Proper Post EQ

+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

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.

Fredo

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.

BUT

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)

Ollie

@ 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…

Chewy

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

Fredo

:laughing:

Chewy

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…

I agree. If Steinberg really want to compete in the Post world they need to deliver at least what the competition provides - and ideally more than the competition provides, like the great ADR taker facilities.

Yes please. By all means break backwards compatibility if it means an improved channel strip EQ. 6.x broke so much other functionality that what’s an EQ in the scheme of things.

Hello,

thank you very much for this valuable and objective discussion. This is exactly the type of conversation that
makes it possible for us to “follow”. There is hardly a “wrong” or “right” in this discussion. As Chewy said, it very
much depends on the material you get and also the way you work.

Fredo is right when he says that this is a major task and other features need to be taken off the roadmap to
get this one done. Therefore it’s of major importance to know HOW important this feature is for your daily workflow.

Thanks,
Timo

It is not vitally important to me, but I think it should be very important to Steinberg. If you really want to get more Post facilities using Nuendo you need to provide features that make it irresistible to them. Nuendo is not cheap, but it is aimed at Post, so it should contain the features that such facilities commonly need.

Not interested, not needed, here.
Give us surround encoding back, instead…
Else … see my words on page uno.

R.