I’d like to know if the Channel EQ is ever going to see some more functionality?
I think there is no reason why it shouldn’t have a separate Low- and HiCut and maybe a graphical Analyzer.
- 100!
4 filter-bands are just not enough in postproduction! One of a few things, I really never could understand…
So please:
- Add at least 3 more bands
- I’m a fan of the QxfordEQ, where each band is dedicated to a limited freq-range, which make EQing via MIDI-Controller much more precise (when each band can slip over the full 20000Hz, controlling with 128 MIDI-Steps is far from accurate).
To be picky I would think for compatibility reasons that it’d be better to add a new EQ that’d be essentially the same but with more bands. Yeah, I agree it could be useful.
As for the Midi controller issue I disagree with you. I would prefer to have the bands go over the entire range rather than be limited. With Midi controllers you can choose how they position themselves and really the better option is a “relative” positioning where when you turn a rotary endless encoder it’ll simply “add or subtract 1” from current value. Much smoother, more accurate etc. I honestly think working with 128 steps is a bit dated. No offense.
Really my problem with the EQ is that you waste two bands just to set up a low cut.
I agree that it’s a drag to waste bands on hi/lo cuts. It would be great to at least have the 4 full bands all for EQ. I like the idea of the spectrum analysis in the EQ as well. A feature that I always admired of the Sonalksis EQ.
+1 on updates for the eq and the gate…
oh. nice post…
I´ve been posted this long time ago in the old cubase forum… (see screenshot below)
- 6 band EQ
- color coding
- copy/paste function
- compare buttons
- analyzer (switchable)
- characteristics of analog mixing consoles (ssl, api, neve, e.g.)
What do you guys think about this?
Cent.
I like it. Like I said, I wonder what would happen to compatibility though, either practically or technically from a programming standpoint. But yeah, I like it.
I am just wondering why the EQ won’t get better, isn’t that crucial for post work? But I guess compatibility with their hardware controller will be compromised so I will have to slam a 3rd Party EQ on every track for the rest of my life… 
or you can just use 2 of them…
Perhaps some one can correct if I’m wrong? I just upgraded from N4.3 to 5.5.4 and AFAIK the placement of the EQ in the chain is fixed at post insert. Is that still true? I would VERY much like the flexibility to change the order and that seems like it should be a simple enough addition that would not upset any hardware compatibility.
Seeing as how it’s digital, why not even have it as a switch per band?
By the way, I’ve been getting around the placement issue by simply loading the “studio EQ” plug in the first insert. Does anyone know? It seems a bit better then the channel eq. i could be wrong but it felt that way.
I like the intended idea very much to have an real channel-eq, which doesn’t have to be loaded as an insert and always shows up in the channel-overview. So it would be great if nuendo’s channel-eq could be made suitable for post.
I would also love more bands.
A sonogam view inside the window would be a killer.
Ollie
+100. I use this EQ constantly, when I can and don’t need more bands.
Having the mixer set to show the EQ graph on top is great. If they could improve the visual clarity a bit (color coding would help here)
I’ve somehow adapted a workflow where I always set PostFilter as a last or first insert for low/hi cuts (depending on the project) and the channel eq gives me 4 parametric bands.
Even though the stock EQ is adequater, I must admit I tend to use either DGM’s “EQuality” or else the UAD Cambridge when I want a straight digital EQ as they are just a lot more flexible in every way.
It would also be a great thing if the stock channel EQ could be placed at any point in the signal flow too - so instead of being stuck rigidly where it is right now, I would love to be able to move it to be anywhere I like - maybe pre inserts, maybe post insert 1, wherever I want it to be.
It’s the lack of flexibility that makes me leave it alone more than anything else.
I don’t have access to my Nuendo machine right now, but you can instantiate it on any insert slot though in addition to where it’s fixed, right? Or am I not remembering this correctly?
+1…
No, you can load a plug-in version of the EQ - called “Studio EQ” which differs slightly in some ways - the Q only goes to 10 instead of 12 etc, but you are taking up a plug-in slot at that point. I don’t feel the need to inject it anywhere, but at least pre/post inserts, pre/post send on each individual band would be nice.
Honestly, for surgical dipping of frequencies I think the sound quality is perfectly fine. Now that I think about it though, on a native system…why not simply allow the user to add as many bands as they need?
This used to be true, but as pointed out already, it’s no longer the case.
Even if you could - this is not the point, as adding in another plugin version of the console EQ kinda defeats the point really - plus it wastes an all-too-few-anyway insert point