# EQ — What Is The Most Processor Efficient, Great Sound EQ?



## ryanstrong (Nov 7, 2014)

Once I get my entire template set up I am sure that I am going to have a LOT of EQ plug-in instances across 60+ audio tracks.

What is the best EQ plug-in (64bit) that doesn't require a lot of CPU but still is a good sounding EQ. I am sure I will purely be doing subtractive EQing.

For some reason I am leery of Cubase's built-in EQ, should I be? If so, what to use? Again namely looking for something very CPU efficient.


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Nov 7, 2014)

Fab Filter Pro Q2 all the way. One of the best plugin EQs around imo


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 7, 2014)

Oliver_Codd @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Fab Filter Pro Q2 all the way. One of the best plugin EQs around imo



I've been looking at that! Have you run it across multiple tracks? Is it CPU hungry?


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Nov 7, 2014)

It's not actually that CPU hungry at all which is surprising considering how good it is. I think I read that it's actually more CPU efficient than pro Q1. Download the demo version and see how many instances you can load up. Best way to know for sure


----------



## AC986 (Nov 7, 2014)

Ryan my go to is FabFilter Pro Q. It is extremely transparent. Not CPU hungry on my old system and you can have quite a few instances no problems.

Dan Worrel's video gives a good impression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYTCQeggyzo


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 7, 2014)

Oliver_Codd @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> It's not actually that CPU hungry at all which is surprising considering how good it is. I think I read that it's actually more CPU efficient than pro Q1. Download the demo version and see how many instances you can load up. Best way to know for sure



Didn't realize there was a demo version! Nice. Will do.


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 7, 2014)

Just loaded up the demo of FabFilter Q2...

I added 20 instances to 20 audio tracks all with a hi-pass in Q2. This added 13-15% (wavering) to Cubase process %CPU at rest.

Is this good? Or bad? Seems like a lot for EQ?


----------



## Marius Masalar (Nov 7, 2014)

Kind of two different questions here—the best sounding EQ can't be the most efficient on CPU.

FabFilter Q2 is an easy contender for best EQ on the market. It really is remarkable and incredibly versatile. But if all you're looking for is something for basic channel-by-channel EQ work and the odd highpass, then Q2 is overkill.

I would personally use the stock EQ plugins for minor things like that as they'll be the most optimized for your DAW, but if you need to use a third-party one then I highly recommend trying out the TDR SlickEQ:

http://www.tokyodawn.net/tdr-vos-slickeq/

Very capable and has a free edition. The "Gentleman's Edition" is still <$50 so it's a steal for one of the nicest sounding and most versatile EQs out there.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 7, 2014)

Fab Filter has been my fav for a long time.
I run pretty minimal specs and never noticed a problem.

That said, now I almost exclusively use dmg's equilibruim.
It has more curves that I get a lot of mileage out of.
The "butterworth" curve is great and I love the various shelves.
The interface is very customizable, 
which can be a benefit or confusing if you don't read the manual.

For "character" eq's I love the PSP stuff, 
and any version of a Pultec. 
(That can be an odd beast to wrap your head around, but it sounds great)

I've never had any cpu issues w/ any of these.


----------



## Blackster (Nov 7, 2014)

The best way to free your CPU from fx like EQ is not to use it for such things! Get an UAD card from Universal Audio and grab an EQ from them. I have to admit this could be the most expensive solution but their stuff is great and you don't have to use your CPU at all.

I use an octo and a quad card for all my mixing (compressors, EQs, channel strips, tape simulation, etc. ...).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

Ryan, what are you EQ-ing?

I use linear phase EQ for boosting strings and piano, and often for cymbals. It's the most transparent. But you certainly wouldn't put that on every channel.

Also, is the Cubase EQ that bad? Most of them are fine for small tilts, especially cuts. I have no problem with the one inside Kontakt, for example, and the stock Logic EQ is fine.


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 7, 2014)

Marius Masalar @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Kind of two different questions here—the best sounding EQ can't be the most efficient on CPU.



I understand, but I thought I did ask one question but maybe it wasn't clear. What is the best sounding CPU efficient EQ.



Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Ryan, what are you EQ-ing?



Good question... about everything from Spitfire needs a hi-pass on it. All the room noise and build up gets nuts. A lot of CinePerc and CineWinds have the same issues, lots of bass build up.

SO mainly hi-pass. I do some dips around 120 on say Adagio's Basses. Again all subtractive.

I can certainly use Cubase's built-in EQ, but for some reason—probably psychological reasons—I've always felt like the built-in effects were never that quite good.

So for what I'm doing which is hi-passing and some dips here and there Cubase is fine?


----------



## wesbender (Nov 7, 2014)

ryanstrong @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> SO mainly hi-pass. I do some dips around 120 on say Adagio's Basses. Again all subtractive.
> 
> I can certainly use Cubase's built-in EQ, but for some reason—probably psychological reasons—I've always felt like the built-in effects were never that quite good.
> 
> So for what I'm doing which is hi-passing and some dips here and there Cubase is fine?



I'm not really a fan of Cubase's EQ for any aggressive boosting, but for general mix clean-up and other subtractive duties, it's (imo) perfectly fine.

I also quite like this one for low-end taming. I keep it on just about every track in every project, CPU hit is pretty much non-existent.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

> I can certainly use Cubase's built-in EQ, but for some reason—probably psychological reasons—I've always felt like the built-in effects were never that quite good.



I'm going to assume it's the most processor-efficient one and suggest that you simply A/B - but on a whole mix.

It's generally quite hard to hear the difference between processors when you're just doing gentle lowpass filtering, because the corner frequencies are over a wide range. At least I assume that's why - I'm not a DSP engineer!

You can always bring out the special EQs for boosting and more complicated shaping.


----------



## Rctec (Nov 7, 2014)

Cubase' EQ is just fine. Really nothing wrong with it...it's just not as pretty to look at. But the basic math is solid. And - unless you are after non-linear response, EQ is a very simple algorithm. I use it all the time. If I want to go crazy, I use the UAD stuff. All my engineers are using the pro-tools Massenburg plug-in.


----------



## maclaine (Nov 7, 2014)

Rctec @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Cubase' EQ is just fine. Really nothing wrong with it...it's just not as pretty to look at. I use it all the time.



Well this is a fun fact about what the big wigs use. I think it goes to show that most of the basic tools we all use are generally very good at this point. Perhaps the old school mentality of everything being locked into hardware and the most expensive studio with the most expensive hardware equaled the overall best still persists? 

I use Nuendo, but it's got that same EQ I imagine. The latest major update (version 6 for Nuendo, 7 for Cubase, I believe) that came out last year adds the audio spectrum below the frequency axis as the track plays, which is a great help. I rarely find that I need something more advanced than this, and if I do, I'll move to something like Waves C4 for some multi-band compression in place of a vanilla EQ.


----------



## devastat (Nov 7, 2014)

Eiosis AirEQ should be released few days from now, that might be worth looking into.


----------



## dgburns (Nov 7, 2014)

Rctec @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Cubase' EQ is just fine. Really nothing wrong with it...it's just not as pretty to look at. But the basic math is solid. And - unless you are after non-linear response, EQ is a very simple algorithm. I use it all the time. If I want to go crazy, I use the UAD stuff. All my engineers are using the pro-tools Massenburg plug-in.



I'll second that (fwiw lol)


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 7, 2014)

Rctec @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Cubase' EQ is just fine. Really nothing wrong with it...it's just not as pretty to look at. But the basic math is solid. And - unless you are after non-linear response, EQ is a very simple algorithm. I use it all the time. If I want to go crazy, I use the UAD stuff. All my engineers are using the pro-tools Massenburg plug-in.



Welp thats all I needed to hear. My CPU thanks you Mr. Zimmer. BTW I am VERY excited to see Interstellar tonight, I hear the score is incredible!


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 7, 2014)

Rctec @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Cubase' EQ is just fine. Really nothing wrong with it...it's just not as pretty to look at. But the basic math is solid. ...



Yes!

And if u want to do something special, duplicate your audio track and inverse the phase of one of it. At first you will hear nothing, but then again insert the Cubase Studio eq in one of the channels and experiment! o-[][]-o


----------



## Jason_D (Nov 7, 2014)

I like to use Cubase' built-in EQ for corrective EQ on individual tracks. On the group tracks I start to use UAD's and Waves' plug-ins. Both of these companies provide solutions to run FX outside of your computers processor. They also sound great if not the best. An RME card will help as well, for when you need to run a plug-in from Izotope, Fab Filter, 2C Audio etc.


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 7, 2014)

Jason_D @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> An RME card will help as well, for when you need to run a plug-in from Ozone, Fab Filter, 2C Audio etc.



How so?


----------



## Jason_D (Nov 7, 2014)

> How so?



In my case, running an RME card increased the VST performance. If you are getting clicks and pops from running too many FX plug-ins, you can increase the buffer setting (1024, 2048, 4096 etc).


----------



## amsams (Nov 7, 2014)

+1 on Fab Filter Pro Q 2... it's easily my go to EQ...versatile, transparent, light and clean. I've run multiple instances in Logic Pro X on large projects with no CPU issues at all.


----------



## shapeshifter00 (Nov 7, 2014)

I have tried Fabfilter Pro-Q and it is lovely. Easy to work with and my favorite EQ plugin, but I do not own it cause the price is a bit steep for me atm. My go-to EQ is Toneboosters Equalizer v3.08. It is also pretty easy to work with and it have what I need and the sound is pretty good, I prefer it over the Cubase EQ, but for some low-cut etc the Cubase EQ usually does the job for me and it saves resources.

Air EQ looks great, hopefully it is as good as it looks and that the price is good. But on a budget I feel the Toneboosters EQ from the Track Essentials is nice.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Nov 7, 2014)

Not to hijack,
What's a good ultra low-cpu hungry HP (or maybe LP for that matter) to put after Kontakt, Play, Omni while hosting it in VE Pro? I would just put one on the return in Cubase but sometimes there are other plugins in between and it might be better to clean it up at the source. I'd use FF or something fancy but I have loads of channels sometimes and it's just a HP. 
thanks


----------



## tokatila (Nov 8, 2014)

I have heard an old adage that EQ quality matters more when boosting than cutting. Have you found this true?

What I have found is that great GUI makes EQ sound better though... :wink:


----------



## Vin (Nov 8, 2014)

I use Cubase's built-in EQ for cuts on individual channels and TDR/VOS Slick EQ for boosting, mainly on the master out. For just HP, you really don't need anything fancy.


----------



## RiffWraith (Nov 8, 2014)

tokatila @ Sat Nov 08 said:


> I have heard an old adage that EQ quality matters more when boosting than cutting.



Not necessarily true. It_ could _be; that depends on the EQ. But as a general rule, def not.



tokatila @ Sat Nov 08 said:


> What I have found is that great GUI makes EQ sound better though... :wink:



YES! EQs with white-based GUIs sound crisper, and EQs with grey-based GUIs sound warmer. :mrgreen:


----------



## spiralbill (Nov 8, 2014)

FabFilter ProQ2 and McDSP filterbank will be my answer


----------



## kwuk (Nov 9, 2014)

Music is my hobby but I'm a mathematical physicist and software engineer by trade so although I lack any real mixing talent I feel I can contribute to this discussion 

The maths/algorithms behind the two main types of EQ (zero latency + zero phase) have been around for a long long time and use (IIR and FIR filters respectively). Minimum phase is slightly different but doesn't change any of the points I want to make (I'm not aware of any developers having invented anything novel, they are all using freely available information on digital signal processing as far as I'm aware). Putting aside any deliberate harmonic colouration that developers have baked into their EQ, the objective quality of an EQ is based on one thing: the resolution of the filter. By resolution I mean the number of samples over which the filter is applied to achieve it's filtering (in camera terms people talk about mega-pixels when they refer to resolution). A higher resolution filter applies to a higher number of samples (think pixels per square inch on a camera). It's not the case that a filter operating on twice the number of samples is twice as good, but it should be better up to a point of diminishing returns. What developers do have control over is the filter design. Filter design is just a fancy way of saying some well known formulas were used to work out some numbers to use in the bog standard IIR/FIR filter algorithms based on what resolution and compromises the developer wants to make. Oversampling is also used to increase the quality of a filter.

Higher resolution filters are by nature more CPU intensive (more calculations). Oversampling is more CPU intensive (more calculations). So this all means a more CPU intensive EQ should produce better results (I say "should" because it also depends on how good the programmer is at writing an efficient plugin).

Other interesting stuff to do with quality comes into play when you start to take a closer look at EQ.

Each "point" on your parametric EQ is a separate filter. Filters are not perfect, they mangle the waveform a bit (filter design is also about deciding what type of mangling you can get away with for a given scenario). I use the word mangle to mean any undersirable waveform distortion, phase changes, etc (which all depend on the filter types). Interestingly the accepted filter algorithms used in audio processing are considered to be the best for their perceived quality (by the human ear). There are other filter types which don't sound as good but a spectrum analyzer would rate them better. So be careful when trying to judge stuff based on wiggly lines rather than listening.

The reason a cut is generally better than a boost is that when you add a point (a.k.a filter) to your parametric EQ, the most mangling is in the frequency range of the point. So a boost is going to mean the volume of the frequencies that are undergoing the most mangling are being increased relative to the other frequencies the most whereas a cut means the frequencies undergoing the most mangling are being lowered the most. It also depends on the parameters of the point (e.g. Q). I imagine an experienced engineer would have a good feel for when mangling artefacts from adjustments are going to become a problem.

Some observations which may spark further debate:

- for each point added to a parametric EQ, you are adding a new filter and therefore increasing the mangling of the sound wave for every point added. So two points both cutting may produce more mangling that one point boosting depending on the parameters of each point.

- two instances of a parametric EQ should be mathematically equivalent to one instance with the same two points (I say "should" because the developer could have done something odd to undermine that).

- two instances of a zero phase EQ (FIRs have latency) will not double the latency on your bus (and point 2 should hold for them, unless the developer has done something odd).

- a hi pass filter on your EQ is not going to be more/less CPU hungry (or better/worse quality) than a hi pass filter in your DAW or other plugin unless they may use different resolution filters. They will be using the same filter types as there's no magic to any of this stuff. So if you like using your EQ for this, carry on doing it would be my suggestion!

- I imagine a recording engineer may have something to say about noise levels in different frequency ranges potentially being of factor than EQ quality to a point i.e. the quality if the signal is probably of more importance than the quality of the filter in terms of what's contributing to what you're hearing. For instance EQing mud might be better than no EQ - so is the recording the thing to worry about 

A further (very subtle) question which nobody ever asks:

- does the order of filter points / EQs instances make a difference? Technically the output would be different. But would your ears care?

In practice I think you should go nuts on your mix buses, have fun, and not worry too much about plugin quality (if I personally used the "best" most CPU intensive plugin it would still sound rubbish so the biggest factor is probably skill) 

The sound from all your mix buses is going to get summed together and the mangling will be harder to hear (it's very hard to hear anyway unless you're doing drastic adjustments), and I can't hear it because I'm not a talented mix engineer  What I would think carefully about if you're a perfectionist is the quality of what you're doing on your master bus. I would be looking for oversampling, high resolution filters, and therefore expect high CPU (i.e. mastering plugins).

One further observation (again, I have never heard anyone discussing this) is if you apply a very similar hi pass filter on a lot of your mix busses, then there will be a lot more mangling in similar frequencies should you worry? Probably not if you're hi passing to tame unwanted frequencies.

I've not seen many developers offer a feature where the resolution of the EQ can be higher when rendering (I have a reverb plugin that does this) - that would be nice if it was more common 

Well maybe I've just increased the amount of stuff to worry about, but hopefully given some information as to when to worry about it and I've not even mentioned phase...


----------



## Den (Nov 10, 2014)

Main workhorse is Fabfilter Pro Q for removing the unwanted.
For adding or boosting only one works: Metric Halo Channel Strip 3.


----------



## Dom (Nov 10, 2014)

My go-to EQ is the excellent sounding and easy to use Sonnox Oxford EQ. It's easy on CPU. You can choose different response curves, and I have mostly set to "Type 3" which I find the most "musical".


----------



## jamwerks (Nov 10, 2014)

I use lots of eq's and did a simular search. With samples, no need for eq's with a sound imo. I try to eq at the source, so I use eq directly in K5, and the NI SSL eq in VEP, in Cubase with Steinberg Studio eq, and Ozone on the 2 buss.


----------



## JacquesMathias (Nov 10, 2014)

kwuk @ Sun Nov 09 said:


> Music is my hobby but I'm a mathematical physicist and software engineer by trade so although I lack any real mixing talent I feel I can contribute to this discussion
> 
> The maths/algorithms behind the two main types of EQ (zero latency + zero phase) have been around for a long long time and use (IIR and FIR filters respectively). Minimum phase is slightly different but doesn't change any of the points I want to make (I'm not aware of any developers having invented anything novel, they are all using freely available information on digital signal processing as far as I'm aware). Putting aside any deliberate harmonic colouration that developers have baked into their EQ, the objective quality of an EQ is based on one thing: the resolution of the filter. By resolution I mean the number of samples over which the filter is applied to achieve it's filtering (in camera terms people talk about mega-pixels when they refer to resolution). A higher resolution filter applies to a higher number of samples (think pixels per square inch on a camera). It's not the case that a filter operating on twice the number of samples is twice as good, but it should be better up to a point of diminishing returns. What developers do have control over is the filter design. Filter design is just a fancy way of saying some well known formulas were used to work out some numbers to use in the bog standard IIR/FIR filter algorithms based on what resolution and compromises the developer wants to make. Oversampling is also used to increase the quality of a filter.
> 
> ...





Great reading, thanks. Cubase hi-pass over here. Actually, I think the Cubase EQ is very usable for my ears, particularly for small tweaking.
Also, love the PSP stuff for EQ, Neon Hi-resolution specially - not CPU friendly, though 

By the way, are you familiar with Nebula 3 Pro? AITB - Mammoth EQ is killer. It just has a smooth, beautiful sound.


----------



## dgburns (Nov 10, 2014)

Does anybody else like the Brainworx bx_digital V2?

I've been starting to use it on the master bus,and it has a few nice features not usually found on a eq alone.I'm still trying to figure out if I like it..... :?:


----------



## synthetic (Nov 10, 2014)

I use the Cubase EQ for 95% of stuff, when I want something different I love DMG EQuilibrium. Most digital EQs sound grainy when you boost a high shelf but that one sounds better to me. Better than Sonnox EQ which was my previous favorite.


----------



## Dryden.Chambers (Nov 10, 2014)

Anyone want to take a try on what would be the equivalent to the Cubase EQ in Logic X btw ?

I love the UA stuff as well (Pultec -bow to Lanois), and the Trident A Range.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Nov 10, 2014)

What's wrong with Logic's stock EQ, Dryden?


----------



## Lupez (Nov 12, 2014)

what you want is SSL X-EQ in parallel mode.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 12, 2014)

I am about to write a review on this one, which should be released next week, So far, I am digging it.

http://www.eiosis.com


----------



## Marius Masalar (Nov 12, 2014)

I feel like that Eiosis EQ has been "coming soon" "release in one week" for like two years. I remember seeing ads for it in SoundOnSound ages ago.

Cool concept though, so I look forward to your review to see if it was worth the wait!


----------



## devastat (Nov 13, 2014)

The AirEQ has been released now - www.eiosis.com


----------



## TakeABow (Nov 18, 2014)

The new Slate VMR is quite nice and really light on CPU. The new Air EQ is also really nice sounding and CPU efficient. The last week has been a breakthrough in EQ world.

I use Fabfilter Pro-Q for most everything these days, but I might be switching to the VMR as my go-to.


----------



## Soundmagic (Dec 10, 2014)

I would receommend a new type EQ it might helpful for your case, you can check it here
http://www.supremepiano.com/product/neoeq.html


----------



## Dryden.Chambers (Dec 10, 2014)

Good point as usual Marius  But when you have UAD and now thunderbolt its just so tempting hehehe



Marius Masalar @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> What's wrong with Logic's stock EQ, Dryden?


----------

