This is one of the big pluses with this DAW, this EQ allows you to solo the freq's your adjusting is so helpful in fine tuning the area that needs to be adjusted. Not only are there bell and hp filter, but the notch, and mid side options make this one of the most powerful EQ's ever in Cubase.

I just wish it was released before the ProQ2...not after, since I consider them similar. But what these always improving tools do is allow me to focus more on specific tools that go beyond something that I would ever expect to be bundled in a DAW.

A couple examples would be the MDWEQ5 for surgical narrow objectives that manifest amazing results. Or Waves F6 "floating" or dynamic EQ that can be very beneficial when side chained.

Yes i like it most of all Cubase eqs.

Agreed. It's teh awesomes.

But seriously, it's a very nice addition.

its my go to now for most things, i think its extremely easy to use and powerful, even the presets are really good

In my opinion one of the best eq's around and I use it all the time

I know this is a different take but almost all my stuff is now mixed with cubase stock plugs, the new comps are great, the Freq eq, those get me almost all the way. i do use waves and UAD for some other stuff but on almost every track is the vintage comp and freq eq

I really find this EQ to be fantastic. I like that you can solo each band, overboost to hear where issues are and then back down to a proper adjustment. The sound of the EQ is smooth as well.

As I check out other DAWs that have some nice features, they make me tempted to switch however Cubase is so rich of great features including the Frequency EQ and the new one in version 10.5 that allows you to compare two tracks Eq's on the same screen.

Its been a while since this EQ was discussed on this thread. Just wondering how many still appreciate it. It's different than Equilibrium which has a gentler correction or boost.

When you combine the multiple side chain inputs with the different multiple sources, it does make Frequency quite unique. I'm told there is no other dynamic EQ that does this.

I use Frequency quite often. I have never tried Equilibrium, and frankly have enough digital EQs.

Back in the day I was about to finally cave in and buy ProQ2 when Frequency dropped - it's excellent, the ability to sidechain individual frequencies from any source is amazing. I don't see the need for any other EQ for the detailed stuff - obviously I still use the vintage type flavour EQs - but all of my detailed work is done in Frequency.

Frequency is a great EQ but never gets used here - I hope they update it to have an adjustable gain-range window.

It's a silly request but just touching a band and dragging it 1mm on my screen makes for a 6-12dB boost or cut while sometimes all I need is a .5dB adjustment.

I've set my Kirchhoff eq to a 6dB window and my mixes instantly turned out better for it.



Herwig

But the gain knobs are right there on the screen all the time - just shift and mouse for fine control.

!?

Doesn't happen for me. I drag to adjust all day long and it's never a minimum of 6dB.

Frequency is a great plug in. Make sure to use 64 bit processing precision in Cubase/Nuendo when using Steinberg EQs.

The noise is pretty far down in level relative to test signals though and those signals have been massively boosted, so I doubt anyone hears any of this.

From the perspective of it being noticeable we can consider the actual program material we are using as "noise" and the question is how far into that we can hear another signal. If the actual added "quantization noise" is sitting about 80-100dB below program material then we can't hear it. There would have to be a lot of correlated noise to boost it to a point where it can be heard.

You're still not going to hear that.

First of all how low do your monitors go? What's their output at say 30Hz? Yamaha HS-series are -10dB around 40Hz. Kali's LP-series about the same. So at 30Hz it's going to be even lower. Obviously anyone with a flat response 20-20k will have a different experience, but I'm just pointing out that at the lower point that speaker manufacturers spec out you're looking at (-84) + (-10) = -94dB.

Secondly then what do you have as program material? It's going to be more than a sine wave, but even if it was just a sine wave if you have that at 0dBFS and output that at an annoyingly loud level of say 85dB SPL in a small-ish room then where's that quantization noise relative to room noise? It's going to be 94dB below your program 85dB SPL sine wave. Say you have 40dB room noise and can hear 10dB into that. It means this artificially added noise has to hit 30dB SPL to be perceived just within the noise floor without masking - but you do have masking in the form of program material, and it is now at 30dB + 94dB = 124dB SPL.

Even if you start adding up a bunch of these tracks you're going to have to have a lot of them ("preferably" correlated) I think in order for it to be a problem.

If anything I'd say that a potential problem - potential - would be eating up dynamic range, but it'd only be a problem if you need your stuff to be louder.

I understand perfectly well what is happening, and there is zero misinterpretation. Feel free to explain if anything I wrote was factually incorrect.

I'm not saying they should not get rid of it, they should, I am saying in real life we're not going to hear it.

Would you like to explain how it is a problem that's audible in practice and give some examples of it that you can share?

But under what conditions?

"The dither thread"? Which dither thread? Seems like a bit of a cop-out. Also, it would have been nice to see (or read) all of the involved processing in your examples.

I'm looking at this in Nuendo right now, and with 1kHz sine wave at 0dBFS I'm not seeing the partials you are seeing. I'm measuring using Insight 2.

What I can say though is that the included signal generator in Cubendo isn't 100% clean. If you record your 1kHz sine wave at 0dBFS and pull that into RX for example you'll see overtones as well as low end noise, and if you cut out the fundamental you still have signal around -80dBFS according to RX.

The point being that with a clean source signal I'm not seeing those partials you're seeing, and the boosting of signal using Frequency yields increased low-end noise only. From what I can see.

So to me it looks like we're maybe dealing with added weighted low end noise (which we don't want) and a signal generator that isn't clean which means that when boosting signals we're getting both the low end noise and more of the unclean partials.

How about Crave EQ vs Cubase Frequency 2? What do you think?

As with any other plugin - download and demo it. If you think it's worth the money then buy it. I haven't tried it and for what I do for a living the stock EQ is just fine. I own UA plugins as well as Acon and iZotope (Neutron I suppose) and I've used Waves and Sonnox in the past along with PT stock EQ and since I'm not doing music I just find useability and reliability to be by far the most important to me. If I was mixing more music then maybe I'd care more.

Been demoing it for a while. It’s a great EQ. But I'd like to convince myself that Frequency 2 is just as good-sounding as Crave EQ. One less piece of code to deal with.

Minimalism.

https://youtu.be/EhreHcV141U?si=yiTArLfbiFc8R7vi

If you watch the entire video, you will discover how unique Frequency is. No other dynamic EQ has both multiple inputs and multiple sources.

The sound. Its digital EQ. I can think of many more issues than obsessing over digital EQs. But thats probably just me...

You're right, Frequency 2 is a unique EQ for sure. But again, Crave EQ is being touted as the cleanest EQ, especially in its Transparent mode. And that's why (with minimalism in mind) I'm wondering if I still “need” Crave EQ in the presence of Frequency 2.

I don't know. Its a digital EQ. Define clean?

I do use MDWEQ for surgical objectives due to its tight Qs, iso-peak, and George's description of "musical." It may also just be my biases. Is proQ3 not "clean?"

Ask a hobbyist who loves nulls and Plug in doctor administering double blind tests in a sonically engineered environment, meaning a expensive commercial mastering room with high end monitors and placing you blindfold in the precise sweet spot. Will you consistently ace the listening tests?

Oh whoops...that rarely happens if ever. The person I discount is the one who proclaims no biases.

Or, will you just pick one, learn the snot out of it, and complete a track? Whats your objective? You going to have less plays on Spotify because someone declares you used ProQ3 and not Crave? And what about the future when someone touts another digital even cleaner...at least according to the marketing.

Again, discounting the EQ footprint, its really math.. digital.