically nothing". Makes it sound "better" just by loading the plugin.

iirc it's about 1.5dB for Maag

[Kinh]

Wha-tha-hell are you people ramblin' on about?