I got tired of buying updates and upgrades, and forced myself to use the stock plugins for a month. Basically just remix old projects, and in the end the results where surprisingly similar.
i would really like to see a feature/setting for Cubase, where i click on the “e” in the Cubase mixer and instead of the standard Cubase EQ GUI popping up, my preferred EQ plugin is in the channel edit window in its place…wouldnt that be cool. By default you could make all the Cubase channel EQs the UAD Cambridge, for instance.
you can do that already
Just dissable your EQ in the mixer view and add your 3rd pty EQ in an insert slot, where it belongs… Save as template et presto!
Fab Filter, Tonelux & UAD here. Tonelux tilt is an amazing tool. Rarely touch Cubase eq as it always sounded rough to my ears.
Fabfilter ProQ/Q2 - Meldaproduction
the eqs are excellent in Cubase 7 and 8
+1
I like FabFilter’s Pro-Q 2, I wish Cubase EQ had steeper slopes such as 96 dB/oct. Nice to get rid of unwanted ripples without affecting too much the rest of the sound.
This is a great thread people, thanks.
I too left the cubase eq a long time ago (VST24 days) and all this is making me think that it might be time to have another look, or listen. The integration into the mix console alone could be worth it and the general consensus is that it’s fine for surgical boom n honk removal. There I think I’ve convinced myself, off to work then.
You’re welcome 
.
Seriously though, you are right: I have come to the same basic conclusion that you’ve come to, and I received exactly the information that I originally sought out to get: whether or not the Cubase EQs are viable options. It seems pretty clear to me that they are, and I thank everyone who has (and may still continue to) chime in.
Happy New Year!
I like the Cubase eq for small, fast changes. I often use also 3th party eq’s. As an example: Izotope Alloy 2 also has an nice eq that’s not bad at all. And Alloy is, of course, very usable as complete channel strip too.
But, yes. I use the Cubase eq often enough to be glad it’s build in…
Raphie, dont patronize me. I know how inserts work.
im talking about not having to click on “e” and then inserts and then have separate popup windows load and open. instead the EQ gui is there when you click “e” right there in the Channel edit window, where the Cubase EQ would normally be…no more mouse moves and separate windows.
Hello,
I never use anything else.
Yeah, man. Don’t know if this is the same article my mastering engineer turned me on to a few years back (it had the same subtitle), but it’s great. Hardcore!
This is what I was getting at, back on page one of this thread: “math is math.”. Unless horribly designed, I don’t hear squat difference between straight-up digital EQs (ones that don’t add emu-type stuff). So for simple, day-to-day surgery-work, I see no reason to use any CPU overhead and start loading plugins… Unless the interface/controls/unique parameters, or emulation is more desired by the user.
Question:
I’m wondering what anyone thinks about the Studio EQ? Is it designed to impart more personality to the signal than the regular channel strip eq?
I think it’s absolutely the same EQ. It’s handy if you want the standard EQ in a certain place in the signal chain that’s not possible with the post/pre inserts-setting of the channel strip.
I do not use Cubase’s EQs. I use UAD for almost everything. Their sound quality is top notch and I’ve put in a lot of time to get to know the UAD tools. Unless there is a compelling reason to go to another set of tools, I’d rather not climb the learning curve getting to know another bunch of plus. I mainly use UAD Cambridge for the basic EQing and UAD Pultec for EQ sweetening.
However, I do use Cubase’s Reverence when adding verb to live ensemble concerts that I’ve recorded with a drier mic method (such as ORTF).
-Tom
Very interesting thread!
I Always felt that 3rd party eq’s were better, because the quick comparising always made me think the 3rd party was sounding better.
But when I talked a Steinberg employer and discussed (actually I complained over the EQ quality) this he made it clear that I was comparing apples with oranges (for the dutch under us → pears!) The previous conclusion was that I compared a clinic eq with a colouring EQ.
In some cases I use a colour EQ and at the end of the chain the Cubase EQ to correct. Oh and most of the time only cuts with the Cubase EQ’s.
Interesting thread.What actually brought me here is Im about to do a fresh install of the operating system and want to trim down the plugin list.Just overload at this stage.I find myself always using the channel eq as its just so convenient having it right there and the pre filters are super handy as well.Means I can clean up a track and not use up an insert space or 2.I also love the feel of it.Very responsive.I am curious though,how old is say for example waves Q10 eq?I mean that thing must be 20 years old now is it?Surely the stock eq is better than that and Q10 is 150 quid still?