Here's the list of EQs I use for everything.

6144, Pro-Q, Equality, SlickEQ.

It is advisable to use at least one EQ that hasn't got a visual curve so you are forced to use ears. That's how you train your ears for mixing, too. Eyes play tricks on you, that's why I love 6144 so much and the sound is top-notch.

 

Good point.

Regarding LinPhase-Mode "Equality" vs. "ProQ" (you surely meant 2?) - can you estimate whether Equality has advantages over ProQ? E.g. less pre-ringing?
I have 2 LP EQs: LP10-DDMF (low-budget - pre ringing like hell and sometimes glichtes to hear in Ableton if latency isn't set to an extreme value) and ProQ2 (less but sometimes still notable pre ringing and no glitches).
Do you think Equality is worth a try when already having ProQ?

 

Good question, but I am biased towards EQuality because I trust Dave Gamble too much, so I don't think my answer would be fair.
My biased mind tells me that EQuality sounds a bit better, and I use it generally in "analogue mode" as I'm too used to a "more natural sound" I get that way. [to tell the truth, what is "more natural" EQ actually? lol]

I'm not too fond of LP EQs. Only for mastering "touchy tracks", and when I master I tend to not boost too much, and I go for cutting first. Within +-6dB, gentle curves - broad Q, so pre-ringing is not an issue. However, when you have a cocked-up mix, then you can't avoid using steeper curves, and if possible I would always change the mix rather than correct it with mastering. It always sounds better that way.

Trying to be fair and unbiased - I think it's not worth it to have both, especially if you're on a tight budget. I'm sure more people like Pro-Q[2] more for one reason or the other. It's kinda like comparing BMW and Mercedes. Between DDMF LP10 and either of these the answer is obvious, though.

Not saying that LP10 is so bad, though. You must admit that the difference is very slight. Any LP EQ if used sensibly can sound good. Meaning: using gentle curves and low boosts/cuts.

 

Last edited: Mar 21, 2017

Errorjan, natural phase from pro q2 can be done with dmg equilibrium settings, and you can null phases to lower than -100 db. It means, equilibrium is much more than pro-q2.
Equilibrium is much more adjustable than Pro-q2.
Read more gearslutz and do your own test.
What I like in pro q2 is some curves and gui interface. I use both. Equilibrium is super pro.

 

Yes, Pro-Q feels really nice to work with. I love the GUI of all Fabfilter plugins. So functional and easy to see everything. No lameass 3D perspective. Pro-Q is the best easy to use and visual EQ there is. I like the new "Natural Phase", yep. Similar to EQuality "analogue mode".

 

Yeah I also love the natural phase mode of Q2 - even when it's a compromise (there is still a pretty amount of phase shift, but nearly no latency).

And thanks, Sine Wave, for your answer. I was thinking so.. Especially becuase everybody is saying Q2 is "the best".. I really *would* use more LP EQing, but the latency is horrible. Having say 10 instances in Ableton... Pressing space to play the track... Waiting 3 seconds... Forget that LP EQs cause the latency... Pressing space again since you think you don't hit the key exactly in the moment the track starts playing... and stopping after 3 more seconds again ;-)

But for mastering, it's in my opionion really worth to use one on the master bus. The pre-ringing on the first beat can be deleted by hand^^ (and from then on, the ringing is so silent that it is hided by the track volume itself - at least after my experience)

Cheers.

 

Good point, thanks. I will have a look. I know that there is one LP EQ plugin out there that uses a different approach than "the rest" (something like "forward and reverse IIR at same time" instead of time consuming FIR). I'm looking forward whether Equilibrium are the ones using this technique.

EDIT: I mean DMG not Equilibrium.

 

i used to use analog eq's , now i break down to what the signal chain would be for the eq and build it up from scratch with separate vst or hardware units in order to have more fine control over the effect it has on the sound ( except for them rare occasions that a analog eq is going to do exactly what i specifically need at that moment ( 1 out a million times)

i notice many people just stacking vst on tracks and they dont even pay attention to what should actually be done to the track next or what is wrong with it, or if it even needs anything at all!
i believe it is much more valuable to pay attention to what you exactly need to do to the track at any moment in time , then reach for a tool that will do exactly that or stack vst or hardware to achieve what is needed at that moment

 

i feel like using eq at all is a rare occurrence when it was not mic'ed correctly in the first place or i am trying to do some weird effect.
i have seen many people that eq every track for some strange reason and cut big chunks out and bandpass each track, notice in the end their mix sounds dead and lifeless? that is why.

 

I'm also not a fan of putting EQs everywhere (I used to do so).. Especially not to lowcut the lows by default on all tracks, like everybody does in YouTube tuts.. I bet if they really know what they are doing (shifting the phase of the entire spectrum; each area differently - and based on the instument removing the punch and/or thickness [or, when lucky, adding it ^^]), many would rethink it or better really have a closer look at each individual usage situation.
There is also a difference whether to just using a 6/12db notch to add some few db of brightness/whatever with neutral Q rather than cutting low or high end with a 96db/oct filter with extreme Q settings.
Of course also of importance is the type of filter one uses. A bi-quad butterworth IIR filter is the most common. But at all, there is based on the nature of physics no realtime filter (except FIR ones with latency) that does not shift the phase (until somebody finds a way how to make signals time traveling xD), which is the reason why overusing EQs is not recommended.

 

Equilibrium is incredible, but it's just not as user friendly as ProQ 2 in a mix situation. I even prefer Equality over Equilibrium. What's nice about Equality is, that it has these handles at the bottom of the spectrum analyser to zoom into the frequency you want to edit. That's not possible with ProQ 2 afaik.

 

Yes that was mentioned *somewhere* in this thread. Still need to check it out.

BTW: Are there filters that not only show the in/out signals, but also the amount of phase shift/magnitude they cause? Like shown in this video:

(see @9:00)

Unfortunately, the genial tool shown in the video ("Christian Budde's analyzer") which compares the difference of a signal after it comes out of an effect plugin is only available in 32 bit. And I don't know another comparsion tool which is able to measure the desired parameters.

It would be really cool if such a plugin exists (and somebody here knows it - win 64bit VST) :0)

 

Last edited: Mar 22, 2017

You can host a jBridged 64bit plugin in VST Analyzer. Just tested it myself and it works.

 

Wow so many list of EQ...
I don't try all of them yet, but so far I stick to FabFilter ProQ2 for Mixing and Mastering...
Sometimes I use BX Digital v2, because it's very wide...

Yes, I think it would be nice if so many list that categorizing in several type...but thanks for the list...

 

there is a problem here and thats the emulations doesnt present the original deviece

 

Within certain tolerances, the devices being emulated do not sound the same from unit to unit with identical settings. They don't even sound the same after a year or so, and if you get old analog devices re-caped and serviced they will always come back sounding a bit different. They are tolerances, the curves and interaction between a push and pull tend to remain similar, but it will differ in sound.

We are all very luck and we love to poopoo digital, when back in the day when there was only analog devices - engineers used to dream about the stability, reliability, and recall that digital offers up.

Just use your ears, and make a sound that you like. That is all that matters in the end.

Also, if something doesn't sound right try not to blame the tool right away. Just because the nail isn't going in as straight as you like, it doesn't mean the hammer you are hitting it with is faulty.

 

I can totally agree with what the above poster is saying.
When I started making and recording music in 2010 it was digital from the beginning. Besides my PreSonus tube preamp and compressor (no one's making emulations of those, lol) I didnt have a real analog baseline to compare anything to.
To me all these emulations are really just different colors and flavors that I can use to shape and mold my sonic visions.
I've been to a few pro studios and admired their equipment in the racks but I have never had a chance to work with any of it first hand.
So to me it honestly doesn't matter how close it is to the real thing.
The only thing that matters is does it sound good?

 

Last edited: Jun 18, 2017

@subGENRE .. "The only thing that matters is does it sound good?"

Of course it needs to sound good, though in my experience my workflow is much faster and enjoyable when I twiddle knobs, push buttons, flip levers and eyeball real moving needles. Even when I control software emulations with a midi controller it isn't quite the same thing, not by a long shot. I can translate the sound in my head into reality much quicker with hardware than with software. There is for me a world of difference. This isn't a put down on software but rather my own real world experience.

 

@superliquidsunshine
First I want to say, it was a welcome joy to see a reply from you! I hope all is well on your end of the planet. We all miss you and your wisdom here (and your beat poet freestyle posts)

Seeing as you came from hardware and adapted to a digital/hybrid setup, it would only make sense to feel and work as you do. I hear it over and over from just about everyone that's had a background with hardware.

But I always wonder if it would be the opposite for me? If I had access to a fat rack with nice modules, if I would be yearning for emulations? Complaining about noise floor and not being able to save presets and fx chains, all these damn patch cables. Or actually missing the sound of the emus? Lol...

Who knows?

As far as knob and faders go....
I have a Mackie Universal Control and used to use it a lot. But now I am way faster and much more precise with the trackball and kb shorcuts. The only time I hook it up anymore is when Im recording live stuff. When I need to arm and solo, jog and transport quickly (eye candy for the artists mainly, something about motorized faders) I will let them use it a little too to give me an idea of how they want things to sit in the mix as well. But when Im solo its in packed away back into the box. Same goes for my trigger finger. I play drums much better on the axiom keys. The trigger finger is for when the beat makers want to drum something up for me.
Given these are only controllers and extensions of the emus, but....... Im a digital boy

 

Last edited: Jun 19, 2017

@subGENRE, I'm sort of in the same boat. I want to start with one piece of hardware, and run it as an external insert on tracks, and freeze the track when I've got it the way I want. I find an 1176 emulation making it's way into most of my tracks so I've been eyeballing a WA-76. I guess for recall I'll be snapping pix of the settings and filing that in the project folder.
I've got to admit, I have some trepidation that I won't like the workflow and go back to using a plugin.
I do think it'll be easier to dial in settings with hardware. The first hardware manufacturer that comes up with a fix for settings recall (motorized knobs?) will have a winner there!