Wow, Toneboosters making a bid for the most robust EQ on the market. That is some serious feature list

First impression is great. So far it sounds very natural and free of artifacts. I'm wondering why they've implemented nearly everything and more but left out the peak grab feature from Pro-Q3. This is a feature I don't want to miss anymore. For the gate bands I would like to see a mix knob. Although it doesn't have peak grab I'm thinking about getting it because it sounds great so far and is faster to use for transient/sustain modes compared to Multiplicity. As I'm speaking of Multiplicity, does Equalizer Pro have internal sidechain with M/S possibilities?

Too bad there is no saturation from regular eq 4. Overall, great eq.

There's a chance he'll add it back in. There was no saturation in the original release of EQ 4, IRRC. Also I emailed him a while ago asking if he would consider making a saturation plug-in cuz I would love to see his take on it. I can't wrap my mind around Enhancer.

Great company! Took me a moment to find the various filters but once I got it, I knew I need it. Crossgrading!

Crossgrading - any special offers on this?
::
Mads

if you scroll down the plugin page youll see it

I don't... ???

I see it at the bottom of the page

I see an upgrade - but not a crossgrade!?
::
Mads

oops, meant upgrade (it‘s not really an upgrade…totally different features) but yeah.

well, I've been using this in place of kirchhoff in my current project, and it's sick.
So useful to have transient, sustain, ambience (upward comp/expansion) etc all in one window alongside all the usual filters.
Such a swiss army knife! and the GUI is beautiful.

When a company doesn´t have the knowledge to create a User Account I´m sceptical and this company use Veritone and to find what you search at their site is ... annoying as H.

Been giving it some testing. Very good sounding, clean, versatile EQ. I still need to spend some time on some of the filters, especially the de esser, but the transient and background/direct/ambience filters alongside the standard filters seem to work great.

Visually, I'm still a bit attached to Apqualizr with the docked information being kept separately down below. Parts of the spectrum analyzer being hidden when making adjustments isn't a deal breaker, but it does feel a touch less elegant than I'd like. I'd prefer an optional docked information panel or at least the ability to customize the size and location of the filter band information panel.

I'd also prefer higher EQ frequency ceiling than 22k so I can tinker with some extremely shallow slope high shelf EQ shenanigans, but that and the GUI preferences are minimal criticisms. This is one of the more complete and ergonomic EQs for the price, worth a trial run and a clear winner for people interested in the feature set.

Took me a bit to find this but the band information/control panel does at least have a “shrink/collapse” arrow to take it out of the way. If you cut by 20db or so it might still be in the way though. If you found that option already, disregard.

I did see that yeah. I don't think it's the end of the world, but I prefer my "details view" and my visual view to overlap a bit less while I'm adjusting. It's not a flaw, just personal preference. I don't even think it affects my work in any practical sense, but it feels strange to not be able to see the input and output analysis in full for the areas of the spectrum I'm adjusting in certain scenarios.

Same, it's the one thing that bugs me about EQ4 & EQ Pro

Just demoed this for a bit and it's pretty awesome and the price is really good. It gives you a lot of options. Awesome for mixing drums with the transient and sustain split. I could use this EQ for everything to get by as I use saturation plugins when I want saturation and don't rely on an EQ for that. Overall really top notch release.

Where is the saturation bit of this plugin? I only see filter slopes, transient designer, dyn eq.. No saturation, no drive... am I missing something?

Isn't Kirchhoff more equipped with IRs of analog filters?

just curves derived from, or more "inspired by" the usual analogue suspects. No IR's, or harmonic special sauce.

There isn’t saturation. If you start at the top of the thread you will read about EQ4 having it and this not having it.

TBF, I do not really find them *that* useful. Occasionally yes, mainly the shelves. But if I *really* want a specific type of shelf, I am probably also thinking in term of something I modeled elsewhere. Again, I am not saying it's not useful from time to time, and people might actually like them, but I feel that the kind of filters we get here are more interesting for me.

Neither do I. If i want the Pultec smile curve, I ll end up making an approximation with the regular filters (which takes about 1 nanosecond) or just open up one of the (too) many pultec style plugins i have.

I went ahead and upgraded as it's a great eq imo...

Same, I use Kirchoff like it’s ProQ3.

Definitely liking this new “update”.
Never liked the sat in EQ4, don’t miss it at all.
Also the basic eq seems to sound better than EQ4, anyone else? I stopped using it a year ago when I noticed my tracks came back to life when bypassed. Level matched or not, it sounded sickly on everything. Maybe placebo (since I bought it lol) but this sounds a lot better.

Great EQ.. Congrats
With TDR infrasonic my fav new addition to the chain...

Uhm, I do not really believe too much in this "eq sounds better". Assuming an EQ is correctly implemented (nearly everything is), two minimal phase EQs have no reason to sound any different. When talking about clean EQs, we can implement a real null test down to quantization noise. Nobody can hear what it does not exist. And I could not blind test differences in quantization noise at, what -120db?

What *can* be is that depending on the interface, one "finds" certain curves more easily which are not the ones one wants. In all cases I have tried, what I noticed is that *this* was the reason why an EQ sounded better than another: it was guiding me towards different approaches.

Of course, if you add more features to the picture (e.g., the dynamic part), then of course you can have that this "sounds better" than the previous, because, for example, they improved the program dependent parts.

I don't agree, you can test it yourself, mainly in the highs, and in the transients and the sustain, for example Q3 for me is one of the worst sounding, I compared Equalizer Pro with Q3 on a hihat applying the same values, when increasing the volume of the band, Q3 was generating a sustain that the hihat didn't have, however Equalizer pro sounded more natural and clean.

My main eq is CraveEQ because it has an excellent sound.

I tried Equalizer Pro and I really liked the sound and the functionalities, however the workflow was a bit uncomfortable for me compared to CraveEQ.

I definitely agree about Pro Q3 and have used Crave for a while. I think Crave handles transients much better than Pro Q3, Crave EQ is much more “in your face sounding” :-)
But I'm not a fan of the high end on the Crave EQ.
Lately I've been testing the Ozone 11 EQ as my track EQ, and I really like the sound and the workflow.
Perhaps I'm crazy .. I always thought that all digital EQs sound the same ... now I'm in doubt