There are eqs which have a very distinctive sound, or rather effect on the sound. Many are emulations of hardware that never had a graphical display of the eq curve. People managed to make excellent recordings using such eqs for decades before computer-based eqs with curve displays came along.
 
Personally I find a graphical display most useful for tuning out resonances and low and high passing.
If you do need a graphical display of what an eq without one is doing just put an analyser plugin after the eq and toggle the eq on and off to see the changes. Or an analyser before and after the eq and compare their displays.

dubdisciple

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.

i get that - i meant it more like - who gives an answer like that?  obviously im asking WHY, WHERE, WHEN, HOW, etc...  how is that answer helpful to anyone?

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

Graphical EQs are most often used in a live setting to ring out a room, ie. compensate for resonances and null points.  I can't remember when I saw one in a recording studio, or a major one, anyway.
 
If you think about it, there is a good reason most studio engineers don't have a graphic eq in their rig - the quality is usually just not there.  Think of a typical 32 band graphic EQ.  Think of a typical parametric - 3 bands.  If they both cost the same, which has better components?  And more important, which has more control?  Trick question.  16 bands per side seems like plenty of control, but only if those 16 points match up to one of your problem frequencies.  Otherwise, they are useless.  You don't have control of the slope of the EQ, or the frequency.  Or variable filters, which are (for me, anyway), the most useful EQ tool.
 
because sometimes a graphical EQ is not the tool I need...
 
Bill was being nice - a graphic EQ is a tool few studio engineers use or need.  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.

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.

Sorry for the OT.
 

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).

Good one, Bapu.  Anyone who did live sound more than once or twice has a similar story, I image.  Everybody is so helpful ... 

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.

I use my ears and try to trust what I'm hearing.  I use the pro channel EQ and also a plug in depending how I feel that day, both are awesome.