How do you judge EQ?

DMG equilibrium is quite clever. It uses a corrective linear phase filter on top of the original minimum phase eq to get the amplitude and phase closer to the ideal analog response. This approach is described in the aes paper I linked above.

Unfortunately it’s quite latent and computationally complex the closer you want it to be to analog. Simply double or quadruple up sampling the eq accomplished much of the same and having only one anti alias filter like eq8 and Weiss eq mp and tdr slick eq ge and m eco mode often have less pre-ringing because those are linear processes. EQ results of phase shifts

And Equiibrium doesn’t run the filters like analog filters. It uses bilineal transforms. So do the above eqs too. Zavalishin at Izotope figured out how to run digital state variable filters exactly like analog using trapezoidal integration. Simper at Cytomic did the math to just run ideal circuit models of analog eqs. Since EQs are pretty basic circuits with modern ics, they figured out how to run analog filters on a computer with better numerical precision than direct form biquads and with no parts matching issues, distortion, or Johnson noise. These guys are engineering and mathematical thinking geniuses. Compare the basic errors and discontinuities of Waves and UAD 1 SSL vs The Glue at 44.1 kHz. Or basic errors versus Waves Ren Comp or Oxford Dynamics

www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=350246
Math Intuition book is fabulous too.
cytomic.com/technical-papers/

Oxford EQ made by another math genius but it just warps coefficients to not have the amplitude cramped at single sample rates. Very clever. Behavior described in Orfanidis papers. Similar to pro q3 zero latency but pro q3 lacks the super clever gain:q dependencies of Oxford EQ. Higher sampler rates will bring phase response of Oxford EQ much closer to analog.