heh I just recently started to use stock EQ in Studio One 4 again and I have noticed that my workflow is now faster. I dont waste time for "surgical" EQ anymore. Now I use Pro q3 mostly for frequency sidechaining.
I totally agree with the video and imo EQ should be used more to correct minor problems, add color and not to reshape the whole sound, I always try to shape and design the sound in the synth to fit certain frequency range so I'll use less processing in the chain, specially EQs and Compressors !
I've basically gone full circle with plugins in general. Over the years I've spent an embarrassing amount of money on plugins and I always tried to justify using them, but then I started doing more collaborations online and working with 3rd party plugins is a pain in the ass because different people have different plugins and you can't expect everyone else to buy what you have (and you to buy what everyone else has), bouncing all the time becomes tedious, etc. So instead I created a project template that uses nothing but bone stock plugins (I use Logic) and now when I collaborate and start new projects we've all agreed to just use stock plugins unless there is simply no other way. There are a tiny handful of 3rd party plugins that end up being used but a VAST majority of time we go stock and when I compare current mixes with older mixes that used a lot of 3rd party plugins there just isn't much of a difference at all when it comes to quality. Even Logic's Vintage EQ plugins hold their own against super expensive alternatives like UAD, and sure maybe UAD (or whatever) are technically more accurate, but in the end it doesn't really seem to matter.
I'm going to try this workflow. right now, I use one or the other or both, often without a strategy. I have a CC121 and there are a lot of buttons on that controller dedicated to this EQ, so I will use those more with this workflow. In defense if Pro-Q 3, you can create presets for lo/hi cut that cutdown on the number of clicks. I made ones for my most frequent lo-cuts. You can also create insert presets where each plugin in the preset has presets, so that solves the click problems. Also, I feel like the audio visual in Pro-Q3 is superior to the channel strip. but I have the VPS analyzer at the end of inserts anyway and use that the most.
No need to defend pro-q 3, it's a brilliant plugin. I agree, the visualization is way better, but that's sometimes my problem with it as I tend to overcomplicate things and not actually listen. I still load up pro q for certain surgical cuts, ms eq, etc. but routine stuff, much prefer the workflow with the built in eq now.
I've been doing sound design with nature recordings and Pro Q3 is good because you can solo an eq band so it's easy to narrow in on specific frequency's as all the other frequency range is muted. For musical stuff I like the emulations of vintage EQ's in IK multimedias Mixbox.
Great alternative is the MEqualizer from the free melda pack. Has amazing features and insane curve choices as well as showing the notes on the peaks. Free with the banner on it but still.
I've used some of the Melda stuff before. I'm using UVI Shade mostly when I want tons of weird curves etc. plus the automation is amazing. Still, the Cubase integration with the standard stock EQ is so much easier than most of these plugins for basic EQ work.
@@MarulaMusic this is so true. I'm more talking for the Ableton crowd because like you mentioned about the cutoffs I do also find pulling something of an in-between
Nate, I find myself returning to the built-in tools in Cubase as well. They're not always as sexy to look at, but the function is generally all there (I'm also talking about some of the instruments, as well). I've been using their effects and dropping off those from others more and more. I find that the footprint is usually much smaller with their plugins and I defy anyone to show me that the sound isn't as good. I do still like Izotope for mixdown and some of the mastering functions - and of course there are third - party synths that I can't live without that I just can't get the sound from in Retrologue or Halion or whatever. I know other DAWs have good built-ins as well (and maybe that's the whole point, here…use what you have first, you might be surprised), but Steinberg is really killing it with their stock stuff, especially of late.
good talking bud, the mask comparison feature was a great addition as well as the pre post switch. Could be wrong but I don't think the hp and lp are midi controllable which sucks as they're the first things to go to.
I'm pretty sure Pro Tools stock EQ sounds decent too... don't misundertsand me, Pro-Q3 is excellent and if you want to use it you should. My point was just so much emphasis goes into buying new plugins when quite often your stock plugins will do the job just as well. Pro-Q3 has excellent wrokflow though too so if you have it, use it.
There's quite a few changes to the EQ in 10.5. You have undo history for the entire mixer now. No doubt Pro-Q has a great UI like the scalabilty etc.... its just been more convenient for me lately just using the built in EQ.
I have been feeling like I’m crazy but every time I use pro q 2 I feel like the stereo imaging and phasing sounds bad and I always end up taking it off maybe I am crazy but I can’t justify using it because I really don’t think it sounds natural at all
I only use tools from ableton live, i can talk about a case of me using proq3 when in a situation of layering samples like say a bass or kick, when using a low pass on a distorted bass frequency with eq eight i get a distorted cut, so i then use proq3, other than that i dont touch it.
Fascinating and enlightening! I'm among those who fall into the FabFilter "fanboy" category. I'm such a visual thinker, though. I feel like the GUI is what gets me. That 6db per octave, too, though, as an Ableton user. Regardless, I enjoyed this analysis. Thanks!
Do you take tutorial requests? I REALLY need help comprehending the control room, redundancies of equipment used in input/output & Control Room even though the output ones are disconnected they can't be removed, it's redundant and confusing to me... please help. I DESPERATELY need to learn it so that I can collaborate with others in VST connect.
The most important thing is user experience. If I could do with Cubase channel strip eq what I can do with Pro Q3, then I would never have bought Pro Q3. If Cubase channel strip eq can do what Pro Q can, then I couldn't figure it out. So Pro Q wins.
Its a personal choice really... like I show in the video, there are some things that Cubase does better than Pro-q 3... the EQ masking functionality for example. I agree though, Pro-Q 3 is fantastic as far as the UI is oncerned. I'd give Shade from UVI a go as well. That is my new go to for all things filtering and EQ.
The EQ algorithms themselves haven't changed... the pre filters were introduced a couple of version back I think. The main thing you'll be missing is the channel comparison mode which is a new feature.
Hey Andy, don't get me wrong... it's an excellent piece of software. Try demo it first, if you find the workflow is something that is going to speed things up for you, by all means grab it. My main thing with this video is it is kind of blindly considered as an absolute essential by a lot of folks, and in a lot of cases it does actually offer anything sonically different. I'd check out UVI Shade as well as it also has great workflow and some killer features along with some very different filtering options you may not find in Pro-Q 3.
I cant understand why you and some others during comparison of EQs say that they sound same? they will certainly sound same coz theres only one fixed way how any EQ works. Compressors, reverb and saturations may sound different because they function differently. But EQ is same. Why we love Fabfilter is bec of its amazing features.
That is not quite true actually. Even within Fab Q 3 there are different algorithms for different sounding eqs. Now with transparent digital eqs you're not gonna hear much of a difference but with digital eqs emulating analog eqs you definitely hear a difference. Unless you plagiarize the code of an eq it with most likely have at least SOME difference.
@@cometogether420 since the C11 update, the stock Frequency EQ is actually in fact a dynamic EQ now with 8 seperate sidechains from 8 seperate track sources. :)
Judas! 😅 I can see why as a Cubase user but in Live you have to load native devices and plugins all the same and although EQ8 sounds decent enough the workflow is garbage. Only time I use it is for content creation because all potential users have it.
Yeah I can imagine it's not the same with ABleton. I don't like that interface at all.... Although the eq doesn't actually sound that far off from pro q 3
Except Bitwigs own EQ+ which introduce 5 sample latency and unusable and developers don’t want to fix it cause “it’s not a problem” for them and usual “it’s a creative daw and we have our own vision” bull shit they come up as an excuse…
