Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

The best graphic EQ is???

MAtrixplanMAtrixplan
in General App Discussion

The best graphic (not most expensive) EQ for ipad and iphone is???
Any power users? :)

Comments

  • gusgranitegusgranite
    edited January 2021

    @MAtrixplan said:
    The best graphic (not most expensive) EQ for ipad and iphone is???
    Any power users? :)

    I’m guessing you mean parametric eq with a good visual interface (rather than the graphic eq with the sliders)?

    The industry standard is FabFilter ProQ 3. But the Toneboosters EQ is also excellent and less money. Then there’s Blue Mangoo and 4Pockets for less still (and they have less features like not being dynamic etc)

    [Edit: not sure about phone compatibility- sorry]

  • MAtrixplanMAtrixplan
    edited January 2021

    @gusgranite said:

    @MAtrixplan said:
    The best graphic (not most expensive) EQ for ipad and iphone is???
    Any power users? :)

    I’m guessing you mean parametric eq with a good visual interface (rather than the graphic eq with the sliders)?

    Yes :)

    Thanks for the recommendations. I can do knobs while slow mixing but if I'm playing live I have to move fast

  • auxmuxauxmux

    Ditto, what @gusgranite said. Can't go wrong with either Fabfilter or Toneboosters, but TB is less CPU heavy.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @gusgranite said:

    @MAtrixplan said:
    The best graphic (not most expensive) EQ for ipad and iphone is???
    Any power users? :)

    I’m guessing you mean parametric eq with a good visual interface (rather than the graphic eq with the sliders)?

    The industry standard is FabFilter ProQ 3. But the Toneboosters EQ is also excellent and less money. Then there’s Blue Mangoo and 4Pockets for less still (and they have less features like not being dynamic etc)

    [Edit: not sure about phone compatibility- sorry]

    Imo, the quality of the TB EQ is as high as the FF eq. FF does have some nice features not found in the TB version (eq match, user interface), but as eqs they are of equal quality.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • jolicojolico

    If you want the best graphic EQ on iOS, this is it:
    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/eq560/id1486125569

  • SNystromSNystrom

    @BCKeys said:
    My own pref goes to FF, their UI are so smart

    One advanced review here https://resoundsound.com/fabfilter-pro-q-2-review/

    If you do decide to go with FF, be sure to get Q 3 — NOT Q 2:

  • ChancedMusicChancedMusic

    FabFilter isn’t Universal so if you’re any something on your phone, get ToneBoosters Equaliser.

  • ipadthaiipadthai
    edited January 2021

    Fabfilter no contest. There is a reason why the computer plugin costs $100+ more than TB’s eq. It’s an industry leader. I wouldn’t choose the TB app to save $16.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @ipadthai said:
    Fabfilter no contest. There is a reason why the computer plugin costs $100+ more than TB’s eq. It’s an industry leader. I wouldn’t choose the TB app to save $16.

    I would be willing to bet that if you are using the same filter type in TB and FF and adjust them to do the same filtering that you would not be able to distinguish the two in a blind listening. That might be true for their more esoteric settings. One might find the user interface of the FF plug ins to be of significant value. (The same is probably true for almost all parametrics on iOS or desktop.)

  • jolicojolico

    @ipadthai said:
    Fabfilter no contest. There is a reason why the computer plugin costs $100+ more than TB’s eq. It’s an industry leader. I wouldn’t choose the TB app to save $16.

    On iOS, Toneboosters apps are the best.

    FF’s apps don’t work on iOS.

  • ChancedMusicChancedMusic

    Ya’ll really didn’t read. OP said iPad and iPhone. FF is iPad only. Out of the conversation here.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    Then it’s TB for the win 💁‍♂️

  • MAtrixplanMAtrixplan

    @jolico said:
    If you want the best graphic EQ on iOS, this is it:
    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/eq560/id1486125569

    Oh it could be good or very good app, but "graphic eq" here? I see only few faders. Very limited for me.

  • jolicojolico

    @MAtrixplan said:

    @jolico said:
    If you want the best graphic EQ on iOS, this is it:
    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/eq560/id1486125569

    Oh it could be good or very good app, but "graphic eq" here? I see only few faders. Very limited for me.

    That’s an actual Graphic EQ. That’s what a graphic EQ looks like in software and hardware.

    You want a highly configurable parametric EQ with graphics that show you the frequency, levels, Q width etc.
    Toneboosters EQ is the best for that. It even works as a multiband compressor and also has an analyzer.

    If you want a great sounding Parametric EQ that will let you use your ears more instead of your eyes, “DDMF 6114” is the best on iOS.

  • seonnthaproducerseonnthaproducer
    1. Toneboosters EQ would be the go to for iOS and iPad.
    2. LRC5 is a close second. Doesn't have a vsualizer but comined with Toneboosters Spectogram, you get a free visual EQ that works with iOS and iPad.
    3. @NeonSilicon You're awesome for making that app. Still can't believe it's free.
  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @seonnthaproducer said:

    [...]

    1. @NeonSilicon You're awesome for making that app. Still can't believe it's free.

    Thanks! I think it's a basic human right that a usable EQ should be available everywhere. I'm only joking a little bit. So, that's why it's free. I really wish that Apple had their macOS multi-band parametric EQ available on iOS. It's actually a very good EQ.

    BTW, LRC5 doesn't have a visualizer because I think they are a bad idea in an EQ. There are two points to this really. Your ears hear better than your eyes see. This is especially true in the mid frequencies where our ears are incredibly sensitive and the space a spectral visualizer has is really bunched up in the frequencies -- even on a log scale. The second point is that looking at the frequency response out of the EQ is misleading. The moves in the EQ will almost certainly have a non-linear response in the other effects sitting on a track or in a mix bus or the final mix. If you want to use a visualizer when you are doing the EQ work, I think the visualizer should be at the end of a track's chain, on a mix bus end, or at the final mix.

    Interesting thread here! Unless an EQ is doing circuit modeling of an analog EQ, they are all using the same algorithms for the same type of EQ. There are really only a couple of things that can be done to make the EQ "sound better." You can over-sample to get rid of some issues around the Nyquist frequency and you can do the DSP at a higher bit-depth to add stability to the filter calculations. (There are some other things if you are working in fixed-point DSP, but that isn't a concern in AUv3's.)

    What makes an EQ "best" is if it has the filter types you need and it supports the workflow you want to use. You need to figure out first if you need brick-wall lowpass or linear-phase response or extremely narrow bandwidth/Q in the filter. You probably don't, but if you do, then a filter that doesn't have this capability won't work for you. The reason I bring this up is that there is loads of hype around EQ's. You can avoid almost all of it if you look in the manual for the EQ and see if it supports what you need. If it does have the filter types and workflow you need, it's going to sound good if it is used in the right context.

  • jolicojolico

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @seonnthaproducer said:

    [...]

    1. @NeonSilicon You're awesome for making that app. Still can't believe it's free.

    Thanks! I think it's a basic human right that a usable EQ should be available everywhere. I'm only joking a little bit. So, that's why it's free. I really wish that Apple had their macOS multi-band parametric EQ available on iOS. It's actually a very good EQ.

    BTW, LRC5 doesn't have a visualizer because I think they are a bad idea in an EQ. There are two points to this really. Your ears hear better than your eyes see. This is especially true in the mid frequencies where our ears are incredibly sensitive and the space a spectral visualizer has is really bunched up in the frequencies -- even on a log scale. The second point is that looking at the frequency response out of the EQ is misleading. The moves in the EQ will almost certainly have a non-linear response in the other effects sitting on a track or in a mix bus or the final mix. If you want to use a visualizer when you are doing the EQ work, I think the visualizer should be at the end of a track's chain, on a mix bus end, or at the final mix.

    Interesting thread here! Unless an EQ is doing circuit modeling of an analog EQ, they are all using the same algorithms for the same type of EQ. There are really only a couple of things that can be done to make the EQ "sound better." You can over-sample to get rid of some issues around the Nyquist frequency and you can do the DSP at a higher bit-depth to add stability to the filter calculations. (There are some other things if you are working in fixed-point DSP, but that isn't a concern in AUv3's.)

    What makes an EQ "best" is if it has the filter types you need and it supports the workflow you want to use. You need to figure out first if you need brick-wall lowpass or linear-phase response or extremely narrow bandwidth/Q in the filter. You probably don't, but if you do, then a filter that doesn't have this capability won't work for you. The reason I bring this up is that there is loads of hype around EQ's. You can avoid almost all of it if you look in the manual for the EQ and see if it supports what you need. If it does have the filter types and workflow you need, it's going to sound good if it is used in the right context.

    Just gave it a go.
    Not bad at all.

    I didn’t know that it could do pultec curves and the new long press fine tuning context menu is very useful.

    Great Parametric EQ.
    Too good to be free. :smile:

    I didn’t find a low/high cut filter.
    Does it have them? If not, are there any plans for them in future updates?

  • gusgranitegusgranite

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @seonnthaproducer said:

    [...]

    1. @NeonSilicon You're awesome for making that app. Still can't believe it's free.

    Thanks! I think it's a basic human right that a usable EQ should be available everywhere. I'm only joking a little bit. So, that's why it's free. I really wish that Apple had their macOS multi-band parametric EQ available on iOS. It's actually a very good EQ.

    BTW, LRC5 doesn't have a visualizer because I think they are a bad idea in an EQ. There are two points to this really. Your ears hear better than your eyes see. This is especially true in the mid frequencies where our ears are incredibly sensitive and the space a spectral visualizer has is really bunched up in the frequencies -- even on a log scale. The second point is that looking at the frequency response out of the EQ is misleading. The moves in the EQ will almost certainly have a non-linear response in the other effects sitting on a track or in a mix bus or the final mix. If you want to use a visualizer when you are doing the EQ work, I think the visualizer should be at the end of a track's chain, on a mix bus end, or at the final mix.

    Interesting thread here! Unless an EQ is doing circuit modeling of an analog EQ, they are all using the same algorithms for the same type of EQ. There are really only a couple of things that can be done to make the EQ "sound better." You can over-sample to get rid of some issues around the Nyquist frequency and you can do the DSP at a higher bit-depth to add stability to the filter calculations. (There are some other things if you are working in fixed-point DSP, but that isn't a concern in AUv3's.)

    What makes an EQ "best" is if it has the filter types you need and it supports the workflow you want to use. You need to figure out first if you need brick-wall lowpass or linear-phase response or extremely narrow bandwidth/Q in the filter. You probably don't, but if you do, then a filter that doesn't have this capability won't work for you. The reason I bring this up is that there is loads of hype around EQ's. You can avoid almost all of it if you look in the manual for the EQ and see if it supports what you need. If it does have the filter types and workflow you need, it's going to sound good if it is used in the right context.

    Great points!

    I think the dynamic EQ feature in TB and FF is something extra. Also, a visualizer is great if you want to also use your easy as an analyzer. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @jolico said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @seonnthaproducer said:

    [...]

    1. @NeonSilicon You're awesome for making that app. Still can't believe it's free.

    Thanks! I think it's a basic human right that a usable EQ should be available everywhere. I'm only joking a little bit. So, that's why it's free. I really wish that Apple had their macOS multi-band parametric EQ available on iOS. It's actually a very good EQ.

    BTW, LRC5 doesn't have a visualizer because I think they are a bad idea in an EQ. There are two points to this really. Your ears hear better than your eyes see. This is especially true in the mid frequencies where our ears are incredibly sensitive and the space a spectral visualizer has is really bunched up in the frequencies -- even on a log scale. The second point is that looking at the frequency response out of the EQ is misleading. The moves in the EQ will almost certainly have a non-linear response in the other effects sitting on a track or in a mix bus or the final mix. If you want to use a visualizer when you are doing the EQ work, I think the visualizer should be at the end of a track's chain, on a mix bus end, or at the final mix.

    Interesting thread here! Unless an EQ is doing circuit modeling of an analog EQ, they are all using the same algorithms for the same type of EQ. There are really only a couple of things that can be done to make the EQ "sound better." You can over-sample to get rid of some issues around the Nyquist frequency and you can do the DSP at a higher bit-depth to add stability to the filter calculations. (There are some other things if you are working in fixed-point DSP, but that isn't a concern in AUv3's.)

    What makes an EQ "best" is if it has the filter types you need and it supports the workflow you want to use. You need to figure out first if you need brick-wall lowpass or linear-phase response or extremely narrow bandwidth/Q in the filter. You probably don't, but if you do, then a filter that doesn't have this capability won't work for you. The reason I bring this up is that there is loads of hype around EQ's. You can avoid almost all of it if you look in the manual for the EQ and see if it supports what you need. If it does have the filter types and workflow you need, it's going to sound good if it is used in the right context.

    Just gave it a go.
    Not bad at all.

    I didn’t know that it could do pultec curves and the new long press fine tuning context menu is very useful.

    Great Parametric EQ.
    Too good to be free. :smile:

    I didn’t find a low/high cut filter.
    Does it have them? If not, are there any plans for them in future updates?

    Thanks for trying it out. I'm happy that you liked it. Yeah, no low/high cut/boost outside of the shelves. LRC5 is meant to be a pretty simple coloration kind of thing. I wanted it to be pretty light on the processor too, since it had to run on my iPhone 6.

    It just so happens that because of some issues I'm having with getting LRC5 ported to macOS, that I started experimenting with writing a new EQ yesterday. It's very creatively called LRC7, if that gives you any hints. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it in the end -- it may be a total flop.

    @gusgranite said:

    [...]

    Great points!

    I think the dynamic EQ feature in TB and FF is something extra. Also, a visualizer is great if you want to also use your easy as an analyzer. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

    Yeah, I agree with you there. I haven't tried out the dynamic EQ features, but it does look interesting. Also, I'm not saying that a spectrum analyzer isn't a useful tool. I think they are extremely useful. I just don't like them directly in an EQ.

  • ChrisGChrisG

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    The TB Equaliser has a nice drive component in it as well which creates a bit of analog vibe. Never seems to get much of a mention:

    It doesn't look quite like the colourful tree above , but still a nice addition.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025