I once again wonder, when we finally get a proper postpro-eq in Nuendo.
This 4-band-thing is just not suitable at all, and EQing is next to Volume the parameter I use by far most in post automation.
OK, we now got this seperate HiCut/LowCut, but it’s
a) on a different position in signal chain, and not visible in EQ-curve, and not controllable by common remote devices, which makes filtering workflow quite uncomfortable, and
b) it has a slope which can not be changed?!
This (b) in my opinion is a desaster, since I use different slopes from signal to signal, different slopes for location sound, and atmospheres, for music and so on. I really can not image why this was implemented in that way. Somebody in product development must have had the opinion that one slope fits for all?
For me this is not a professional tool at all which does not fit into an upper class Nuendo.
I think this overall mentioned “complete rewrite” would have been the chance to finally give us a proper post channel EQ, and not still sticking to that old music cubase-thing and simply adding a new plugin with a strictly defined HC/LC…
This can be done better with most third party plugs…
So, once again, my appeal for giving us a good (probably 7 band?) EQ.
Btw: This Voxengo Curve-EQ is great for some filter tasks! But of course it does not fit as a standard channel eq.
I recall times when we made absolute HiEnd sound on 3-band, semi-parametric EQs on analog desks w/o automation…
Asking for 7 or more EQ bands is absolutely legitimate, but what got lost in the art of recording that such surgical tools are needed, at all? I mean, for accidents or fixes we have better tools…
I am not a purist nor am I living in the past, but I probably need to hear/compare something that was done with “only” 4 bands and the ( presumably better) 7 band EQ.
Just m2c … no offence…
Again… demanding a larger multiband EQ is absolutely ok …
I’m just coming back from a cinema documentary mix on Pt and D-control.
Used their 7band-EQ all the time with most of it’s bands.
Was happy to have ongoing access to the EQ on a dedicated area on the Icon.
Can not do anything of that with Nuendo. Can not remote control the Hi/LowCut, does not see the Hi/Lowcut on the EQ-Curve. Can not control the slope of Hi/LowCut(!!!*). That’s far behind.
*still something I just can not believe, why steinberg determines how strong our cutting has to work, and why everybody seems to be fine with that… On the other hand I can user-define the colour of a fader-knob…
Agree, it would have been helpful to have a Q control or different slopes for the low/high cut filters, and of course full integration into the EQ and curve display would have greatly improved the interface.
I still belive, that as long as Nuendo just offers us a 4-band channel EQ for postproduction (which means filtering suboptimal location sound all the time), this tool is just not suitable for a professional mix.
For me the idea of the channel EQ is a Tool, which is placed in every channel without using additional plugins in other positions in chain, and with a permanent visual feedback in Mixer and channel overview.
A combination of multiple plugins is not really an option for me (although I like postfilter for offline-processing), not knowing in which plugin I automated what. I want to filter in one single overview, otherwise I propably would get lost in a big project mixing.
And of course there are post-pro filters on the market, so no need to use multiple Nuendo-EQs.
I have to use a third party plugin, which offers me more bands (including cuts/shelves), like OxfordEQ or Fabfilter. And the Channel-EQ is still left out ever since I use Nuendo.
Hey, you mean that extra cut-plugin with simply no visual feedback in eq and with a fixed(!!) and unswitchable(!!) Q slope?
I think we agree, that this could not be more than a joke by steinberg, a fixed Q is sth. which I propably could live with in a musicmaker smartphone app, but not in a DAW which is used by pros in a pro business.
I have to hicut an atmosphere in a complete another way than ADR or music! And since I do not have a visual feedback in eq-graph, why - again - shouldn’t I then use a proper third party tool?
I have never seen a fixed slope on any EQ out there, not even on freeware ones. And not in 200$-Logic.
And this (seriously) was promoted in N6 as two more bands…
I regularly use the Nuendo eq and find it far more useful than the oOford which limits the range of each band. I can get further with 4 unlimited bands than 5 limited ones. Also I find Nuendo’s eq to be better sounding. Oxford’s eq whistles a little more if that description makes sense.
I also regularly use the postfilter in conjunction. It is a powerful combination for me and does the bulk of the heavy lifting. Studio Eq can help if I really need more bands- other eq’s for sweetening.
More bands on the channel eq? Why not. It would come in handy.
What would really be great is postfilter with more bands or (same thing) studio eq with postfilter’s slopes. That would kick a**.
I use the Oxford as my standard EQ in Nuendo since several years now, and never ran into problems concerning the band-limits. If I would need 4 bands higher than for example 6kHz I guess it’s not shaping the sound in the mix, but having soundproblems which I propably would delete offline via restoration-tools or postfilter.
The thing I like with the limited bands: It makes my EQ-midi-controller (perfect for this: BCR2000, I have mapped the Oxford permanently to this one) a precise controller, since each band is split in to 128midi-values. Midi-Controlling the complete bandwidth with just 128steps is crap. But, OK, I admit: Midi-Controlling is of course a bit “yesterday”.