Best workhorse EQ

[Distorted Horizon]

Stock eq

[Starship Krupa]

Since I mostly use Cakewalk, the Quadcurve EQ built into the console is my usual go-to, but platform agnostic would most definitely be Meldaproduction MEQualizer.

I have some dynamic EQ's and things that are powerhouses, like Newfangled EQuivocate, but you said "workhorse," not "powerful tool that's great when I have the need for it."

[SteveWZ]

I have a lot of EQs and tend to cycle and test them often.

Having said that, the one that has become a regular is FabFilter Pro-Q 3.

Sounds good and has some great features.

[christian f.]

Pro Q3 no debate

[Daimonicon]

Frequency, stock EQ in Cubase.

[mucknog]

Pro Q3 no debate

Just now I am comparing Pro-Q and EQ4. I seems to me that they can do more or less the same. I can't hear a difference in sound. The biggest difference seems to be the GUI, and I don't prefer either one.
So the question is... what can Pro-Q do better to warrant 110€ higher price?
Cheers

[ATN69]

LVC audio - Toned MAX, is a nice and well featured EQ as well. At sale for $25 right now.

[elxsound]

Pro Q3 no debate

Just now I am comparing Pro-Q and EQ4. I seems to me that they can do more or less the same. I can't hear a difference in sound. The biggest difference seems to be the GUI, and I don't prefer either one.
So the question is... what can Pro-Q do better to warrant 110€ higher price?
Cheers

Unless you’re buying an EQ modeled from old hardware gear full of harmonic distortion and “musical” curves, they should sound the same.

Pro-Q3 is a great tool if you do lots EQ work on the fly (workflow is very well thought out). Full screen mode is one of my favorites features.
Then there’s the EQ match, dynamic EQ, EQ spectrum info from all instances of Pro-Q3 on other tracks along with frequency collision visual cues.
Honestly, this is a very deep tool and with the features they add on, I tend to think they’re looking more at Izotope‘s tools, than just being another EQ.

It might not be worth the price to you and there’s nothing wrong with that, but this is a very well thought out EQ.

[christian f.]

Thanks elxsound !
I couldn't have explained it better myself

[mucknog]

Thank you for your reply. Appreciate it.
Just a little background. I'm searching for an all around workhorse EQ which is low on CPU usage so I can slap it on every track. I need dynamic EQ, M/S (L/R) channel separation, 0 latency option <-> switch to HQ oversampling, linear phase option.
Right now I'm using several different freeware EQs and DAW EQ (ReaEQ). The main problem is that using so many EQs for different tasks totally kill my workflow. I want to reduce decision making. Just grab one EQ and be done with it.
After searching and comparing, it came down to Pro-Q and EQ4. As I understand both can do what I want. But before I spend some money I wanna be sure.

Unless you’re buying an EQ modeled from old hardware gear full of harmonic distortion and “musical” curves, they should sound the same.

I don't really understand what that means, can you elaborate?

Pro-Q3 is a great tool if you do lots EQ work on the fly (workflow is very well thought out). Full screen mode is one of my favorites features.
Then there’s the EQ match, dynamic EQ, EQ spectrum info from all instances of Pro-Q3 on other tracks along with frequency collision visual cues.
Honestly, this is a very deep tool and with the features they add on, I tend to think they’re looking more at Izotope‘s tools, than just being another EQ.

EQ4 seems to be able to do all that, too. What am I missing?

[mucknog]

EQ spectrum info from all instances of Pro-Q3

You're right EQ4 can't do that.

EDIT

Full screen mode is one of my favorites features.

True. EQ4 can resize but has no fullscreen mode.

[christian f.]

I don't really understand what that means, can you elaborate?

One doesn't sound better than the other. They're not meant to have a sound as opposed to a vintage style colored eq.

EQ is something i ALWAYS use on every single track and this workflow is perfect for me.
It might not be worth the price to you or perhaps you're not impressed by the workflow.
That's a personal thing.

[mucknog]

It might not be worth the price to you or perhaps you're not impressed by the workflow.
That's a personal thing.

I absolutely agree that a big factor is personal taste. But I'm not looking for opinion, I'm simply trying to put together a pro and con list to make an educated decision.
About the workflow thing... I don't really get what the difference is between Pro-Q and EQ4. It's absolutely the same. You click into the graph, choose an filter type, set parameters & add dynamics if you like.

[andymcbain]

Toneboosters Equalizer 4 seems awesome but do you guys think its worth buying if I have the TDR Nova GE?

I would say yes on the basis of the CPU usage. Toneboosters EQ4 is very efficient.

Plus it sounds clean (or can even sound dirty with the circuit emulation), is very quick to dial in dynamic bands, has optional oversampling and only costs 39 euros. Sits on every track now!

[elxsound]

@mucknog, my advice would be to go with ToneBoosters' EQ4. They're an excellent company (I've bought from them before, last being in 2012 for the their loudness meter, that is now bundled).

There are times when I'd suggest paying more and "buying once" but in this case, ToneBoosters' EQ4 is going to provide most of what anybody should need from an EQ, plus much more including more than ProQ3 with analog modeled "circuit simulation" on EQ4.

When you are seeing the remarks fro Pro-Q, please keep in mind that Fabfilter presented that look/GUI/workflow first, followed by updates that later added in features found in other plugins (which I think is fair considering how much IMO was borrowed from the first Pro-Q) alongside some things not found in other plugins. What I'm saying is that to be fair, companies like TB as often with many of his plugins, have caught up quite a bit narrowing the differences immensely and in TBs case, still provided affordably.

You asked about workflow, and the major difference is that when adding nodes on Pro-Q3, there is a mini box that pops up to quickly make changes, responsive to mouse wheel adjustment for shape, or responsive to Q adjustments over the node (which I think is now pretty much standard) and then additional drop down options for choosing channel placement vs. splitting a node into either M/S or L/R (which is a great time saving feature).

This is the pop-up box when clicking on any nodes:


Additionally, there's also an option to listen to the band created (which again I don't believe to be unique anymore).

These things are not going to be worth it for everyone. Even in mixing, many people will have pre-dialed in settings for different instrument types that mostly just need fine tuning followed by EQ cuts for correction.

The ability to see spectrum analysis of other instances of Pro-Q3 is one of my favorite features, but its not necessary (having worked without it for so many years, its not essential but still great to visually see what I'm hearing). The same thing goes for the frequency collision information... great to see, but not essential. Fabfilter still did a great job. Its not perfect though... If coming back to a saved project, I usually have to open each instance of ProQ3 before the information shows up, but it works.