Why are some EQ's so much easier to use than others?

[miked]

I agree, but how do you make an EQ that has all the options you need without having a million knobs? I’ve never liked controlling EQs from the dots on the EQ curve either.

This one is pretty darn close IMHO.

[Jonathan]

Just think about it … bitching about using stock Pro Tools plugins is like the the guy at the high dollar steak restaurant bitching about the the dinner roll that is no longer warm while some poor bastard is starving in India or China. You are a lucky SOB. Appreciate it!

??? Stan, I said that I use this thing all the time. Decrepit means elderly and worn out, and this GUI has been around for a LONG time lol.

This ones a little more updated, but its still a stock avid EQ. You can save some processing if you need to by deactivating the dynamics (and the insert will turn purple).

I don’t think I’ve ever used an EQ that has an interface that I like.

What’s wrong with the FF one?

My eye isnt going to look at that confusing mess of visual noise for very long

I eventually got used to looking at it. I used the Waves Q8 for so long, I think I got used to looking an EQ that looks like this:

how do you make an EQ that has all the options you need without having a million knobs?

Why reduce the knobs? Just lay them out in a symmetrical strait line like Waves does…and include nodes on the graph.

This one is pretty darn close IMHO.

@miked, this one looks really good. But I think in some instances its important to be able to glance at the controls and be able to see the values on the cuts, boosts, and Q’s in one glance.

[Jon-Jon]

yeah i tried to post the pic of the waves “Ren channel”…its about as bad optically as it gets, and even that might be workable but its TINY and I need glasses already lol

[Jon-Jon]

dunno if any of ya’ll remember a phase around 80-81 I think when there were “generic” items in the groc stores lol.

but this is pretty much how I see the ReaEQ and ReaComp…but the Rea stuff is super top notch AFAIK

[bozmillar]

Why reduce the knobs? Just lay them out in a symmetrical strait line like Waves does…and include nodes on the graph.

Because I think renEQ is a very poorly designed layout. A bunch of numberslaid out on a grid is not a good way to display information. But, like I said, I think ALL EQs are a pain with the way they are laid out. I get that drawing the curve is supposed to give you a quick glance representation of what is going on, but I still think it’s not a great solution.

I see the problem as being more fundamental.

1. An EQ curve is not a good way to display what an EQ is doing. It’s not a terrible way, and it’s an accurate way to display the frequency response, but I think it makes us think we know what it’s doing, when we really don’t.

2. Knobs are a terrible way to display information on an EQ.

I think that’s why people gravitate towards really simplified EQs. The lack of display means they can use intuition instead of looking at a curve, and the limited number of bands means they can extract meaning out of the knobs quickly.

I don’t know what the actual solution is, I just think it’s strange that the best solution we could come up with is to mimic the limitations of old hardware eqs. I think there has to be a better way, I just don’t know what it is yet.

[Jonathan]

I think it makes us think we know what it’s doing, when we really don’t.

how so? You’re also listening, looking at the before and after display, watching your 2 bus analyzer, glancing at your meters, sweeping and soloing bands to contain problem frequencies, and adjusting the db scale of the graph if it isn’t fixed. You’re also inverting your cuts and boosts on a regular basis to confirm your choices…what else is there to do?

[AJ113]

I don’t know what the actual solution is

For me it would be a spectrum grab.

Until I can either afford an EQ that has one, or until one comes in at a reasonable price I’ll continue to use Karma’s 31-band free EQ - the only EQ I ever use.

[Stan_Halen]

if thats the stock protools EQ pictured above, ill take ReaEQs boring interface anytime. My eye isnt going to look at that confusing mess of visual noise for very long

It never bothered me. I guess the “chakra” colors laid out the sound spectrum for me in a meaningful way.

??? Stan, I said that I use this thing all the time. Decrepit means elderly and worn out, and this GUI has been around for a LONG time lol.

So … “familiarity breeds contempt”? Yes it has been around a long time, and apparently unchanged. I used it for close to 10 years, and that was some years ago now. But I never got tired of it, always really liked the appearance and functionality. Whereas ReaEQ’s appearance is very bland and unimpressive. But at some point I was able to separate the visual appeal from the functionality and not worry about it.

[bozmillar]

how so?

Similar to the last idea, If I had a raw track and an EQ’d track and then posted 4 different EQ curves, one of them being the one I used, I’d be curious to know how people would be able to pick the correct one. I actually have no idea how well people would do, but it would be fun to test.

I would assume that people wouldn’t do that well. If people can’t hear a track and know what curve represents the EQ used, then is the curve actually telling you useful information? If you can’t translate from sound to visual, or from visual to sound, then why do we use it as the standardized language?

[Paul999]

I love the standard Logic eq. It is fast, has enough bands, an analyzer and can pretty much do anything. It sucks for controllers though because it spills over many pages. Mouse wins again.

[Jon-Jon]

It never bothered me. I guess the “chakra” colors laid out the sound spectrum for me in a meaningful way.

haha. “hey joe, turn up the de-esser, you got too much crown coming thru”

[Jon-Jon]

how so?

Similar to the last idea, If I had a raw track and an EQ’d track and then posted 4 different EQ curves, one of them being the one I used, I’d be curious to know how people would be able to pick the correct one. I actually have no idea how well people would do, but it would be fun to test.

I would assume that people wouldn’t do that well. If people can’t hear a track and know what curve represents the EQ used, then is the curve actually telling you useful information? If you can’t translate from sound to visual, or from visual to sound, then why do we use it as the standardized language?

isnt that the premise of one of the ear training schools online? u upload one of your guitar or vox tracks and it applies an EQ curve and u have to guess the freq and amount etc