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

Some say you should use your ears not your eyes.
 
Others say if your ears are deceiving you, use your eyes.
 
Myolpal says it takes all kinds to make a horse race.

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, Freq*... 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.
 
*edited because I forgot to add Frequency... oops. Kind of important.

lol... beat out by my own verbiosity and bumble fingers.
 
 

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

designers of certain quality eq's, 
chose specific crossover points,
and these things provide a certain 'personality' to the eq...
and some folks specifically want THAT personality...
 
and even if you mock up your own version of that particular eq,
the components that went into the design,
also have something to say about that personality,
and those things are quite hard to model.
 

I assume you're talking about a parametric based EQ vs a designated multiband graphic. ( between 5 to 31 bands is common)
 
They both do a similar job but in slightly different ways. I used to be a huge Graphic EQ fan and still like them because of their simplicity and you can see at a glance what you have.
 
They work great but very often, especially in the hardware versions, the band width is fixed and sometimes you simply need a more narrow band notch. The lower the number of bands...such as the 5 and 10 band models have fairly wide bands.  I see 5 bands on guitar amps.
 
Using a Para-Q lets you dial in and narrow down a certain frequency. This can be really helpful with a snare or in a live PA, notching out a pesky feedback frequency that wants to ring.
 
Now days, in the studio, I use both. Since many of the software based vst EQ's tend to blend the attributes of both the graphic and the dial-ability of the para into one, what's not to love about that? 

wst3
because sometimes a graphical EQ is not the tool I need...
 

serious?   

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!

alewgro

wst3
because sometimes a graphical EQ is not the tool I need...
 

serious?   

 It could very well be a serious answer because it is true.  I think the thread title may be a bit confusing because I think you are referring to an eq that has a very visual based graphic interface, but some may take it as a graphic equalizer vs parametric ( or other variation of eq) topic. For me, visual aids are more valuable with the more surgical aspects of eq where sight may make something more obvious before my ears notice. When it comes to coloring type eq, the visual component becomes less valuable because you are pretty muc dialing in values based in personal taste instead of correcting or carving space in mix. A graphic interfcae on a putec type eq would not increase its value for me, since I go strictly by ear when using.