I think it’s better than seeing a flat line while it’s actually not flat.
And general clutter aiding workflow, Frequency EQ is genuinely good enough to be the “go to” EQ for 90% of tasks, so having it available with one click in the mixer screen would be a boon.
For sure it’s good enough, but so is the the current EQ, freqEQ has more bells and whistles, but it’s not a better sounding EQ.
yes massa, how does one dare to have a different view than you.
I’m talking about features and workflow. Have you got any third party EQs? Surely not coz the default one sounds fine…
Ofcourse I do have experience with other EQ’s 
I’m very happy with freqEQ, just not seeing how it would fit sensiblely ergonomically in the mixer.
For me the mixer EQ has 1 benefit over an insert, it being that you can work it IN the mixer. If you ALWAYS need to pop up FreqEQ when mixer EQ, you lose that function and it has no added benefit over the EQ that sits there now.
But that’s just my opinion. You are entitled to your own.
Workflow and ergonomics are EVERYTHING.
Tbh I just remove the EQ display from the mixer - it’s too small and I generally want more control of where the EQ comes in the insert chain so I don’t use the channel EQ.
Would it be cool to project the Freq EQ curve on to the EQ display? Maybe, or it might be confusing if you have multiple Freq eqs on a channel. Ie pre and post comp
Then mixer eq controls could work exactly the same way on Frequency EQ maping the four bands to 1,2,5,6 unless you drill down and expand the view, both workflows could easily be supported.
This debate is all very well and presupposes that you want only one kind of eq. I don’t know about you but I use any number of eq’s that all sound different. Some subtly different and some more obviously so. Transparent eq’s like Frequency and Pro Q 2 are important but a lot of the time you want character, like the Lindell Audio TE-100, the PSP E27 or the UAD Neve eq’s. They all add a different flavour to the sound.
I would never use only one eq in a mix in the same way that I would never use one compressor over a whole mix. If I have 3 guitars I will often use different amps and different eq’s/compressors. Possibly this is why I am not greatly interested in what eq is in the mixer, as I very rarely use it.
Frequency is a nice eq but is only one tool. Sometimes you need differently sized spanners for differently sized nuts.
For me 1 EQ suffices, plugins don’t have vibe. It’s just freq * amplitude * q * filter
I can get any tone I like with freqEQ.
Have you tried the plugins I mentioned? Well I’m sorry but they do have a vibe - a colour that is impossible to reproduce with a filter. I know because I have tried. I guess if you are producing EDM or Heavy Metal it might be harder to discern, but it is there. There have been times I have not got the sound that I wanted from a number of eq’s and the Harrison 32C or the SonEQ nailed it. I love the ability to have a number of different eq’s and compressors with different flavours that the computer gives us. Something you would never be able to afford in the real world.
You might be able to get an tone you like with FreqEQ, but you won’t get the kind of tone you didn’t expect or the sound you didn’t imagine, which surely is the essence of musical creativity. Surely we all get fed up with the guy that say’s I know what I like and I’m sticking to it.
Hm, that also sounds like someone close to mastery.
Your eq’s just provide slopes you didn’t think of yourself
If you know what you’re after you don’t have to limit yourself to a hardware like gui and a few predegined slopes on 2, 3 or 5 knobs. With plugins It’s all math, nothing more
Yes, that’s largely true but some ‘Analogue modelling’ type EQ’s do have additional stuff going on, like saturation/distortion etc, which I’m sure you’re aware of.
Yes, but i use real outboard eq’s for those, I don’t like ITB for “vibe” only for “surgical”
I have had this kind of argument/discussion with players who say that the wood on a solid guitar has no material effect upon the sound and that pickups simply reproduce the vibrations of the strings. Neve desks and eq’s are built to certain specifications and design ideas,producing a sound that is impossible to recreate with just an eq. As J-S-Q has said there are all kinds of things going on with analogue gear that include distortion and tonal colouration that changes the sound. Often this is down to valves or other older type circuit design. many of these modelled plugins have gone to great lengths to reproduce the vagaries of tone these old units produce. This would include noise, distortion and colouration
- all the things that made these units loved in the first place.
If you are content with just frequency then I am very happy for you. I am sure that I could manage with only Pro Q2 but I happen to like the vintage type colouration and personality these old units give. These after all were the sounds that Rock & Roll grew up with. I like the flavours and inspiration they give me. Music is maths, but why does one set of chords and melody move me more than another. In the end it comes down to what turns you on, as with most things.
Analogue Mastering? I am guessing that you must buy into at least some of this and have a range of interesting old analogue gear. However not all of us have the facilities or the financial wherewithal to run the real thing.
To be a bit more direct: I just don’t find “analogue” plugin attempts convincing at all, your opinion may vary, itb is good at clean and not at emulating. Mojo?!? Try my Avalon AD 2055 
or my API 5500 or my Dangerous BAX and no, none of their vst attemps come close, IMHO.
That may well be the case but as I have previously stated not many of us have the luxury of being able to afford or house these expensive pieces of hardware. I am sure that you are right that the emulations may be lacking in some areas, but they do still provide us users with a more varied tonal palette.
I use a Kemper Profiling Amp and have a lovely set of Dumble profiles. I am certain that I could not afford the staggering secondhand prices for the real thing, let alone any of the other amps I have profiles of. I am also sure that the real thing would be lovely, if rather loud. However, the profiles are rather brilliant and I am able to record a really fantastic guitar sound, which surely is the point.
I think we are all aware of the compromises inherent in using plugins. I m still led by my ears and audition before I buy and only purchase those that give me something I can work with or that interests me. In many cases I am not bothered about total veracity only that it gives me something I like.
I bet in 99.9% of cases the guys swearing by their hardware in a blind test could not distinguish between a good plugin and the real hardware. They might be able to pick out the sound of THEIR unit because no two bits of (particularly vintage) kit sound the same and of course because you use it all the time you get to know how to make it sing, there’s psychology involved too - being able to physically interact with the hardware will change your perception of it.
If computer modelling is done well, then there will be no difference, the modification of the waveform will be identical to the individual unit it was modelled on - given the same input parameters and levels etc. Even if there was a huge difference, your audience is listening in the car, or through a bluetooth speaker or earbuds - HiFi is a rare commodity these days - so who the hell cares? IMHO good plugins are just as good as hardware.
This is true, if you don’t have budget for the hardware you have to “make due” with plugins.
IMHO, even if you don’t have access to outboard, I still find “clean” ITB better than “mojo”
“mojo” ITB is often fake phased blown up sound. harsh distortion,tinfoil chewing highs. hollow bass. not much weight, not dense. etc. mixes often sound so much better when leaving all that stuff, like VCC, NLS, iconic EQ’s etc out. but that’s just IMHO.