Why do people prefer Fabfilter ProQ to similar plugins like UVI Shade?

[vitocorleone123]

FF ProQ is the gold standard for EQ user experience. It's been copied a lot since it first came out. ProQ4 took it to another level. There's nothing else out there that's both as easy to use and as good and as rock solid.

There's a lot of things out there with more features. Lower prices. Etc. None of them are ProQ. It's so widely used for some very good reasons.

I've only been using it since ProQ3 was new, and I've yet to find another EQ I want to use more, and I've tried a LOT of other EQs. The only EQs getting as much use from me are the specialty ones from TDR - especially Infrasonic. I like sonible smart eq, as well.

It's like asking why the iPhone became so popular. The answer goes back to having a stellar user experience compared to the competition.

[sandandpaint]

One more great creative EQ is apQualizr2, it is similar to Shade
https://www.apulsoft.ch/apqualizr2/
apq2_pp.png

Can do parallel processing as well which few others can.

[_leras]

I've never gotten what the big deal about FF is. Seems like some totally fine mixing tools but also a bit expensive. I use melda Mdynamiceq about 99% of the time when I need some serious EQ. The rest of the time I usually just use host stuff/ whatever is handy.

I think that previously FF was just another parametric EQ with a nice UI, but it's added things that make it much better these days

- Different shaped curves (wider bells)
- Well integrated dynamic EQ
- Soothe type EQ ducking, especially using this for Sidechained signals.
- linear and natural phase
- per band m/s

So with all of those in one place with a nice UI it becomes a super useful tool.

[cryophonik]

I think there is some misconception about FF being "expensive". Yes, their retail prices are relatively high for individual plugins, but they do offer sales on occasion and they have the refer-a-friend offer. The thing is, once you buy into them, they reward you with excellent loyalty pricing on upgrades and crossgrades, which become pretty cheap once you own several (or all) of their plugins. I first bought into them when some distributer ran a no-brainer sale on three of their plugins (Volcano2, Timeless2, and Twin2, IIRC) about 20 years ago, added one or two from the refer-a-friend program, then bought Pro-Q the day it was released and since then eventually purchased every one of their plugins and upgrades, with increasing loyalty savings every time. They sound great, look great, are very well supported, and have a uniformity between them that makes their plugins very intuitive to use. Yes, there are a lot of excellent competitors out there (and I own some of them as well, including Shade), but Fabfilter makes it easy to stay loyal to them IMO.

As for Shade, it's excellent but, as others have already noted, I think of it as more of a creative filter plugin. Yes, I could use it as a standard EQ in place of Pro-Q, but why would I? Pro-Q is and has been my workhorse EQ since day one and can do everything I need an EQ to do.

[tumface]

The absolute best fit-and-finish in the industry. Works great in every DAW. Loads instantly. Extremely high "build quality" of all FabFilter plugins, even if you might not personally gel with some of them. The least-buggy, least-janky plugins. (In my experience.)

On top of that:

Offline, serial-only activation. No manager. No background processes. Doesn't display my real name in the UI. No bullshit. If there are two plugins that are identical, and one of them has an installation manager or other bullshit, and the other doesn't, I will pay 5x for the one that doesn't.

I know that if I install Pro-Q4 (or any other FabFilter plugin) on a computer, it will work and there won't be excuses for why something isn't right in some particular DAW or another.

[pekbro]

I like pro Q, but I use the toneboosters eq pro a lot more. Mostly because of the multiband compressor from TB, as it’s way more cpu efficient than Pro MB, and since they are in
the same directory…

Tbh: I think Joren’s audio tech is probably better than FF due to his background vs theirs.

[billinder33]

Shade is awesome, but Pro-Q is just better at blocking and tackling EQ duties.

Being able to grab a HPF and lay it right under the fundamental and adjust use the slope with one smooth, continuous move on the trackpad is a massive time saver. In most cases I can configure 2-4 filters and be in and out of Pro-Q in under 30 seconds. It's just amazing for that reason alone.

[osiris]

I use Shade all the time as an EQ. I think Fabfilter has more parameters you can edit. I also like MorphEQ.

[Calagan]

@tumface nailed it about FabFilter. People often don't notice how well coded Fabfilter plugins are. Sonic wise, you may prefer other takes on EQ, reverb, saturation and so on. But there's no other dev that make plugins so issue-free in the market now. I never had ANY issues with Fabfilter plugins... They are alos super efficient (Pro-Q 4 uses less CPU than the built-in Ableton Live EQ8), and FF still update their old plugins (Saturn 1 was updated few year ago to be compatible with Apple Silicon, Pro-Q 3 was updated just after the release of Pro-Q 4).
So they are expensive, but worth every penny...

[Vortifex]

I use this bad boy 95% of the time

[tumface]

They are alos super efficient (Pro-Q 4 uses less CPU than the built-in Ableton Live EQ8)

It's true that FabFilter plugins are efficient and well-coded, but for the specific case of Pro-Q4 vs Live EQ8, EQ8 uses more CPU because it's built out of some type of SVF filter model, which allows it to handle very fast automation/modulation of frequency and Q values without creating artifacts. Pro-Q4 has to smooth out frequency and Q modulation to avoid this, and I'm guessing it's because it uses some form of biquad filter. I think that's fine, though, since I almost never automate the frequency and Q values in EQs.

[Igro]

I use this bad boy 95% of the time

The bad boy has very ackward controls though.

[Vortifex]

The bad boy has very ackward controls though.

What's awkward about it? Drag the nodes, mousewheel to change Q, right click to select filter type. I only use the controls on the ride side for automation.

[foosnark]

It's like asking why the iPhone became so popular. The answer goes back to having a stellar user experience compared to the competition. marketing

FTFY

If it weren't for M/S (and more rarely L/R) cases -- and like I said, the cool extras ToneBoosters offers -- if I were starting now I'd probably just use a DAW's built-in EQ. But Bitwig didn't used to have EQ+. Before that I used Maschine, which also had nothing like it. And back when I used FL Studio, it didn't either.

[jens]

The bad boy has very ackward controls though.

What's awkward about it? Drag the nodes, mousewheel to change Q, right click to select filter type. I only use the controls on the ride side for automation.

The ride side is very ackward.