Can you please please give access to your best eq plugins & all other of your best fx on the channel strip.
All the other modules have a choice but the eq one does not & of course we should be able to use Steinberrgs best eq’s in the strip don’t you think?
I don’t know about Frequency 2 because I use Cubase Elements, but Studio EQ and Channel EQ are pretty much the same. In fact, Channel EQ is a bit better because it has 6 EQ points, including High and Low cuts, while Studio EQ has 4 EQ points in total.
That is not quite correct, because the hi and lo cut do not belong to the channel EQ but the PRE section (the layout is a bit confusing, granted), so they are in a different position of the signal path per default.
Else, yeah, channel and Studio EQ/Frequency seem to be pretty similar, but I couldn’t get them to null out completely, which seems to be related to a different Q scaling, i.e. a Q-factor of 1.0 in channel EQ is not identical to 1.0 in Studio EQ/Frequency. If you change that a bit, you can cancel them out to less than -110dbRMS. So my guess would be that they all share the same algorithm, but have slightly different Q scaling. That might give the impression that StudioEQ/Frequency are of “better” quality, when in fact they have just a different Q at the same settings and might sound a bit different because of that.
(Not talking about Linear Phase mode in Frequency, of course, that is a very different animal, but with 1024 samples latency not really feasible for channel EQ purposes imho).
Having a graphic EQs optionally in the channel strip might actually be useful, I agree, sometimes you don’t need a fully parametric equalizer, a graphic EQ with proportional Q and a handful of well selected frequencies could be nice as an alternative.
Steinberg stated this , that the studio eq was better quality than the standard channel eq. Have you not heard that some digital eqs have better sound quality? I don’t actually know what they were talking about etc but some eqs use more processing power, sound smoother, sweeter, less artifacts, more precision etc etc etc know what I mean,??
The standard channel eq uses hardly any processing power , so although sounding good,they obviously cut certain things to keep it so low. The studio eq & frequency 2 must be using a higher standard of algorithm & also use slightly more processing power?? Makes sense in most cases yes??
I don’t normally use the channel strip other than the EQ. I put it before the inserts and place the EQ last in the chain. I use the channel EQ all the time until I need something else for additional flavor. The channel EQ is just fine for my needs. I don’t see the need to add any other EQs to the channel strip. In fact, I wouldn’t really miss the channel strip at all if it disappeared. It was one of those additions I saw as a solution to a problem that didn’t exist. I’m sure many others think it’s great. And I think that is great! Can’t please everyone, I guess.
Personally i think it’s very hard to ear big differences between parametric EQ, maybe some have more artifact and phase interference if you push them very hard…
Iam using frequency for cleaning&mixing processes and few “analog” vst EQ emulation for flavor…
Maybe if an EQ sounding more pleasant than an other one, isn’t it a question of flavor instead of quality ?