How do you judge EQ?

Your point about putting a plug in EQ on the channel and asking of it sounds better or worse immediately? Certainly that. I work in Logic, and have wanted to love the stock EQ but I swear there is a sort of "glossy coating" thing that happens as soon as it is on. Pro Q 2 (and now3) was the first time I put something on and thought it had no negative impact at all. And if I make moves that do seem to have a resonance, I can click through the phase options and typically mitigate that issue.

For hardware - completely different. I had a pair of RND 5033's that sounded fantastic, and experienced that thing people talk about where it was almost impossible to make something sound bad. Those were really great. Any other analog eps I had were part of a channel strip. In those cases, the moves were pretty broad - rolling off lows, removing low mids - that sort of thing. Certainly nor surgical. Except maybe for the API Channel Strip (or Vision Strip or whatever it was called when I had a pair of those). I found that to be an extremely helpful and nice sounding EQ.

Really, my search stopped after Pro Q3. That had the right combination of sound, GUI and options that I just seem to get along with.

I pick eq based on the tone. The Slick EQs are better than the fabfilter, weiss, psp, and mdweqs at single sample rates. More immediate. I will pick one based on it. double sampling rate, it's a toss up. Weiss I generally prefer at 88.2 and 96 khz and up but the Slick EQ M is a fabulous broader EQ. Sometimes I will use Oxford EQ for a more digital vibe but at 192 khz, it can null almost perfectly with the Slick EQs. No SVF filter structure stock eq exists outside of ableton (mixed phase anti alias filters) EQ8 and the JS:ReEQ add on in reaper (not updated in a few years). Filterscape and Reaktor are a pain in the ass to use as normal eqs and not synth shit.

Matt is absolutely right it’s curves and tones. I always judge an EQ by the task at hand, what works as a general tone shaper is probably not going to work if I need to notch out a specific frequency and vise versa. Like wise my Lawson Neve Prism clone is a great channel problem solver but if I need to EQ some speakers I’m grabbing either the BSS’s Ashly or TDM, though I did once use an API 560 as a room EQ ( it was the only EQ I had, the room was EQ’ed with a weird curve on a password protected White 4700 digitally controlled Analog EQ)

Kind of the way I feel about most HW vs. SW. My AS 1178 and the Pulsar are pretty similar…it doesn’t sound exactly alike, but it sounds good…but it’s the attack that never completely attacks like the real one…I can completely shut down a snare on the hardware. Not nearly as much with the plug.
I definitely have had the experience of “you can’t make things sound bad” with Helios and Matt’s V2. I wonder if it’s just the broad strokes? I was playing around with the Pulsar Massive Passive and its Q is still wide at the tightest setting…and it’s hard to make shit sound bad…

I had a similar opinion about hardware eq's and was quite happy with using software, but then I got the Zähl EQ1. Some combination of sound, hands-on controls vs a midi controller or mouse, and instantly better mixes did the trick for me. I think my ears focus more when I use hardware eq's. Results are results. I do a lot of sound design / experimental work and found out how much further a sound can be pushed without screwing it up when using hw. Fast-forward: I got hooked on hardware eq's that allowed for unique curves and had nice (or interesting) box tones -- like the Valley People Maxi Q, IRP Transversal EQ, KT DN27a, Chandler Tone Control, and Massive Passive, and +1 on how great the RND 5033 eq sounds. That one is a desert island piece.

So to answer the original question: the judgment of good or not is purely based on process and results. I enjoy the process and results from hardware for tracking as well as general sound design and mix/master bus. I also enjoy the process and results of software for precise corrective and surgical eq-ing, for example, those Tokyo Dawn Special Filters are absolutely incredible.

I really love my AS Pultecs for a little bump high (okay maybe more than a little) and low on the 2bus, and they really add something to vst’s as well. Always in-line tracking with no eq engaged, just tone. Also on the 2bus, you turn them off and the image reduces, which I guess is better for some mixes but rarely for my lane…it is noticeable btw. So to answer your question…what I look (listen) for in a hw eq is sweet tone and image, I guess it really doesn’t have much to do with the actual eq settings for me, but the pultec does handle boosts in a very elegant way…not harsh at all (like the Axe FM3). kisses!

PS. I don’t understand why anyone buys a sterile hardware eq when u could do that itb…but I bet Vance Powell does, and does it for a very good reason! (Not that anything he does is sterile)

The Thermionic Swift stereo tube EQ is imho a “game changer” EQ.

The sounds and tones it produces cannot ime be reproduced by digital EQ - not even close.

It adds a gloss and sheen, size and depth to program material that sounds sonically glorious to my ears.

Baxandall shelves
Pultec passive inductor mids
Magg style Air Band
Unique proprietary Presence band.

It’s expensive and sounds expensive (as is often the way) to me it defines great analog EQ and is everything digital EQ never is and cannot be.

It’s a broad strokes analog EQ.

For surgical corrective EQ - I will turn to digital EQ but for the mix bus and stand out channel EQ I want something very musical and special and that where The Swift shines and does its thing.

Yeah we also have to look at some other factors.
First. What they do “wrong” can be so “right” sometimes the sound you’re looking for isn’t what the boost cut, but the phase shift it introduces.

The graphical/ control interface, sometimes seeing the actual cumulative effect of multiple filters is a god send, sometimes our eyes tell us there is no way that curve is a good idea, but our ears tell us otherwise. With say graphics or simple fixed Frq console EQ’s people judge their curves mentally by where the controls are forgetting there is overlap of the filters.

Since everyone today as the affordable option of a 1/60th octave RTA or TEF on their phone it’s really easy to look at what the actual curve you have dialed in even on an analog EQ.

What is an example of a sterile hardware EQ?

How quickly and consistently it gets me what I want.

Also that you can offset the output level. I set my EQ to there’s no perceived level loss or gain. I say that because there was a freebie tilt EQ that had a solid sound (and was prior to Fabfilter implementing that) but it had no output level….so I found it functionally unusable.

Mostly these days I use the Harrison 32c except the filters. Plugs come in when I need a HPF (without the LPF that Harrison engages)….ironically, it has no output level-but unless you’re doing something extreme, it’s circuit seems to mostly get close enough.

I have my stereo pair of ASCTs….but, honestly they don’t get patched in as much since acquiring the old BBE box.

For digital? If it doesn’t suck and does what it’s supposed to.
The eqs with numerical errors sound like garbage and you feel you have to do double and then high pass filter them with something cleaner to get the same moves in.
The stock daw eqs are fucked up and sound phasey and weird in the high end.
The decramped eqs sound normalish but can be a bit hard up on top like Oxford, Renaissance, Pro Q zero latency.
The eqs that apply a corrective linear phase warp to the sound to decramp it be normal minimum phase filters sound like mush: Pro Q natural phase mode, Equilibrium, DDMF grand eq, the Kush Q632. They are latent.
The ones that upsample are less mushy but the anti alias filters can be audible at lower sampling rates. If they do not do anything non-linear they only need one anti alias filter and not two so less preringing and even less mush. These will always be better in the highs than the previous types mentioned but add latency and cpu cycles.
The ones that run state variable filters have better numerical precision and sound better from less distortion near dc. Too bad most utilitarian plugins have not adopted these. They add a couple more cpu cycles but most developers are stuck in the past, copying from textbooks and white papers, or not even bothering to read dsp textbooks and releasing plugins worse than what comes with the daws.

Oh and the bilineal transform eqs can all use different filter structures and sound different even if the frequency response is almost perfectly matched. And if the plugins round to 32-bit or have a 24-bit , they will still sound different and cannot even be null-tested so sorry null test bros mostly comparing phase shifts…

Dan

Good link vladgsound.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/a-classification-of-digital-equalizers-draft/