Just a quick revisit on this, after some more thought I think for me the real difference for FF is the UI, the spectrum grab capability, and the EQ match stuff (did something cool with it a while back, you can read about it here:
http://forum.cakewalk.com...412428-p2.aspx#3412960 ). There is certainly nothing wrong with using the ProChannel quad curve EQ, and like some others, for me an EQ is pretty much an EQ when it comes to sound. The only real differentiating factor for me is how quickly I can get the results I want, which is why my toolbox is really the FF, UAD Pultec, and the Slate stuff these days. For me the UAD and Slate stuff quickly get me to particular results in a predictable and familiar way, and for everything else I have the FF. I think I could probably get almost the same results with the PC EQ and the LP, but for me it's just faster with the others. That's strictly a personal thing though, so YMMV.
That said, I was interested in others impression of the FF as too big a hammer for general track work....I'm quite the opposite; I use the FF as a general all-purpose parametric EQ....pretty much always on tracks and rarely on busses. Always interesting to me to see how others work and how perceptions differ.
Dean