What's Wrong With Stock Plugins? Cubase 10 Channel EQ

In which I put the Cubase 10 channel EQ through its paces, and compare it to my standard go-to EQ, FabFilter Pro-Q3.
If you like this type of content and you want to see it more often, consider signing up for Channel Membership: / @danworrall
Affiliate links: if you make a purchase using one of the links below I'll get a small commission. You won't pay any extra.
Fabfilter Pro-Q3 (Gear4music)
tidd.ly/3t6cv0c
Steinberg Cubase Pro 11 (Gear4music)
tidd.ly/3yCAp4w
Steinberg Cubase Artist 11 (Gear4music)
tidd.ly/3mWFDpD
Steinberg Cubase Elements 11 (Gear4music)
tidd.ly/3BBumPy
Made with VEGAS Pro:
(affiliate link)
www.vegascreativesoftware.com...
Atari ST Image by aerozol from Pixabay
pixabay.com/users/aerozol-512...

[@DanWorrall]

I've added some affiliate links to the video description. If you make a purchase using these links I'll get a small commission, and you'll be helping to encourage more such videos in future.

[@sinane.y]

Hey Dan, can you do a video explaining what's wrong with my life? Thanks xx

[@Alon21Ashkenazi]

🤣

[@jonsubs9998]

Well, the answer for this video was "nothing, nothing is wrong with the stock plugin". I wonder if that's the answer for you as well.

[@sinane.y]

@@jonsubs9998 great answer but it doesn't have any effect on me since it's not read by Dan with his awesome voice.

[@Ponk_80]

Sy Borg nothing is wrong with your life, it’s your perception of it that is the problem :)

[@BandoLyrix]

GG lol

[@magmakum4628]

"i work mostly on reaper, for reasons I might explore in another video" YES PLEASE. I fucking love Dan Worrall.

[@n1tr0sys09]

YES!

[@andreyaek2266]

I'm also interested!

[@queenpurple8433]

I really wanna hear his reasoning cause I can’t think of any advantage to reaper over other DAWs

[@jamescuttsmusicjcm5013]

@@queenpurple8433 in short... flexibility, and customisability.

[@Mikas_Emil]

I can listen to your voice explaining technical stuff all day.

[@DashGlitch]

Try Cubase's Frequency EQ, channel EQ is just for quick tweaks like you mention :)

[@ionutsora965]

Please do make a video of why you switched to Reaper!

[@TazzSmk]

would love to see that in a way like what's wrong with ProTools :D

[@Gminorscale]

Reaper is insane. You can customise EVERYTHING. Make custom action macros and even write your own scripts. It takes a while to get used to, but when you have learned it you can become a power user, doing something that's practically impossible in other DAWs

[@InXLsisDeo]

he switched to Reaper like 10 years ago

[@eliteextremophile8895]

@@Gminorscale Indeed. I started with Reaper and used it for like 7 years and found out "The Reaper Blog" channel. My world just got exponentially bigger and I was in awe. I always knew I could do anything to and with Reaper but shiiit it really is endlessly customizable.

[@Googahgee]

@@TazzSmk oh god the EQ wouldn’t even last 5 minutes against anything any other DAW has

[@sleudianfrip]

A fantastic video and robust presentation here, Dan. I appreciate the fact you remain as scientific as is possible in your approach. You are both aware of and point out the errors in the application (because seldom are things perfect in the audio world) and that you maintain 100% objectivity throughout your tests, without becoming biased or allowing emotion to skew your presentation. Top class 👍🏼

[@coreymelanson2906]

Insane!!! Stuff u never might not fully understand,TILL YOU EXPLAIN IT. The visuals are key,you nailed it!!! Thank you for your time putting these exclusive videos up. Your just an amazing amazing engineer!

[@ChrisSonic]

Excellent video ... one of the best EQ videos I saw so far. Now I'm more confident to stick to my Cubase stock EQs and use additional EQs only when I need more bands. Thank you.

[@VintiqueSound]

I never thought I'd nerd out so hard on the built-in EQ of Cubase. Great vid :)

[@morrisfraser7236]

Great video. It’s probably worth noting that Cubase comes with Frequency plug in from Steinberg which is more of an equivalent to Fabfilter. With Frequency you get the same cramp-free approach but with 8 bands, all of which can be stereo or M-S. I use that instead of Fabfilter now.

[@Nathankaye]

Mo Fraser yes. That’s what I just said too. I wonder whether Frequency has a latency-free capability, or how low or high a latency it causes?

[@fitzeflinger]

yeah, frequency is a great plugin. i use it all the time for sidechain compression of only some frequency bands. still, as a standard eq fabfilter is king.

[@realraven2000]

Watching this old classic now - 7:50 - even though I most often reach for the fabfilter Q3 i use the built in hipass / lowpass often. It doesn't just have "Only a frequency" parameter- if you click on the little "12" you get good selection of steepness choices, starting at 6 db going all the way to 48db.

[@DaftFader]

Cubase has 4 or 5 EQ's these days. You've got the mix panel one, a studio 4 chan one that's the plug in equivalent basically, a graphic one, frequency the big boy, and I''m sure there's even one more I'm forgetting. Also frequency does dynamic processing now too! The only issue I have with them is that the hi/lo pass filter's cut offs don't go down as far as I would like (as in they don't seem to fully cut the sound down to *infinity).

[@DaftFader]

@@Nathankaye Frequency has low latency (possibly zero latency) and linear modes for each band individually.

[@bikesnbeerz]

@Dan, I'm not sure if you read comments but we appreciate your work. Thanks man!

[@WangleLine]

^ I second that

[@candymonster795]

Thanks for the great videos as always - can't wait to hear your followup video on L/C/R mixing!!

[@hr2186]

I love cubase. Went through reaper, PT etc. Came back and it's powerful. Cheers

[@Joona.Lukala]

Yes its mighty!

[@ezrashanti]

Parametric I is indeed an older algorithm, primarily included for compatibility with older projects. My understanding is that Steinberg recommends type II in nearly all cases for new projects.

[@russellszabadosaka5-pindin849]

I was sitting here thinking “yeah, Logic can do that, Logic’s got that” until I saw the stock eq’s phase setting and the Baxandall tweak. Got to admit, that’s pretty cool.

[@ModulerDrone]

I just looked at what Cubase can do with it's advanced features and jumped in. I'm finding it quite hard to get into it much harder than Reaper. What I feel is that I need to integrate some sort of a control surface. When you said it's more like a HW digital mixer, the coin dropped. I'll get the CC121 as I already have the Console 1 as I think that combo will make me mix more in Cubase. I'm using Ableton mostly, as it's just SOO fast for sketching things. Second is Reaper for routing as it's really amazing, lightweight and highly customizable. I can't believe that DAW makers aren't paying attention to what the guys at Cockos are doing. Thank you much for the videos!

[@DaftFader]

Really good to know how the Cubase EQ is working behind the scenes .. ta for the informative vid!

[@nickmarkham3743]

Amazing videos, Dan. My day always gets better when I see you've uploaded something. :) Striking music as well. Bravo! Will this be the last in this series, or are you trying all the DAWs? I've been enjoying these comparison videos. I'm curious; do you have anything to say about stock reverb? Maybe other stock compressor plugins? . . . Saturation? :) I'd love to hear your reasons for using Reaper over other DAWs. Heck, a comparison between other DAWs, just like these EQ videos might be interesting. DAW ergonomics is something my software of choice is currently grappling with; content like that may be influential. :P I really love your content, Dan. Looking forward to your next upload. Cheers!

[@n1tr0sys09]

1:00 Yes!, we all want to know those reasons. My teachers show everything with Pro tools as a standard and seem to quickly discard everything else, so far, I like how fast you can edit audio there, but Reaper for me is amazing for mixing and I really like the flexibility that it offers, as you say routing and customizability are just incredible

[@xplanet2112]

Nice video with complicated themes explained very well. The spaces between your statements/sentences reminded me of the BBC Schools and College’s science programmes 😀👍🏼😂

[@Nathankaye]

Thanks for this video. It’s awesome! You only compared the CUBASE pro 10’s channel strip EQ (which, by the way, technically is a 6 band EQ because it has latency free hi pass and low pass filters), but not the CUBASE “frequency” stock EQ, which has more bands (8) and more flexibility, including mid-side processing functions. I wonder if it would be a better sonic comparison to the fab filter plug-in?

[@Zegmaar_Bas]

As a (quite new) Nuendo (= cubase++) user, I like to use the channel EQs cause they are easy to reach. However, if I need more functions than the channel can offer, I always grab Q3 cause that definitely got what I need.

[@Nathankaye]

@@Zegmaar_Bas Frequency 2 (which as I said before, is a stock EQ, just not in the channel strip) is better than Q3, for many reasons, mostly because it can side chain from 8 different sources, and each band is switchable into dynamic EQ (not unlike Q3), but also because it is super light on CPU, and not to mention that it’s free. If it’s more functions that you need, you can’t really beat the stock Eq, Frequency 2.

[@forestcochran4196]

I thought the same thing. Why not compare to a stock plugin with more available bands and more parameters?

[@giulioboobzilla]

@@Nathankaye FrEQuency2 is a Killa!

[@mercho_music]

@@Nathankaye {these are in the Elemets version?

[@tcb6771]

Your tutorial is always useful!Thank you very much.

[@WhitesandComposer]

Man, your videos are incredible! As trying to improve in music production your channel made me realize a lot of people on youtube don't understand what their talking about :D Would love to see you do Eq comparison on Fl studio Parametric Eq 2

[@ignite137]

Very interesting..normally i skip the Cubase EQ, especially for boosts, but now i want to give it some love! In the end it's all about our ears to judge.. I still continue to use the Pro Q3 for surgical settings.. Thanks for the detailed video!

[@BILLYPATRON]

I’ve been using cubase for years and for me, I get better results with a fast workflow and that’s the only reason I use the channel eq more. If I open up a separate vst, the process of opening up a new window and eq and editing can sometimes create worse results than when I’m just moving quickly grabbing a band to adjust to what I hear in my head. Of course this is during production. During specific mixing I always go to fabfilter for surgical needs so both have their advantages.

[@martinguldberg1293]

Thank you for these educational comparisons!

[@Joona.Lukala]

I have been using cubase since 1994 , now in version 11. Thank you for interesting video

[@TheDarrenJones]

I'm pretty sure you're right about the 'Type I' EQs being the old versions from previous versions of Cubase for compatibility with older projects - I think they date to Cubase 5 and before. It'd be interesting to see you have a look at 'Frequency' which is Steinberg's updated EQ plugin which is included with Cubase, and has 8 bands of EQ - I wish they'd put it as an option for the default EQ on a channel.

[@Am6-9]

Darren Jones great idea, but I think it would be difficult to integrate Frequency into the edit channel window, size wise. And yeah, the type I es curves are definitely from older version, but it’s great that they keep them as an option for compatibility.

[@TheHirade]

Frequency is a great EQ 👍

[@JazzyFizzleDrummers]

Frequency is why I haven't felt the need to buy pro q. I'm sure it works differently but Frequency does what I need.

[@5adb0i]

I can't believe I guessed right! What might help for people is listen to the high end on the B eq, it sounds shriller or more cramped at the top end.

[@kadiummusic]

I started out virtually the same way, I was making midi file backing tracks using a bootleg version of Cubase on an Atari STE using a dongle which gave me another 32 midi channels. I kept all my old Atari stuff, I had three sets which I bought when they were cheap and during the first year of Covid I sold the whole lot plus even broken peripherals on Ebay for thousands which helped my family survive and keep the house! Old retro music gear is going for crazy prices now.

[@mcdebugger]

I think that limitations of bands per channel strip EQ might me related to workflow using hardware MIDI controllers where we simply have fixed count of knobs (Steinberg CC121). For more subtle corrections we have Frequency.

[@The-Bloke]

"The biggest advantage that stock EQs have over third party plugins is the ability to integrate them into the interface .. Reaper doesn't". Since this video was made, Reaper 6 came out, and this is now possible. All Reaper stock plugins can now be embedded in either the Track Control Panel or Mixer Control Panel, giving you an integrated control for that plugin. In the case of ReaEQ, this provides a little EQ diagram direct in the track, similar to how Dan shows Cubase doing it. Not as customisable as Cubase yet, but now it's there it will surely be enhanced. I wonder if this was another instance of Reaper's development being spurred by a Dan Worrall video? :) Either way, I thought it worth mentioning for people coming to the video in late 2019 and beyond that Reaper can now do this.

[@Am6-9]

Damn, I didn’t know about the EQ curve display in the mixer and that clicking on it gives a bigger window. Nice.

[@xii226a]

To make subtle adjustments like mentioned at 05:25 you want hold shift and drag the numbers around, they go way slower that way.

[@RudalPL]

Would be nice to see similar video comparing Pro-Q 3 to Cubase 11's Frequency EQ.

[@PrincipalAudio]

I just realised, the tests you're doing around 11:10 ish in the video, you could have an empty instance of Pro-Q 3 (post-fader) and use it to send a spectrum across to the instance of Pro-Q 3 you're fiddling with. Might make it easier to dial in the settings and identify whether it's out due to frequency, amplitude, Q, or a combination of all.

[@theofficialraysr]

I love your videos, keep'm coming!!!

[@pedrovanzeler1185]

Hi Dan! Love your videos, thanks a lot for sharing so much knowledge with a crystal clear presentation even for beginner and intermediate enthusiasts like myself. This is an older video and I don’t know if I’ll ever get an answer but on the topic of eqs I find big differences between q10 and other eqs when it comes to notches, it seems Q10 doesn’t let anything come through will logic stock eq and infinity eq let some frequencies pass through no matter how deep I go dB wise . Could you explain it if you find it yourself using those eqs?

[@hazybrain7]

Many Thanks, love all your videos

[@simmpessor5541]

Man, have you narrated in any documentary, like planet earth or so? This voice is so good and sounds familiar. The way you explain, things became more very simple. thanks for this comparison

[@louisrmusic]

It sounds like a robot voice...

[@peterbrandt7911]

This is maybe a double, but you can adjust the gain of the high- and lowpass filters too, even if only in steps, by clicking on the 12 besides it.

[@WangleLine]

Yes, I'd love to see a video on your reaper switch!

[@AutoclaveBeats]

Thank you for always sharing your knowledge...please could you do something similar for presonus studio one's eq

[@LucaMiolla]

Hey! These videos are just the best, thanks a lot for throwing tons of free knowledge to us! Have you checked Cubase Pro 11 Frequency stock EQ? It's only in the Pro version but I imagine it counts as stock plugin :D It looks like a beast of an EQ, with 8 bands, lots of variations for each band, independent linear phase and dynamic eq for each of them. i.e. you can have 4 bands as normal EQ, in linear phase, and 4 bands as dynamic EQ, each one of them with a separate sidechain if you want, you basically have up to 8 custom sidechains to choose from or use only one. You can sidechain the low end eq of a track to the kickdrum and the high end to cymbals/snare, dunno...I was wondering how it behaves more technically, would be amazing if you could do a similar comparison to this! Thanks!

[@craigkeys4]

Awesome comparison!! Can you compare the next more comprehensive stock eq in cubase pro 10 please? It’s called Frequency

[@PDJMDS]

I love the fact that it is entertaining watching someone trying to get signals to cancel!

[@jimimaze]

Thanks Dan!

[@searchiemusic]

6:10 this i think is why I finally stayed with cubase 7 over ableton 9, the high frequency bands made such a difference when I didn't have other eq plugins

[@DaftFader]

Cubase has done a great job of updating their eq in sucsessive versions. It's now called freqency and has dynamic/mid side and a bunch of other fun stuff. It's still only limeted bands tho sadly, and only 8 at that, so I can on occasion need to open two back to back if I'm getting heavy handed. It's not bad enough to warrent buying another EQ unless you genuinly out grow it now imo, or if you just can't get to grips with the controls (which are relatively straight forward, at least to me). That point is also much further down the road in it's current form, so very happy with what they changed.

[@LanielDevy]

Just a side-note: You can set the HP/LP filter slope to 6, 12, 24, 36 or 48 dB/Oct in the Cubase stock EQ. Although, I find it does weird things to the overall volume of the channel when set at low frequencies with 48 dB/Oct.

[@sdfalk]

Toneboosters eq gives you 16 bands and has many of the features Proq 3 has. Not unlimited bands, but pretty good. Costs a lot less to

[@AudioReplica2023]

we still waiting the follow up of M/S video

[@nagynorbie]

Thank you very much for this.

[@iftekharulanam]

Mr Dan, would please be interested in demonstrating the Toneboosters EQ4? You are awesome regardless! 💚

[@Thefi5thdnb]

I'm curious to know what you think of logic Pro X, as it's my daw of choice mainly because it's the first daw I spent enough time to get used to now I'm loyal to it. I don't tend to use many of their stock plugins except the alchemy synth and I've never really got on with their EQ that much so that's why I bought proq3 and have never looked back

[@golafs]

always nice to hear some tr707

[@SamuelFerrari]

In my hamble opinion, I think you could compare Pro Q3 with Steinbergs Frequency EQ.

[@robertbarner7626]

The main thing I hate about the Cubase stock EQ is that the low and high cut filter slope can only go to 48db. It would be great if it had a brickwall and went to 96db. Then I would actually use it rather than Pro Q3. And maybe a dynamic EQ option also. I'm actually okay with the limited nodes.

[@y0ungy]

7:47 it kinda hit me when you said there's only frequency setting available as there is a button next to it (where it says 12) where you can change the dB/oct setting

[@AutoclaveBeats]

Hi dan, please what are your thoughts on studio one's stock eq

[@hellotrip]

Great Video!!

[@mimidhof2179]

Good to know I've never used stock EQ. I 'm a long time cubase user and the earliest version of cubase surely had even worst EQ. That's why I was already using external EQ. But yeah the focus on low latency has always been a trade off...

[@barchel]

Hey, you can have a rea-eq display in the mixing rack if you enable a setting :)

[@DanWorrall]

Yeah, that's been added since my video.

[@barchel]

@@DanWorrall of course, just thought it may be useful for people who may not know. Thanks allways for your entertaining and highly informative videos!

[@Zet237yt]

Thanks for the video, Dan! I used this channel EQ all the time when I was using Cubase and didn't have any 3rd party eqs (aka fabfilter) to work with. One of my lecturers mocked one of my mixing sessions because of it a little, even. :( (But then again, he also saw me accidentally using lo shelves instead of lo cuts in that eq earlier so maybe he had a point...) Any chance you'll look at Cubase's Frequency in an upcoming video?

[@DanWorrall]

I might do yes, though it feels more like a bundled plugin than a stock EQ, as it's not available in the cheaper versions of Cubase.

[@jamiekuse226]

"He saw me using low shelves instead of cuts" - If he is mocking you for this, he's in the wrong. Lots of pro's will often chose to cut with a shelf than a filter for phase or other reasons.

[@m0rtenDK]

New subscriber here! More Cubase 10 videos please :-)

[@m0rtenDK]

And about the stock plugins, i really enjoy your approach and i'm learning a lot from it.

[@kernelpickle]

0:36 I’m also into retro computing hardware, and I’d be super interested in watching someone demonstrate how they were sequencing synths back in the day using one of those 16-bit or even 8-bit micros, like an Atari or Amiga. I don’t know if you still have a bunch of that sort of stuff knocking around, but if you don’t you could try to find one to record a video with. If you’re in the UK, there’s a KZbinr named Nostalgia Nerd who probably has the computer hardware in his collection, or would know where to get it. Then you could pretty much use any Synths that use the old 5-pin MIDI cables that have been around for my entire existence. I know it would probably be a complete pain in the ass to get everything setup and working, and also setup for screen capture, so you don’t have to manually dial in settings on a camera to match the refresh rate of a CRT display. It would be really fucking cool to see what you could do with it. I’d bet that you could even use it to trigger MIDI samples on a modern PC. Logic Pro still has a ton of really in-depth MIDI stuff under the hood, and that’s why it’s still the DAW of choice for folks with outboard MIDI hardware. I’ve used a MIDI controller that connected to my iMac with USB, and that had an old school, 5-pin MIDI in and out on it, so I was able to get a MIDI track from inside Logic to run through an external instrument, which I then immediately recorded to another track, and it was super cool and I just liked how all of these things were sync’d up together with zero lag, because the automatic latency compensation was able to sync the recorded audio up to the MIDI notes by shifting everything by however many samples I had the I/O buffer set to. I think that the kiddos would be really impressed with what you could get done back then with so little processing power. I imagine that you would have probably used some sort of DAT recorder sync’d up via MIDI, or just used analog tape to capture the recordings. I’ve also seen rack equipment that could playback MIDI sequences that were pre-programmed, so that it could be used in a live setting without lugging around one of those PCs. Although, if you didn’t have one with a HDD, and just loaded everything from floppies, I suppose it wouldn’t have as many moving parts that could get damaged. Anyway, you’ve got me thinking about an era in music and recording I find fascinating, because it straddled the line between the old school, 100% analog era and the 100% digital world we live in today. I think it was super clever how they managed to get so much done back when even the fastest computers were potatoes.

[@DanWorrall]

There's a ton of great music from the 90s to demonstrate what you could do with that hardware! I started with an Atari: I honestly don't feel much nostalgia for it. I'm probably the wrong person to make that video. Sorry!

[@TazzSmk]

nice vid! I wonder if you'd do Wavesfactory Spectre vs Fabfilter Saturn someday Dan?

[@papankunci]

still have the same exact dongle for cubase VST in original box and contents =)

[@vkarakcheev]

7:24 Why does pink noise look so different in these two plugins analyzers?

[@LondonSteveLee]

Now do one on Cubases Frequency2 - which has some tricks FabF doesn't even have such as multiple sidechain inputs for dynamic EQ on different bands from a myriad of sources. The reason the stock EQ has four bands is to maintain compatibility with certain Yamaha hardware controllers that are mapped to it.

[@mar0k]

Hi guys, I am Cubase user, I also like all the FF plugins. However, what is it that qualifies proQ shelves and bell shapes for being a null test artwork? What makes them so right in general? This is not fault-finding, I am just curious. Thank you.

[@DoubleDoubleU]

I would love to see a comparison video between ProQ 3 and ReEQ (not ReaEQ).

[@QrchackOfficial]

How about Pro EQ in Studio One?

[@alexeysmirnovguitar]

Love to know more about it also! Use it dayly

[@clar0scuro]

Hi Dan, why is the spectrum analyzer curve of the noise in ProEQ horizontal and in Cubase kind of diagonal falling to the right?

[@DanWorrall]

Different slope settings for the analyser. Equivalent setting in Prism explained here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qn7dgomFm7OJmNEsi=nh0wgWziE0sg1EYS

[@annekedebruyn7797]

I actually have a trick I use when using the small one at 2:18. I mapped a button on my mouse to change the sensitivity to slow so I have similar control. The lazy life. Hahaha

[@AshVanGelder]

Dan have you any experience or opinions on the products from DMG Audio. I personally find EQuilibrium by them to be a fantastic tool and even a equal rival to Pro-Q 3

[@DanWorrall]

Heard many good things but haven't tried them yet.

[@AshVanGelder]

@@DanWorrall if you ever are interested I don't mind lending my license to give a proper video. I think they are incredibly underrated

[@DanWorrall]

Thanks for the offer, but I'm a little wary of covering such a close rival to the FabFilter EQ due to my associations with FabFilter. I might be perceived as biased, even if I managed not to be ;)

[@AshVanGelder]

@@DanWorrall no worries. Appreciate the transparency with the subject matter!

[@Citracid]

Very good thank you

[@marekvoosen]

Great Video, a look at Toneboosters eq v4 and Meldaproduction MautodynamicEq would be great. To me Toneboosters eq is the great cheap contender to proq 3 today. And in some ways much more flexible. MautodynamicEq is the another league. Reaper Video please!!

[@iam-music]

You didnt mention the atari falcon...that was the game changer for me hehe

[@DEADLINETV]

Hey Dan! Great video! But a question tho. At 7:45 when you've inserted the pink noise, a slope appears on the Cubase EQ but not on Q3. I've seen this before when doing something similar in Cubase using Q2. The slope seems to be right for Cubase and the horizontal off for Q3 with pink noise. Can you explain what is going on? Thanks!

[@DanWorrall]

Analyser tilt. With no tilt pink noise slopes down to the right, with high frequencies lower. A 3dB per octave tilt will make pink noise look flat. AFAIR Pro-Q3 defaults to a 4.5dB tilt, which a lot of people prefer for music.

[@DEADLINETV]

@@DanWorrall Ok, thanks! Much appreciated. But why would one like to see a tilt and not a representation of how it is?

[@DanWorrall]

@@DEADLINETV music looks flatter with a 4.5dB slope, which can make it easier to read. It's still showing it "as it is" just from a slightly different perspective.

[@DEADLINETV]

@@DanWorrall Fair enough! Thanks again!

[@monosbeats7398]

Try the same with studio one?

[@tiagogrcia]

it is actually possible to insert the reaeq graph into the channel track

[@Rhythmattica]

Btw... just want to point out that was a PC cubase Dongle...... Atari Used a cartridge format. Still got my Mega4 , Midex, Cubase and Avalon Dongles.... Ah.... Memories..........

[@MrPMOSullivan]

Cubase 12pro has a plugin called frequency like fabfilter. Dynamic eq More bands.

[@Art_Of_Sound]

Great vid...makes me wonder why I endlessly buy 3rd party when it seems its pretty good anyway...just the marketing I guess. I like the sound/pres channel strip on the yammy TF series and I can see they seem to definitely be related; "The vertical scale makes it a bit fiddly?" Um...shouldnt we be driving with our ears? In reality, most people cant tell less than 0.3db diff in eq...try it :-) so regardless or any eq if it was that fine control...I would spend most of the day tweaking needless detail...imvho and with great respect sir :-)). I do agree it would be nice to have at least down to 12db though EDIT:: I usually dont use program based plugs because they arent portable. eg I work across DAWS Live, Cubase etc and would rather 1 plugin used the same everywhere...anyone else annoyed by the (understandable) fact you cant drag them around with you?

[@BILLYPATRON]

Imagine is fabfilter made a daw. Pro D.A.W. With all of their plugins in a quick-view channel strip like cubase. I would buy it just to try it and I bet you guys would kill it but I have no idea how hard it is to make a new daw so I’m just doing some wishful thinking.

[@murraywebster1228]

What about the Cubase Freq?

[@nickmarkham3743]

Hi Dan. I'm a bit stumped. Do you think you could do a tutorial or writeup on how exactly you achieved this plugin doctor-DAW routing setup? I've been scratching my head on it for days and even managed to break my DAW trying to get free software routers (JACK) to work. :P (I fixed that. Life isn't over yet. :) ) You mentioned loopback routing in your interface, so I assume it's a focusrite unit? It looks like the cheaper 3rd generation models have this feature now, but I'm not sure if it's identical in scope to whatever you're using. (there's only one loopback output as far as I can tell -- can't confirm that though) . . . A writeup or screenshot would be a lot of help, at least in selecting which interface to look into. :) I'd really appreciate it.

[@DanWorrall]

It's a rather old RME interface. I use the TotalMix software to handle the loopback routing. Never tried to do it any other way so can't really comment...

[@nickmarkham3743]

Alright. I'll have a look around and see what I can find. I'm starting to get the impression that this task isn't in the cards for a while though. Thanks for getting back, Dan. I appreciate you taking the time for me. :)

[@kollusion1]

Another great video Dan, cheers. I have used Cubase in its different variations for over 20 years. I am ready to move on to a 64 bit DAW, but I'm not really sure about the recent versions of Cubase, & I'm also put off, having to learn to use a different brand of DAW, (Logic, Ableton, Reaper etc) I'm also really into the idea of going full on, (Full-time / Live in), into the Linux world, & using one of the Linux DAW's. Could you, or anyone out there, suggest a 64 bit DAW, that allows use of VST plugins, with an easy learning curve. (Main concern!) Thanks in advance.

[@DanWorrall]

I'm also an ex cubase user, now very happy with Reaper. Definitely suggest you try that if you haven't yet.

[@AboveEmAllProduction]

I've Cubase 10.5 and it is awesome

[@JimGriffOne]

07:14 - This is what I said about channel inserts. "Don't be stingy, Steinberg." Low and behold, now there's 16 per track and buss! :)

[@jamiekuse226]

And you can move the pre/post fader point around now, too. Super handy.

[@milesavion3467]

Could you pls explain what the consequences are when you reach a perfect null? Is this a good sign or a bad sign???

[@DanWorrall]

A null means the two signals are identical, and if you're hearing any differences you're just imagining them.

[@milesavion3467]

@@DanWorrall Thus in case of your comparison video between cubase stock plugins and fabfilter q3 the cubase eq finally offers not bad quality at all as most viewers would have expected. Am I right?

[@DanWorrall]

Audio quality is fine. Pro-Q3 offers more features and (IMO) better ergonomics. I think that's worth paying for, but your needs may be different.

[@milesavion3467]

@@DanWorrall Thanks a lot for your quick reply. ;-) Your knowledge and expertise is most impressive as Darth Vader would say.

[@Hellmaster_92]

Awesome video, thank you very much.

[@zzzyzzzyzzzyxxx]

I am not sure I understand why the EQs should null. Don't different EQs use different algorithms and it is exactly that which gives them their unique characteristics? I might use Pro-Q3 for surgery or other task, but prefer, in a given situation, a Pultec EQP-1A on a voice or an API 550 on a kick just because I like the color they give. Perhaps I am missing something. I really like the introduction videos you do for the FabFilter products - I have all of their plugins. Thanks for your time, Dan.

[@DanWorrall]

If an EQ claims to be "clean" and minimum phase then there is actually a theoretically perfect response we can compare it to. More to the point however, if two EQs do null, we know for sure they'll sound the same and we can skip the listening tests.

[@zzzyzzzyzzzyxxx]

@@DanWorrall Got it. Thanks!

[@nikirose7673]

What is "EQ cramping"?

[@vitaliivakulenko7248]

So what? In the AB test I prefer B, and I use Cubase EQ a lot, and will do )). Nothing bad with it. For the price of FAB EQ I'd rather bought a synth, than a plugin ))

[@orangevst]

I still have that cubase dongle

[@chaddonal4331]

So, trying to follow this in big picture: The assumption here seems to be that FF Pro-Q3 is the gold standard, i.e. doing things optimally. So, differences in Cubase EQ responses are being noted. So, Steinberg's legacy Type I EQs are revealed to be problematic with standard digital cramping. And the default Type II EQs are modernized to avoid cramping and act more "analog". Cubase's various settings are different than can usually be created from ProQ3 with only one band. But ProQ3 can reverse engineer Cubase's EQ curves (if desired) with the EQ-Match feature. FF has more features overall. Meanwhile, Cubase 10 has a better, newer EQ that isn't addressed here. So, EQ's respond differently. If a mix engineer is using one or the other (DAW or FF), they will adjust by ears, right? Conclusion: Cubase's Stock EQs can definitely get the job done. Just maybe not as flexibly as with FF. Is this all an accurate summary? Or am I missing something important?

[@DanWorrall]

Pretty much. Except I think the newer, better EQ is only available in the more expensive versions of Cubase.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@DanWorrall Likely, any Cubase user considering paying for FabFilter would already have the pro version of Cubase, right?

[@DanWorrall]

@@chaddonal4331 I don't think that's a valid assumption, no.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@DanWorrall Alright... Grateful for your work here! Are you planning on continuing this series with Studio One, Samplitude, and/or Logic?

[@BobCorey]

For some reason I think the StudioEQ or cubase is kinda worse sonically in co parison to the channel eq…is it my imagination or you have noticed this too? StudioEQ sounds harsher and dryer…even if I do a cut in the lows the sound feels like getting the above characteristics…please let me you have noticed the same behavior…

[@nenadvicentic]

Thanks for the great video! To my ear Cubase stock EQ sounds horrible - plain digital. You give it more credit than it deserves.