but more bands would?
Why?
each band needs min 1 filter, and each filter has to be processed,
and a filter needs time, and as more lower the frequency as more time it takes,
and it wouldn’t wonder me much if more Q would also increase the latency?
but it surly needs more power?
More power yes, but pretty insignificant on a modern DAW.
If the plugin reports zero latency to the host then no delaying of the channels takes place (that would be the same for built in FX) the processing time would take place within the overall latency of the system, thus not changing the through time, hence zero latency.
Whatever they do, as long as they keep this:-
And, while we’re on it, it would be nice to see some numbers (without having to hover or click) and access the ‘types’ for the ‘curve+dials’ look too, somehow:-
Oh, and also a +1 for some (better) HP/LP filters as separate controls, please.
And a copy, or A/B function
Cheers,
Bob
(oh crikey, AND a spectrum/analyser display would be fab too… you know, IF they’re going to work on it… 
)
but when you highpass all abaut 30 Hz than you need theoretically 3.33333ms to filter it complete, and you can enable disable bends during playback…
Apart from not using the Channel EQ very often, I agree with the suggestions above. Especially an analyzer, more bands and characteristics. I would love to see those benefits in the StudioEQ which I use more often.
There is no such thing a zero latency, but relative zero latency within the overall systems latency.
Also, that’s one of the reasons eq change the phase relationships between frequencies and why a linear phase eq is not a “zero latency” plugin.
Ok. Thank You!!!
That means that a 6 or 8 Band EQ would sound exactly the same like the 4 band
with the same settings?
And the last question is the process/power about deactivated bands?
I agree. Cubase should not compete with UAD or Waves. If you can’t get “decent” results with Cubase tools only, then better EQ tools from Waves and UAD probably won’t help much.
I have never understood this concept of making Cubase a “one box does it all” package when the truth is 3rd party developers do specific tasks so much better.
Is Vari audio better than Melodyne or Autotune? Or maybe some users accept lesser quality since they don’t use Vari-audio very often?
Have you ever used or even want Loop Mash or Groove Agent? What does Loop Mash do that NI Battery can’t achieve?
I would much rather Steinberg put their resources toward key features, improvements, and bug fixes instead of a little better EQ or another tool like Loop Mash that I will never use. But I know…Loop Mash, Vari-audio…those features look great from a new persons perspective.
I´ve never used any of them, but I´d think - a lot (correct me if I´m wrong though)…
And it´s certainly you who decides what “improvements” are…?
And though it might be hard to believe for you: Just because you don´t use Loop Mash (or any other functionality) does not mean no one should / does…
And that´s quite surely the reason for “this concept of making Cubase a “one box does it all” package”: Different people have different needs…
I wouldn’t really know, but with the stock EQ the processing “Hit” on a modern computer is so small, it IMO becomes irrelevant.
This is where I think Cubase gets a lot of forum whines. It does so much that when a user finds it doesn’t work for himself he feels the fault is in the program and not his working concept.
Leads to evolution of sorts but any “improvements” and new features will need to be useful to the world at large and not the large in their own world.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the mixer needs an overhaul and will likely get one soon. Whether we like it or not won’t matter. We’ll buy it.
One of the only things I like about ProTools? No channel EQ. That said, they take it a bit too far…no input trim, etc…but…
That’s my suggestion. Just ditch it all together. Take the code, make it a plug in. Get it to quit taking up my screen real estate.
My apologies. I meant Groove Agent 1, which is Steinbergs answer to Battery, not Loop Mash. Of course different people have different needs. But at some point the application becomes so bloated or complex, that you have to eliminate certain functions, or market a new program whos focus is on core functions and not so many extra features.
I’m just an every-day user of Cubase for composition and production, and have used it since the mid 90’s. And yes I would like very much for Steinberg to use their development dollars to focus on the “real improvements” instead of adding new “features” that look impressive to a new user, or a tool that is going to be used by a minority.
But my question to you is at what point does Steinberg stop adding new “features” to the big package and focus on core function improvements and as said above…things like the over-due mixer improvements? The thing is…core function improvements don’t really attract new users or users looking for the “one box does it all” concept. Im guessing this is why Steinberg continues to stuff Cubase with more VSTI’s and more features that may never be used by every day users…it sells.
Loop Mash IMO is a lame attempt to develop something that has already been accomplished by 3 party venders…and accomplished much better. Yes the 3rd party software will cost more, but if you want to go the Loop Mash direction, there are other tools I would choose.
This topic is about better EQ. Choose your priorities: Better EQ, better mixer, or more and better things like Loop Mash? Slick Steinberg marketing says you can have it all. I don’t think many really believe that. Personally I choose better mixer. (and many other core functions before better EQ or features like Loop Mash)
Bottom line is I would rather see my dollars go toward the core function improvements instead of more features…which Steinberg has often outsourced. Loop Mash is a good example of this.
+1
(VSTAmpRack, VariAudio, “QuickControls”, GAo (drag’n drop) was good for us all because it surely brought many new users…
Mixer, Generic Control, “Device Panels” hadn’t got much attention…)
I would like a frequency analyser displayed in the same window as the channel EQ, as well a a simple way to place the EQ exactly in the chain where you want it.
That’s an interesting bell-ringer. I’m sure that the old, very old forum talk at the turn of the century was along these lines. Making more of the key features plug-ins. Probably turned out to be too involved or diverse to acheive.
but when we had this i would give this back:^^
http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-q.php
oh no, it has midi learn^^
I don’t even need midi learn for the channel EQ, my CC121 has the 12 encoders hardcoded to the EQ controls 