I was watching a video on Youtube where the user seemed to have LP-64 on every track. Seemed like an odd choice to me, but maybe he knows something I don't.  

I don't know who that was but no I don't use it much. Its a cpu hog because its a linear phase EQ. I would use it when I need a transparent EQ while mastering. Otherwise I am a Quad Curve fan. 
 
 

Nope. I used to try to use it all the time but quickly learend it is an unweildy beast. Now that I know more EQ's and have spent time working with the QC that's my go to. For minor surgery I'll use the Sonitus. The LP only comes out for really stubborn frequencies or for touch ups on a final product. I'm diggin' the Blue Tubes Pultec model for final mix work too... which seems almost the exact opposite of the LP-64 in regards to functionality.

He must have a powerful computer because he seriously placed it on every track. I occasionally use LP-64 on master or Bus.

I agree with John.  It is not a go to EQ.  The basic EQ's that are bundled with most DAW's are usually well within their abilties to handle most things.  The LP64 is nice for mastering though.

dubdisciple
He must have a powerful computer because he seriously placed it on every track. I occasionally use LP-64 on master or Bus.

Even with a super computer its an unnecessary thing to do. The only reason to use an LP EQ is that there is a noticeable problem using a normal EQ. 
 
But what I find interesting is Beepter's remark about the Pultec EQ NF. I picked it up too for the sale price. One has to ask oneself why are such Eqs useful?  If the LP is so darn important then one would avoid a Pultec type it seems to me.   

Needless to say I agree with Jeff!

The LP to me is for Mastering. I use the LP 64 Multiband on my master and have been getting excellent results. But as a rule I don't , and never have used a lot of EQ in general. 
I'm of the school that I record things the way I want them to sound. I have already applied any EQ  on the way in via my mixer. And even there it's pretty minor tweaks. The right instruments and the right mikes etc. 
With midi I won't use a sound I don't find just right so no EQ there either. 
I guess over time this is a natural process that I don't have to think about anymore. It's rare that I'll have a track that I have to EQ with a plug in now we have Pro Channel. 

To the O.P. - No, I haven't used the LP-64 much for a while.  The Quad Curve is my main EQ.
 
It (LP-64) can work well for me when all else has failed, but I use it as a last resort now, and only when mastering..  This is what it was designed for. I think.  I remember using it on a vocal when it first came out, whilst tracking, and loved the results, but couldn't understand why my DAW slowed to a halt..  This is when I first learnt about latency..
 
The Blue Tubes Pultec EQ (PEQ2B) is nice on tracks (bass drums, snare, bass guitar etc), but the PULSE-TEC EQ plug-in is great as a mastering plug in.  The inclusion of the Pultec Mid-Range Equalizer MEQ-5 (with the Pultec EQP-1A) "takes it to another level" for me.
 
I also picked this up on sale recently for £6 (instead of $129) or so, and was blown away.  Even the presets sound great.
 
So - to the O.P. - I still use the LP64 EQ and Multiband Compressor, but only when mastering, and not as often as I used to..
 
 

johnnyV
The LP to me is for Mastering. I use the LP 64 Multiband on my master and have been getting excellent results. But as a rule I don't , and never have used a lot of EQ in general. 
I'm of the school that I record things the way I want them to sound. I have already applied any EQ  on the way in via my mixer. And even there it's pretty minor tweaks. The right instruments and the right mikes etc. 
With midi I won't use a sound I don't find just right so no EQ there either. 
I guess over time this is a natural process that I don't have to think about anymore. It's rare that I'll have a track that I have to EQ with a plug in now we have Pro Channel. 

I have to second that notion.  I believe that mastering and mixing begins at the start of the recording chain, so that when one gets to the end of the chain, less work is needed.