So I use the FL Parametric EQ 2 as my main EQ for most things. Simple, light on the CPU and works great.

I also use Fabfilter Q-2 quite a bit too alongside the FL one.

It views +18/-18 but on Fabfilter Q-2 I can change up to -30. Is there an option to increase the db range on the Parametric EQ 2?

I guess I can just use Q-2 more often and my CPU/interface etc can handle many instances of it, but still I like FL's EQ 2 a lot and it's just more convenient for me.

Thanks in advance!

 

Unfortunatly there isnt a increase view in dB for parametric 2 I think if you need an enlargened view, sharper filters & m/s proQ2 is the way to go, but for less precision, less steepness in filters i always use parametric, its so light on CPU and still very effective in most use cases. Lets hope they make a parametric 3 with some of those goodies. What you could also do is just use Voxengo SPAN on the selected channel, then you can zoom in super far, and still use parametric 2.

 

Yeah exactly same as me! Pro Q2 is the main EQ but Parametric from IL just works in most cases for easy things.

Thanks for the advice!

 

Great post. But question, what sounds are you boosting or cutting past or below -15 to +15db? Seems like anything that high would create some funky resonance, especially with a sharp bell. Maybe that's the goal though, to get a resonance effect and use automation to sweep through the frequencies.

 

Here is a tip for you all that don't have experience with hardware gear in comparison to their software counterparts, which of course you all do to some extent, so more so than others.

This is just my opinion, mind you.

Without argument the hardware, if at all decent, will boost a chosen group of frequencies with grace and will not damage it's charge with grit, grainyness, squeals or scrapey disrespect. Every vst will if you push them, some much less than others, but still they will. Where you will gain a vantage in the box is by doing something called subtractive equalization, that is, instead of boosting the frequencies that you wish to highlight, subtract everything that you don't. Since you won't be adding extra dBs everywhere it will make it much easier to balance things out in the end because you will inherit nice sweet headroom on your master which will make your production life so much easier. It will take some practice to get the hang of it but it is well worth your time.

 

100% agreed, but many people take this "rule" of substractive EQ too seriously and NEVER boost, which is also a mistake in my opinion.

 

I might be mistaking but I remember some post on IL forums (not from GoL) about Parametric EQ3, it might be under development right now.

The post was like "And what about Param EQ3? When?!" and the answer from some red IL dude was something like "Closer than you think ;) "

 

Last edited: Mar 18, 2017

ooo very Interesting. They'll be rivalling with maybe Logic's inbuilt M/S capable EQ.

top tip!

 

Yeah that's what I want first, even more than increased range, I have and love FF Pro-Q2 for M/S but the fact I can throw 52737 instances of Param EQ2 using 3% of my CPU but without M/S processing possibilities is unfortunate

 

Question: Can you compare the sound quality of FF ProQ2 and FruityParametricEQ2 ?

 

I'll do some more tests and tell you my hot appreciations when I'll get the time but right now I can tell you Pro Q is more "clean-ish", paramEQ is pure digital but it still adds something to the signal, I can't tell what right now. More concrete, it changes the phase of most signal, very slightly. You can hear it instantly when playing some heavy sub bass, then bypass one paramEQ and one Pro Q, ParamEQ changes the phase, you hear it instantly, you don't even need to check with some correlation meter. Pro Q do this too, but then you swap from Zero Latency Phase to Natural or Linear Phase and the "problem" disappear.

These are the main differences I can recall. Also, as I need to mention it, Pro-Q is 100x times more precise and filled with tons of monitoring (visual and audio). But... It uses 10x more CPU. So what I do basically is using Param EQ most of the time in a composing/arranging project. For only slight cuts and boosts, then when I need more precise EQ, or M/S, or 32 bands EQ, etc, I go for Pro-Q. In the next steps (mixing project, mastering project), it will always be Pro-Q over Param EQ when wanting digital crystal clear EQ, for any applications.