Fabfilter Pro-Q 2!

[jezjez]

Damn, the fact that it's something that's used at least once on every single track of every single song I do makes it tempting but the upgrade price is a bit too much for me, as a hobbyist, especially considering I paid less for the original plugin in the first place (shout outs to the Marketplace)

[blackflag]

I haven't had a chance to install the demo, how well does the auto gain feature work? I've had mixed results with other plugins that have it.

[toothnclaw]

But I kind of see it similar with a comment I got through mail from a befriended engineer:
Fabfilter is more for the hobbyist's/pro-sumer market, DMGAudio is more aiming at the (technical) pro-market only.

I can kind of agree on that. Even if the prices are somewhat similar.

Care to elaborate? I'm not arguing with this statement, I just don't understand well enough what he meant. Pro-Q is not pro enough? Some pro's still use gear from the 50-60s, which has known deficiencies/limitations. No noobs can buy/use DMG eq's? Hmmm, let me see... I have, and I do!

So...???

[t3toooo]

Pro-Q is the "Hello Kitty" of the DAW world, a toy for egomaniac narcissistic knob turner.

[Sampleconstruct]

That pro/hobbyist-statement/debate is epic BS.

[xtrax]

That pro/hobbyist-statement/debate is epic BS.

LOL
Nice name for the Trash Metal Band "Epic BS".

[medienhexer]

That pro/hobbyist-statement/debate is epic BS.

Yes, every time you think you've heard it all, somebody comes along to really go overboard just to be heard. And once they actually try the stuff, they turn around completely and start flaming other products. Gotta love KVR.

Pro-Q 2 is a well-refined product which has a very useful set of workflow improvements. All of them will make my life easier, help me get to better results faster and more predictably.

Seriously, when did mixing / mastering based on a combination of both your ears and metering become non-pro? I could search for the quote, but others will remember Compyfox calling himself the metering wizard of this very forum. How come this is suddenly a sign of a beginner's tool?

This update really pushes the envelope on how these two can be integrated and benefit each other. Not only see the resonance but adding a filter band right in the graph? Looking at this product makes you wonder why not all EQs have always worked that way - indication of a good design.

And just like every good design, it will cause resistence at first. And sales shortly after

The sound improvements need further testing, because the first version already sounded great to me. But judging from experience with Pro-MB, their latest research is really improving existing concepts.

[Sampleconstruct]

I think it's more about polarizing a debate in whatever possible way, some people just have the compulsion to do it, for whatever psychological reason.

[stardustmedia]

But I kind of see it similar with a comment I got through mail from a befriended engineer:
Fabfilter is more for the hobbyist's/pro-sumer market, DMGAudio is more aiming at the (technical) pro-market only.

I can kind of agree on that. Even if the prices are somewhat similar.

That's totally ridiculous and totally stupid. I'd almost started to argue with that, but in fact I think I'd just waste my time.

BTW, I'm also one of those hobbyists. Only that I live from making music using FF every day in every session

[woodsdenis]

That pro/hobbyist-statement/debate is epic BS.

+1
I have heard it all now, whoever this "engineer" is, he/she is an idiot, and whoever thought that this opinion was worth posting is a bigger one.

[Compyfox]

Well I do take that compliment.

It's not my comment. And as usual, people hang themselves up on everything.

I can work with both tools equally great, the sidechain functions and auto gain is not really of my concern - to me they'd just be bonus. But it is apparent who did the step up here - that is Fabfilter. Because even with these new features, DMGAudio's EQ still offers features (special filters mainly, with it's initial focus on pure technical EQing rather than "fast/fun" EQing IMO) that Pro-Q2 doesn't.

And in my own studio, I'd still prefer DMGAudio over Fabilter's creation. It's "only" 30GBP difference even for something that still looks like an "open sandbox" engine while Pro-Q seems to be closed in itself (new features = new version).



YMMV of course - you don't have to agree with me on this, not even like my comments.
Again - I can work equally great with either of the tools, and I appreciate the update which is a step up.

I'm just stating how it is - and what route I'd go personally.



So you can go back to your regular praise instead of shredding posts apart that you don't like.

[christie89]

Cannot wait to try this out. Thanks!

[stardustmedia]

Now that post sounds totally different.
I can't remember DMG adding big amount of feature within version 1... just some food for yous thoughts

Yes, FF did the step up. Well spotted
Yes, FF was years (2009) before DMG (2013) with an EQ. Well spotted too
Does it matter? Nah...

But for sure both are way better then the Behringer Eurodesk EQ

[Compyfox]

DMG's creation came with 98% of these features right form the start, and within the first months of the release got filter updates due to user requests. Free of charge. Just look at the engine - EQuilibrium, Compressive and Dualism - still a load of room for more. As basic as you want, to as "technical" as you want.

In direct comparison - Fabfiler does keep it simple to not overload you. Which is a huge hit with the hobbyists especially.


But let's be serious on this:
Both DMG Audio and Fabfilter have similar prices these days.
Both do sales (at least introductory ones) or offer loyal customer discounts.
Both companies offer tools for specific tasks. The only thing you have to decide for yourself, is what you prefer in terms of workflow.

The more and more creative software companies like Fabfilter, DMG Audio, VoS, TDL, MeldaProduction and Brainworx exisit (and of course those I forgot to mention, since there are a lot of companies by now that don't think "inside the box")... the more and more the lines blur in terms of tools and functions.


Bottom line:
If my client has Pro-Q, I'll still use pro Q. If another one as EQuilibrium and not Pro-Q, I'll use that one instead.
Both tools get the job done. In a fairly timely manner.


So in the end... it's all down to fine prints, workflow and personal preference.

[Sampleconstruct]

If I want less Highs in my sound I just hang a cloth over the ADAMs and mic that, if I want less bass I poke a hole into the sub and mic that, haven't yet found a way to deal with mids but my mids are always pro anyway.