Best Parametric EQ?

Why not the LP-64 EQ?
 
You really don't need a parametric for most things, btw. It's not always the best choice.

I like the Fab Filter Pro Q - http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-q-2-equalizer-plug-in
It's not cheap, but it's hard to see how you would need any other EQ, unless you want a 'colouring' one. It's simple to use but with a lot of options so it grows in line with your needs.
 
Having said that, the Sonitus EQ that comes with Sonar is perfectly capable (if a bit ugly and lacking a spectrum analyser) and people say good things about the ProChannel EQ, if you're happy with the ProChannel workflow.

How about the BT PEQ332 parametric equalizer from Nomad Factory?
Best of luck.

You are after a (fully formed) curve eq?

>the one I intuitively understand how to operate the most
Yes. That may be the question better stated. I need to look at a few and see which ones I get along with.

That's what I plan to do. I like the look of the Nomad Factory stuff, fairly straightforward and intuitive.

John T
There are actually very few ways to make an EQ, and very little to distinguish between them, especially once you're in the digital domain.

 
With respect - digital has indeed eliminated a lot of variables from a technological standpoint - I disagree because many digital EQs emulate specific analog circuits. An equalizer that's inspired by a classic Pultec is going to respond very differently compared to a 1980s SSL channel strip emulation. Some analog EQs used inductors, which had a subtle midrange ringing not found in all-active types. There are also "surgical" digital EQs which avoid the "signature" of analog EQ.
 
So there's no real "best" because the Pultec emulation that sounds fantastic when mastering might not be the best EQ to get rid of a whistling resonance in an amp sim while doing fairly drastic low and high end EQ. If every stage in a parametric could have a different topology, that would be one thing but usually with a parametric, when you "sign up" to a topology, all the stages work that way.
 
As a practical example, if I need to master something with a great mix and all it needs is some gentle tonal correction, I'll go for a Pultec-type EQ (what the QuadCurve calls "pure"). But if I'm correcting an amp sim's resonances, I'll go for the Hybrid and for a mixed drum loop, the E-type if I need to deal with multiple resonances in the kit that don't require the same kind of drastic correction as amp sim resonances.   
 
This is why I appreciate the QuadCurve EQ's versatility, however the Waves H-EQ takes that concept one level further. Unfortunately the documentation that comes with it doesn't go into details of the various curves and what to expect...although ultimately you do have to let your ears decide, if you know an EQ's precise topology, you can save yourself a lot of trial-and-error time narrowing down your options.
 
When people say they find other EQs to be better than the QuadCurve, I wonder if it's because they didn't choose the right QuadCurve option for the particular application, or happened to find an EQ that had the right characteristics for a particular application. Of course the QuadCurve doesn't offer every possible EQ curve, but it does have "the big four."
 
One of the reasons I started the thread about whether people understood how the different curves functioned in the QuadCurve was to gauge whether an in-depth article would be useful to more than a minority of users.

I would love to have a VST Parametric EQ that would emulate the Peavey "Paramid" EQ in their steel guitar amps. 
I can come close but not exact using one of the Preamps in the POD Farm that has frequency controls but it not exactly.
 
I often go direct through a POD X3 but even the EQ in it is not that great.   Using an external stomp box EQ doesn't cut it either.
 
 
 

I looked at Acoustica but for my use it doesn't offer any more than Pod Farm 2

The original Pro Q is still great, but I have to admit I love the resizable window and I actually use the spectrum grab.

Congrats! If you can spend the money it's really an EQ you can't go wrong with! Enjoy :)

konradh
Maybe I'm missing something, but the ProChannel EQ is parametric: it has frequency, amount, and Q controls.

I think that is the quadcurve that people are referring to Konrad. It is certainly my choice.

thomasabarnes

tenfoot
 
I think that is the quadcurve that people are referring to Konrad. It is certainly my choice.

No. Most are not referring to the QuadCurve EQ of the ProChannel. They are referring to products offered by Fabfilter (the Pro Q EQ and the Pro Q 2 EQ). But Craig Anderton does make considerable comments about the Pro Channel's Quadcurve EQ.
 

I didn't say most - I said that those that mention the quadcurve are talking about the Pro Channel EQ. Happy to stand by my assertion at this stage:)

tenfoot
 
I didn't say most - I said that those that mention the quadcurve are talking about the Pro Channel EQ. Happy to stand by my assertion at this stage:)

 
OK. A misunderstanding on my part.

dubdisciple
all but the most trained ears would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I agree 
 
I chose Pro-Q (and now Pro-Q 2), not because of the sound quality, but rather the interface itself. Both the controls and the meters/analyser.
 
It may be that there are better tools out there, but this is one I discovered after purchasing FabFilter Twin and watching the FabFilter videos. I just like the company and the guy that does their videos sounds like he knows what he is talking about...