probably the closest to the eq116 ive ever used is the stock eq's built into adobe audition, as far as cleanliness/artifacts. the eq116 is downright amazing in that respect. i recently cut insane amounts of top out of a rock drum track with no audible side effects. i found myself saying the same thing you did, 'is this the cleanest eq ever?'

The eq116 is excellent. In fact, after using some of the the best analog EQ's made (Dangerous Music, Crane Song, Pulse Technique, Millennia, SPL, A Designs) , I sold every analog EQ because there really is no reason to use anything else again. Being said, the only EQ is miss that I would buy again would be the new line of Pulse Techniques Pultecs for tracking. Otherwise, I am 100% convinced, ITB EQ's are far superior.
Samplitude/ Sequoia eq116 convinced me of this.

I tried dmg audio and others constantly, I do not know why, When I started to mix with eQ116, everything seems so good, I can not leave EQ116, yes other eq lard nice, but i also tried uad cambridge, there is a clarity in this eq that I can not hear anywhere in my life. i think magix the best team dedicated to the sound quality of the planet

technically magix has created a magical eq

I did not compare to Algorithmix blue but,
metric halo
dmg audio
brainworx
eoasis air eq
waves req6
TDR Nova
A.O.M. Factory
SSl Duende X-eq

I do not know why behind this clarity (eq116), how filters can be so clean really incredible

audiouserpro1, post: 456188, member: 51187 wrote: I use Logic for sound design and MIDI many years but, I use samplitude/sequoia for Mix and Mastering. there is something that caught my attention about Eq quality. eq116 this eq is the cleanest eq I've ever heard.

Which mode do you like and use: Normal, Oversampling or Linear?

The 116 is a great EQ.
If I'm looking for a surgical EQ, I reach for the 116 first, which means that I never have to reach for anything else after that..
And, it's a "stock" EQ (which means that it's included with Samp at no extra charge) which makes it even better. It's absolutely as powerful and as effective as other hi quality 3rd Party EQ's that easily cost $100... and often, even more money than that.
It's just one of the many gems that Samplitude Pro X includes in its very powerful feature set. ;)
-d.

i use (all tracks) oversampling mode eq116

For those on older versions of samplitude or sequoia , the EQ116 is the standard Mixer EQ now.

i would like to learn abaout,

this eq is very popular

UAD
Massenburg EQ

also

Brainworx bx_digital V3

Massenburg eq and brainworx bx_digital V3 better than transparent eq116 in your opinion ? (only consider transparent sound)
what is your spouse ?

audiouserpro1, post: 456364, member: 51187 wrote: i would like to learn abaout,

this eq is very popular

UAD
Massenburg EQ

also

Brainworx bx_digital V3

Massenburg eq and brainworx bx_digital V3 better than transparent eq116 in your opinion ? (only consider transparent sound)
what is your spouse ?

I suspect a large percentage of all plugins are more about looks apposed to how they sound.

The EQ116 is the best EQ I’ve used for Samplitude but further more, it also includes Sidechain functions which is very important to me. Digital EQs that have sidechain, rock.

I’ve never owned the fabfilter EQ but that would be one that I would likely buy.

audiouserpro1, post: 456362, member: 51187 wrote: i use (all tracks) oversampling mode eq116

Me too! (y)

audiokid, post: 456365, member: 1 wrote: I’ve never owned the fabfilter EQ but that would be one that I would likely buy.

I would have problems choosing between the 116 and the Pro Q2 by ear. But Fabfilter look and options get a little more love from me...

Late. FabFilter is very nice. I like the fact that you can draw your eq to the response graphics. These days the only EQs I am using are these: Nomad British EQ1972, Waves Abbey Road collection specifically the RS56...but all the filters and things in this package are fabulous! Love the console emulations. Next record I'm doing the whole thing with only the EMI TG12345 channel strip in place.....UAD Cambridge EQ !! UAD Harrison 32 !! and T-Racks CS series. EQ73 and EQ 81....guess what they emulate.

I don't need surgery very often especially when I track things. Mic placement, choice, and gain staging becomes the EQ at that point.

i just got the fabfilter Q2 last week, and its brilliant. it has a little more of a tone to it vs the eq116, they are both worth having in their own right.

Davedog, post: 456750, member: 4495 wrote: Next record I'm doing the whole thing with only the EMI TG12345 channel strip in place

it wont dissapoint. i was recently remixing a blues rock cover track my old band did on a tascam 34, and the TG12345 is on most if not all 4 or 5 tracks. its an underrated pluggin, which i immediately bought last year, after hearing it on a snare demo on youtube. good call on the TG. very fun.

gain staging has been my EQ of interest lately. before i "learned better" i used to set the gain knob on things where they sounded best. ive been experimenting alot with input/output gains on various speakers and devices, i find there's spots that seem to have the most fullness, or sound most effortless. Dan Zellman, a great tech and engnieer in NYC, told me he tracks kick drums (digitally) at like -36db or so, because thats how much dynamic range a kick has generally. i cant remember the exact number, but it was way below the usual -18 or -22dbfs.

My guru talks about "filling up the track" in digital. This is not , necessarily, about the db's as much as having the signal stay at a level that gives you something to work with without having to repair it. I like my kik drum to move the needle almost exactly the same as the compressor (if there is one) or the limiter (there's always one) is doing in the mix buss coming in. I'm talking matching the hardware to the digital downstream. So if there's a 2db deflection at every hit and the level stays where it starts I'm happy and it makes an easily manipulated track at mix that doesn't need any help being 'present' and it allows me to pick a tone to match the track.