Cubase´s Channel EQ - do we need an overhoul?
0 voters
Hi,
I´ve been posted this long time ago in the old cubase forum (see screenshot)
my suggestion:
What do you think about this?
Cent.
use the EQ of youre choose, are 8 inserts not enogh? (i would like more or make vol pan… invisible…
but more bands are ever welcome, or do DISABLED bands also need resources?
Well yes, the EQ could do with an update, but for me, unless it can match Waves, UAD or VSL eq, I still would not use it, so probably not worth Steinberg updating something that maybe many people still wouldn’t use.
Although it woud look better on the spec sheet for Cubase, and that probably is a reason for Steinberg to update it to 6 band - but I doubt it will ever have an analyser or vintage modelling.
Perhaps it is best left as a very light processing power EQ.
Loop breaker, of course! - I use third-party EQs a lot…
nope. oh, and I prefer free pre/post Inserts and free placement for Ch.EQ…
absolutely.
no.
Hi
I think, the fixed position of the EQ is the problem.
(At the moment, it will always processed after the insert slots)
There should be a free placement within the insert slots.
I suggest to have only a Cubase EQ plug-in available in the future.
I learnt, that the EQ should be placed ahead of the COMP.
With the present configuration, this isn’t possible.
Cheers
@ Alstudios: + 1 ! pre/post inserts and free placement for Ch. EQ!
BTW: I really love the sound of Cubase´s Channel EQ!
I recently started working with the Studio EQ and I love the ‘auto gain’ function. It makes EQ-ing much more precise!
I’d like to see that as an option in the Channel EQ as well…
i’m not sure because you can enable disable bands without latency incrase, and a digital filter needs time, so i think the disabled bands are also processed, are you sure that they don’t count resources?
From what I have read about it, yes. furthermore the Channel EQ is very resource-efficient.
Perhaps someone who is a programmer at Steinberg can explain this to us precisely?
Why should not those, tha use the EQ as is simply use it, and those that don´t, simply ignore it and use a plugin…?
Now if the world had known that before, all those consoles could have been built correctly… 
I like the Channel EQ as it is, except I would like to have HiPass/LoPass filters added.
That would make a real difference.
Low Shelf = HighPass…
just open the " e " from the track and you will find many more…
for such things Macro-Quickcontrol-Automation-Tracks would be quiet cool!!!
http://www.steinberg.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=24508
i’m relative sure that more bands would need more resources, and i don’t use the channel EQ so often like i don’t use it, because i wan’t to insert the EQ where i wan’t and which kind of EQ… when i use many vst’s in a channel there are more useless pans, faders, EQ Bands than =/= i care to use a plugin but those to control is than also tricky (GR-Page for all EQs in all slots?:)…
the compatibly of sound from old .cpr’s is also a point,
but i’m sure they wan’t do it because Backbeat’s BCR2000 Channel Control presets, and their controllers (but backbeats solution is better:), but i think a Cubase internal equivalent to automap which is so exactly that you can use it for automation…
and/or Macro-QuickControl-AutomationTracks (which are available as Note Expression Target)
would be useful for all, so you could insert any plugin where you want and use the controller you like, (maybe with “text-out” for Mackie Control Displays:) and control anything you want with anything you like without workarounds from the last century…
I voted that I dont’ use it…which won’t likely change unless they address the biggest issue, IMO–lack of a corrective gain stage. I need to be able to hit bypass to compare and not have the volume cut/boosted. The human ear can’t compare to dissimilar volumes reliably.
And so, plug in it is.
I’d personally like it if they would also allow rerouting–putting the EQ after inserts or before…there’s just too many things you can’t do with a fixed channel EQ. When we mixed on analog desks, we had to live by the signal flow of what could be reliably and cost effectively designed. There’s no reason to bring that inflexibility to the digital world.
Nope 
There ARE filters. Couple different varieties, in fact, with variable resonance.
Wish granted!
I thought of a nice upgrade that would get me to use them more…make them linear phase. The HPF throws crazy phase shift as is. Multimic’d drums, I HAVE to use something else or it gets odd quickly. C’mon…CPUs can take it. And the gain compensation mentioned above.
I’d like steeper filter slopes up to 36 or 48 db/oct.
i think this would also increase the latency…
probably not.
A linear phase eq would increase the latency somewhat.