Fabfilter Pro-Q 4!

[Sampleconstruct]

Video abusing Fabfilter Pro-Q4 as a vocoder sort of thing with the side-chain input (djembe groove) modulating the spectral frequency band of the carrier (synth pad), explanations inside. Nice feature!

https://youtu.be/wROvRxKnyBg

[Jolaff]

Is Pro-q 4 as good as Sooth 2 ? I mean for what it does...

I never tried Sooth to be honest ...

[MrJubbly]

That’s very interesting, and I think I have a better understanding of what’s going on now.

As I mentioned earlier, track names and colors synchronize flawlessly in the CLAP version of Pro-Q 4 when running in Bitwig. However, based on the message from Ralph at FabFilter support that you shared, it seems that CLAP "does not offer track order just yet," which I can now confirm.

If you check the attached screenshot, you’ll see that while the track names and colors are displayed correctly, the listed instances do not match the order of the tracks on the left. This is something I hadn’t noticed before.

Let me know if you'd like me to test anything else or provide more info.

Bitwig Screenshot.png

That is interesting!

I hadn't realised the track list order was missing in Bitwig for the CLAP format. I guess, since Fabfilter are aware, they will ensure this is added to the CLAP standard before too long.

The track order is confirmed as working within the VST3 version however (for all DAW hosts, I believe). So it will probably just require getting an equivalent extension of that VST3 version added to the CLAP format to likewise have feature parity with the VST3 format.

Just a thought, but if I'm not mistaken, this may be the first instance of CLAP not currently supporting a feature which VST3 already had, upon the release of a new plugin utilising such a feature?

If so, it will be interesting to watch this space and see just how long this takes to resolve this issue and to deliver VST3 / CLAP feature parity for the end user.

As somebody who would love to see CLAP continue to succeed and grow in popularity. I hope this can be remedied sooner rather than later. And if so, it may prove to be a good indicator that the CLAP standard, truly is flexible enough to accommodate any such issues promptly, with a quick turnaround if and when required.

[Andreya_Autumn]

Thank you both. You need the 'spectrum grab' option enabled, which is not done in the 'default' preset for Pro-Q4. The weird thing is that I'm also using the default in Pro-Q3, and it just works. Maybe I overwrote it? I don't remember doing that, but who knows? Thank you for helping with that. The overall feel and behavior of the two are still different, but good enough. I can deal with it.

No worries! And yeah I'm not sure if it was on by default in 3, but I too must've changed it if it wasn't. I also prefer it on by default.

[Igelhaft]

I'd like to know which EQ is lighter on CPU (MAC and PC) - Pro-Q 4 or Kirchhoff? Is it possible to compare them?
Mainly for the "bread and butter" use cases (simple EQing, dynamic EQ....), not all the fancy shiny stuff...

Kirchhoff running encrypted code inside a virtual machine certainly doesn't help with CPU usage

Whatnow? Any sources I can learn more about this from?

[mxbf]

my only sincere criticism of ProQ that I actually genuinely don't like, is having to right click and go to "activate dynamic" or "activate spectrum" or "change shape." it sounds stupid, but for a plug whose whole raison d'etre is "the best GUI of all time", to have to navigate some generic windows right-click menu to access basic functionality is pretty shit, if I'm honest.

I demoed it today and I really want to buy it now. I think it's great. I never really felt like ProQ3 worked for me, but I think this is something I would like to just automatically add to every single track from now on. it has crossed the threshold to being a great plugin I think with this, for me at least. I would like to stop using Schepps Omni Channel and similar EQ styles. this is just better, obviously.

[mxbf]

The more you divert concentrated focus from ears to visual stimuli the less discriminatory your hearing is towards the instantaneous facets of a sound which produce the whole. And that is one sound alone never mind in a complex mix down.

I agree extremely strongly with this. I've used Brainworx SSL strip and Schepps Omni Channel the last 6 months, with very little of these visual EQs. I feel like it really was the right move. Trains you to mix with your ears not your eyes. The compressors in those strips are really more utility, they just give a bit of control to reign in the dynamics right away. The EQs just let you hone the sound with broad strokes right away. You don't need ProQ per channel, until maybe...

My disagreement with you is that I think after you've used channel strips substantially, moving to visual EQs is (potentially) a smart move. Much more granularity, much more control, much more immediate, with so much more detail you can then add with your equalization. It's like an evolution from the basic skill. But without that basic skill built up, you won't be able to really see that.

But going directly to "visual eqs" or whatever the term is is not the way anyone should do it (IMO - and it's actually not that important). Channel strip plugins are the bee's knees though, don't get enough love.

[machinesworking]

The more you divert concentrated focus from ears to visual stimuli the less discriminatory your hearing is towards the instantaneous facets of a sound which produce the whole. And that is one sound alone never mind in a complex mix down.

I agree extremely strongly with this. I've used Brainworx SSL strip and Schepps Omni Channel the last 6 months, with very little of these visual EQs. I feel like it really was the right move. Trains you to mix with your ears not your eyes. The compressors in those strips are really more utility, they just give a bit of control to reign in the dynamics right away. The EQs just let you hone the sound with broad strokes right away. You don't need ProQ per channel, until maybe...

My disagreement with you is that I think after you've used channel strips substantially, moving to visual EQs is (potentially) a smart move. Much more granularity, much more control, much more immediate, with so much more detail you can then add with your equalization. It's like an evolution from the basic skill. But without that basic skill built up, you won't be able to really see that.

But going directly to "visual eqs" or whatever the term is is not the way anyone should do it (IMO - and it's actually not that important). Channel strip plugins are the bee's knees though, don't get enough love.

I have this super cool trick, it's a "hack" that makes ANY EQ instantly just as cool as the old not visually oriented EQs of our youth! I close my eyes before making any commitments and listen.

Works great and I get to join the modern era and let kids on my lawn even!

[DNAudio]

I'd like to know which EQ is lighter on CPU (MAC and PC) - Pro-Q 4 or Kirchhoff? Is it possible to compare them?
Mainly for the "bread and butter" use cases (simple EQing, dynamic EQ....), not all the fancy shiny stuff...

Kirchhoff running encrypted code inside a virtual machine certainly doesn't help with CPU usage

Whatnow? Any sources I can learn more about this from?

Kirchhoff uses VMProtect for real-time anti-tamper. Here's some more information on how it works:
https://github.com/JonathanSalwan/VMPro ... ualization
https://github.com/void-stack/VMUnprotect
(None of these repos directly allow you to bypass the copy protection & you still need a valid serial key, they're purely posted here for information purposes)

[MrJubbly]

my only sincere criticism of ProQ that I actually genuinely don't like, is having to right click and go to "activate dynamic" or "activate spectrum" or "change shape." it sounds stupid, but for a plug whose whole raison d'etre is "the best GUI of all time", to have to navigate some generic windows right-click menu to access basic functionality is pretty shit, if I'm honest.

I demoed it today and I really want to buy it now. I think it's great. I never really felt like ProQ3 worked for me, but I think this is something I would like to just automatically add to every single track from now on. it has crossed the threshold to being a great plugin I think with this, for me at least. I would like to stop using Schepps Omni Channel and similar EQ styles. this is just better, obviously.

Instead of right-clicking and menu-diving to access those features, perhaps you could try to dial in your dynamic range first. As soon as you do this, you should see an additional icon appear (directly above the "Gain" knob). That is a toggle between selecting either the Spectral or Normal Dynamics modes. The advanced options icon also appears right next to it to expand/collapse those additional controls.

Edit Note - You can also do most of the above not only via that panel but also via scrolling the mouse-wheel directly over each node, while holding various key modifiers such as Ctrl, Shift, Alt, etc. Slightly less intuitive for the beginner, but more efficient once you learn what each key modifier does in Pro-Q.

When you move your mouse cursor over any node a local information panel will be displayed. From here you can point to and use your mouse scroll-wheel to change any of those options, including Filter Shape, Frequency, Gain and Q. Key modifiers also apply, so you can hold down Shift while scrolling for fine adjustments of these parameter values, etc. All without having to Right-Click and select via the drop down menu. You can also double-click directly on each item in the display panel to type in exact values.

[Jac459]

The more you divert concentrated focus from ears to visual stimuli the less discriminatory your hearing is towards the instantaneous facets of a sound which produce the whole. And that is one sound alone never mind in a complex mix down.

I agree extremely strongly with this. I've used Brainworx SSL strip and Schepps Omni Channel the last 6 months, with very little of these visual EQs. I feel like it really was the right move. Trains you to mix with your ears not your eyes. The compressors in those strips are really more utility, they just give a bit of control to reign in the dynamics right away. The EQs just let you hone the sound with broad strokes right away. You don't need ProQ per channel, until maybe...

My disagreement with you is that I think after you've used channel strips substantially, moving to visual EQs is (potentially) a smart move. Much more granularity, much more control, much more immediate, with so much more detail you can then add with your equalization. It's like an evolution from the basic skill. But without that basic skill built up, you won't be able to really see that.

But going directly to "visual eqs" or whatever the term is is not the way anyone should do it (IMO - and it's actually not that important). Channel strip plugins are the bee's knees though, don't get enough love.

I have this super cool trick, it's a "hack" that makes ANY EQ instantly just as cool as the old not visually oriented EQs of our youth! I close my eyes before making any commitments and listen.

Works great and I get to join the modern era and let kids on my lawn even!

I see it bit differently than you.

I think your point is more generally: "be careful to not bias your brain and ears, they are easy to trick." --> I agree.
And then your point is that visual feedback may be part of the bias --> I kind of agree.
And then your conclusion is "don't use". --> I disagree. For me the advice that work best is "whatever the f**k you do, with or without visual feedback, after doing it, take a step back, get a coffee. And A/B test what you did with full focus on sound.
A/B, A/B, A/B, that's the best."

But good visual feedback is much much appreciated during the change process.

[machinesworking]

The more you divert concentrated focus from ears to visual stimuli the less discriminatory your hearing is towards the instantaneous facets of a sound which produce the whole. And that is one sound alone never mind in a complex mix down.

I agree extremely strongly with this. I've used Brainworx SSL strip and Schepps Omni Channel the last 6 months, with very little of these visual EQs. I feel like it really was the right move. Trains you to mix with your ears not your eyes. The compressors in those strips are really more utility, they just give a bit of control to reign in the dynamics right away. The EQs just let you hone the sound with broad strokes right away. You don't need ProQ per channel, until maybe...

My disagreement with you is that I think after you've used channel strips substantially, moving to visual EQs is (potentially) a smart move. Much more granularity, much more control, much more immediate, with so much more detail you can then add with your equalization. It's like an evolution from the basic skill. But without that basic skill built up, you won't be able to really see that.

But going directly to "visual eqs" or whatever the term is is not the way anyone should do it (IMO - and it's actually not that important). Channel strip plugins are the bee's knees though, don't get enough love.

I have this super cool trick, it's a "hack" that makes ANY EQ instantly just as cool as the old not visually oriented EQs of our youth! I close my eyes before making any commitments and listen.

Works great and I get to join the modern era and let kids on my lawn even!

I see it bit differently than you.

I think your point is more generally: "be careful to not bias your brain and ears, they are easy to trick." --> I agree.
And then your point is that visual feedback may be part of the bias --> I kind of agree.
And then your conclusion is "don't use". --> I disagree. For me the advice that work best is "whatever the f**k you do, with or without visual feedback, after doing it, take a step back, get a coffee. And A/B test what you did with full focus on sound.
A/B, A/B, A/B, that's the best."

But good visual feedback is much much appreciated during the change process.

You might want to read through my post again. I'm basically saying if you work with the modern tools there's no reason not to take time to adjust to them, i.e. don't look at the screen when listening back to your edits if you feel the visual feedback will taint your perception of the actual sound.

There is nothing wrong with modern tools, it's up to you to come up with good practices especially if you notice some sort of bias from starring at a screen. Pretty much any time I'm mixing or mastering audio at some point I listen without looking at a screen etc. It's simple really, the problem is not better tools.

[Ploki]

You might want to read through my post again. I'm basically saying if you work with the modern tools there's no reason not to take time to adjust to them, i.e. don't look at the screen when listening back to your edits if you feel the visual feedback will taint your perception of the actual sound.

There is nothing wrong with modern tools, it's up to you to come up with good practices especially if you notice some sort of bias from starring at a screen. Pretty much any time I'm mixing or mastering audio at some point I listen without looking at a screen etc. It's simple really, the problem is not better tools.

ya know after doing this for a while, it becomes pretty clear from posts who does this daily and who doesn't.

when you have a deadline and more work than you can possibly manage in a week, you don't f**k around with "self limits" and "using channel strips for half a year" and whatever the f**k, you use tools that get you where you want to the fastest and you use your ears, eyes, legs, arms, genitals and bowels if you have to to wrap it up in time.

[t.o.t.s.]

Daily audio work has been my bread and butter for a very gracious 25 some years now. Not everyone is lucky enough to have that opportunity even if they love sound. Also, in that time, in various jobs I've def found myself between "swamped with work" and "time to test and experiment". Not all audio jobs are the same ya' know? When I'm grinding work hard I'm usually knee deep in EQ3 7 Band for tracking and Pro-Q3 for mixing (now 4 I'd imagine unless some nasty bug appears). WHen I need fast and consistent, that's where I'm at. Still, I've def had my moments just pissing around with alternate workflows and plugins to see if there was a better/faster way.

[Ploki]

Daily audio work has been my bread and butter for a very gracious 25 some years now. Not everyone is lucky enough to have that opportunity even if they love sound. Also, in that time, in various jobs I've def found myself between "swamped with work" and "time to test and experiment". Not all audio jobs are the same ya' know? When I'm grinding work hard I'm usually knee deep in EQ3 7 Band for tracking and Pro-Q3 for mixing (now 4 I'd imagine unless some nasty bug appears). WHen I need fast and consistent, that's where I'm at. Still, I've def had my moments just pissing around with alternate workflows and plugins to see if there was a better/faster way.

that's absolutely fair and i do that as well

but i wasn't talking about growing/experimenting. Merely to the "but i can do that with X plugin with just 10 more steps and 10x CPU", "visual aids are for losers" and similar sentiment crowd.

You won't mix better if you chop off your limbs, you'll mix better if the environment you mix in can be trusted. You won't stop "notching" with parametric because mixed with a ch strip for half a year, you'll stop notching because you'll begin to understand how monitoring (room+speakers) imposes itself on the sound, what soloing frequencies with highQ actually does and whatnot and because your monitoring system isn't lying to you