Equality VS Pro-Q (final answer, Equality).

[hibidy]

@backpain

@meds makin' it feel better

[kelldammit]

I don't really get why people want DMG to clone Pro-Q. The plugin space is pretty limited with a small number of devs and the unfortunate part is that so many of them build similar plugins when they could be applying their creativity and passion to create NEW concepts. Do we really need someone who makes a great EQ to clone another great EQ? We have 2 great EQs now that behave well for 2 different workflows. Great! Lots of great!

I don't think a redundancy of EQs is really what the plugin space needs when there's the opportunity for fresh thinking from talented devs like Dave.

But that's just me...

I'm with you there. I generally hide the knob section in equality, and i think it's probably one of the nicest interfaces I've ever worked with. even with the knobs, i love it. While I doubt I'd complain about having an extra band or two, I'd really prefer to add bell and/or shelving options to a couple of the existing bands for more flexibility. Being able to set individual bands to mid/side is a nice idea, too.
For recorded music, if you're hitting 7-8 bands of eq on a track, you're probably neck-deep in turd polishing territory. Unfortunately, that circumstance is sometimes not avoidable in the professional world, but at that point, no number of extra eq bands is gonna make that turkey fly anyway.

k

[jantex]

I have both EQs and besides also Sonnox, Waves, PSP Neon HR, Brainworx.

For linear phase I simply prefer PSP to Pro Q and Equality.

Sonnox I really like for some reason and it really is CPU optimized as hell.

Brainworx Digital 2 I prefer for MS fixes, because of simplicity it offers for this task. It is a great tool for quick MS fixes.

For general mixing stuff I must admit I prefer using Pro-Q to EQuality. Last update of the Pro-Q brought the slickest auto listen mode ever found in a plugin. The limiting factor with EQuality for me isn't the number of bands, but the fact that you are limited with the choice of filters for each band. If you could configure any filter type for each band (peak, shelf, hi pass, low pass), my needs would be covered. And I think the majority would agree with me.

[Dr.Gunjah]

I can sit for as long as you want with Pro-Q, but I won't "get it". Because it's not what I was taught, nor what I've learned.

I think you are putting way too much emphasis on the fact that Pro-Q has the capability of up to 24 bands. That is NOT what makes it brilliant.

The brilliant part is how it's GUI works. I can literally fix any typical EQ problem within about 3 seconds using Pro-Q. How? I simply double click exactly where I want the boost or cut, at the exact location of the required amount of boost or cut. If I need to change the Q I simply hold the CTRL key+drag or a quick flick of the mouse wheel. Done.

If I need a filter or a shelf, I simply click in the appropriate area (filters being created approximately below 60hz and above 15khz marks, shelves between 80-120hz and 8-15kHz).

Once you get used to this workflow, there simply is not any faster way of doing it. No messing with virtual knobs, no staring at tiny interfaces and tiny numbers. It's just visually right there. Easy to read, easy to use.

.. now if a person really needs a knob, they can have that as well. A very precise knob at that, with a certain "weight"/precision to it, not found in the EQuality knobs (probably a sub-pixel accuracy thing on the GUI side and intelligent "ballistics" on the mouse movement side. If you move the mouse slowly, you get fine tuning of values, move it fast and you get larger jumps of values and quicker knob response. Extremely intuitive to use. This is true for mouse wheel behavior as well. Spin it fast and you get large changes, spin it slowly and you get small changes in parameter values).

This is in my opinion what makes Pro-Q special.

Cheers!
bManic

exactly this!

If you could configure any filter type for each band (peak, shelf, hi pass, low pass), my needs would be covered. And I think the majority would agree with me

as for the bands, I would agree

Cheers,
Doc

[bezusheist]

...Once you get used to this workflow, there simply is not any faster way of doing it...

with all due respect, you left out "for me" at the end of that sentence...

...Suum cuique...

[IIRs]

...Once you get used to this workflow, there simply is not any faster way of doing it...

with all due respect, you left out "for me" at the end of that sentence...

...Suum cuique...

Who did you think he was speaking for?

FWIW I concur; now that I'm used to Pro-Q everything else seems clunky and slow by comparison. (I haven't tried EQuality, can't comment there)

[Timfonie]

This poll reminds me of Dune vs. Sylenth1. Both being equally popular.

[bezusheist]

Who did you think he was speaking for?

himself...

[Liero]

I can sit for as long as you want with Pro-Q, but I won't "get it". Because it's not what I was taught, nor what I've learned.

I think you are putting way too much emphasis on the fact that Pro-Q has the capability of up to 24 bands. That is NOT what makes it brilliant.

The brilliant part is how it's GUI works. I can literally fix any typical EQ problem within about 3 seconds using Pro-Q. How? I simply double click exactly where I want the boost or cut, at the exact location of the required amount of boost or cut. If I need to change the Q I simply hold the CTRL key+drag or a quick flick of the mouse wheel. Done.

If I need a filter or a shelf, I simply click in the appropriate area (filters being created approximately below 60hz and above 15khz marks, shelves between 80-120hz and 8-15kHz).

Once you get used to this workflow, there simply is not any faster way of doing it. No messing with virtual knobs, no staring at tiny interfaces and tiny numbers. It's just visually right there. Easy to read, easy to use.

.. now if a person really needs a knob, they can have that as well. A very precise knob at that, with a certain "weight"/precision to it, not found in the EQuality knobs (probably a sub-pixel accuracy thing on the GUI side and intelligent "ballistics" on the mouse movement side. If you move the mouse slowly, you get fine tuning of values, move it fast and you get larger jumps of values and quicker knob response. Extremely intuitive to use. This is true for mouse wheel behavior as well. Spin it fast and you get large changes, spin it slowly and you get small changes in parameter values).

This is in my opinion what makes Pro-Q special.

Cheers!
bManic

What he said. I rarely use more than 2 bands in Pro-Q and I don't think there's a special "school of thought" difference here. Pro-Q is simply faster and more precise than any other EQ plugin, including EQuality. Quickness and precision equal ease-of-use and user satisfaction.

Leaning closer to your monitor to see a display or knob whilst super-contracting your arm muscles so you can make miniscule, single-pixel movement with your mouse to get the knob movement you want. Sound familiar? This is the crap we are used to working with plugins. Pro-Q simply deals away with this and after that everything else feels inferior. There's nothing more to it. Equality wins in sound quality, Pro-Q in user experience, in the end (for me) the user part is more important.

[AlienForce]

The limiting factor with EQuality for me isn't the number of bands, but the fact that you are limited with the choice of filters for each band. If you could configure any filter type for each band (peak, shelf, hi pass, low pass), my needs would be covered. And I think the majority would agree with me.

True. That's why I can't ditch UAD Cambridge EQ yet. I use Elliptic 6 filter pretty often. Butterworth/Bessel filters with different orders are used too. It's great when you have all these options in a single plugin.

[DaveGamble]

*snip*

This is in my opinion what makes Pro-Q special.

Cheers!
bManic

+THAT+ is +EXACTLY+ what I was looking for

Dave.

[DaveGamble]

I don't really get why people want DMG to clone Pro-Q.

You can call me Dave btw.

[AlienForce]

...Once you get used to this workflow, there simply is not any faster way of doing it...

with all due respect, you left out "for me" at the end of that sentence...

...Suum cuique...

Nope. He left out "for us". I'm with bmanic here This workflow is fast and smooth.

[DaveGamble]

FWIW I concur; now that I'm used to Pro-Q everything else seems clunky and slow by comparison. (I haven't tried EQuality, can't comment there)

Go on then! Give it a go

Dave.

[DaveGamble]

This is exciting feedback! Also, things like precision I can back-implement into EQuality.

Also it's not ENTIRELY impossible to allow greater band-choice flexibility in EQuality.. but I need to think about that a bit more.

Dave.