I find it easier to get results with EQ2 than with EQ3. I can't be sure if this is due to a change in the processing or simply the result of the user interface differences, but I keep running into the dilemma of whether I should use the tool that I find consistently handy (eq2) or the one that lets me see frequency conflicts, do dynamic eq'ing, and all the other good stuff EQ3 can do. Don't get me wrong, the user interface changes are, for the most part, welcome: the new capabilities are marvelous. However, to the extent that you have made changes 'under the hood', please consider revisiting w/ some added scrutiny in the future. When I close an EQ3 window I feel like I 'almost' got it where I wanted, and make a mental note to revisit. When I close EQ2 I am free to think about the next thing.
Thank you for your feedback. Other than the newly introduced dynamic algorithm in Pro-Q 3, there's no difference in terms of processing. But as you mention, Pro-Q 3 does indeed offer a lot more features in terms of both flexibility and analyzing. If these options are a bit daunting I recommend you set up your analyzer like you do in Pro-Q 2 and save this as a new default setting. One of the hardest things while developing Pro-Q 3 was to make it still feel as lightweight as possible while adding a lot of new features. We could only get so far... I you simply like the stripped down feel of Pro-Q 2, I recommend you simply use this as your main eq and switch you Pro-Q 3 if you need to get more surgical and need a bit more flexibility.
Hope that helps!