Proper Post EQ


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.


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?


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.


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.


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, 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)!


I know people who didn’t own a car. They said: “We don’t need a car. We can do everything by bike.”
Later they got their car.
And they’re using it.

Chewy and Domilik,

You understood me wrong.
I just said that whenever I needed more bands, there was something really wrong with the recordings.
Which was slightly off-topic, because it says nothing about the usability of a more-bands-eq.

And to stay of-topic …
The more bands an EQ has, the steeper the slopes, the narrower the Q’s, the more problematic it comes to build a good sounding EQ. Each process of a frequency range produces a phase shift within the frequencies that are manipulated versus the rest (untreated) audio, which creates artifacts. Reason why there aren’t many good sounding EQ’s and reason why the good sounding EQ’s cost a lot of money and are heavy on CPU. So, in defense of our product manager and the developers, building a 5 or 7 band good sounding EQ will “cost” a lot of time and resources. And the dilemma a Product Manager faces is where to spend the money and labor in order to make a product that -many- people will want to buy, in order to generate money to invest into the next version.


Hi Fredo,

let me chime in here. I hear your grief and really believe that for Steinberg it’s important to focus on the “core” of the system - the engine that drives the car rather than the fancy looking dashboard.
Chances are that if you ask the Steinberg user base about the perfect EQ, you will get gazillions of different answers from analog emulation of various colours to analytical. Built in FFT, spectrograph, notch / steep filters - you name it.

All of these functions can be bought into the system for a couple of dollars via the VST platform to each user’s taste.


if you want Nuendo to “touch collect” more than 4 bands - ONLY STEINBERG can do this for us. And that is the ONLY reason I would want more bands in a Steinberg EQ. It would of course be even cooler if Steinberg implemented a way to touch collect whatever parameter I would ask Nuendo to (like PT does by the way)


@ Fredo… I understood you just fine. I’m pretty much agreeing with you, off-topically, for that matter. I only use more bands when there’s something really wrong with the audio.

MY problem is that there’s almost always something wrong with the audio… when doing these books my job is to glean professionally clean and balanced sound from a hideous sea of hiss, rumble, car horn, apartment pipe noise and who knows what else. Oh. Neighbors having sex. That was a good one. Can’t EQ that out.

For TV and movie stuff… I have only rarely used more than three bands in anything other than an offline spot-fix.

So… I’m with with you! And because I am devoted to Nuendo and it treats me so well, I want only the best for it, whatever it takes, resources-wise (but that’s easy for me to say)…

By the way… back on topic… more bands is not a major issue for me. It’s not really even on top of my wish list. But… it was the topic of the thread, and I think about it from time to time, so… here we are…


We most definately need a plugin for that. (Pun intended)




I’m already working on that. :smiley:

I would like to repeat once again that the only goal of my thread should be, to get more bands into channel eq, for having them permanent visible in mixer and in channel overview.

I do not need this feature - of course I bought the proper third-party VSTs for my work. But I am sure, it would be a great improvement. That’s all.
Right now this EQ-view in mixer is just useless for me, cause I’m forced to filter with thirdparty-tools.

And why do all film mixing consoles have more bands? And why do all other DAWs deliver EQs with more bands…? If nobody really needs them…