Pretty much any spectrum eq (or whatever they are officially called), like ProQ as someone stated, Channel eq on Logic, Parametric eq on FL etc. There are some that are bit limited (like the eq you have in Reason on every mixer track), so I wouldn't advise using these.
im sure there is software that is even better, in fact im sure of it, but no software can sound like the hardware. and probably vice versa. or not, i dont know.
the thing about the emu is you may wonder how the hell ed rush and optical did their warpy bass or how neuro leads work in general but with the emu its hard not to make neuro leads, if you just sit down with it, sample some crap and let your mind wander as you fiddle away with that little green screen and the dial and the calculator keypad you will wind up with a neuro warp. again, not claiming what i make is any good, or that there isnt better stuff out there, its just thats how the emu sampler works. this post is based on a quote by pyro btw, he said it on doa many years back, its just really true, so i often say it when this discussion pops up
for movement with a reese i just use the 2 filters native to the Virus. using the Virus' mod matrix with both filters can give you great movement, i never resample. so i'd recommend anything that gives you 2 filters with the option of serial/parallel and as many filter shapes as possible, even though bandstop and band reject will be what you want for the most part.
the best bet though is what was mentioned above, an emu sampler cuz of the z-plane filters. you'll get the most radical results than by staying within the synth like i mentioned above. you'll also have the potential to get more radical/better results than you'd get from software sampling + plugin filters/etc IMO. the only gripe i've heard was from mitsabishi who said that the resulting movements he gets from his emu sampled basses are almost always from experimentation. that he just sits down and tinkers with it until he gets something he really likes. the upside to that is you get something very unique, the downside is that approach is unpredictable. having said that, you can go wtih predictable results if you want to stay with "tried and true" old school-style movement out of your bass. but if you want something new, unique, unheard, then unpredictable experimentation is key. an emu's z-plane filters have yet to be matched in the software world IMO.
i know they added alot of really great features to the Pro-Q 2 like sc, new filter shapes, new steeper poles, the frequency analyzer looks better (refresh rate is fast so it looks very smooth). do you know if the Pro-Q 2 sounds the same as the original Pro-Q or did they make changes to it's sound (transparency vs aliasing, etc).
i agree. i was excited when i heard of a plugin that emulates a sherman but then i tried Philteroid and ended up deleting it later that same day. the sound quality is definitely not good enough to be spoken in the same sentence as sherman.
WOW2 to me is like a completely different filter plugin, new filter types and new distortion modules, different sounding vowel filter mode.
Actually I use both of them because I get different sounds out of both plugins.