Mixer EQs

[homemadehitshow]

I have been using a lot of tracks recently and having performance issues. I wondered what the opinions are on the built in mixer EQs, mainly for low and high passes. I assume they would use less CPU than VSTs.

[cactus-head]

Hi,

In my experiments in the past I find the built in mixer EQs use less CPU than attached plugins. But you'll of course want to weigh that against the audio results you seek. Sometimes you'll need a plugin to get the sound you are after.

The basic EQ on the mixer seems to influence certain frequencies more than others.

Seems like the LO hits mostly 150Hz and below with a slight influence towards the 200Hz frequencies.
The MID seems to focus on the 2KHz to 5Khz range with the emphasis dropping off as it you move closer to 5K.
And the HI seems to focus its influence on 6KHz and up

Then you have a parametric EQ also on the mixer.

For the high end you have the option of a bell curve or a high shelf with frequencies ranging from 1.5K to 16k
For the 2 middle tiers you have a bell curve option with an adjustable Q. The frequencies range from 500Hz to 7KHz and 200Hz to 2.5KHz.
The low tier has the option of a low shelf and a bell curve with frequencies ranging from 30Hz to 450Hz

In general, I would use the basic mixer EQ for nudging the raw tracks towards a certain sound, either to temper or enhance certain overall frequencies. This in combination with the gain and overdrive (as needed) would give me the starting point of where I want a specific instrument to be. This would be part of my gain staging process: to get "the best" general sound for the track and also its peak level in the mix.

The parametric EQs on the mixer allow for more detailed frequency shaping. The EQs on the mixer come BEFORE any imbedded track FX plugins so keep that in mind if you had the idea of managing an effected track EQs as opposed to the raw signal.

[homemadehitshow]

Thanks, all the frequencies and stuff are in the manual for each EQ. Mainly wondering of their quality vs VSTs. I am a pretty cynical about audio quality REALLY mattering for home recording with stuff like EQs to be honest.

[cactus-head]

Hi,

just be aware of the signal chain. Sometimes that awesome reverb you can't live without adds too much something and you need an EQ plugin after it to get the sound you want.

Sometimes you may need a dynamic EQ plugin that responds to exaggerated frequencies like the pick strike on a string of an electric guitar.

The quality of the mixer EQs are fine, but the timing in the signal chain may give you other considerations. Spin dials and trust your ears.

[homemadehitshow]

Thanks for responding but you're not answering the question I am asking. I am asking about the performance of the built in EQs vs VSTs when using them for basic high and low pass.

[Mark Bliss]

The difference would be small.

EQ's in general are on the lower end of the resource consumption scale, therefore seldom very concerning as far as that goes.

[Acoustica Greg]

Except for Pultronic Tube EQ.

[Mark Bliss]

Hi Greg!

Fair point. I hoped my wording was clearly a bit if a generic blanket answer, allowing for some exceptions.

As to your point, I would add two things:
The plug-in you allude to us a bit more of a heavy resource user, but probably less because of being an EQ, and more due to an attempt at emulating the characteristics of a piece of classic hardware with some odd but sometimes useful anomalies.
I'd also point out that not all Pultec emulations seem to be quite the same. (As far as resource demands go.)

But to re-phrase, in general and in the context of my interpretation of the OPs question... while a plug-in may use a little more resources, EQ's in general are not usually a big concern.