Fabfilter Pro-Q 4!

[jtsterays]

Fabfilter could improve on that, maybe you can only change the shelf type at the bottom floating window, the menu above the node can be the same like right now. At the end of the day, it's an EQ, they should only add features that revolve around EQing. If you're really concerned about feature clutter then you should be upset about the saturation option which is probably just a basic waveshaper, it's better to just add Saturn or something else afterward.

To be honest, i'm not hyped about the built in saturation

Me neither, and I don't think Fabfilter likes it either, they probably added it because lots of people asked for it without knowing that you can't have convincing sounding transformer saturation with low cpu, no oversampling. Also no drive knob and it's not even per band. In SlickEQ or Pulsar Massive the more you boost a band the more saturated that band will be which is special, this OTOH is basically just a crippled Saturn on the output.

[elxsound]

Fabfilter could improve on that, maybe you can only change the shelf type at the bottom floating window, the menu above the node can be the same like right now. At the end of the day, it's an EQ, they should only add features that revolve around EQing. If you're really concerned about feature clutter then you should be upset about the saturation option which is probably just a basic waveshaper, it's better to just add Saturn or something else afterward.

To be honest, i'm not hyped about the built in saturation

Me neither, and I don't think Fabfilter likes it either, they probably added it because lots of people asked for it without knowing that you can't have convincing sounding transformer saturation with low cpu, no oversampling. Also no drive knob and it's not even per band. In SlickEQ or Pulsar Massive the more you boost a band the more saturated that band will be which is special, this OTOH is basically just a crippled Saturn on the output.

Just a guess, but I think it’s likely for those that want to use an instance of Pro-Q as a simple channel EQ with some analog-inspired flavoring.

[mxbf]

I wonder if the spectral EQ can make smoothe obsolete. I am sure the standard response is "no" from people who bought Smoothe but I wonder what the actual truth is.

from video and with some of those considerations, could be worth it if price isn't crazy

[VitaminD]

Pro Q was once celebrated as a very transparent Equalizer. Now (some of you) people want vintage modeling and saturation.. it goes against the design principles that made Pro Q what it is.

[mxbf]

Pro Q was once celebrated as a very transparent Equalizer. Now (some of you) people want vintage modeling and saturation.. it goes against the design principles that made Pro Q what it is.

more features and options, same price is almost always good. as long as the core features and usability remain the same. the one thing I really do like about Fabfilter and think makes them worth the money sometimes is the sheer usability of their stuff.

I demoed MB and it was so fluid and instantly usable compared to every other MB other than Multiplicity (whic his for mastering, not mixing, too high CPU). but the MB price too high. cant justify it for the very small improvement it would add for me to my mixes. that is why I seethe Q doesnt have more instant MB features instead of the tacked on DynEQ that kind of sucks.

I wish DMG would make something to compete with the Q/MB. Their products are better.

[Ploki]

Dynamic EQ is not supposed to be a multiband compressor, if you can't tell what the difference is and how their usage differs, you probably don't need either. I wan't Pro-MB to go into a different direction than ProQ4 dynamic modes - i want to have ProC2 algos per band rolled into it, up/downward compression at the same time and things like that.
I don't need that in an EQ.
Also the whole bundle can be had for 400 bucks on sale, and considering how reliable these are and how often i use them, they're easily the best purchase i made as far as plugins go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distincti ... difference

The difference between Dynamic EQ and Multiband Compression is so minor it really makes zero discinerable difference. There's no reason for Dyn EQ not to have fine tune compressor settings for attack release etc, as ProQ.

MB compression has fixed crossovers. Which means fixed phase response.
Just because fabfilter (the only dev that did so) implemented a “dynamic eq mode” (that by the way affects slopes and phase response) that doesn’t equate both.
Phase response affects transients.
On drums/percussion, it matters.
On low end, where you want predictable phase response, it matters.

I wonder if the spectral EQ can make smoothe obsolete. I am sure the standard response is "no" from people who bought Smoothe but I wonder what the actual truth is.

from video and with some of those considerations, could be worth it if price isn't crazy

I dont think it does, as bmanic already pointed out.
It simply doesnt offer the level of control that soothe does.
However, a great addition for when you dont need control to tweak stuff on the fly.
Also depends whether it works with sidechain input

Pro Q was once celebrated as a very transparent Equalizer. Now (some of you) people want vintage modeling and saturation.. it goes against the design principles that made Pro Q what it is.

Hard agree here

[mxbf]

MB compression has fixed crossovers. Which means fixed phase response.
Just because fabfilter (the only dev that did so) implemented a “dynamic eq mode” (that by the way affects slopes and phase response) that doesn’t equate both.
Phase response affects transients.
On drums/percussion, it matters.
On low end, where you want predictable phase response, it matters.

ok. didn't quite know that.

still, i am pretty sure Multiplicity can do both DynEQ and multiband compression. I'm pretty sure. You just switch the function of the band between them. so they aren't the only ones that have combined these features, and Multiplicity can do more. unless I'm completely wrong, which is possible.

you're probably right i don't actually need either because i can't tell the difference hearing them used and never really have gotten on that much with them.

[jtsterays]

Pro Q was once celebrated as a very transparent Equalizer. Now (some of you) people want vintage modeling and saturation.. it goes against the design principles that made Pro Q what it is.

more features and options, same price is almost always good. as long as the core features and usability remain the same. the one thing I really do like about Fabfilter and think makes them worth the money sometimes is the sheer usability of their stuff.

I demoed MB and it was so fluid and instantly usable compared to every other MB other than Multiplicity (whic his for mastering, not mixing, too high CPU). but the MB price too high. cant justify it for the very small improvement it would add for me to my mixes. that is why I seethe Q doesnt have more instant MB features instead of the tacked on DynEQ that kind of sucks.

I wish DMG would make something to compete with the Q/MB. Their products are better.

Fabfilter traded sound quality and features for low CPU and faster & intuitive workflow. DMG focuses on top tier sound quality but sacrifices speed and simplicity with it's overloaded functionality. The 2 sit at opposite ends of the spectrum so I doubt that will happen. And both are good to have. If you want something in the middle, then get Nova.

[Ploki]

Not sure about multiplicity you’re probably right.

However, i dont think fab and dmg are in competition.
Dmg is for tinkering.
fab is speed.
dmg is for couple of tracks.
Fab is so efficient you can throw it anywhere, uses less cpu than stock stuff basically.

Theyre both great, mind you, but not with the same workflow in mind.

[VitaminD]

Pro Q was once celebrated as a very transparent Equalizer. Now (some of you) people want vintage modeling and saturation.. it goes against the design principles that made Pro Q what it is.

more features and options, same price is almost always good. as long as the core features and usability remain the same. the one thing I really do like about Fabfilter and think makes them worth the money sometimes is the sheer usability of their stuff.

I demoed MB and it was so fluid and instantly usable compared to every other MB other than Multiplicity (whic his for mastering, not mixing, too high CPU). but the MB price too high. cant justify it for the very small improvement it would add for me to my mixes. that is why I seethe Q doesnt have more instant MB features instead of the tacked on DynEQ that kind of sucks.

I wish DMG would make something to compete with the Q/MB. Their products are better.

I'm not too sure about that as you are.

If you want the DMG features, go get the DMG product. Because you are effectively wanting the ProQ to do exactly what the DMG eq does, instead of letting ProQ be what ProQ set out to be. Just go buy that other product.

[jtsterays]

Even DMG didn't want to add saturation to Equilibrium, they said that it's too much and suggested putting a saturator after.

[elxsound]

Pro Q was once celebrated as a very transparent Equalizer. Now (some of you) people want vintage modeling and saturation.. it goes against the design principles that made Pro Q what it is.

Since the beginning, there has been someone wanting more. It’s not just now.

I think after DMG released their version, that group and more amped up their requests.

My personal take is that I don’t care, so long as I can still use it like it was originally intended, and I think they’ve done exactly that.

[elxsound]

Pro Q was once celebrated as a very transparent Equalizer. Now (some of you) people want vintage modeling and saturation.. it goes against the design principles that made Pro Q what it is.

more features and options, same price is almost always good. as long as the core features and usability remain the same. the one thing I really do like about Fabfilter and think makes them worth the money sometimes is the sheer usability of their stuff.

I demoed MB and it was so fluid and instantly usable compared to every other MB other than Multiplicity (whic his for mastering, not mixing, too high CPU). but the MB price too high. cant justify it for the very small improvement it would add for me to my mixes. that is why I seethe Q doesnt have more instant MB features instead of the tacked on DynEQ that kind of sucks.

I wish DMG would make something to compete with the Q/MB. Their products are better.

I'm not too sure about that as you are.

If you want the DMG features, go get the DMG product. Because you are effectively wanting the ProQ to do exactly what the DMG eq does, instead of letting ProQ be what ProQ set out to be. Just go buy that other product.

I can’t remember… have you always been this grumpy?

AANDD, I do agree, but damn!

[jtsterays]

Pro Q was once celebrated as a very transparent Equalizer. Now (some of you) people want vintage modeling and saturation.. it goes against the design principles that made Pro Q what it is.

Since the beginning, there has been someone wanting more. It’s not just now.

I think after DMG released their version, that group and more amped up their requests.

My personal take is that I don’t care, so long as I can still use it like it was originally intended, and I think they’ve done exactly that.

Yeah they hid it well so it's not a problem, I just don't get why they added saturation instead of EQ curves that are for EQing in an EQ plugin.

[perpetual3]

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.

Tone Projects Michelangelo transient/body separation sounds very good to me. Have you tried it?