Proper Post EQ

[drorh4]

@Domilik

Will the Hi/Low-Cut be optimized for a professional operation in 6.5? Or are we still forced to use it with 24db/oct?

And will it be visible in mixer-EQ-curve?

I think this is the crucial topic here. I can live without the ‘more’ bands ONLY IF the filters are integrated.
In Post workflow the first thing I move is the filter knob. When I saw the new Nuendo has an integral Filters on the mixer it felt to be “this will make my life much easier!”.
I tried to used it few times, I tried to automate it and quick control it - It was a drag!
You can’t see it, it has this fix curve u don’t even know and it is not an easy task to automate it.
One of the most important features on the mixer is totally useless.

[jvamos]

I have gotten by using the post filter to manage roll offs. It’s not fancy but it works. I do often go to other EQs to get the job done. In my opine the Nuendo EQ’s don’t get nearly as narrow as post production requires.I think the best solution is an EQ that is stock that can notch at any frequency flexibly. Sometimes recordings are really dirty. A fan can kill the mood in a scene but none the less they are audible on set from time to time.

I like the strip EQ that we have. It keeps my automation safely baked into the channel. Also my hardware works well with it. I’d say make the Q go to 111 and I’d be happy. It would put N7 in a weird non-compatible place though. But then again the licensing permits you to run older versions so there is no harm there.

[Rickard]

Agreed. This really should have been/should be a priority.

Dean

[Domilik]

Any news regarding this in N7?

Will we get a new built-in channel-EQ which is worthy for post concerns?

More bands, better notch, built-in Hi/Lo-Cut (with adjustable slopes!).

[psvennevig]

@TimoWildenhain

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

Hi,

I think that a proper eq with more bands and built in lc/hc is important.
I really like the eq/studio eq in Nuendo. But it isn’t enough. So, I usually have to use DMG EQuality as well.

I think it is important that a high end product like Nuendo have a better featured EQ. To have to use two EQs to get what you want from the built-in EQ isn’t the best.
Nuendo has most of the other stuff now. The EQ sounds good, just to few bands.
The new Brick Wall limiter is very good. All in all the updates the plugins has gotten is good, just not quite there for the EQ.

Pål

[augusteighty]

Same as a few posters here - rarely use the Nuendo / Cubase EQ. I currently use Pro Q 2 as default.

30 bands, mid-side support, stereo support, individual band soloing, larger GUI (including fullscreen), far more slope options, etc. I use the stock EQ only in cases when I need a bit of boost / cut here and there.

I’m actually quite amazed that so many are fine with using the stock EQ. I’m curious what work they are doing. For me, post audio is more creative than it ever has been. Compare the audio from a modern film / tv show to something 30 years ago. It’s night and day. 6, 7, 8 channel surround, far more ambient, foley, musical elements / layers, faster pacing and faster dynamics, far more intricate automation.

The demands on audio today are FAR more than they were in the past. And having multi-band, multi-slope, stereo EQs is basically a necessity…especially for speed and accuracy. There’s no way I’m fiddling with the LPF in Nuendo 6.5 crossing my fingers that it is the right slope, or I won’t need Q support. If I need a steep bandpass the stock EQ is useless. If i need to solo a band while I’m looking for specific tone that needs to be cut I’m also out of luck. If I need to shift the whole EQ range down / up in frequence, also out of luck. If I need to invert the EQ, out of luck. If I need to EQ within a very narrow pitch range, I have no reference - and a tiny little EQ window for some guesstimation. (Perhaps some of you have musical scales vs. frequencies memorized though…I do not!) If I have a stereo track and want to do some stereo EQ work (which I do on pretty much every track with Pro Q 2), I need to split into dual mono and proceed. Pretty silly. And considering there is now so much coordination between score and sound design, having musical elements as part of the EQ (like with Equilibrium and Pro Q 2) is more important than ever.

That’s my 2-cents. If having a more comprehensive EQ means breaking back capability and compatibility with hardware (CC121, etc.) so be it. I’m definitely in the camp of not using the stock EQ anyway…and don’t use EQ functions on Steinberg hardware pretty much ever at the moment…because the stock EQ collects dust.

EDIT: Obviously not saying the stock EQ has to be as powerful as a 3rd party EQ like DMG / Fabfilter, but even more bands, more slope options would be nice. Why there has to be a dedicated LPF / HPF seems ineffecient…just allow more bands and the option to select bell, shelf, cut, etc. for each.

[fenderchris]

Quite right. Fabfilter Pro Q2 is streets ahead of any other eq i have tried.

[Domilik]

@augusteighty

Same as a few posters here - rarely use the Nuendo / Cubase EQ. I currently use Pro Q 2 as default.

30 bands, mid-side support, stereo support, individual band soloing, larger GUI (including fullscreen), far more slope options, etc. I use the stock EQ only in cases when I need a bit of boost / cut here and there.

I’m actually quite amazed that so many are fine with using the stock EQ. I’m curious what work they are doing. For me, post audio is more creative than it ever has been. Compare the audio from a modern film / tv show to something 30 years ago. It’s night and day. 6, 7, 8 channel surround, far more ambient, foley, musical elements / layers, faster pacing and faster dynamics, far more intricate automation.

The demands on audio today are FAR more than they were in the past. And having multi-band, multi-slope, stereo EQs is basically a necessity…especially for speed and accuracy. There’s no way I’m fiddling with the LPF in Nuendo 6.5 crossing my fingers that it is the right slope, or I won’t need Q support. If I need a steep bandpass the stock EQ is useless. If i need to solo a band while I’m looking for specific tone that needs to be cut I’m also out of luck. If I need to shift the whole EQ range down / up in frequence, also out of luck. If I need to invert the EQ, out of luck. If I need to EQ within a very narrow pitch range, I have no reference - and a tiny little EQ window for some guesstimation. (Perhaps some of you have musical scales vs. frequencies memorized though…I do not!) If I have a stereo track and want to do some stereo EQ work (which I do on pretty much every track with Pro Q 2), I need to split into dual mono and proceed. Pretty silly. And considering there is now so much coordination between score and sound design, having musical elements as part of the EQ (like with Equilibrium and Pro Q 2) is more important than ever.

That’s my 2-cents. If having a more comprehensive EQ means breaking back capability and compatibility with hardware (CC121, etc.) so be it. I’m definitely in the camp of not using the stock EQ anyway…and don’t use EQ functions on Steinberg hardware pretty much ever at the moment…because the stock EQ collects dust.

EDIT: Obviously not saying the stock EQ has to be as powerful as a 3rd party EQ like DMG / Fabfilter, but even more bands, more slope options would be nice. Why there has to be a dedicated LPF / HPF seems ineffecient…just allow more bands and the option to select bell, shelf, cut, etc. for each.

+1 to all of this

Are there any news for us in N7?

[stingray]

@augusteighty

If I need a steep bandpass the stock EQ is useless. If i need to solo a band while I’m looking for specific tone that needs to be cut I’m also out of luck. If I need to shift the whole EQ range down / up in frequence, also out of luck. If I need to invert the EQ, out of luck. If I need to EQ within a very narrow pitch range, I have no reference - and a tiny little EQ window for some guesstimation. (Perhaps some of you have musical scales vs. frequencies memorized though…I do not!) If I have a stereo track and want to do some stereo EQ work (which I do on pretty much every track with Pro Q 2), I need to split into dual mono and proceed. Pretty silly. And considering there is now so much coordination between score and sound design, having musical elements as part of the EQ (like with Equilibrium and Pro Q 2) is more important than ever.

Some of these issues are addressed in the latest version of Cubase. Presumably, the improvements will be featured in Nuendo at some stage.

[Domilik]

Cool, with N7, which finally brings adjustable slopes to the HiLo-Cuts, as well as showing the filter-curve in EQ-graph, we now got a EQ-Section I can work with! Thank’s a lot!! I did my first mix just using the channel-EQ after 19 years in Cubendo.

One thing, which should be improved though:

I’d like to see the filters as a part of the EQ-module (like it is advertised). Right now, the filters are not saved within EQ-settings/-presets.
And - more important for the workflow - since the filters right now are a kind of seperate plugin in Nuendo, I cannot control them from my EUCON-controller without switching sections on it. Setting up the Cuts is a permanent task next to setting up the other EQ-bands while filtering a sound. It’s a huge brake in workflow when I have to switch controller menus each time I want to tweak the filter, coming from a “normal” EQ-band, and backwards…

Without having a clue if this is programmable, but if it is not possible to integrate the filters properly into EQ-section, could it be then at least programmed in the same EUCON-menu?

Thanks again,
Domilik

[psvennevig]

@Domilik

Cool, with N7, which finally brings adjustable slopes to the HiLo-Cuts, as well as showing the filter-curve in EQ-graph, we now got a EQ-Section I can work with! Thank’s a lot!! I did my first mix just using the channel-EQ after 19 years in Cubendo.

One thing, which should be improved though:

I’d like to see the filters as a part of the EQ-module (like it is advertised). Right now, the filters are not saved within EQ-settings/-presets.
And - more important for the workflow - since the filters right now are a kind of seperate plugin in Nuendo, I cannot control them from my EUCON-controller without switching sections on it. Setting up the Cuts is a permanent task next to setting up the other EQ-bands while filtering a sound. It’s a huge brake in workflow when I have to switch controller menus each time I want to tweak the filter, coming from a “normal” EQ-band, and backwards…

Without having a clue if this is programmable, but if it is not possible to integrate the filters properly into EQ-section, could it be then at least programmed in the same EUCON-menu?

Thanks again,
Domilik

+1 to all that!

Pål

[Oliver.Lucas]

@fenderchris

Quite right. Fabfilter Pro Q2 is streets ahead of any other eq i have tried.

Fabfilter/DMGAudio and Melda EQs are all great for audio post, but have too many parameters for the touch collect function to work. This only works with the Nuendo 4 band EQ. I think it needs improvement.

Ollie