Actually no, I'd say it's people who make rude and useless posts like yours.
Discussing tools and methods of EQing that best maintain or enhance transients is not a ridiculous idea at all.
PS... I'll plus one on Polybonk's suggestion for the TC Dynamic EQ, and add the EQ from MD3 as well. Both have great definition on low end transients I think, however they can both get a bit too ringy at high Q settings.
Bax is beast on the low end, especially post compression. Sometimes you want to the peak right at a certain frequency to maybe make the kick pop a little bit without lifting the overall bass too much. I'm looking at adding a 5500 to my rack. 5500 for bell peaks, primary on the low end, my massive passive mastering for mids (amazing), and then my bax for shaping post compression. Also great because they are all switchable. But I really need a console (Dangerous Liaison perhaps). I think the 5500 is more important right now.
I don't think it's too weird to describe an eq as having punch. There are certain things such as how tight the Q can get relative to the preservation of transients, and how close the transfer is for frequencies near the center band. That will yield a focused boost, which could fairly be described as "punch."
The other side of it would be something like the ssl eq's where the oddities of certain bands seem to add extra dynamics to the signal. That could fairly be called "punch" as well.
Anyway, I'm pretty happy with my Mk3s for punchiness. If I want smoother/rounder I'll grab my Tube-Tech.
Depending on the project there's still nothing like the 71Hz at 15dB/octave on a Sontec 432 or 462, or a little low band of the NSEQ-F (0.5dB steps) to fill a void, or a little API 550m low shelf, IME.
I have noticed that those eqs that give me that desired tight and punchy lo-end boost (if there is such a thing), are the ones with transformers on the i/o.
I could imagine how a slight transformer saturation might help achieving that sound.
Or maybe it's just a coincidence?
The three EQs that give me that type of lo-end are the aforementioned MK3s, and also the SPL StereoQ and the Gyratec 14. All three are transformer-balanced, have different circuit topologies and very different Q ranges.
The A-Designs Hammer for example provides the opposite, a rather fluffy and soft lo-end which I could imagine very suitable for acoustic music.
I wasn't inspired by the Massivo low end. Using the unbalanced outs gives it a little more punch, but there was always a smoothing of the low end with the Massivo. Listed to the Clipalator snippet for the MusEq and was really pressed. Would love to demo one.
Nah in the Southwest. I might def take you up on that though. From Clipalator, it sounds really great, when you listen to it compared to some of the other eqs on there, but also just in general without any comparison. It sounds beast.
Has anyone compared the Ibis to the 8200? I'd like to hear some opinions both in terms of low-end and highs.. I have hears very good things about the 8200 in terms of bottom end but some users said that its highs are almost too clear verging on .. hmm analytical let's say.