Then you would have found out that Pro-Q2 and Equilibrium are not restricted to just 8 bands with only 2 bands for filtering, like FreqEQ. Or that Equilibrium is fully customizable, with optional analogue phase and q behaviour per band. Or that Pro-Q2 has funtionality like eq-match or gain-q interaction, plus a much better interface. That both FF and DMG have a piano roll built in for tuned eq boosts or cuts. And the list goes on…
Sorry man, FreqEQ is a really nice eq and a giant step up from the old built-in eq in Cubase. But it is no competition for both Pro-Q2 or Equilibrium. Not by far.
If Frequency was part of Cubase channel strip i would surely use it very often .As it is,it 's one of my various quality eqs. No, it’s not as good as DMG Equilibrium (i don’t own Pro-Q2).
Agreed. Fabfilter’s GUIs generally are moving forward, not staying rooted in the past if it’s not as efficient and fast as a new/alternative way (Studio One thinks the same way). I would love for those guys to get with the GUI design team of Cubase. I bet some highly useful and more forward-thinking ideas would come forth!
Does C9’s new FreqEQ plug-in allow you to solo each individual frequency you are modifying?
Fabfilter offers this capability, and I found it to be almost revolutionary when carving out resonances and other unwanted frequencies. All of sudden I was able to really hear the problem spots and zero-in on their exact location and width. I don’t know why this isn’t a standard function in all plug-in equalizers.
Also, I can’t seem to find any documentation for FreqEQ. Can someone provide a link? It doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the C9 Operation Manual.
Another plugin manufacturer who’s innovating is Izotope. Has anyone checked out Neutron? It’s more than an EQ, sure. But the EQ section alone is crazy innovative with its Track Assistant that creates presets catered to your tracks, and the Masking features that shows you a graphical representation of conflicting frequency ranges between tracks.
I wished Steinberg would go back to be innovative like they used to and stop trying to compete with 3rd party plugin companies. They’re not gonna win, EVER! Just focus ALL development on the DAW itself.
Go with the Pro Q 2. Here’s something that can make the deal even sweater… On top of the holiday sale they are running right now, I can get you an additional 10% off! Just PM me your email and I’ll send you a personal code. No, I don’t work for them, but if you end up making a purchase, I too will get an additional discount! I have my eye on their new reverb!
Well, thanks everyone one for your replies. I appreciate your input.
I have decided to sit Cubase 9 out and go for the FabFilter bundle. I’m sure Steinberg’s new EQ is awesome, but the Pro-Q 2 is going to be a better fit for me on my current aging set up.
Thanks again…
Kat
We can sell Waves plugs?? I would love to get out of some of mine…I know there’s a hefty fee if the plugin was more than $700 and the plugins needed to have an active WUP…(yikes, mine haven’t). How did you go about that?
EDIT: Actually, just checked and a few of mine are still covered under the WUP. H-COMP, H-DELAY, Element 2.0, Metafilter…right, time to look into selling!
That’s fine, you’ll need to let your undertaker know your storage preference though
But ProQ2 is all good gents, more features, more bands, full screen.
All I’m saying is, that if 6 bands are plenty and you don’t use any of the bells and whistles not in FreqQ, you’ve got a damn nice EQ and no further need for PRoQ2.
IF you already have ProQ2 and love it, by all means, enjoy it and be happy it’s not a contest
And I diagree 100% with both of you.
I want a DAW which delivers everything I need for recording and mixing, like Logic does for Mac users. And I want to regard all other investments into fx plugins as purely optional, just for pleasure, taste and additional boni, but NOT as a basic necessity.
The FrequencyEQ is a good example: with the old EQ, it was close to a necessity to look for alternatives, but with the new one it’s definitely no necessity at all, just an additional option. That’s exactly the way to go from my view.
Just saying, to state that your views don’t have to be common views at all.
Of course they don’t! It’s just our opinion, and of course every opinion is valid. It’s impossible to satisfy everyyone… I don’t envy Steinberg in that way.
Cubase already has EVERYTHING you need to compose, record and mix music. Even the old EQ was good enough to get the job done. That said, there will always be better alternatives offered by 3rd party plugin companies because that’s ALL they do. They don’t have to split development with a full featured DAW.
Steinberg is simply wasting resources trying to compete with these plugin companies instead of investing that time and money into developing the core functions of Cubase. That’s what they need to focus on, in my opinion. Yeah, they upgraded the EQ and made it easier to use. But I already own a bunch of EQ plugins that are even better and offer features that the new Frequency EQ can only dream of. For that reason, I won’t be using it (nor do I use a lot of the plugins Cubase comes with).
I’m sure anyone who’s been doing this long enough feels the same way, since they already have their own arsenal of 3rd party plugins (and hardware) they use regularly.
The point is to provide a DAW which includes a complete set of plug-ins. Which is a must. And to satisfy the requests of expanding StudioEQ and provide M/S and Linear Phase. I perfectly see that most have other EQs already, this is my just-recently-stripped-to-the-core collection
Certainly the point is not competing with 3rd party plug-ins developers which would be completely worthless and stupid. Especially stupid would be to provide the SDK for free and then not wanting them in the business - many of us here are actually customers of plug-in makers. Understandably, close to no-one is going to use Cubase only with the included FX and VSTi… most musicians and technicians want alternatives (I want to have at least two different processors doing the same thing - problems with one, even temporary? Use the other-s)
And again, no resources are ‘wasted’ or taken away from Cubase, as it is developed by different people.
I was very glad to see the new EQ because I like what it does, and now I don’t have to go with FabFilter. This means I save time and money, and I get to keep my DAW a little simpler. I use 3rd party plugins only sparingly because I don’t want to make the sysadmin of my DAW any worse than it has to be. There’s so much to do as it is.
I agree with Ralphie about concentrating on learning a smaller number of plugins.
What I meant by you guys “wasting resources” is that, instead of investing on a separate team dedicated to plugin development, why not invest that time and money (resources) on Cubase itself? You’ll gain more man power into making the core functionality of Cubase even better.
Cubase has had the bread and butter stuff covered for years. It’s time to focus ALL development into the DAW itself, in my opinion. In your own screenshot you have just proven my point that most of us already have an arsenal of 3rd party plugins that we use. We already have plenty of plugins to work with. The people who will benefit the most from the stock plugins are mostly new comers to the DAW world. I’m sure most of them would not even know how to use M/S processing, or when to use a Linear Phase EQ.
BTW, im not trying to insult anyone here. But the fact of the matter is that, most people working with DAWs professionally, or even semi-professionally, already have their go-to toolset. The new comers will eventually get there but, in the mean time, they can still take advantage of the many offerings found in Cubase which will enable them to produce great music. That’s basically what I was trying to convey .
Counterpoint: I have almost all of the UAD plugins plus a bunch of other third party stuff, plus a good bit of outboard, and I still use the Steinberg ones all the time. Hell, the built-in Channel EQ is the first thing that all of my tracks hit for some light buffing of the junky frequencies. I, for one, want to see these continue to be developed.
I like the bread and butter plugins to be modern and competent. Too many people think that a DAW means having to buy a million plugins just to do basic mixing. Good built-in stuff will push less people down that path.
110%!
I think that a rare pro user would not switch to Cubase from another DAW because of lacking of plug-ins of any kind.
Nowadays all Cubase need is a perfect workflow. One can buy a substitution for any of SB’s plug-in but I will never find a plug-in which let me freeze multiple tracks etc…
Newcomers (not pro’s) are newcomers SB just has to claim that Cubase has all they need to make music (and it’s true) and they will believe.
it’s not a contest
SB just has to claim that Cubase has all they need to make music (and it’s true) and they will believe.