Why Would Anyone Use A NON-Graphical EQ?

So I am watching a video on some VST plugins like the SSL Channel Strips, which have EQ knobs, and while I do understand how they work - they seem to do the same thing you can do in the ProChannel EQ.  They have the Q size and all that...   so why would anyone want to use a plugin like that?
 
It seems easier to see visually what is going on when you EQ no?  Is there something I am missing?
 
Thank You!
Adam

because sometimes a graphical EQ is not the tool I need...
 

Beepster
Once you get used to how EQs work the graphical component isn't really necessary and folks who have been fiddling with this stuff for a while don't need to see the curves. In many ways they can actually be a distraction from what REALLY matters... which of course is the sound.
 
I used to ask myself the same exact thing and shied away from the less visual EQs but am far more comfortable just twisting knobs without seeing the curves.
 
Also many non graphical EQ models are intended to respond like their hardware counterparts so those who are used to just turning physical knobs on those devices will feel more at home. The Pultec style EQs are like that and have unique curves/response that are probably impractical to show visually. And really why waste extra design time, screen real estate and graphical processing power displaying graphs when you are dealing with sound?
 
I still like seeing what's going on in most cases but really, if I have info on the vital params (Gain, BW, Q... which is usually displayed in a tooltip anyway but can be learned from product info without) then it's pretty easy to know what is being affected.
 
That said... I do really like analyzer type displays that show HOW the signal is being affected. I do keep being told to trust my ears though... not numbers, graphs and eyeballs but I still find it interesting to see how signals are affected in real time.
 
Meh.

Great read, thank you!   I got it - its those specialized EQ curves that make those hardware EQ's sound the way they do!   their own flavor.  I get it.  I was just wondering I guess if there is something you can attain in what but not the other or if they are used for different purposes!   Thanks!

Thank you everyone for the clarification and help on this.  I understand the difference now!  thank you all!
 

AT
The most use I got out of one was having it in a house system but not engaged.  A promoter at an after hours club in NYC I did sound for would come by and tweak it so the system would "sound better."  After a couple of months he finally realized it wasn't doing anything.  After that, he didn't bother me anymore with his suggestions.

Great story.
 
On a similar note I was doing live sound for a friend of mine who plays in a Greek Band. He told me they were going to have a guest clarinet player from Greece (a big deal over there). My friend said he's an a$$. He always want to be "turned up". So the gig is going, they are jamming. The clarinet player looks to me and signals his clarinet and gives me the "thumbs up signal, to turn him up". I make a big sweeping/turning gesture over the board. He plays a few more riffs and smiles and gives me the OK gesture. Of course I did nothing because he was already well balanced in both the monitors and FOH.

I was also confused with assuming the thread title meant "graphic EQ," but as far as a graphical display, much of this depends on the application. Mirror EQ requires parametric functionality, but if you look at older mixing boards, the knobs and crossovers were hard-wired. You can actually mimic these in many EQ VSTs and is a bit eye opening to try (it is not as restrictive as some portray).
 
Infinite versatility to 4 significant digits is not always best (and is actually an anal-retentive person's bane). Stepping back to an even broader scenario... most guitar amps have no graphical display of the overall EQ curve (barring a graphic EQ, of course), yet most players do not find this an issue (with a good amp).

alewgro
So I am watching a video on some VST plugins like the SSL Channel Strips, which have EQ knobs, and while I do understand how they work - they seem to do the same thing you can do in the ProChannel EQ.  They have the Q size and all that...   so why would anyone want to use a plugin like that?
 
It seems easier to see visually what is going on when you EQ no?  Is there something I am missing?

 
Adam... I know you have already had a satisfactory answer or two, but there is one more I'd like to add.
 
Graphical interfaces are relatively new (with DAWs and Plugins)... and many of us simply learned on consoles where turning knobs was the only way. Putting a visual to that... for many... is a distraction and unnecessary. At the same time, for those starting out and not understanding how each turn of a knob effects what is happening it can be very helpful for them to see & learn.

well that would be me with the answer that turned out to be less helpful, so let me flesh it out a bit...
 
Different types of equalizers behave differently, and there are a LOT of variations. Filters in series vs filters in parallel, compensation for summing vs no compensation, IIR vs FIR (ok, only in the digital domain), and of course parametric vs multi-fixed-band, aka graphical EQ.

Even within the world of graphical EQs there are different filter types and widths and so on.

So my answer was quite serious, albeit apparently too brief. Sometimes a parametric filter is what I need, and sometimes a graphical EQ is what I need. And really, that's how I decide - but that's based on starting out in the mid 1970s when most console filters (if they were even included) were fixed parameter filters, and outboard usually meant a graphical EQ or two.

Two of my all time favorite equalizers are both graphical - which even as I type this fascinates me a bit. The best sounding filter set I've used is the original API 560 - 10 bands of musical goodness! And I think that probably influenced my ears a bit, because my other favorite was made by  Traynor back in the 1980s, it could be a 31 band 1/3 octave filter set, or two 10 band 1 octave filters sets. I used it mostly in that second configuration.

I still love parametric equalizers, and my favorite in that bunch is the Valley Audio Maxi-Q. But the API, Ashly, Neve, Tangent, and Trident parametric equalizers are also on the list, actually, it's a long list, probably easier to list the ones I don't like, but I'll skip that.
 
I think if I had to have a rule of thumb it would go something like I use graphical equalizer more often when I am trying to shape a track, or even a mix. I use parametric equalizers when I am trying to solve problems. But sometimes a parametric will let me shape the track better than the graphic. I can't think of occasions when the graphic solved a problem better than a parametric - but I'm sure there are cases.
 
As far as using any filter set based on a graphical user interface I would have to say that seldom comes up for me. I find that using my eyes for make audio decisions just doesn't work for me. I'm in awe of people that can edit or set parameters for a filter or compressor by eye. I've been in the room when it has happened, so I don't discount it, I just can't do it. I get better results using my ears, and in fact when I was schlepping coffee and take-out my 'teachers' would often cover the controls to make me use my ears.

It was probably helpful at one time - but frankly the numbers around the knobs are a great starting point!
 
So that's the long(er) answer - I use the tool that gets me the result I'm listening for. And as often as not these days I have a pretty good idea of what  I am trying to do. I've also developed a reasonably good idea of how to use my microphone locker - selection and placement - to make the need for filters and compressors less likely.

One last thought - I have one parametric EQ - and Ashly but I don't know the model, it was part of a custom rig - anyway, when I set the bandwidth really tight the filter will ring on transients. It's a cool effect!