well, okay, but i was. you don't hear latency on a finished recording, so the EQ being "more performant" or having "less latency" doesn't matter as far as the end product is concerned. so, as long as the curves and phase response match, two EQ's will sound the same and will null regardless of whether they're IIR, FIR, FFT, zero latency or otherwise, which was my point regarding there being nowhere to "move on" from where we are now.BlueprintInc wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:38 pm I didn't say that and I specifically talked about linear phase methods. And that was the point, technology moved on and opened doors, being more performant and/or precise, introducing less latency, adding more types and such. Not talking about the pure sound and IIR vs. FIR or so.
to put it in another way, the marketing claims of MAAT audio are such that they imply that they are using some kind of "better" technology than anyone else that makes their EQ's sound "better" (and worth insane amounts of money), but that's just not true, because it can't be true. there's nothing in there to justify such a price tag. i know why people pay for Pro-Q3 - it's workflow and flexibility (in terms of different filters etc. offered) is unparalleled. it's not really the "sound quality" - it sounds just like any other well-coded clean digital EQ. with MAAT, there's no "different" EQ math under the hood, and i don't see why anyone would pay that much money for an EQ with far inferior (and limited!) workflow when compared to something like Pro-Q3.
