Experience using both Ozone/Neutron EQ and Fabfilter ProQ-3?

[mawo77]

Hi everyone,

I recently bought the Isotope bundle and am generally quite happy with the set (even if I am not so convinced by the 'assistant' stuff). The individual components are pretty damn nice for the most part though!

When I started out producing, I was lusting after the ProQ-2 (now the ProQ-3), but decided after a lot of reading that the Channel EQ (I use Logic) was just about as good for most uses, so I decided to save my money and it has been a fine EQ for all purposes. But now I am getting to the point where some dynamic EQ-ing is starting to come in handy and ProQ makes this look really easy.

Neutron EQ has dynamic EQ as well, but everyone just seems to go on and on about ProQ and there are a lot more videos about ProQ than about Izotope's EQ.

Anyone have experience with both and can compare and contrast the two? Am I missing out on anything? Much appreciated!

[Ploki]

Sound of logic channel EQ is fine, but ergonomics of ProQ3 are simply better.

I’ve had both fab and izotope bundles for a while, and sold izotope. Nothing wrong with izotope but i find fab faster and more reliable.

Dynamic mode is super easy and quick

[primrose]

izotope is great, but fabFilter is much quicker

[andymcbain]

I would echo the two posts above... I don't really bother with Neutron's EQ these days.

[flampton]

Maybe check how well Neutron 4 works before switching to Fabfilter?

[MogwaiBoy]

I quite like the dynamic function in the Neutron EQ - but I was using it mainly for de-resonating, which Soothe2 (for speed) and CraveEQ (for surgical transparency) now own for me.

Izo have lots of interesting modules besides, like Sculptor and Spectral Shaper - not to mention the Ozone Imager is pure class. I wouldn't lust after Fabfilter too much, actually. CraveEQ beats Pro-Q by far in my opinion - it's not dynamic but it sounds more transparent... better phase coherence on sharp cuts etc in my experience. I compared extensively before buying Crave and have not been swayed since.

[vitocorleone123]

I have MPS3 or 4 - can’t remember, which says something. Most every component is uninstalled at this point. Meanwhile, I use some FF plugins every day.

Ive tried other EQs than ProQ3 (Kirchhof, Crave, SSL, etc), and none are as usable for me overall. I don’t care if some other EQ sounds incrementally better in some cases if I don’t want to use it as much. But that’s me.

[Ploki]

yeah, that's my experience as well. ProQ3 is just extremely well thought out.

[Leo1999]

Fabfilter is better for me than Izotope, first and foremost because of the fact it's light on cpu, whereas Izotope isn't

[noiseboyuk]

No CPU issues here with Neutron 3's EQ - very light. Does everything I need it to, including un-masking, only very mild niggles about some workflow stuff. No need for Fab Filter, which I don't doubt is excellent.

At this point, any of these tools in the right hands are absolutely fine - lusting after other ones is pretty much GAS.

[bilrobins]

My only slight gripe with iZotope is that they still don't support HiDPI, so on a 4K screen they look a little fuzzy. Otherwise they are great tools. CPU usage has improved over the last couple of years - now much better. I very rarely use the assistant. Overall, great.

[Ploki]

Weird, most looked crispy on a retina mac years ago.

[Erik_Lucas]

izotopes filters are indeed pretty good, I will say.

[mawo77]

Thanks everyone for all the replies! I'm trying to keep my GAS in check, hence the question. (I learnt about GAS after buying way too many guitars years ago. LOL!)

[Arrested Developer]

Neutron's EQ section was my go to for quite a while.
When demoing Q3, i didn't saw a reason to replace Neutron with it, so i passed on it.
In the meantime, Kirchhoff EQ came out and it's my go to EQ now.
The feature set of the dynamic section is simply stunning.