What do you think about freeware parametric eqs vs. paid ones
- AcousticHippie
- 4769 posts since 12 Mar, 2003
The price doesn’t matter. If it sounds good it sounds good.
If I had no EQ I would get ToneBoosters Pro EQ and be done with it.
Personally I use Safari Pedals DragonEQ or Kazrog True 252 if I need something quick or IK‘s EQual for something more surgical.
If I had no EQ I would get ToneBoosters Pro EQ and be done with it.
Personally I use Safari Pedals DragonEQ or Kazrog True 252 if I need something quick or IK‘s EQual for something more surgical.
-
- KVRian
- 1177 posts since 2 Oct, 2021
The sound of modern non-saturating IIR eqs ist mostly identical.
If you don't think so make some ABX tests.
If price would be a concern to me nowadays I would go with ZL Equalizer.
Lotsa nice functionalities beyond ReaEQ.
If you don't think so make some ABX tests.
If price would be a concern to me nowadays I would go with ZL Equalizer.
Lotsa nice functionalities beyond ReaEQ.
ABX is enemy to GAS
-
- KVRAF
- 8705 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
I'm with whassup. Personally I think Eqs is one of the main areas where hype and smoke&mirrors are strongest. I can rarely hear much difference between any digital Eqs whether free or 100s of $s. Though I fully admit to not being an Eq afficionado, and actually don't use Eq that much. I can absolutely hear stark differences between desk Eqs, but a great deal of that is down to bandwidth and choice of frequencies between different brands. But if you put me in front of a UAD Pultec emu or a DAW stock Eq I doubt I could tell you which is which. A lot of money is wasted on Eq plugins IMO, though obvs others' opinions will differ.
Obvs things like saturation will make quite a difference, and many Eqs use different saturation algos, so I can see how they'd be different - but for me, I don't want distortion on my Eq. I just fail to understand why anyone would, but horses for courses as ever
. Why would I spend hours carefully sculpting a clean sound just to f**k it up by distorting it? I'm a heathen, I admit it... 
Obvs things like saturation will make quite a difference, and many Eqs use different saturation algos, so I can see how they'd be different - but for me, I don't want distortion on my Eq. I just fail to understand why anyone would, but horses for courses as ever
-
- KVRAF
- 1791 posts since 17 Sep, 2002
the differences in eq are mostly going to be about features and workflow, rather than sound. so pick one with an interface you like and that does the things you want in a way that is comfortable, quick, and intuitive. a free EQ might sound perfectly fine but a nice paid one might have a more refined experience in terms of features, design, and more stringent quality assurance in development.
- KVRAF
- 20812 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
People like the FabFilter because it makes it easy to get good results. Most of the others, for better or worse, require you to do the work.
-
- KVRist
- 148 posts since 16 Sep, 2023
A free parametric / visual EQ like ZL Equalizer is perfectly fine.
There may be some commercial parametric / visual EQs that have a slightly more sophisticated sound engine. Crave EQ for example has some modes that avoid the typical problems of digital EQs by cleverly combining linear phase and minimum phase technology, giving a more "analog" like sound experience.
I also use the CM version of Overtone AF2-10 quite frequently, because I found it has a smooth analog quality that I did not find in most digital parametric EQs. The company is now named Applied Computer Music Technologies
Another great sounding freeware EQ is TDR Slick EQ. It's not fully parametric, but rather a quick set-and-forget mixing / console EQ.
Summary: for the most part there is no difference between parametric freeware and commercial EQs, but some EQs (freeware / payware / magware) have a slightly more refined sound engine under the hood, that goes beyond bog-standard digital filters.
There may be some commercial parametric / visual EQs that have a slightly more sophisticated sound engine. Crave EQ for example has some modes that avoid the typical problems of digital EQs by cleverly combining linear phase and minimum phase technology, giving a more "analog" like sound experience.
I also use the CM version of Overtone AF2-10 quite frequently, because I found it has a smooth analog quality that I did not find in most digital parametric EQs. The company is now named Applied Computer Music Technologies
Another great sounding freeware EQ is TDR Slick EQ. It's not fully parametric, but rather a quick set-and-forget mixing / console EQ.
Summary: for the most part there is no difference between parametric freeware and commercial EQs, but some EQs (freeware / payware / magware) have a slightly more refined sound engine under the hood, that goes beyond bog-standard digital filters.
- KVRian
- 1499 posts since 7 Jun, 2021
This !funky lime wrote: Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:30 am the differences in eq are mostly going to be about features and workflow, rather than sound.
focus on the features. check if you think the wokflow might be yours. chose from there.
personally i think SW-based EQs are the spearhead of todays EQs and whats all around.
"Plugin has turned Drug now"....and the business knows it.
- KVRAF
- 14196 posts since 20 Nov, 2003 from Lost and Spaced
Another vote for the Overtone one. It's thick and rich. I also use the Native Instruments Solid EQ but it's kind of band limited.
- KVRAF
- 5549 posts since 26 Apr, 2007 from Noosphere
Every DAW already have a parametric EQ. So with everything being equal, there is no difference. It just a workflow and additional features that make a difference (dynamic EQ, analog curves and so on). (Though I myself stopped using parametric EQs altogether, because I was wasting too much time tweaking "the right sound". Console style EQs are my choice these days).
