# How important is it to own a dynamic EQ?



## Voider (May 15, 2021)

I'm currently looking at the Fabfilter Pro Q, but I am not sure how necessary it is to have a dynamic EQ.

I know that it can deal with problematic frequencies - only when they become problematic, or adjust proportional to _how_ problematic they are at any given point in your piece.

But I wonder if that's just a nice to have + timesaver or even more that I can't see yet. If I identifiy a problematic frequency and notice a part where it gets too much, I can simply automate that band there for that while with any normal EQ too.

So what do you think? Is there more to it - and is the amount of saved time huge or either small?


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 15, 2021)

I would say it's nearly essential.


----------



## NoamL (May 15, 2021)

I used the stock EQ (in Logic X) for years. However, since getting Fabfilter Q3 I haven't looked back. It is an excellent EQ with very good precision for surgical cuts. The dynamic EQ and match EQ functions are useful as well. The user interface is intuitive. I'd say you only need one "problem solving" EQ (as opposed to EQs for broadly changing the character of a sound) and Q3 is one of the best for that.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (May 15, 2021)

Voider said:


> I'm currently looking at the Fabfilter Pro Q, but I am not sure how necessary it is to have a dynamic EQ.
> 
> I know that it can deal with problematic frequencies - only when they become problematic, or adjust proportional to _how_ problematic they are at any given point in your piece.



You say yourself what you can use such an EQ for. If you have such problems, then it would be a pity not to be able to use a dynamic EQ. But beware: there are mixers that smooth everything through the whole mix. They enjoy the wriggling curves. Unfortunately, such mixes then often sound flat and somewhat uninteresting. It is then only the curves that move. That's why it's probably good advice to use a dynamic EQ only very selectively in the beginning and not just generally and for everything.


Personally, I often use Dyn EQs for classical singers. They often have a sharp focus (to bring the sound to the audience) which can be a bit distracting on the recording. If you had to enter the curves by hand, it would take a lot of time. So that's why I think it makes sense to use such Dyn EQs - but really specifically (just my opinion). 
About the ProQ3: 
I also use it but most time not in automatic mode (Level). Sometimes I would like to be able to adjust the attack - and the release time as well. That's something I don't have with it, especially when using voices, because our hearing is quite sensitive with them.

Beat


----------



## Loïc D (May 15, 2021)

Another vote for ProQ3.
Dynamic EQ is paramount for getting rid of some resonances. Lately I’ve used it on percussions (taiko, timpani, etc.)


----------



## Pier (May 15, 2021)

Dynamic EQ has technical purposes such as fixing sibilants, but if you're into creative sound design IMO it's one of those things that you wonder how you lived without it your entire life.

I haven't used other dynamic EQs, but ProQ3 is amazing.


----------



## lumcas (May 15, 2021)

I love Pro-Q3 and hope that its dynamic features will actually get some overhaul for the next iteration. If you want to dip your toes in dynamic EQs I can only recommend Waves F6. 









F6 Floating-Band Dynamic EQ | Waves


Surgical dynamic equalizer with 6 floating, fully-adjustable parametric filter bands, advanced EQ and compression/expansion controls per band, mid-side processing options, real-time frequency spectrum analyzer, and more.




www.waves.com





You can get it right now for $27 at everyplugin.com and it's just a great EQ for the buck. Also, there are many other very useful tools like Soothe 2, Gulfoss, Voxengo Teote etc., so you might want to take a look at those as well.


----------



## Chris Harper (May 15, 2021)

I really like Tokyo Dawn’s Nova. It’s not quite as powerful as Pro-Q3 since it is limited to 4 bands (I never use that many for dynamic EQ anyway), but it is free and has a nice interface. I love all of TDR’s free plugins and regularly use them over other paid options.

Link


----------



## DovesGoWest (May 15, 2021)

If you use Cubase the stock frequency eq is dynamic, otherwise there is waves f6 another option is to a multiband compressor like the c4 or c6


----------



## Trash Panda (May 15, 2021)

You can save yourself some serious scratch, get most (not all) of the Pro Q3 features with Hornet Total EQ.



Edit: this includes dynamic eq for each band.


----------



## Voider (May 15, 2021)

DovesGoWest said:


> If you use Cubase the stock frequency eq is dynamic, otherwise there is waves f6 another option is to a multiband compressor like the c4 or c6


Maybe in Pro but in Artist I don't have a dynamic EQ in Cubase.


----------



## Pier (May 15, 2021)

Another option for dynamic EQ is TDR Nova which is excellent and is free.









TDR Nova | Tokyo Dawn Records


A dynamic equalizer in parallel configuration. Precise tone control paired with powerful dynamics processing.




www.tokyodawn.net


----------



## Trash Panda (May 15, 2021)

Also, if you already have Izotope Neutron 3 or Ozone, there are dynamic eq modules in those.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 15, 2021)

Pier said:


> Another option for dynamic EQ is TDR Nova which is excellent and is free.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is the one to get if saving money over Q3. Get the GE edition - 6 bands and a few more goodies. Plus supporting the amazing developer(s).


----------



## robgb (May 15, 2021)

This one is excellent.









MDynamicEq


The 2nd most powerful (dynamic) equalizer available



www.meldaproduction.com


----------



## JamieLang (May 15, 2021)

I'm not saying don't use it. But, I'm saying if you line up your fave record of the 60+ year recorded music era in any genre ....no statistically relevant amount might have some dynamic EQ anywhere, at any point in the process. I find it hard to call that super necessary when there's literally 60 years of proof it's not.

FWIW-The Cubase EQ got the dynamic bit added in the latest v11. Prior, it was not dynamic.

I'm a geeky ho dawg who will try every kind of new whiz bang to make my job easier. I've literally NEVER gotten anything with a dynamic EQ I couldn't get BETTER with traditional tools. I mean, I will pull client overheads into RX just to fix their polarity and stereo imaging before starting the mix process--I love the Harrison things where you can EQ the attack and sustain of a drum or bass signal independently...I'm in NO way a luddite in terms of NOT finding use in neo digital tools. But, I think this Ddynamic EQ craze is often a band aid for what you don't know how to do. Poor tracking with cheap mics and shit acoustics....

Obviously...YMMV. I certainly wish I could make them do something uniquely cool.


----------



## ennbr (May 15, 2021)

I've been using the Waves F6 works quite well and only $30 does everything a Dynamic EQ need to do


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 15, 2021)

JamieLang said:


> I'm not saying don't use it. But, I'm saying if you line up your fave record of the 60+ year recorded music era in any genre ....no statistically relevant amount might have some dynamic EQ anywhere, at any point in the process. I find it hard to call that super necessary when there's literally 60 years of proof it's not.
> 
> FWIW-The Cubase EQ got the dynamic bit added in the latest v11. Prior, it was not dynamic.
> 
> ...


60 years ago??! That's just a silly thing to say. Who's to say that that music wouldn't have sounded a lot better if they had modern tools? No one. Because time, technology, and tastes change and a lot of what's available now wasn't then.

I'm pretty sure they would've used all the same stuff if it were available. It's not like they were choosing to go DAWless, or anything. Musicians use what's available of their time.


----------



## Russell Anderson (May 15, 2021)

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the recording process itself was handled a lot more carefully, as lots of the mix was in the recording itself; nowadays people are singing in their closets and even with decent micing, I've at least seen other great mixing engineers using dynamic EQ to bring a kick drum more towards the front on the transient only among other things like brief resonance fixes in a vocal or guitar or something. The Harrison stuff sounds reasonably similar in practice.

Of course, I've still never used a dynamic EQ.  But like @Pier said, I probably don't even know what I'm missing, since I love sound design. Just grab Nova for now, ProQ3 is great but it's not on sale or anything as far as I know, and Fabfilter certainly isn't going anywhere :D

Plus @Beat Kaufmann linked to a testing method for EQs to check how they handle high boosts (whether they cause ringing, soft-clipping or whether you can use them as clean air EQs"), you can check to see how some of the EQs you're considering line up in case you want an all-in-one solution. https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/air-eq/index.php


----------



## Soundbed (May 15, 2021)

Changed my (mixing) life. I started using multiband compressors long before I discovered FabFilter ProQ but that is what I use now. I see them as similar although dynamic EQs are easier for ... “most” things you’d want to change dynamically on a frequency band.


----------



## DovesGoWest (May 16, 2021)

Voider said:


> Maybe in Pro but in Artist I don't have a dynamic EQ in Cubase.


Ah yes the Frequency EQ is only in Pro edition


----------



## robgb (May 16, 2021)

JamieLang said:


> I'm not saying don't use it. But, I'm saying if you line up your fave record of the 60+ year recorded music era in any genre ....no statistically relevant amount might have some dynamic EQ anywhere, at any point in the process. I find it hard to call that super necessary when there's literally 60 years of proof it's not.
> 
> FWIW-The Cubase EQ got the dynamic bit added in the latest v11. Prior, it was not dynamic.
> 
> ...


There's also significant proof you don't need more than a couple tracks. I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## davidson (May 16, 2021)

Don't overlook okesounds soothe. Not an eq per se, but solves the same issues a lot of us reach to dynamic eqs for and does it better imo.


----------



## el-bo (May 16, 2021)

JamieLang said:


> I'm not saying don't use it. But, I'm saying if you line up your fave record of the 60+ year recorded music era in any genre ....no statistically relevant amount might have some dynamic EQ anywhere, at any point in the process. I find it hard to call that super necessary when there's literally 60 years of proof it's not.


I'm going to guess that in the case of this community, much of our favourite music was recorded before plugins existed at all. 



JamieLang said:


> But, I think this Ddynamic EQ craze is often a band aid for what you don't know how to do. Poor tracking with cheap mics and shit acoustics....


Not all of us are able to afford, or cannot modify our workspaces, to combat the kinds of issues for which dynamic EQ can be useful. We don't all have access to professional recorded spaces, nor are we necessarily recording live instruments.



JamieLang said:


> Obviously...YMMV.


Given the rest of your post, I'm not sure it's that obvious that you're speaking for yourself


----------



## el-bo (May 16, 2021)

Here's another option. And, in thinking of it, it struck me that I don't see this developer's name come up much on VI-C. Anyway, it's definitely worth checking out his stuff. Extremely affordable, and generally regarded pretty highly:






ToneBoosters | Audio Plug-ins | Equalizer


Pro-grade audio software




www.toneboosters.com


----------



## re-peat (May 16, 2021)

JamieLang said:


> I'm saying if you line up your fave record of the 60+ year recorded music era in any genre ....no statistically relevant amount might have some dynamic EQ anywhere, at any point in the process. I find it hard to call that super necessary when there's literally 60 years of proof it's not.


People didn’t make sample-based mock-ups during those 6 decades which you speak of, Jamie. If they had done so, they sure would have sought and found some technical solution to deal with the highly unnatural frequency build-ups that are an inevitable side-effect of stacking samples on top of one another.

Also: multiband compression (to which dynamic EQ’ing is related) has actually been in use since the 60’s. Altec, for example, had a two-band compressor, the early Dolby systems were all multiband affairs and there was also the Gentner Prism, a 4-band compressor. Most of these tools were developed for, and used in radio broadcasting, but some made their way into recording studios as well.

And even in absence of any of these tools: studio engineers throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s (until the arrival of the first digital tools in fact) did experiment with crossovers and filters and such, so as to be able to isolate specific frequency bands for treatment.

_


----------



## toddkreuz (May 16, 2021)

Check out Soothe 2 by OEKsound. A very nice little problem frequency solver.


----------



## Bernard Duc (May 16, 2021)

re-peat said:


> People didn’t make sample-based mock-ups during those 6 decades which you speak of, Jamie. If they had done so, they sure would have sought and found some technical solution to deal with the highly unnatural frequency build-ups that are an inevitable side-effect of stacking samples on top of one another.
> 
> Also: multiband compression (to which dynamic EQ’ing is related) has actually been in use since the 60’s. Altec, for example, had a two-band compressor, the early Dolby systems were all multiband affairs and there was also the Gentner Prism, a 4-band compressor. Most of these tools were developed for, and used in radio broadcasting, but some made their way into recording studios as well.
> 
> ...


That, and also tube microphones, tube preamps, tape, basically all reduce dynamic range and will tame resonant frequencies (which is why we often like this sound even if it's less accurate).


----------



## Chris Harper (May 16, 2021)

re-peat said:


> Also: multiband compression (to which dynamic EQ’ing is related) has actually been in use since the 60’s. Altec, for example, had a two-band compressor, the early Dolby systems were all multiband affairs and there was also the Gentner Prism, a 4-band compressor. Most of these tools were developed for, and used in radio broadcasting, but some made their way into recording studios as well.
> _


That’s a really good point. Dynamic EQ is fundamentally the same thing as multiband compression using different signal processing techniques that weren’t available before. [Edit: removed the thing I said that was false]. Dynamic EQ can be a bit more subtle since you can adjust gain directly instead of using compression ratios. In my kitchen, I have a French knife and a paring knife. I suppose I don’t need a paring knife, but I do use it.

If we always had flawless recordings, then most processing plugins and hardware would be unnecessary, although that depends on the application also. It would have been impossible, for instance, to produce a lot of modern pop or hip hop music in 1976, but a good orchestral recording from 1976 sounds just as good as any good recording today. So I suppose it’s also a matter of taste.


----------



## SupremeFist (May 16, 2021)

Many sampled pianos have resonances on certain notes that make that note stick out compared with its neighbours at the same dynamic level. Very useful to have a dynamic EQ for that.


----------



## Russell Anderson (May 16, 2021)

Don’t dynamic EQs have attack and release?

One thing to note is that a dynamic EQ will not result in the same kind of saturation that a compressor will, as a compressor is built on transfer functions/essentially waveshaping, and uses some kind of (variably) soft clipping to flatten out signals. You can be much more surgical with a dynamic EQ, but then there’s phase shifting happening, too. Pick your sauce.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 16, 2021)

JamieLang said:


> 'm not saying don't use it. But, I'm saying if you line up your fave record of the 60+ year recorded music era in any genre ....no statistically relevant amount might have some dynamic EQ anywhere, at any point in the process. I find it hard to call that super necessary when there's literally 60 years of proof it's not.


this is what I see. 

Infact I run almost every DAW fad through this. When 192k came out, I asked myself how many CDs have excellent mixes at 44.1 

I'm not a hardware junkie, but I'm not familiar with a 'classic' dynamic EQ. What I assume is the more likely scenario that dynamic EQ is replacing - is the handful of times an engineer either automated a band to fix one or two trouble spots in a song, or physically rode the attentuation knob for those parts. 

Multiband compressors are another part of the puzzle ofcourse - but still, I don't think the productions I know and love have a dynamic EQ anywhere.


----------



## Soundbed (May 16, 2021)

To all those talking about vintage equipment and techniques:

one can boost frequencies with a conventional EQ and then compress (typical wide band compression) — which effectively compresses the non-boosted frequencies differently.

some compressors also have sidechain inputs that compress when fed by a secondary source, and that source can be a highly eq’d copy of the original (e.g., sibilants in a de-esser function).

these two techniques specifically are made easier with a dynamic EQ.

of course side chaining a different instrument is also possible, and dynamic eqs with side chains make that easier as well.

so while not “needed” to make great music, the innovation of dynamic EQ simply allows access to some sound manipulation possibilities that were more challenging or difficult with earlier equipment.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 16, 2021)

re-peat said:


> People didn’t make sample-based mock-ups during those 6 decades which you speak of, Jamie. If they had done so, they sure would have sought and found some technical solution to deal with the highly unnatural frequency build-ups that are an inevitable side-effect of stacking samples on top of one another.
> 
> Also: multiband compression (to which dynamic EQ’ing is related) has actually been in use since the 60’s. Altec, for example, had a two-band compressor, the early Dolby systems were all multiband affairs and there was also the Gentner Prism, a 4-band compressor. Most of these tools were developed for, and used in radio broadcasting, but some made their way into recording studios as well.
> 
> ...


Decent rebut - but I'll say if that's the specific problem - something like trackspacer would probably be the better bet for re-creating the behavior of multiple sources sitting together(like bassoon and horn with samples vs real life). I ran a few tests a while back at the buss level and it seemed to work great, especially when it was only applied very lightly on each. 

I would also say that generally, physical multibands are going to sound and behave quite differently than dynamic EQ. You're no doubt much more familiar with any hardware that I would be, but how narrow of a band would they typically get? Fixing a stray resonance would probably require a very narrow range without cannibalizing the nearby notes. 

I'd say that mixing/mastering engineers probably use any and every tool they need, but I'm going to agree with kaufmann on the previous page, that typically users are going to opt for bouncy lines. That's the reason I don't use the trackspacer method I brought up... using it on everything is more of a crutch for me not being better, and the result looses some impact(as any compression would likely cause)


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 16, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> so while not “needed” to make great music, the innovation of dynamic EQ simply allows access to some sound manipulation possibilities that were more challenging or difficult with earlier equipment.


well thats the thing, forr sound design, literally anything can and should go. 

for mixing orchestral music made in a computer though, I'd caution people away from them. If your mix is muddy it might because of overdubbling - which wouldn't be as bad without the sample buildup, but can still be fixed by orchestrating more carefully. It's much easier for us to just add everything because it's a few clicks away(maybe event cltr + drag the same midi line onto another section) just to make a part 'stronger' when chipping away at the other parts would probably be a smarter option. 

I just personally don't trust myself with a dynamic EQ fixing problems that writing could have solved. 

on the other hand, as an honest ENTP - I'll say there is ALSO merit for reaching for dynamic EQ **instead off** a multiband when you're using it to surgically solve a problem with the goal of preserving the original sound as much as possible.


----------



## el-bo (May 16, 2021)

Russell Anderson said:


> Don’t dynamic EQs have attack and release?


The Toneboosters EQ does.


----------



## Chris Harper (May 16, 2021)

Russell Anderson said:


> Don’t dynamic EQs have attack and release?


Haha yes, you got me there. Even the one I recommended in this same thread does. How embarrassing! I’ll fix my post so I don’t confuse anyone.


----------



## Soundbed (May 16, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> well thats the thing, forr sound design, literally anything can and should go.
> 
> for mixing orchestral music made in a computer though, I'd caution people away from them. If your mix is muddy it might because of overdubbling - which wouldn't be as bad without the sample buildup, but can still be fixed by orchestrating more carefully. It's much easier for us to just add everything because it's a few clicks away(maybe event cltr + drag the same midi line onto another section) just to make a part 'stronger' when chipping away at the other parts would probably be a smarter option.
> 
> ...


I'm sure we agree for the most part.

That said, I'll take the opportunity to expand on my points a bit.

I encourage anyone interested in mixing to _feel comfortable_ with mixing techniques ... if people don't want to "mix" orchestral instruments ... well, they can ignore.

- 110% Agreed that better writing and better orchestration "solves" many or most "mixing" challenges.

- I wasn't talking about sound design, I was talking about musical applications. Granted, more in the "rock/pop" direction though.

- I make hybrid orchestral with VIs, so my comments here on VI-C are often from that perspective.

- Several sample instruments benefit (imho) from a range of dynamic eq techniques, whether trying to _enhance the illusion_ that you're "preserving the original sound" or "to surgically solve a problem".

- Speaking for media composers, in some cases our challenge is to make our sampled instruments sound like reference material. This is why I put the above two quotes of yours in quotes; sometimes the "problem" is that the "original" sound of our sampled instrument needs to be sculpted to sound a bit more like a reference. in these cases gently employing some dynamic EQ can be a bit more subtle and life-like than a fixed EQ.

- Can't recall which Myers-Briggs type I am ... I think when I took the abbreviated version a couple decades ago I was an xNTx where my answers to E/I and P/J were so close as to be within a margin of error.


----------



## bill5 (May 16, 2021)

Chris Harper said:


> I really like Tokyo Dawn’s Nova. It’s not quite as powerful as Pro-Q3 since it is limited to 4 bands (I never use that many for dynamic EQ anyway), but it is free and has a nice interface. I love all of TDR’s free plugins and regularly use them over other paid options.


Seconded. For the sake of argument I'll concede Q3 is better, but I'd bet a month's pay the diffs are not huge. One of the best free plugins around. 




vitocorleone123 said:


> 60 years ago??! That's just a silly thing to say. Who's to say that that music wouldn't have sounded a lot better if they had modern tools?


I am. It's hardly silly; it's true. You could nit-pick certain songs I'm sure, but generally, IMO they would not have sounded even a little better, because they had other ways of accomplishing things vs today, and all you have to do is listen for proof. That said, I think often the ways they did it were harder and required a lot more expertise, so it's not that what's being done now is better necessarily, it's that there are easier ways to do it. 

I think it varies with what you're trying to do, but generally, dynamic EQs are nice to haves only. And it's nice to have.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 16, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> - Can't recall which Myers-Briggs type I am ... I think when I took the abbreviated version a couple decades ago I was an xNTx where my answers to E/I and P/J were so close as to be within a margin of error.


We are of course aware of the fact that Myers-Briggs is a bunch of pop psychology hooey - in its scientific value slightly above a horoscope and mostly used in the same way/for the same reasons.


----------



## Soundbed (May 16, 2021)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> We are of course aware of the fact that Myers-Briggs is a bunch of pop psychology hooey - in its scientific value slightly above a horoscope and mostly used in the same way/for the same reasons.


My mom’s a psychologist so I don’t have the best perspective perhaps. I grew up with the DSM-III on the dining room table.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 16, 2021)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> - in its scientific value slightly above a horoscope


Ya know I joke and call it a horoscope

That said, it was pretty on the nose for me- down to how I filter for friends


----------



## JamieLang (May 16, 2021)

re-peat said:


> People didn’t make sample-based mock-ups during those 6 decades which you speak of, Jamie. If they had done so, they sure would have sought and found some technical solution to deal with the highly unnatural frequency build-ups that are an inevitable side-effect of stacking samples on top of one another.


Fair point.


----------



## Henu (May 17, 2021)

re-peat said:


> highly unnatural frequency build-ups that are an inevitable side-effect of stacking samples on top of one another.


This times 1000. I do a lot of mixing, and generally speaking dynamic EQ is a godsend when working with sampled orchestral stuff. Besides that, I only use it for problem-solving badly recorded tracks once in a while. (traditional de-essers don't count as such in my books, hehe. Those I use more often!)

Dynamic EQ's, multiband compressors and such can also really quickly completely kill your original signal, making if totally lifeless and unnatural, which is they hold a top spot on my "with great power comes great responsibility" book along with stereo wideners and limiters.


----------



## Chris Harper (May 17, 2021)

Henu said:


> This times 1000. I do a lot of mixing, and generally speaking dynamic EQ is a godsend when working with sampled orchestral stuff. Besides that, I only use it for problem-solving badly recorded tracks once in a while. (traditional de-essers don't count as such in my books, hehe. Those I use more often!)
> 
> Dynamic EQ's, multiband compressors and such can also really quickly completely kill your original signal, making if totally lifeless and unnatural, which is they hold a top spot on my "with great power comes great responsibility" book along with stereo wideners and limiters.


Excellent point. When there is a problem, there is a temptation to immediately reach for a plugin. Sometimes there may be a simple “low tech” solution that would work just as well without the risk of unintended consequences.

For dealing with a few trouble spots, automation is often a better solution. If stacked instruments are only causing a problem in a few places, it might be better to just briefly pull down the volume of one or two channels in those parts to get rid of the mud. Automating a single band of the EQ is a great way to pull out problem frequencies manually. It is essentially a low-tech dynamic EQ, but you have total control over when it is triggered, how quickly, how much and how long. You can’t get much more surgical than that. I like to use fader automation for minor de-essing as well. If there are only a few spots that need de-essing, pulling down the volume envelope over a few harsh syllables doesn’t take much more time than dialing in a plugin.

Someone above mentioned using a side-chain filter, which can also work really well on vocals or recorded instruments with some problem frequencies that come and go. It’s a very powerful technique when it is done well.

I definitely also use dynamic EQ, multiband, etc. when necessary, but I try to first ask myself if there is a lower-tech solution that might be better and less likely to have side effects. It might require slightly more labor, but can be done really fast with some practice.


----------



## Pier (May 17, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> Changed my (mixing) life. I started using multiband compressors long before I discovered FabFilter ProQ but that is what I use now. I see them as similar although dynamic EQs are easier for ... “most” things you’d want to change dynamically on a frequency band.


Same.

I used FF ProMB a lot (for creative sound design) but it's been collecting dust since I got ProQ3.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 18, 2021)

toddkreuz said:


> Check out Soothe 2 by OEKsound. A very nice little problem frequency solver.


Or DSEQ, which costs less, is more configurable/powerful, but harder to learn.


----------

