Are clean analog EQ’s obsolete?

for "baking in" the tone.

Custom Audio Germany HDE-250A

I still own some speck asc eq thats pretty clean. Cant bring myself to part with that one just yet.

2055 is amazing! Clean but also somehow euphonic in a way digital can’t touch. Similarly, my ibis is super clean, it adds an energy to the HF that is unmatched ITB. GML still outperforms itb eq too.

I think of good clean ITB eqs more comparable to Harrison or other solid state ic based designs, which for mixing have indeed been mostly replaced by ITB, but for tracking they’re still great to have available.

Not at all.  I'd disagree.  For me, EQ is not about "box tone" or "color".  EQ by default is color-izing.  It's tone changing in it's essence.  What is the big diff between digital EQ's (in general) and the better analog EQ's (again, in general) is that the really good analog EQ bring a vibrancy, 3D-ness, life, punchiness, etc. that the digital EQ's rarely bring.  Again, I'm making very broad (and potentially wrong) generalities, but this is my experience.  IME, analog EQ's do not need transformers or tubes (those things associated with "color") to be exceptional.  

There are SO MANY incredible EQs out ere in the analog domain! EQ is one of our most essential tools.

Broadband, Baxandall, Surgical and sweetening EQs.

In the analog domain, phase shift and inter-modular distortion is a by-product of equalization

in the digital domain EQ ia byproduct of phase shift and inter-modular distortion .

YMMV and you can feel free to disagree with me. in the words of Ricky Gervais "I just don't care" LOL
I actually do, and I value all your opinions. I learn an AWFUL lot here, from everyone.

About a year ago I bought my first dedicated hardware eq, a Rupert Neve 5033. I had used and liked the plug-in version, 6144, a lot and it was my go to ITB eq. I owned a few 1073 clones, which I used when tracking, but never as a mix eq. I also had a Chroma+ and I used that eq when mixing, but only on th 2-bus. The 5033 was supposed to be my lead vocal eq and there I could have a totally analog chain with compression and eq.

I fiddled with it and tried it on a couple of projects, and while it sounded great I was able to replicate it perfectly with the plug in version. I heard no extra depth, smoother highs or beefier lows. It was, to my ears, more or less exactly the same, minus that I couldn’t save presets but had to write down my settings, always unsure if the frequencies were exacly as they had been the last time.

Granted there are so many people on this forum and all over the place that could nail the difference in a blind test. It is by no means an argument for clean hw EQs beeing obsolete. I am humble enough to realize that the fact that I can’t hear a difference doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. But I had expected more, after reading for years about the night and day difference between sw and hw EQs.

For me compression seems to be a bit different. There’s a quite audible difference between my (excellent) Stam SA4000 mkII and Slates digital version of the same bus comp. The hw beats the sw hands down. The saturation in the Audioscape Vcomp is something I’ve never heard sw do. It’s not always for the best, sometimes it distorts too much even on the lightest settings! But it’s very unique. The Stam SA76ADG is amazing on vocals. But I think the differences with clean analog EQs are to subtle for my untrained musician ears. YMMV etc.

It has been mentioned a couple of times already but just wanted to further emphasize that the Avalon AD2055 is truly something special.

I love the Kush Electra for clean, but powerful tone shaping. Amazing EQ in spite of all the people who complain about the way the knobs are labelled… or not really labelled. It forces the user to use their ears and it’s an amazing clean EQ IMO.