Using DAW Software EQ vs. Plugin EQ

J

jonmatthews

New member
Hi folks,

Just looking to get a feel for what folks here are doing for EQ for mixing in the box on their DAW. I use Samplitude, which of course, has its own EQs already integrated into the software. I also have my Waves plug-in EQs like Q10 or R-EQ. Will I get better sound when cutting/adding EQ on individual tracks via these plugins, rather than the built-in EQ in Samplitude? And will that suck up more CPU than using Samp's EQs?

Thoughts?

Thanks!

- Jon M
 
I like Algorithmix Linear Phase EQ..

OUtstanding. yes, it uses more CPU....but it is great.
 
I use Samplitude and T-Racks. Yes plugins suck up more cpu. Samplitude has some nice built-in effects, but the eq is only a 4 band. The eq on T-Racks is a 6 band. If I need six bands I will use T-Racks, but if I need to just roll off the low end on some vocals or something then I will use Samplitude's eq. As far as eq is concerned I don't think you will hear much difference in quality.
 
countrylac said:
I use Samplitude and T-Racks. Yes plugins suck up more cpu. Samplitude has some nice built-in effects, but the eq is only a 4 band. The eq on T-Racks is a 6 band. If I need six bands I will use T-Racks, but if I need to just roll off the low end on some vocals or something then I will use Samplitude's eq. As far as eq is concerned I don't think you will hear much difference in quality.
Click to expand...

not true at all. TRacks doesnt sound nearly as clean as Samp EQ,, to me...and all EQs are not created equal.

Teddy
 
All software EQ's are certainly not creatd equal. In fact, just because it is a plug in does not mean it will take more resources either. IN general, amn applications built in EQ's and such will take a little less resources, but not always. In the end, they are basically plug-ins as well. As far as what I prefer, I really like the URS stuff. One of the only software EQ's that feels more like an analog EQ when you use it:)
 
I tend to use the UAD-1 Pultec or Precision on everything. With only two cards, I will run out of DSP if I tried that on every track. But then I try to avoid EQing every track. If you do a real good job tracking, then EQ can be used for sweetening here and there, and for making space where tracks conflict. But if two tracks are butting heads, you should only need to EQ one of them.

That's my theory, anyway, and I'm sticking to it!
 
You guys are right about not all plug-ins taking up more cpu than built in effects. I was mainly thinking about the waves plug-ins he was using vs the samplitude effects. IMHO I think that the T-Racks eq is a little more musical because it is a 6-band vs Samplitude's 4-band. Don't get me wrong, I think the Samplitude EQ is great and more precise, but it just doesn't always work the best for me.
 
The funny thing is that "musicality" in an EQ is not typically associated with digital EQ's or plug-ins. Musicality is more often referred to when using good analog sweep and parametric EQ's. Most of the time those are only 4 band;)
 
Maybe it is the algorithms or something, but when I roll off everything below 150hz with both the Samplitude EQ and T-Racks, I like the results I get with T-Racks. To me it gives me a more musical eq cut (maybe beause T-Racks is supposed to be an analog model). And I know that Samplitude alows you to adjust the range of your eq boost or cut, but I've never quite gotten the same results as with the T-Racks eq.
 
yeah,


it's just give or take really. All the situations presented have there pros and cons. And it might not even be that something is wrong with the EQ itself, but simply a matter of taste.


The ears definitly do a much better job of mixing than software/hardware reputations alone. :p
 
Hey, this isn't Jon Matthews formerly of Penn State's fav Velveta, is it? Probly just a coincedence. Anyway, congrats on finding Samplitude.....great program. I would guess you'll see slightly higher CPU usage with the plugs than with the native EQs in Samp, but on critical tracks that shouldn't be your main concern. Best thing to do is load the VST's on track inserts, set up each eq to taste, including Samp's, and audition them against each other by using bypass. But don't let the winner for that track make you choose it by default for other tracks. The right eq may change from track to track, and with experience you'll get a feel for which one to reach for first for a given track. Also, depending on which version of Samp you have, there's an excellent FFT analyzer and filter to check out.

On the subject of bands and musicality..... I don't find much correlation there. Two bands of Pultec program EQ can sound way more musical than a surgical 5 band fully parametric. It's the quality of the filter design, not the number of bands. I do agreee that this is a big challange for digital EQs.
 
Honestly, I can't say I've tried many EQs but I can say this:
- The build in EQ per channel in Cubase sucks like you won't believe, so I never us it.
- The Waves Q stuff I found usable for most simple stuff like hipass/lowpass to get rid of unwanted sonic material. For coloring I wouldn't use it.
- The Waves RenEQ I find pretty (damn) good. Not transparent by any means but it colors in a nice way. I use it for boosting and cutting mid bands all the time, for any purpose. If I can afford the CPU power, I use it for low/hipass stuff aswell.

That's it basicly. Cubase and Nuendo also have some EQ plugins shipped with them, but I don't like them much either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top