Look online and you might think that mixing is about compression. Endless discussions about the character of different models and “secret techniques” which in truth are usually nothing of the sort. However mixing is mostly about balance and that happens on faders. After that it’s the equaliser which is going to be doing most of the heavy lifting.

Most issues encountered when mixing can be solved using basic tools. The fader, a high pass filter, a high shelf lift, you get the idea. But that isn’t to say that the more sophisticated tools aren’t worthwhile, it’s just that in my opinion the more conventional tools don’t get the attention to match their usefulness. So, how many EQs do you actually need? And what sort? Well that depends on who you are and what you do but here are my thoughts.

Stock EQs

Regardless of which DAW you use, the advantage of ubiquity that the stock EQ has over third party offerings is pretty compelling. Every DAW has a stock EQ which is more than up to the task of at least 90% of mix duties. Pro Tools of course has a choice of the venerable 7 band EQIII, an EQ I still use more than any other because it is just so familiar, and the Avid Channel Strip. Logic Pro has its very capable Channel EQ but the best stock EQ I’ve used has to be the Studio One Pro EQ2. A very cool EQ. Regardless of which you use, unless you exclusively collaborate with users of the same DAW as you there isn’t a reason not to investigate third party options…

Intuitive EQ

For the novice, instead of starting with the stock EQ which came with their DAW I would suggest that an EQ designed with the novice in mind might be more appropriate. EQ is about making good decisions and that is about judgement more than technique. Claro from Sonnox is one such EQ. In its Produce mode it presents a very simple interface with just three big level controls for low mid and high and a very useful Auto Gain feature which helps avoid the ‘louder so its better’ trap which can fool us into bad decisions. In Tweak mode a more detailed view is presented which supplements the ‘curves over an analyser’ view we’re so used to with useful language which describes the effect of too much or too little of a particular part of the spectrum, so too much low mid is ‘mud’ but too little is lacking ‘body’. This is a great approach as it encourages the user to ask the right questions. Claro is friendly to the novice but is also a very capable EQ which even helps with masking issues across mixes.

Console Approach

The typical EQ plugin as it exists today offers a wealth of control and visual feedback, this is both a strength and a weakness. I’ve noticed that far more plugins offer the option to hide their knobs than offer the option to hide their curves. Visual feedback, particularly the kind offered by a spectrum analyser, is a mixed blessing for, though they can be useful for identifying very specific issues, I’d argue that analysers are a distraction when making decisions about tonal balance. Does looking at an analyser of the track you’re EQing help you judge how an instrument works in context in the mix? I’d say no.

Using a channel strip plugin across the whole mix is a popular approach, particularly with those who feel using the same EQ across a whole mix brings a consistency and homogeneity to that mix but I’d say a more immediate benefit is the limited features. Get an SSL channel strip EQ. You’ll have more than enough control for almost any task, but you’ll also only have the same 4 bands of EQ and 2 filters to worry about and just your ears to tell you whether you’ve got it right. You’ll probably find you get a better mix more quickly.

One Trick EQs

There is another category which is worth a mention here. I’m calling them “1 trick” EQs. That isn’t really fair or even strictly accurate but what I’m getting at here is that there are some EQs I use because they excel at a particular thing. The two which spring to mind are the Pultec, which is just wonderful for making the bottom end sound great (its no slouch at the top end either) and the Maag EQ which, in spite of being quite flexible I only ever really use for the boost-only Air Band. If I could only have one EQ it wouldn’t be these but for these specific jobs there’s nothing better.

‘Exotic’ EQs

Do I need a dynamic EQ? No. I use one rarely but when I do they offer a very neat solution to very specific problems. In my case I use a dynamic EQ when I record one of my acoustic guitars which has a body resonance at 200Hz and can boom, particularly when playing in G. Apart from that I use one on solo fiddle and occasionally on singers who get nasal in their upper register. It’s not often. They are powerful and sometimes indispensable but in my experience only occasionally.

Another variety of ‘exotic’ is the very original Eventide Split EQ, which allows independent EQ processing for tonal and transient elements of sounds. It’s clever, it works brilliantly but in truth, I’ve never needed it.

Potentially a third in this category could be pitch tracking EQs. I love Sound Radix’s Surfer EQ. It was the first and I think it's the best pitch tracking EQ. Do I use it? Yes, but only on bass, where it’s perfect for shaping the timbre of a bass, usually for bringing out some second or third harmonic to add body and growl to a bass guitar consistently across the performance.

Linear Phase EQ

What about Linear Phase EQ? Traditional analogue equalisers all affect the phase of signals passing through them. What this means in practice is that the frequencies in a complex signal gets ‘smeared’ by the EQ. In the digital domain it is possible to create filters which don’t do this. This sounds ideal but there’s always a catch - right? To the casual observer it would appear that the compromise involved in using linear phase EQs is increased latency. However in a mixing situation this isn’t necessarily a problem is it? Actually it’s more complicated than that as linear phase EQs also suffer from ‘pre-ringing’ a phenomenon inherent to linear phase filters where an impulse is preceded by a build up of ripples as well as decreasing ripples after the impulse. Very unnatural but thankfully not very noticeable in practice.

Linear phase EQs are most useful on complex signals where they are valued for their ability to make very specific changes without causing other unintended timbral changes, this is why they are recommended for mastering. However for a mixer, or someone self-mastering their own mix, it does beg the question that if you are trying to make precise, corrective changes to a master why not correct the issue in the mix if you have access to it? I don’t think I’ve ever used a linear phase EQ other than as an experiment.

So How Many EQs Do You Need?

Returning to the original question. How many EQs do you need? I’m going to say most of the time only one. And it’s the one you use which encourages you to work as quickly as possible and in context with the whole mix. I know many people would say Fabfilter’s (admittedly wonderful) Pro-Q3 is the only EQ you need 90% of the time. I think that for experienced users who know what they want there isn’t a better option than Pro-Q3, it does very nearly everything. However I wouldn’t recommend it for a novice and I’m still drawn to the immediacy of a console EQ used with a good control surface. Luke Goddard works almost exclusively with his Softube Console One and some time ago I created a custom EQ map for EQIII on my S1 (see the video above). Being able to grab an EQ and adjust more than one parameter at a time really makes a difference.

Work fast, work in context. Leave that solo button alone and if you have an analyser in your EQ switch it off. I’ll give a special mention to Sonnox for the ‘Ears Only’ mode in the Oxford EQ which hides the EQ graph. Loads of plugins allow you to hide the knobs but not many let you do it the other way round! 

So, I’d say you probably only need one utility EQ, preferably with a control surface but something like a Pultec to make things sound, ‘nicer’ is just too useful to exclude. Make it 2!