I did a little experiment with equalizers to figure out which one I like best. I took the CLA Mixhub as a basis, put only the equalizer unit, tuned the sound on each instrument, then using the Plugin Doctor I built the curves of other equalizers for the CLA mixhub settings. The test uses Fabfilter Pro-Q4, SSL X-EQ2, Crave DSP Eq, Kirchhoff-EQ (Legacy and Tight). Which option do you think is better?
https://disk.yandex.ru/d/XM1xJE0pO-zEAw

 

Equalizer plug-ins are literally a dime a dozen. Basically, you won't find bad software, just ones that are better suited to exactly the sound you're looking for. In addition to the range of EQs that are built into every DAW, there are some software manufacturers that offer equalizers as the only plug-in.

There are six types of equalizers:

- Parametric EQ
- Semi-parametric E!
- Sherl EQ
- Graphic EQ
- Dynamic EQ
- Phase-Linear EQ

The best solution is FabFilter - Pro-Q4.

 

I know about the different types of equalizers. I am interested in difference of "clean" eq in filtering. In theory, I was able to subtract them to zero and even argued with others that there was no difference. In practice, where each track has a copy of the equalizer with its own settings, it was not possible to subtract the entire mix to zero. The difference in sound is small, but it is there. Also I'm wondering if people who prove to others on forums that their choice of equalizer is the only correct one will determine which plugin is under which letter.

 

Last edited: Mar 7, 2025 at 12:22 PM

FabFilter 4 has been improved again and also won a lot of awards, so it is actually state of the art. I read that many sound engineers love to rely on hardware (not neutral but alive), but the technological advance in digital technology also brings almost neutral or completely neutral, at least that's what FabFilter promises.

www.audiopluginguy.com/review-fabfilter-pro-q4/
https://musictech.com/reviews/plug-ins/fabfilter-pro-q-4-review/
https://pluginoise.com/fabfilter-pro-q-4-review/
https://waveinformer.com/2024/12/18/fabfilter-pro-q-4-review/

The Pro-Q 4 offers three character modes:
- Clean: For neutral, precise processing without coloration
- Subtle: Light saturation for subtle analog character
- Warm: Stronger harmonic distortion for a warmer, more analog sound

Fabfilter say: www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-q-4-equalizer-plug-in
Pro-Q 4 offers everything that a demanding engineer could wish for: top-quality linear phase operation in addition to the zero latency and unique Natural Phase modes, smooth dynamic and spectral EQ, per-band mid/side processing, full surround support (up to Dolby Atmos 9.1.6), an intelligent solo feature, optional Auto Gain and a built-in, fully customizable spectrum analyzer.

Top recommendations for neutral EQ plugins: Sonnox Oxford Dynamic EQ, TDR Nova, Sonible smart:EQ 3, UAD - Massenburg DesignWorks MDWEQ5

 

Last edited: Mar 7, 2025 at 12:53 PM

3 of them are basically the same filter design i.e an Orfanidis EQ with a decramping solution and I tend to think they sound the worst if we are talking purely minimum phase "analog phase"filtering. Oxford EQ for anything that isn't top end and the Tokyo Dawn things for everything else are still my daily drivers. no idea what filter solution TDL uses, but it doesn't sound like a basic biquad EQ with decramping, and Oxford uses a super novel design that i don't know of any other EQ using other than their other EQ, Cambridge EQ. if you want to really pit EQ's against eachother, it would help if you didn't choose a bunch that are basically the same thing behind the scenes. there's SVF EQ's, Lattice, TPT and those are as good as its going to get ITB

 

Their spectral EQ rings horrendously though and it just seems to be a basic FFT as the phase is slightly randomised when you engage it. Soothe is still the best solution for that particular problem

 

The Spectral Dynamics function in Pro-Q 4 enables precise and efficient processing of problematic frequencies, similar to Soothe3. It is not a simple FFT, but a sophisticated technology that allows compression or expansion to be applied only to certain frequencies within a band that exceed a specified threshold.

In terms of phase issues, Pro-Q offers 4 different working modes, including Zero-Latency, Linear-Phase and Natural-Phase4. These options allow users to choose the most suitable phase characteristics for their purposes.

Although Soothe is certainly a powerful tool for processing resonances, it is not possible to say that it is “the best solution” for this particular problem. The choice of the most suitable tool depends on many factors, including the specific audio material, the desired results and the user's personal preferences.

Many users report positive experiences with Pro-Q 4, including its spectral features57. Without concrete comparative data or extensive testing, it is difficult to make a definitive statement about the superiority of one tool over another.

 

Dude, for the love of music, if not God, please warn us about the genre of 'music' in your examples. That was not okay.

Personally, I could not listen to more than 10-12 seconds of this 'music' (I understand actual humans were used in the making of said 'music' but I find that hard to believe - I believe it, but I find it hard).

As to which EQ option I think is better, I'd say whichever one whose GUI looks best to you, and is also the cheapest. Sorted.

FYI, my meat and potatoes go to EQ is Logic's stock plugin. I also have and employ a few dozens other EQ plugins, some of which have a "sound" or sonic signature (all the wonderful PSP EQs come to mind, in addition obviously to the analog emulations by UAD); those I pick more for color, less so for correction.

Ultimately, I always let the music dictate, or guide, the choice of plugin. I have no idea what option is best for this selection of music you ran your test with. How would you know what to correct? The crash cymbals aren't crashing hard enough for you?

I reckon a better question to ask people (those with some experience, which was your intent), would have been "when, where and why do you go for what EQ plugin?" We might all learn something from some of the answers. Just a thought.

 

Are you replying to me with AI, lol? your responses read like marketing copy. it's very simple to prove. stick it on a one shot sound then loop that sound with a regular dynamic band, then make the band spectral. the latter example rings and the phase is slightly randomised because they are using an FFT. i don't really care what they claim about the speciality of the algorithm because its outcome is no different to that of an FFT with a fixed window size. the ringing aka "gibbs phenomenon"and the slight randomisation of the phase is because the bins don't always fit into each window, so a consequence of that is slight randomisation of the phase. i can already tell you don't know what i am talking about though as you or your AI reply brought up linear and minimum phase which this is nothing to do with....

 

Well, I have a few books on FX recording and mastering in my cupboard, I read them too, and from time to time I ask the AI, but I can't understand what they tell me, I'm more interested in practical results. I need a test with results that show that the FabFilter Pro-Q is not as good as it is portrayed to be.

So I can't do much with your story, we were looking for a neutral EQ. I'm not a math genius either, I'm a sound designer. If you can prove to me that the FabFilter is bad, I'd appreciate a recommendation to remedy the situation.

 

Test how DSP affect signal quality not on "music" sample.
You need to test technical aspects with technical approarch.

I prefer testing on short hard full range snare drum or on 1/2 bar loop with immidiate A/B flip without a latency or glitch\gap in Reaper.
Made custom action script for this and assign to keyboard shortcut, so i can flip blindly.

If you can't peek 6 times (!!!) one - you don't hear it. You guess it.
This is how psychoacoustics in blind tests works on practice.

What we try to find i our tests?
Emotions? Vibe? Fell?
That's BS when we test our hardware or software gear.

You need to check techical thing like:
- Frequency responce changes. Cramping around Niquist for example.
- Phasing issues
- Unvanted harmonic distortion or aliasing.
- And most important (at least to me!) transient\impulse response

Transients it's bassically teeth of the sound.
Remove them - and the sound will become as unrealistic as possible.
Therefore, anything that negatively affects them is garbage. A very large (if not all) number of plugins blur transients in time.
High frequencies of transients seem to lag\delay in time little.

Even Acustica Audio and UAD (native and DSP) do that. So don't believe the hype around them.

I work and test everything i use in all samplerates available.
From standart 44.1 up to 192K and 384K

I can accume that high sample rates it's waste of CPU cicles and disk drive space.
Only time streching can benefit from everything above 44/48K
So leave idea of testing in higher sample rate alone if it attract you.

In analog domain this can correlate with slew rate characteristics of device.
How fast in can represent transient event without smear it.

I don't know how and why most of plugins do this but when i compare with my analog gear or even rented on Acces Analog,
my blind peeks always on the analog side.
It's just sound more precice and don't sucking off the transient sharpnees and depth of the sound.

I test FF with Crave and TBT many times.
TBT (lookahead off, Oversampling off, Auto-gain off) sounds more precise on transients than FF.
Crave sounds like junk to me, but i use it many times before i start to test thing.
I don't try SSL but i'm sure it's not the one who can impress me.

Use a perfect impulse test. For additional help.
What EQ makes less ring after and have NO PRE-ring - will problably sound better.
I attached one here.

I am Russian, so forgive me for typos if there are any.

 

And which option was passed through junk, and which one through the normal one?)
P.S. everything may be more interesting than it seems. I'm the guy who, on the sister site, passed off the recording of a real amp and cabinet as emulation, and then passed off a piece of real guitar recording from a Metallica album as my own and also said it was an emulation of a guitar amp, and there were those who found plastic and digital unrealistic in these recordings.

 

I use UVI-Shade EQ .

Its quick, low CPU, has good quality and everything i could ever need.

 

Hello @DarkSound

EQ plugins objectively tested... ZERO difference? (Part 3/3)

My TOP 3 EQ Plugins!

 

EQ plugins objectively tested... ZERO difference? (Part 3/3)

My TOP 3 EQ Plugins!

[/QUOTE]

Ohh! Somebody will test it for me, why i should do my own tests? Right?
As always.

If you match Q right and both EQ are linear - most cases they will null in digital domain.
But how offten you are match one Q to another? This is silly. I do that only for tests.

I mention lookahead and oversampling - this is the thing.

 

If it sounds good, it is good!

We've had digital EQs for quite a while and a lot don't do frequency cramping these days, which is important if you're EQing for bats, not people with earbuds and ADHD.

Simple IIR equalisers have much better specs than any analogue EQ. You can find the code on Github and tons of people use them. They work. The problem is implementation, features, looks-usability. I sometimes wish Sean Costello (Valhalla) would make an EQ.

But really, what it comes down to is what I said first. Don't waste time reading specs. Just enjoy and make music. Use an EQ that you like to use and makes you more productive. e.g. it is ProQ (or DMG Equality, or PSP, or TDR...) pretty much in Windows and MacOS. That thing is well made and it's easy to use. No wonder it's so popular. The tiny differences between EQs won't prevent you from making a hit track, but a bad recording of something that sounds bad, boring and just not fun for people, will.

Have a nice day!

 

Last edited: Mar 8, 2025 at 1:24 AM

This is why Sonnox Claro is my daily driver eq, until I need something it doesn't do. On many channels, I do not even have to go past the Produce tab which is just an adjustable 3 band with some nice options. Desert island? Sure, Pro-Q4. But I do not even understand the point of figuring out a "favorite EQ", unless you are buying only one of them. There are probably more than 10 nice ones in just the Plugin Alliance everything bundle.

 

Oooohhhhhh......damn......really? What a terrible disappointment. Here I was waiting for the perfect EQ to make my shitty music sound like a hit and now you say that my shitty music will sound shitty even with that perfect EQ? Oohhh, damn. I am doomed. I am lost. My life is over. No more hope....