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

[Calagan]

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.

Do you say automation on Pro-Q 4 is producing artifacts (compared to EQ8) ?
I never noticed anything (I use automation on frequency and/or gain very often), but maybe I should reconsider it and study how EQ8 and Pro-Q 4 compare for these kind of tasks.

[tumface]

Do you say automation on Pro-Q 4 is producing artifacts (compared to EQ8) ?

Generally, no, because it's smoothed out and has some kind of compensation going on that I don't understand.

But if you do stuff that's extreme enough, it's possible to encounter artifacts. This demo is totally impractical and you'd probably not see it in a real song.

SP6zp4gp6S.gif

vs. roughly the same thing in u-he Filterscape Q6, which I believe works similarly to Live's EQ8 in how its filters are implemented (I don't have Live setup right now to capture it):

F7LEUw2h6n.gif

The lower frequency band that appears when doing this goofy thing in Pro-Q is audible. If you move the EQ band around more slowly, or snap it between two positions without a sweep, you won't hear anything.

Just to be clear, I hardly ever use Filterscape, and I use Pro-Q all the time. This is totally what I expect and I have no problem with it. If I'm doing some kinda of extreme modulation of EQ band frequencies, I'm going to reach for another tool, like Filterscape.

[Calagan]

Do you say automation on Pro-Q 4 is producing artifacts (compared to EQ8) ?

Generally, no, because it's smoothed out and has some kind of compensation going on that I don't understand.

But if you do stuff that's extreme enough, it's possible to encounter artifacts. This demo is totally impractical and you'd probably not see it in a real song.


SP6zp4gp6S.gif


vs. roughly the same thing in u-he Filterscape Q6, which I believe works similarly to Live's EQ8 in how its filters are implemented (I don't have Live setup right now to capture it):


F7LEUw2h6n.gif



The lower frequency band that appears when doing this goofy thing in Pro-Q is audible. If you move the EQ band around more slowly, or snap it between two positions without a sweep, you won't hear anything.

Just to be clear, I hardly ever use Filterscape, and I use Pro-Q all the time. This is totally what I expect and I have no problem with it. If I'm doing some kinda of extreme modulation of EQ band frequencies, I'm going to reach for another tool, like Filterscape.

Interesting... Thanks for the insight.

[vitocorleone123]

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.

I’m a UX professional with over 25 years experience. Fabfilter ProQ has the best overall UX for a digital EQ on a computer.

Caveat: I’d wager nobody has the hard data on that

[concealed identity]

I love ProQ, but it really feels like one of those plugins where a lot of people who know what they're doing love it, and a lot of people who don't know what they're doing try to justify a relatively expensive purchase by just saying "the UI" and "the workflow" without ever giving examples of or explaining how it makes a meaningful difference compared to the competition.

[_leras]

I’m a UX professional with over 25 years experience. Fabfilter ProQ has the best overall UX for a digital EQ on a computer.

Caveat: I’d wager nobody has the hard data on that

That depends on your metric. I really like the Crave EQ for parametric, but pro q does have more features now with dynamic EQ and sidechain etc.

It looks nice but I've found their interfaces frustrating on saturn and twin.

You can also argue that fixed controls positions are better for many eq tasks i.e. bx_digital with fixed controls to adjust the bands, or massive passive etc

(But those don't also have dynamic or Sidechain inputs)

[vitocorleone123]

I’m a UX professional with over 25 years experience. Fabfilter ProQ has the best overall UX for a digital EQ on a computer.

Caveat: I’d wager nobody has the hard data on that

That depends on your metric. I really like the Crave EQ for parametric, but pro q does have more features now with dynamic EQ and sidechain etc.

It looks nice but I've found their interfaces frustrating on saturn and twin.

You can also argue that fixed controls positions are better for many eq tasks i.e. bx_digital with fixed controls to adjust the bands, or massive passive etc

(But those don't also have dynamic or Sidechain inputs)

I was only talking about ProQ. Some of their other interfaces aren’t as usable, for sure.

[t.o.t.s.]

"Why do people prefer Fabfilter ProQ to similar plugins like UVI Shade?"
Fabfilter loads fast as hell. It's light.
No iLok and a user friendly licensing system.
It does a LOT and covers a lot of ground quickly.

I mix with it daily. I wish they offered AAX-DSP versions that I could also track with but that's never gonna be a thing. So for tracking/recording/broadcast/streaming I'm McDSP AE600 land and for mixing I usually jump to the Pro-Q.

[Ah_Dziz]

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.

For my own use, I'm not going to buy an eq that doesn't have most of the features you mentioned (or maybe 1 of them done in some crazy nice fashion). I've never had a single problem using ProQ, but the same could be said about most eq plugins. I have probably 40 3rd party eqs (just a guess) and Mdynamiceq is the only one I ever bought outright on its own. All the rest were included with something (a bundle, a host or just free). Anyway, I guess I haven't really surveyed the available EQ plugins along with their feature set, price, reliability, support, stability, CPU use and stuff. Maybe they are few and far between that are rock solid and well featured, while still being crazy useable. I sort of think of FF the way I think of waves. Any studio I go to will have their stuff installed, and it will work just fine. There is very little about any of their (FF) products that is exciting to me especially for a "premium" price. Everything is cheaper now but back when I was actively searching for a good set of mixing tools fabfilter was a bit much, and when I didn't really have any monetary restrictions, it seemed/ seems extremely redundant.

[DCrown]

Hi everyone, this is not a troll post, but a genuine Question.

When I watch many/most YouTube music production channels, it seems that pretty much everyone uses Fabfilter's ProQ as their basic paid general purpose mixing EQ (in addition to stock EQs and maybe some colourful analog emulations)

Personally, up until recently I mostly used Reapers stock EQ or some analog-modeled channel strips for my EQ needs, but since I got it very cheap on sale, I purchased UVI Shade recently to see what it's about. And honestly, at least to me, it pretty much looks the same to me as the Fabfilter EQ and even seems to be somewhat more flexible modulation-wise etc. And it's a lot cheaper. So how come, that even with competitors like these, Fabfilter's EQ sells so much better than the alternatives, to the extent, that it feels like pretty much everyone uses it. Are there some hidden features that I don't know about?

Thanks very much in advance!

ps. Again, I am not here to troll, or to tell anyone that UVI Shade is better than ProQ. I am genuinely interested in why ProQ is used so much more than the alternatives with very similar functionality

I have Fabfilter ProQ, but always end up using ReaEQ. And you could use ReaEq more than 100 times in one session/project without cpu issues

[fisherKing]

any good eq is a good eq; i use proQ4 because i like the GUI, the options... and have been an FF plugin user for a while now.

fwiw, never had any cpu issues with the FF stuff

[pekbro]

Pro MB and Pro L can be kinda cpu heavy, at least in comparison to some of their closest competition. IME anyway, but my cpu is weak.

I don’t own all the FF stuff tho, so can’t really say…

[t.o.t.s.]

Pro MB and Pro L can be kinda cpu heavy, at least in comparison to some of their closest competition. IME anyway, but my cpu is weak.

I don’t own all the FF stuff tho, so can’t really say…

really boils down to the modes and oversampling options with the FF stuff. They are hand down some of the lightest on my CPU consider what they are doing.

[morelia]

The word, stalwart, comes to mind for me.

[pekbro]

Pro MB and Pro L can be kinda cpu heavy, at least in comparison to some of their closest competition. IME anyway, but my cpu is weak.

I don’t own all the FF stuff tho, so can’t really say…

really boils down to the modes and oversampling options with the FF stuff. They are hand down some of the lightest on my CPU consider what they are doing.

Not saying they’re bad, just that some are better. I have them all either way. I’m just
talking cpu anyway.