how are the intern EQs ???

Hi !
was looking at the flash promo from C6… looks impressive and the upgrade price is more than fair. has anybody got any usefull info /test results for egsample how are the intern EQs ??? untill now the cubase EQ wasjust about ok , but nowhere near good enough, although the EQ pluginn what was supplied with c5 was a vast improvement to that in the channel strip.
looking forward to this update… will be buying within the month…

Well, did they say something changed since V 4 concerning the EQs? If not, they´re probably the same they were before…

I was meaning to ask about the Cubase default EQ and the Studio EQ plugin.

I’ve seen it said that Cubase’s stock 4 band EQ is pretty useless. Even if it’s hyperbole, what would the reasoning behind this claim be?

What’s the difference between the basic EQ and the Studio EQ, and what makes the Studio EQ better?

Do the GEQ 10 and 30 do the same thing as the Sutio EQ and more, or is there another fundamental difference between them that determines when one might be used instead of the other?

If the Sutdio EQ is better, I wish there was a way to make it be the default EQ that occupies the space where the basic stock EQ currently does.

I’m sure they’re all minimum phase by design and thus sound absolutely the same. It’s only graphics, don’t be fooled by it. The “new” channel EQ sure has a lot of different curve options and wider q’s by default but the sound should be excactly the same as the “old” version, as the “studio EQ” for that matter. Names and graphics…same with all the fancy EQs…if no modelling is involved and it’s minimum phase design - you can null it with any free eq of the same design.

Because it seems trendy to generally first bash everything that comes from Steinberg :wink: . Look around the forum. No one obviously has received C6, yet the forum is full of complaints. Such general statements like “the Cubase EQ is pretty useless” are well - useless. I wouldn´t give too much about them. Try yourself, when / if it works for you, and surely you will also find better EQs, no doubt.(But then this also is just a personal opinion…)

They are basically the same.

The GEQs (as the name implies) are graphical EQs, whereas the Studio EQ is a parametric EQ

The good thing about the Studio EQ (IMHO) is that it is not in a fixed position of the signal chain, but moveable…


Perhaps you have a look here



what’s the problem with cubase eqs ? since v4 i find them really good, eventhough it is possible there is better elsewhere. i’m now 48khz / 32 bit and it does sound better than 44.1 16 or 24 bits
the problems i find in the Eqs are:

  • not always enough band, sometimes would like a notch reject or two without having to load other eqs.
  • The on/off buttons for activating bands are not remote controllable by midi (so it is very annoying to try to use midi controllers to control the eqs).
  • The default parm Eq 4 bands does not exist as a plugin, it would be useful (to me at least).

The channel EQs are fine for me as basic channel eqs - their intended use. It would be nice to be able to alter their position in the signal path though. Soundwise the Q is quite focused but that’s ok for the technical type tasks I tend to use it for.

Studio EQ to me seems warmer, with a wider focus on the Q parameter. Tends to get used for musical rather than technical tasks, if that makes sense, and where i want to have it early in the signal path. Auto gain function is sometimes useful.

The graphics? Well, I was a monitor engineer for quite some time. It was a long time ago, but I still get all twitchy if I see a graphic. I use them, when I want a graphic, and they are fine.

My summary FWIW: The Steinberg eqs do pretty much what they say on the tin. They are not as fancy/featured/refined as some that you find elsewhere, but thas is to be expected. The standard channel eq would possibly be more useful if it wasn’t stuck near the end of the signal chain, but hey, we have other options.

Without doubt there are other eqs out there that are more appropriate for mastering, for instance, or other specific tasks, Not going to go into the whole discussion of 3rd party eqs here, as the question is about the Steinberg ones, but I have a range of 3rd party eqs, both plug-in and hardware, and they get used for these sort of jobs.

Would defo love to fill that default EQ space with another plugin - or remove it all together. Also to be able to move inbuilt the EQ up and down the chain would be great.

The inbuilt EQ works fine. But I tend to use it because it’s conveniently there on the screen. If I could replace it on-screen then I would but that’s only because I’ve paid for other EQ plugins and I prefer them.


You can hide it so that you never have to see it. I have it removed from my track edit window.

Also to be able to move inbuilt the EQ up and down the chain would be great.

I’m pretty sure the StudioEQ is the exact same EQ. And, it was provided specifically so you can put it anywhere in the chain. It was a very old discussion. Can’t remember if we got Borgz confirmation that it is exactly the same EQ or not though.

I’ve paid for other EQ plugins and I prefer them.

Hey, you paid for the Cubase ones too! Can’t do anything about what you prefer though :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m on the of the people that doesn’t get along with the Cubase EQ’s. I’ve tried a lot but can’t get them to sound right (even when cutting). But there are lots of really good engineers using them so I also know that this is my fault, not the plugins’.


I quite like the Cubase channel EQs. They’re easy to use and sound good. Basically the only situation I use anything else is when I need more than 4 bands, need steeper curves or need to get some kind of dynamic behavior out of my EQs.

Lol, so it never clicked with me that the difference could be that you can choose where the studio EQ sits, but not the default EQ. So where does the default EQ sit, at the end of the signal chain or the beginning?

There are reference VST Mixer diagrams starting on page 132 of the operations guide that show you where the EQ is for every type of channel. Those are good things to look at …

But in general the EQ is after the phase, trim and inserts 1-6.


Very pleased to hear all this positive talk about the supplied EQs, as I’ve always wondered. I would like to add my 2 groat’s worth, if that’s ok:

  1. As the built-in EQ and the StudioEQ have different shelves etc available, I sure would appreciate being able to have the built-in EQ switchable pre/post insert.

  2. The built-in EQ lets you click on the graphic to switch a band on, StudioEQ doesn’t and it would be nice if it did.

  3. I nearly embarassed myself over modifier keys. Thank god I tried it out first… Very neat.

  4. Someone said something about notch filters. +1 (he says, not knowing how much tighter this would be than max Q)

  5. A reset button.

Thank you. Crotchety

My C6 doesn’t arrive till next week but I use the EQs in C5 constantly.
1, because they are MUCH BETTER than they use to be in earlier versions.
2, as has been said already - most standard EQs do exactly the same job.
3, It’s not just what you have, it’s how you use it.

I’m no studio guru but I have some great 3rd party EQs- some VST3, some linear phase etc.

I usually know if I’m getting a track right because it requires no more than a tweak with a native EQ to fit it into the mix.

If I want to build something really special or different or need to address a problem that needs isolating with a notch filter or something -the bigger stuff comes out.
But in my experience - no EQ is good enough to save a bad arrangement or poor recording…
IMHO of course. :wink:

one thind bothers me.Everytime i move hpf or lpf it makes where the cut is a little upper mountain, resonance mountain id say.Its been since i dont know when…but why is it? if make lowcut at 80 hz in logic it doesnt boost 80-100 hz at all…whats the logic behaind it in cubase? i guess smt for the kick you really would boost it over there little bit just to give the kick a better dynamic but it rarely happens.

AFAIK thinkingcap is correct.

The only real diff is the basic EQ is ‘fixed’ in the fx chain position;
where the studio version can be moved around
and placed where it is most needed.

To reply to your original question.
To my ears the biggest change in Cubase EQ sound was going from SX3 to C4.

The SX3 eq’s sounded a lil gritty (great for clavs and guits) but when C4 came along the
eq’s got smoother/clearer sounding.

I have not noticed much change since then.


i actually like the C6 EQ’s quite a bit.
They sound nice and clean. I use them pretty often in my studio. I am even considering a CC121 to have the Channel EQ always under my fingers.


Change the lpf or hpf type…