Fabfilter Pro-Q 4!

[jtsterays]

What curves are you missing?

Pultec bass trick, SSL shelves, Massive Passive high boost, DMG high shelf with the % fully negative or positive + some Q.

Everyone has different needs, but I’ve never once thought to myself I needed any of those things. But I’m also not a pro mixer.

95% of the time the normal curves are enough, these curves are sometimes really useful, it's good to have them just in case.
Also i want to give a quick shoutout to the DMG high shelf cause it's overlooked, if you go -100% and add a bit of Q past 0.71 you will get the smoothest air boost ever.

[rardier]

Spliteq style features would have been perfect

[hey212]

It's incredibly hard to divide a signal into transients and sustain in real time without artifacts. I love most Eventide gear but the SplitEQ sounds like ass IMO.

[billinder33]

It's incredibly hard to divide a signal into transients and sustain in real time without artifacts. I love most Eventide gear but the SplitEQ sounds like ass IMO.

Thought maybe I was just crazy, because everyone else seems to love it but it just sounds weird to me. Good to know I'm not the only one.

Michelangelo seems like it does the transient/body thing pretty well. Maybe that's because I only use it gently in mastering, which makes it seem more natural. Whereas with SplitEQ I was always tempted to use it more surgically.

[hey212]

Yup, the Michelangelo works completely differently than the SplitEQ, and it does not produce artifacts, but you have less control over the transients and sustain.

Per the manual, the transient processing in the Michelangelo does not use FFT, and if you open a band's popup menu to adjust the transient detection, the controls are "sensitivity" and "duration", so it sounds like it's operating in the amplitude and time domains only. This also makes sense because you can't for example solo the entire "Tonal" half of the source material as you can with the SplitEQ, which is where the artifacts really jump out.

[Samogrey]

How much do these upgrade cost? If I own multiple plugin from them, do I get a good discount?

First question, should be half or less than the full price.
Second one, if it works like their previous ones, yes.

[VitaminD]

My upgrade from 2 to 3 when 3 was launched was around 67 dollars.

[Jac459]

How much do these upgrade cost? If I own multiple plugin from them, do I get a good discount?

First question, should be half or less than the full price.
Second one, if it works like their previous ones, yes.

For second one are you sure? I have a lot of their products (I miss just 2 or 3) and I remember pro R2 upgrade was quite expensive for me. Maybe 69eur.

[phatnik]

What is so amazing about the updates, in fact, what is so amazing about Fab Filter at all, in comparison to Izotope products?

[pekbro]

I paid $40.81 to upgrade from Pro 2, but that was some time after release (pretty sure). Generally, I will wait for a sale, unless it is a particularly good upgrade offer from the get-go...

[Niowiad]

Q3 was very underwhelming for me... I ended up upgrading out of boredom after like 3 years on a black friday sale.
It sure has been my go-to eq plugin, but I've been using it in the exact same way I used Q2.
Not even once I went for the dynamic option for its lack of A/R parameters.

Q4 finally looks much more interesting and it makes me want to buy right now at launch.
Specifically the A/R time constants on the dynamic side and spectral processing are substantial upgrades in my view.

[Jac459]

Q3 was very underwhelming for me... I ended up upgrading out of boredom after like 3 years on a black friday sale.
It has been my go-to eq but I've been using it in the exact same way I used Q2.
Not even once I went for the dynamic option for its lack of A/R parameters.

This one finally looks much more interesting and it makes me want to buy right now at launch.
Specifically the A/R time constants on the dynamic side and spectral processing are substantial upgrades in my view.

What do you expect to do with spectral processing?

[Niowiad]

Q3 was very underwhelming for me... I ended up upgrading out of boredom after like 3 years on a black friday sale.
It has been my go-to eq but I've been using it in the exact same way I used Q2.
Not even once I went for the dynamic option for its lack of A/R parameters.

This one finally looks much more interesting and it makes me want to buy right now at launch.
Specifically the A/R time constants on the dynamic side and spectral processing are substantial upgrades in my view.

What do you expect to do with spectral processing?

Sounds like a trick question... spectral dynamic processing has been out in a while

For starters and quite frankly we don't know how everything is implemented in Q4 yet.
But assuming it provides the ability to set spectral processing and time constants on a curve, the benefits would consist in being able to more closely detect and target specific resonances on a given frequency range, rather than subtracting the entire curve shape on that range.
This can provide a "cleaner", less "destructive" processing on the source material, but obviously that must be evaluated by ear on a case-by-case basis.

Currently I have MSpectralDynamics for that, which is nice but I wouldn't mind an all-in-one solution of standard eq with added standard and spectral dynamic processing, if Pro-Q4 can provide it.

[Jac459]

Q3 was very underwhelming for me... I ended up upgrading out of boredom after like 3 years on a black friday sale.
It has been my go-to eq but I've been using it in the exact same way I used Q2.
Not even once I went for the dynamic option for its lack of A/R parameters.

This one finally looks much more interesting and it makes me want to buy right now at launch.
Specifically the A/R time constants on the dynamic side and spectral processing are substantial upgrades in my view.

What do you expect to do with spectral processing?

Sounds like a trick question... spectral dynamic processing has been out in a while

For starters and quite frankly we don't know how everything is implemented in Q4 yet.
But assuming it provides the ability to set spectral processing and time constants on a curve, the benefits would consist in being able to more closely detect and target specific resonances on a given frequency range, rather than subtracting the entire curve shape on that range.
This can provide a "cleaner", less "destructive" processing on the source material, but obviously that must be evaluated by ear on a case-by-case basis.

Currently I have MSpectralDynamics for that, which is nice but I wouldn't mind an all-in-one solution of standard eq with added standard and spectral dynamic processing, if Pro-Q4 can provide it.

More a curious question than a trick question .

And I am happy with your answer.

I don't know if there is a definition of spectral processing but for synthesis I often see it associated to the decomposition of sound in sine waves. Here your definition is less extrem and you are refering to frequency ranges which makes sense in this context I guess.

[DCrown]

How much do they usually charge for upgrade?