Proper Post EQ

I agree. And if the channel eq included proper LF/HF filters, it would be sweet right?

Pål

Yeah!

basically… but…OK, I would prefer at least a 5-band + LF/HF.
With 7 bands all incl I can set the frequency-values to the most common ones for male/femal resonance, room-modes, presences, nosysounds, etc, by default, and begin to tune from this standard-setting.
That’s great in Oxford or Pro Tools, or all the other EQs.

So I will revise my wish list (I’m always afraid to ask for too much) in support of you Domilik!

Channel eq with 6 bands plus hi/low pass filters with adjustable Qs and feed back in the channel eq display for those filters, like the postfilter filters.

Can we also get 3 bands on the postfilter? It would be even better to incorporate the postfilter into the channel eq. That would be a great option on each band.

How about it Steinberg?

Dean

I almost forgot- please give us back the invert button on the channel eq! It is a drag to have to right click to get a menu and then click. It was there in N5 and before.

Dean

Great, so we have a nice wishlist for the channel EQ.

And now I guess we have to wait for the next “large rewrite” which I’m sure will be in N7.
(I am fighting for this special topic since 2006)

Hello,

thanks for your suggestions on this topic. We will put this into the feature request list,
followed by an investigation on the respective efforts necessary to turn it into reality.

Thanks,
Timo

That’s great. Thanks Timo.

Dean

Hello,

I’d like to keep you updated regarding the “post EQ” topic. We had a first internal discussion
on how to achieve this, what the efforts might be and when it could be put on the roadmap.

First, reworking the standard Channel EQ means a major effort as many adjustment would have
to be done. So, the only option would be to realize this as a separate VST3 plug-in. In this case I
believe it is possible to also include the Post-Filter plug-in functionality. However, this request
needs to be balanced against the many other feature-wishes coming in on a daily basis.

The project situation doesn’t allow for a realization in Nuendo 6. It can only be scheduled for
the Nuendo 7.x lifecycle. This answer might not be inspiring to some who’d like to see it realized
by tomorrow, but it’s the only realistic scenario.

Thanks,
Timo

Hello Timo,

thank you very much for your response, it feels good to know, that our discussion here is followed by you.

The aim of my thread was to get this enhanced eq-features:

  • more bands
  • Hi/LowCuts with adjustable Q
  • invert-button
    into the channel EQ.

The Channel EQ is a great idea, since you do not have to insert it on every channel, and since this is the EQ whose curve is shown in channel window and mixer! It is like mixing on a pro console. But we need this channel EQ to match the requirements of a post production session at least with the features mentioned on top.

I am sure, that an additional VST3-plugin just would not help us, due to the lack of visual response in mixer and channel overview. And I am sure that everybody of us already owns a proper third-party EQ with all those features for the actual work on the sessions. I have to admit that after many years with Nuendo in post business, the - I guess - only feature I never used, is this actual Channel EQ. And that is a pity.

Just thinking loud: If a rework of standard channel EQ is not an option, what about an optional switch of channel EQ, like you did with the different available surround-panners?

Hello,

thanks for your comments, I see what you mean. The surround panner interface is not exactly the same
as the channel eq, however, they are similar (VST3 basis). So that could be an option. But it doesn’t
mean it can be done earlier than in Nuendo 7. However, we have many development teams working
on different topics and resources shift from time to time. So over the time we will see where/when it
fits best.

Thanks,
Timo

This is great to hear. I rely heavily on the Channel EQ, but would love to see some extra bands as well.

Thanks Timo.

I agree 100% with all Domilik’s comments and suggestions above.

And thanks for keeping us informed Timo.

+1 to everything Domilik said, it would be my go to eq if it were built this way in the channel. And thanks for keeping us informed! john.

On my analogue console I can equalise almost anything with a simple 4 band semi-parametric eq. So I try to do the same when I work on computer. Do you really need more than 4 bands so often? Majority of the time I don’t even need an eq!
I guess more bands won’t hurt. But if I was using more than 4 bands to equalise my sounds in a mix all the time, I would seriously stop mixing and ask myself “what’s going on with this mix?”
I don’t mean any disrespect. Just an opinion. Again, more bands won’t hurt. But having only 4 bands in the Nuendo console EQ helps me to work the same way I work on analogue.

In regards to the post and quote above… sure.

But… not for post, where dealing with anomalies and semi-consistent artifacts is a daily fact of life.

What I’d like to see:

  1. the lo-cut represented in the window. I can get by looking at the spectral display, but still… it would be nice.

  2. a couple more bands.

  3. return of the “invert” button, key commandable.

  4. a tighter “Q” so those couple more bands can be used more effectively for notching (Yes, I use Post Filter all the time, but still… it would be nice.)

I don’t like to lean on eq, as a rule. And there are some I use just for effect-- UAD’s Pultec, for example. And UAD Cambridge does all the stuff I’m asking for here, and sounds great. But to have it all as part of the channel window would be lovely.

Chewy

I am sure you are not working in post pro business, are you?

In film mixing (with location sound) I use 7 bands all the time:
LowCut, Hicut, 2 bands for attenuation of room modes, 2 bands for voice brilliance/presence, and one more for noisy problems.

Of course, well done music recordings in great sounding studios propably do not need an eq…
But the title of this thread asks for a proper Post Eq. And that should be delivered by steinbergs post-daw, imo.

Mixed films too. Maybe I was just lucky and recordings were good.
How in the past did they managed to produce with analogue better sounding films than these days?
But I can see what you mean. If a recording is what it is, you got to fix it.
More bands won’t hurt me either :wink:

FWIW in the discussion.
Doing Post here too and I hardly use more than a couple of bands.
When I do need more, then mostly something was really wrong with the location sound.

Guess it’s personal…

Fredo

Fredo, in my arena, there’s often something really, really, really wrong with the production sound! And no way to prevent it ahead of time. I get what I get.

If you were ending up with tracks that have a 6.4kHz semi-consistent whine here, and a 7.43 kHz systemic squeal there, well, you’d probably say “use Post Filter”! And, I do. But there are often times where an extra couple of notch-worthy bands would come in handy in the channel mixer.

May you never have to experience them on an ongoing basis… but on my project before last, it was Cambridge all the way, and I was grateful for the extra bands.

You’re right! It is personal! On a project like that (until the sound gets figured out) I almost feel like putting out a vendetta on the recordist. Though, in audiobooks (a fair chunk of what I do), they are typically the talent. Actors with USB mics and MBoxes-- the state of audio publishing today. Coming to a Kindle near you.

My bottom line in the FWIW department: every little bit (might) help(s)!

Chewy