# Graphic EQs - Does anyone use them?



## zah (Oct 27, 2021)

Does anyone use graphic EQs in their work?
Or are they basically not needed these days now that you can use parametric and set your own frequencies and Q?
Are there any good uses for graphic EQs these days?


----------



## Henu (Oct 27, 2021)

Computer- based music production? Apart for characteristics and possible musically pleasing curves, not that much IMO.


----------



## Romy Schmidt (Oct 28, 2021)

I use a 30 band graphic EQ (Audition) to find the frequencies I want to adjust.


----------



## charlieclouser (Oct 28, 2021)

Sometimes I use the HorNet one for quick notching. It lets me dip (or boost) a range of frequencies with a "square" shape to the range instead of a pointy-vs-curved shape. This is quite useful.

But lately I've been using Empirical Labs BigFreq, which is a parametric eq that lets you achieve a similar "square" range using a single band.


----------



## sostenuto (Oct 28, 2021)

charlieclouser said:


> Sometimes I use the HorNet one for quick notching. It lets me dip (or boost) a range of frequencies with a "square" shape to the range instead of a pointy-vs-curved shape. This is quite useful.
> 
> But lately I've been using Empirical Labs BigFreq, which is a parametric eq that lets you achieve a similar "square" range using a single band.


Cool to see ! Prefer HoRNet Total EQ. Not sure why ..... 🤑


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 28, 2021)

charlieclouser said:


> But lately I've been using Empirical Labs BigFreq, which is a parametric eq that lets you achieve a similar "square" range using a single band.


izotope's Neutron EQ has a "band shelf" mode which – while not being exactly "squared" – provides quite a similar character.







Concerning the initial question:

Personally i really dig the approach that Newfangled Audio incorporates not only in its graphic EQ (EQuivocate) but also in Elevate (where the same approach is applied to Transient Design and Limiting)


----------



## sostenuto (Oct 28, 2021)

THX _(Clint) _ for 'reinvigorating' EQuivocate in brainFOG ! 'Makes my day' !!


----------



## AudioLoco (Oct 29, 2021)

With today's infinite EQ options... not really....
Sometimes the API 560 is a fast way to create a "radio" vocal sound, bass and hi down, mid all up etc...
That's the only use one I can think of...


----------



## darkogav (Oct 29, 2021)

zah said:


> Does anyone use graphic EQs in their work?
> Or are they basically not needed these days now that you can use parametric and set your own frequencies and Q?
> Are there any good uses for graphic EQs these days?


Graphic eq's as in hardware eq's or software? Yes, I use the IK EQ PG all the time. Same with their graphic EQ in Amplitube. The interface is just easier for me than the analog EQ emulations with knobs. I like the EQ PG because it's much faster and easier to visually see which freq you are adjusting and working on.


----------



## darkogav (Oct 29, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> Personally i really dig the approach that Newfangled Audio incorporates not only in its graphic EQ (EQuivocate) but also in Elevate (where the same approach is applied to Transient Design and Limiting)


That EQ is on my to get list. Can I ask, what is the performance hit on your system when using it? How many instances can you use?


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 29, 2021)

darkogav said:


> That EQ is on my to get list. Can I ask, what is the performance hit on your system when using it? How many instances can you use?


It's definitely a CPU hog.
However, if i use it, it's mostly on special occasions.
I remember having used it once in 24 instances to split a signal in 24 bands (which gave me 24 slices of some sounds that then went into different delays) and that was quite a borderline experience for my CPU. But normally, it's often just one instance.
BTW, It also has a nice Match EQ functionality that can be quite useful. 
You should demo it in any case to see how it works for you / your system.


----------



## fakemaxwell (Oct 29, 2021)

Pro-Q can also get quite square:





I can't think of a single in-the-box use case for a graphic EQ.


----------



## from_theashes (Oct 29, 2021)

I use a graphic EQ (TDR Nova free) all the time to set low cuts around 30hz and notch specific frequencies. Gets the low end rumble cleaner, when stacking instrument-groups.


----------



## rrichard63 (Oct 29, 2021)

I think graphic EQs are mainly used in live sound for tuning speaker systems in a room. But that's probably not what @zah had in mind.


----------



## ed buller (Oct 30, 2021)

Yes....very very useful in specific applications. The API 560 is a must if I'm recording guitars for instance

best

ed


----------



## bill5 (Oct 30, 2021)

from_theashes said:


> I use a graphic EQ (TDR Nova free)


? Not a graphic EQ. 

General FYI for the thread as there seems to be some confusion about the term: https://www.presonus.com/learn/technical-articles/What-Is-a-Graphic-Eq

I use a simple free one called Karma which does the job nicely. I like the simplicity of one on occasion when I know exactly what I want cut and how. I don't always want it "on a curve."


----------



## from_theashes (Oct 30, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> Nova is a parametric EQ (as in, you can set the frequency anywhere, change Q, and it's highly visual).


Yep, I got that twisted


----------



## re-peat (Oct 31, 2021)

One of the plugins I bought recently is the quite fantastic AYAIC “Ceilings Of Sound” Hyper EQ which is, deep-deep-down, a graphic EQ. But don’t call it that when the developer is within hearing distance, cause the COS EQ is much more than that. Much, much more. However, all that ‘much more’ needn’t concern us here — go look at some YouTube videos to find out all about it if you’re interested —, the point is that the EQ-part of the COS is of a 'graphic' design (31 or 50-band, as you choose). And the thing is: once you learn how to work with it, you can’t but be astounded by the power and versatility of a good graphic EQ. I’m now solving problems in the blink of eye that had me endlessly stymied before.


----------



## Gerbil (Oct 31, 2021)

ed buller said:


> Yes....very very useful in specific applications. The API 560 is a must if I'm recording guitars for instance
> 
> best
> 
> ed


Snap. Such a handy little EQ for that purpose.


----------



## zah (Oct 31, 2021)

Romy Schmidt said:


> I use a 30 band graphic EQ (Audition) to find the frequencies I want to adjust.


Couldn't you just sweep with a parametric?


----------



## zah (Oct 31, 2021)

Looks like there's very little use for an in-the-box graphic EQ. Like Liquidlino posts, they are a clumsy workflow. Maybe the only good use is for a guitar player in Ampltube (darkogav). Or that quick radio sound (AudioLoco).

Looks like the main use of graphic EQs out of box is to fine tune a room for live sound.
That said, could it be a good idea to "fine tune" your own "studio" room and have that graphic EQ right before your speakers? Currently, my "studio" room is a somewhat untreated area. Maybe treating problem areas could result in a more balanced mix.


----------



## Romy Schmidt (Oct 31, 2021)

zah said:


> Couldn't you just sweep with a parametric?


I like to use sliders. It's easier. I'm a bit simple.


----------



## Electric Lion (Oct 31, 2021)

I really like the API 560 on electric guitars. It’s my go to. But that’s probably because it’s what I’ve always used. I’m used to it and I know how to get the sound I want out of it.


----------



## clisma (Oct 31, 2021)

re-peat said:


> One of the plugins I bought recently is the quite fantastic AYAIC “Ceilings Of Sound” Hyper EQ which is, deep-deep-down, a graphic EQ. But don’t call it that when the developer is within hearing distance, cause the COS EQ is much more than that. Much, much more. However, all that ‘much more’ needn’t concern us here — go look at some YouTube videos to find out all about it if you’re interested —, the point is that the EQ-part of the COS is of a 'graphic' design (31 or 50-band, as you choose). And the thing is: once you learn how to work with it, you can’t but be astounded by the power and versatility of a good graphic EQ. I’m now solving problems in the blink of eye that had me endlessly stymied before.


Cat’s out of the bag...!

Kinda has been a bit of a secret weapon for me in the past year. Especially once I had created presets for the CSS series with its stellar matching capabilities. I’ve been asking the developer for a Dry/Wet control for a while now and I’m told it’s on its way. At least it has improved a lot in stability on Logic. 

OT: just acquired Sonnox Claro. In its “Produce” tab I would consider it a flexible graphic EQ. Very quick to dial in the right sound. So it’s back in use over here.


----------



## bill5 (Nov 2, 2021)

zah said:


> Looks like there's very little use for an in-the-box graphic EQ. Like Liquidlino posts, they are a clumsy workflow.


Disagree on both counts, but to each their own. Of course if I had to choose just one between the two, I'd easily choose a parametric EQ, but fortunately I don't have to choose...


----------



## zah (Nov 3, 2021)

zah said:


> Looks like there's very little use for an in-the-box graphic EQ. Like Liquidlino posts, they are a clumsy workflow. Maybe the only good use is for a guitar player in Ampltube (darkogav). Or that quick radio sound (AudioLoco).
> 
> Looks like the main use of graphic EQs out of box is to fine tune a room for live sound.
> That said, could it be a good idea to "fine tune" your own "studio" room and have that graphic EQ right before your speakers? Currently, my "studio" room is a somewhat untreated area. Maybe treating problem areas could result in a more balanced mix.


Suppose you could use a parametric to fine-tune instead of the graphic.


----------



## zah (Nov 3, 2021)

Romy Schmidt said:


> I like to use sliders. It's easier. I'm a bit simple.


I do understand.  I've used graphics mainly for guitar stuff. Sliders are definitely better to visualise what you're doing.


----------



## zah (Nov 3, 2021)

bill5 said:


> Disagree on both counts, but to each their own. Of course if I had to choose just one between the two, I'd easily choose a parametric EQ, but fortunately I don't have to choose...


Makes sense. It's a personal workflow thing. Maybe I'm kind of surprised that more people don't use the graphic EQs, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of options out there either.


----------



## b_elliott (Nov 3, 2021)

zah said:


> Does anyone use graphic EQs in their work?
> Or are they basically not needed these days now that you can use parametric and set your own frequencies and Q?
> Are there any good uses for graphic EQs these days?


FWIW (have not read all the thread replies) I noticed in IK's Mixbox there are graphic EQs all over the place used in its presets especially for drums and bass.

Some of the Mixbox presets include 4-5 other modules (reverbs, comps, delays, etc) and a few even have 2 graphic EQs (same preset). Worth a study if only to see why the designer chose such EQs instead of the other available EQ modules.

Then, in Amplitude 5 collections (off the top of my head) Dimebag uses graphic EQ to sculpt his gtr sound.

I rely on Dimebag & others' 100s of hours of tweaking to get things right to show me what's possible.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Bill


----------



## b_elliott (Nov 5, 2021)

re-peat said:


> One of the plugins I bought recently is the quite fantastic AYAIC “Ceilings Of Sound” Hyper EQ which is, deep-deep-down, a graphic EQ. But don’t call it that when the developer is within hearing distance, cause the COS EQ is much more than that. Much, much more. However, all that ‘much more’ needn’t concern us here — go look at some YouTube videos to find out all about it if you’re interested —, the point is that the EQ-part of the COS is of a 'graphic' design (31 or 50-band, as you choose). And the thing is: once you learn how to work with it, you can’t but be astounded by the power and versatility of a good graphic EQ. I’m now solving problems in the blink of eye that had me endlessly stymied before.


Your response sent me off on a study of the Hyper EQ (included with Mix Monolith as a bundle 50%).

Based on the sounds I hear in your songs (especially the _Rhapsodillo_ mix) your ears are hearing what I like to hear in a song.

In that I lack the skill-set to professionally EQ I am curious to know if this module operates better than either Izotope's Ozone 8 or Neutron 2 or IK's Master Match or if it similarly gets you to a starting point only. I am not looking for a one button marvel, just am curious if it could help someone with some hearing (high end) issues.

My question Piet, is how close does Ayaic's Mix Monolith/Hyper EQ get you to a finished mix?

Best, Bill
edit: correct name for Piet's song.


----------



## re-peat (Nov 5, 2021)

Well, as with all of this type of tools, I believe you still need (good) ears and (judgement) skills to arrive at great-sounding results, even though the developer claims, and not entirely unjustifiably so, that this EQ allows you to equalize 100% successfully _in complete silence_, i.o.w. without hearing anything at all.

I was skeptical too when I heard him say that in one of the many videos about this EQ, but the more I’m using it and the better I become at understanding it, the more I’m inclined to believe him.

The claim is largely based on the premise that the COS HyperEQ — being ‘noise-driven’ and the contours of its ‘ceilings’ and guides being determined by the physical principles that determine the distillation of (sonically pleasing) sound out of pure ‘white’ noise — is incapable of bad sound, provided you adhere in your ceiling- and curve-shaping to those same principles.

If you’re not in the least familiar with this EQ, I can understand that nothing of what I’m saying here makes any sense at all, but bear with me. It should become a little bit more clear in a few moments. I hope.

‘Noise-driven’ means that everything we hear around us is, in essence, a filtered residue of pure white noise. That’s the underlying idea that triggered the development of the COS HyperEq. What distinguishes one sound from another is, basically, different filtering. Now, the sonically (and/or musically) pleasing filtering of white noise has to happen according to certain curves unfolding in certain directions or along specific slopes. Nature of the beast. (Brown and pink noise, for example, each have their own specific slope.) And it’s the availability of these curves (which combine into what are called ‘ceilings’) that constitute the unique power of this EQ. The idea is to adhere with your EQ’ing as closely as possible to the curves and slopes (which follow the natural laws of filtered noise) and, doing so, arrive at an abstract manifestation of ‘good sound’. Hence that claim of being able to work with this EQ in complete silence.

But this is also precisely where I can imagine people, including myself, would express doubts and objections regarding the whole thing. I mean, the first thing that comes to mind is of course the question: is ‘abstract good sound’ always the right ‘good sound’ for the music that you’re working on? What is ‘good sound’ in one piece may not necessarily be ‘good sound’ in another, right? It’s this aspect of the plugin — its reliance on abstract values and principles for what defines ‘good sound’ (no matter how ‘correct’, empirically speaking) — that I don’t feel entirely comfortable with too yet. But maybe I still need to get better at truly understanding this unique EQ. I sometimes feel I’ve only scratched the surface of this thing. (In my defense, I’ve only started working seriously with this EQ since a week or two.)

Anyway, the software comes with several dozens of presets — ‘ceilings’ for all sorts of instruments, vocals and instrument groups in various situations, some even intended for use in a specific key — that are a great help in thoroughly grasping the concept of this EQ.

It’s all rather difficult to explain, you know, but believe me, this EQ, no matter how you use it, is insanely powerful. If you’re interested, I would strongly recommend downloading the demo and taking a few days out to really study the thing. Watching as many of the available videos as possible is, in my opinion, mandatory as well.

And even if you’re not interested in any of this weird ceiling stuff, you still have an incredibly powerful graphic EQ to work with. When people talk about surgical EQ’s, well, nothing is as surgical as this is. The possibilities are truly mind-boggling. (And understanding and appreciating the power of a graphic EQ like this, takes a lot less time than getting your head around the ceilings concept.)
Moreover, the software is also amazing at capturing ‘ceilings’ from reference material. Unbelievably useful.

I have the COS Pro on almost every single track in my projects now. Literally, on almost every single track. And it always makes a difference. Not necessarily a big difference in every case, but always a meaningful one.
I’m also seriously considering remixing much of my older stuff, knowing how profound an improvement the COS would make. The ‘Rhapsodillo’ piece was mixed before I had the COS Pro and I am 100% convinced that I can make it sound a lot better — a lot better — if I were to revisit that mix and insert this extraordinary EQ (with appropriate, well-judged settings) in all the important places.

_


----------



## b_elliott (Nov 5, 2021)

re-peat said:


> Well, as with all of this type of tools, I believe you still need (good) ears and (judgement) skills to arrive at great-sounding results, even though the developer claims, and not entirely unjustifiably so, that this EQ allows you to equalize 100% successfully _in complete silence_, i.o.w. without hearing anything at all.
> ...
> 
> I have the COS Pro on almost every single track in my projects now. Literally, on almost every single track. And it always makes a difference. Not necessarily a big difference in every case, but always a meaningful one.
> ...


Awesome detail. TBH I am still wrapping my head around pink noise a basic concept for mixers to know about and use. Lots to take in.

I have since watched three additional demo videos from the developer so now have visual demos on what you describe above.

I was very much intrigued with Avayic's demo (_Playing Well With Others_) showing how to still use your EQ collection (in his case a Chandler, a Pultec, then a Manley) drive them for "that sound", then use the H-EQ to adjust the settings per the predetermined ceiling then Mix Monolith to balance it all. Avayic knows his shit so what would take a mere mortal, took him minutes with each module = impressive EQ possibilities.

I think your strategy for me to demo it and study it for some days sounds like a worthy plan.

The bundled H-EQ and Monolith are now cheaper than an Izotope upgrade so this is beckoning.

Thanks for mentioning this product and its gory details. 

re: Rhapsodillo. Count me as standing in line to hear any re-mix. To be honest, I compared your last Rhapsodillo mix against the following reference recordings (Herbie's _River_, Beck's _Morning Phase_,_ RDNZL_, Greg Wells, Pantera, Missy Elliott) -- your mix tops 'em all IMHO. (Note: I have not forgotten your point about the recording industry and who the heck knows what master/version I really have purchased. All I know is what I hear and like.)

Best, Bill


----------



## macmac (Nov 9, 2021)

re-peat said:


> It’s all rather difficult to explain, you know, but believe me, this EQ, no matter how you use it, is insanely powerful. If you’re interested, I would strongly recommend downloading the demo and taking a few days out to really study the thing. Watching as many of the available videos as possible is, in my opinion, mandatory as well.
> 
> And even if you’re not interested in any of this weird ceiling stuff, you still have an incredibly powerful graphic EQ to work with. When people talk about surgical EQ’s, well, nothing is as surgical as this is. The possibilities are truly mind-boggling. (And understanding and appreciating the power of a graphic EQ like this, takes a lot less time than getting your head around the ceilings concept.)
> Moreover, the software is also amazing at capturing ‘ceilings’ from reference material. Unbelievably useful.
> ...


I have to concur with how good this EQ is. I was contemplating Claro as I did like it, but then got diverted somehow to finding this EQ. I put it on a couple tracks that had given me problems and bam, it was mind-boggling to me how quickly it cleared things up, that I couldn't seem to do with other EQs (could be my fault), and that is with me not knowing this EQ yet...I just made some edits without even using the noise slopes. I figure if I could get these results as a novice to this EQ, versus results I get operating other EQ's then that is saying something.

I did use some preset curves but didn't really know if I were supposed to edit my audio to match those curves. I just made some edits but not necessarily matching their curve. I was just happy with the results despite that.

I have to watch more videos though to get a grasp on those and learn this EQ better. Thank you @re-peat for your thorough posts.


----------



## X-Bassist (Nov 29, 2021)

re-peat said:


> Well, as with all of this type of tools, I believe you still need (good) ears and (judgement) skills to arrive at great-sounding results, even though the developer claims, and not entirely unjustifiably so, that this EQ allows you to equalize 100% successfully _in complete silence_, i.o.w. without hearing anything at all.
> 
> I was skeptical too when I heard him say that in one of the many videos about this EQ, but the more I’m using it and the better I become at understanding it, the more I’m inclined to believe him.
> 
> ...


Thanks Piet. Buying is a little confusing with Cos Pro, the more expensive Cos extended, COS v2, and Cos 1.1. Not sure which to get and what the differences are. ESP since they are all the same price or more expensive than pro. Any help?


----------



## re-peat (Nov 29, 2021)

Yes, it's confusing. (Even more so when you google COS Pro and happen to end up on the Yurt Rock website where COS Pro — some unspecified version of it — is priced double of what it costs on the developer's website.) Anyway, the version I have is *COS Pro HyperEdit*. Currently $99.

And being so taken with the powers of graphic EQ'ing, I added another one: the impulse-response-based 'Copper' from DibiQuadro (Nebula). Only 9 bands, you will say, yes, but it's got that non-linear, harmonics-rich, mock-analog thing going, which is the one thing that the COS Pro doesn't do.

_


----------



## b_elliott (Dec 1, 2021)

re-peat said:


> And being so taken with the powers of graphic EQ'ing, I added another one: the impulse-response-based 'Copper' from DibiQuadro (Nebula). Only 9 bands, you wisay, yes, but it's got that non-linear, harmonics-rich, mock-analog thing going, which is the one thing that the COS Pro doesn't do.
> 
> _


I got curious and looked up Acustica's Nebula plus the two Youtube videos I could find on DibiQuadro. Based on the few resources I saw, it seems to be used for gtr sounds. Its reverb and EQ caught my ears = night and day enhancement; but it only showed the gtr useage. 

In your mixing, has this graphic EQ found uses on each track together with COS Pro, including the master bus?


----------



## lux (Dec 1, 2021)

I often use fixed bands EQ's, including graphic eq's, as they help not overdoing scoops and boosts and often they are developed (or they imitate hardware with the same qualities) having custom curves at those freqs, sometimes with added harmonic content, to create a pretty "musical" response to boosts and cuts.

A huge lot of engineers are crazy at those type of equalizers, i.e. the several Pultec emulations or the Maag EQ4, just to mention a couple I find commonly used in quite a few studios.


----------



## rocking.xmas.man (Dec 2, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> They're just a pain to use with a mouse. Made sense with multiple fingers in the old days though when they were physical.


I'm using exactly those regularly. The Full Ranger is an EQ I really like for slight sweetening in Mastering using two of them in an M/S configuration. That is something I equally like with the hardware and the software of those. the hardware Bass- and Vocal Ranger are setup as inserts on my recording channel strips, they sound great and are easy to use as their bands are laid out pretty clever and they kind of react as proportional Q with each band having different Q-factors matching the signal that is expected to run through.


----------

