Previously, I was using soundtoys decapitator for surgical eq and waves tune for dynamic eq but was getting mixed results. Having watched this, I'll now be using waves Abbey Road Plate.
I really wonder what will happen first: - Kirchoff developers implement the changes Dan suggested - Pro-Q 4 comes out, having all the extra features of the Kirchoff implemented in a way Dan suggested I wonders what ya'll think 🤔
This sets a good example of what RUclips reviews should be like: If you state your known biases, remain aware of unconscious biases, keep your bullshit detector running at all times, and actually know what you're talking about, viewers will grant you the respect and admiration you deserve. For now at least, Dan, you own my trust. I hope you continue to keep producing authoritative video reviews and tutorials.
Indeed! He's truly a master at creating compelling... ANYTHING. I was going to say "tutorials", but how captivating it would be to hear audiobooks of any genre delivered by Dan.
As a proud American, the problem I have with Dan Worall is that he doesn't speak English and has that stupid foreign accent. He should learn English before giving any advice. Oh, before someone starts calling me a racist, I support Ukraine.
3:24 - You can add an HPF or an LPF by clicking near the ends of the spectrum, but you need to set it up to do so in settings. I don't know why they didn't make the EQ behave like this by default.
What a wonderful video to wake up to. we’re eatin good today, folks! regardless of whether Dan likes the plugin or not, I’m definitely excited to hear a fresh perspective on it
Amen ! Dan is Brilliant ! After watching the latest news dramas of Adolpho McTwitLer/Adolphus McDRumphy, and seeing flashes of Lord Hildemort, in the online news cycles . . . I was Saved by this New Dan Worrall Episode . . . Yet another Riveting Thriller from the Sherlock Holmes of Audio Engineering! (-;
Other reasons I'll stick with Pro-Q3: • Many of my clients and collaborators also use it, making session-swapping painless. • UI conventions are consistent from one FF tool to another. I look at the total bundle as an integrative whole. • A proven record of backward compatibility from one plug-in iteration to the next. • Years and years of compatibility upgrades and customer support from FF have ingrained a sense of trust in the developers. I'm happy to pay a higher sticker price for a perpetual license knowing that the product will receive the necessary support going forward, and that FF are always developing something exciting in the meantime. Maybe I could do the same things but cheaper with Kirchoff but FF is reasonably priced already for what they offer and the added cost doesn't just get pissed away. FF deserve to profit so they can pay themselves and reinvest in their product line. It's good for the long-term stability of the toolset they offer.
@@parentteachernight Because if you are worried about not having the same plugins as others, having both would increase the likeliness seeing as Kirchhoff is also becoming more popular and is now apart of the plugin alliance bundle. Also would it not be likely that even if others have Q3, they may not have a number of other plugins in your list, which is the likely scenario for all.
Hi Dan. You can actually configure Kirchoff to add HPF and LPF in the extensive menu. You can make it work almost exactly like pro-q does, even setting the ranges for the area where these are added.
The Q value is only 0.7071..... - actually: 1/(2*cos(pi/4)) - for 2nd order filters. Fabfilter offers higher order filters, which is why they came out with the clever idea of normalising the Q to its Butterworth value and multiplying or dividing the Q value of one of the biquads in the chain by up to 40. Tree-Body-Tech. did the same for the same reason. Yes they stole the idea, but in a way they had to! I've never talked to anyone from those companies, I only know the Q Butterworth-normalisation thing by having reproduced it in JSFX with RBJ filters (call it reverse engineering if you will).
@@lussyl1642 Butterworth filters are a type of (theoretical, then analogue, then digital) IIR filters (LP, HP and all the usual derivative) with no ripple in either the pass- or the stop-band, no resonance and a gain of 1/sqrt(2) = ~ 0.7071... (or ~ -3.01 dB) at the cutoff frequency. Their slope gets steeper as their order grows; a very high-order Butterworth filters comes very close to what is referred to as an "ideal filter" (vertical slope; pass-band-gain=1; stop-band-gain=0) - Elliptic filters with negligible ripple and sufficient attenuation come closer faster but they're considerably heavier on both brain and CPU. For all the reasons above, Butterworth filters are considered the smoothest and most transparent filters. And because their digital implementation can be easily achieved with a very small impact on CPU usage, they've pretty much become regarded as the most basic (as in "basis", i.e. "starting point") filters by plugin developers and advanced users. I tried not to get too nerdy but if you want more, maybe start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterworth_filter off-topic: As I was writing the first paragraph, I realised that this mysterious dimension-less "Q" is just the gain at cutoff... (I checked in Desmos: www.desmos.com/calculator/q8jm8c5efb ) Which means that it could easily be expressed in dB: QdB=20*log(Q)/log(10); hence: Q=10^(QdB*.05); It would make so much more sense for the user that I wonder why it's not standard practice. It could still be easily normalised to its Butterworth value, for instance a 2nd-order filter would have Qnorm=(10^(QdB*.05))/sqrt(2); which gives 1/sqrt(2) when QdB=0 dB, and 1 (i.e. 0 dB) when QdB=20*log(sqrt(2))/log(10) = ~ 3.0103 dB. I'll admit that a bidirectional log taper on the Q knob makes it just as usable, but the numbers displayed hardly make sense to most people (and even if you're familiar with linear gain, I bet you'll find yourself spontaneously replacing the numbers by 6*n every 2^n step). The only reason I see not to deal with the Q as prescribed above is that if you see a resonance peak on a plot and a value in dB on a knob, you might mistake the value for the peak's maximum gain and misuse the knob or assume the code is faulty or broken. Maybe this is all obvious to everyone but me... if so sorry for the noise.
Yup, came here to say this. Mine is set so I can double click in different areas to get shelf or filter and get different shapes by dragging vs double clicking. The menu is as tweakable as the EQ. 😅
Interesting that Kirchoff has caused crashes. I use it as my main EQ now (forever 29 voucher with PA, couldn't grumble!) and I find it very stable and not particularly cpu intensive (I never touch that placebo button though 😜). Reaper user here too. I think Kirchoff wanted to be an upgraded ProQ3 and so crammed a lot of features in. Some are winners, others fall by the wayside a bit. But I've had no grumbles. For a digital EQ it works great for me and cost very little because of handy voucher use.
@ProudSausage Many companies are a rip off unfortunately 😬 did the forever 29 thing purely for Kirchoff then canned it. I don't have a problem with PA plugins. Don't think they have good support from what I see online, but they work for me and work well. Similar to the few Waves plugs I use.
@@RoryButler I suppose that it's very subjective when someone perceives something as a rip-off. In tech as in music (or any art form for that matter) taking inspiration from existing stuff and then pushing it a bit further is common practice. But when it's done so blatantly it annoys me. The other thing that annoys me is BS marketing. Ranging from using buzzwords and made up claims that have no scientific base, to putting a high price tag to appear valuable, but then being on sale all the time (like PA and Waves). As you can probably tell, I am quite fed up with the plug-in industry. Who needs the 500th iteration of a compressor/eq/etc that simply has a shinier GUI and different marketing...
@ProudSausage aah I misunderstood, I thought you were against PA specifically. Kirchoff is a bit of a clone, but I will give them their due in that they've attempted to "one up", where many ProQ knock offs I've seen are barely as capable as a standard stock EQ but with a ProQ looking skin. The plugin market is rife with copies, buzz words, and swindles for sure. It's frustrating, but I can guarantee that Fabfilter will come out on top in the annals of history. You can skin an EQ a bunch of ways, but everyone still goes nuts for the original. For me, I could justify the cost of Kirchoff given the ridiculous sale price it had. As much as the complete Fabfilter bundle would be nice. Who knows, maybe Kirchoff will be a bit more original if they update in future (tho PA don't seem to put updating their existing plugins at a very high priority 😬)
Kirchhoff is a textbook example of "more controls doesn't necessarily mean more control." While Pro-Q, may not have all the features from Kirchhoff, it does put the more important controls immediately in front of you, so you don't have to click menus and figure what obscure buttons like "117-bit" do.
The analog phase mode in Kirchhoff only works for bell and shelf filter types. If you use a low or high pass filter for example, the phase in analog mode is exactly the same as in minimum phase mode. The only difference is that it increases CPU usage. Surprisingly, there is no mention of this in the manual or on their website. On the other hand, Pro-Q's natural phase mode works for all filter types.
Perfect timing. For last 2 days I was testing Kirchhoff EQ vs Pro-Q3 vs Steinberg Frequency 2. Frequency 2 has the best side chain and dynamic eq functionality but has outdated interface, and is limited to 8 bands.
i feel like frequency2 is such a hidden gem. The only plugin I know of that supports multiple sidechain inputs. (please correct me if i’m wrong!) agree on the interface though.
UVI Shade has continuous filter slopes on some filter types up to 2000 db/o. But it's not really an EQ, it's more like a complex filter system like FabFilter Volcano
So does the Kirchhoff ! I chose the Infinity EQ over the Pro Q3, and I Love the Infinity EQ ! Yet, Kirchhoff gobbles them both up for Lunch and Dinner., respectively. i have rarely used the Infinity EQ since, and I will never need the Pro Q3 (-;
Excellent video and I love the detail with which the Kirchoff was compared to the Fabfilter. I use the Kirchoff for the main reason that I got it on sale at PA, where the FabFilter is at least 3x the price, depending on the PA sale. The Kirchoff is my main surgical EQ now and I love the dynamics options in it. For flavor EQ, I use my SSL native plugins, where I mix by ear. Haven't had any reliability issues with the Kirchoff so far; and I use it on both Windows (Cubase) and Mac (LiveProfessor... yes, I run it live). Been trimming my plugin stable down to what is actually useful since I started dumping Waves after their licensing debacle. The Kirchoff is in my top 5 most used plugins and is on at least a handful of tracks in every project/show, having replaced my previous Waves F6/C6 plugins.
welll the kirch is OUR choice for something real sweet and cheap...pro q is 169...kirch is a buck...fits my student budget...i just wanted to see if there was any "oh thats stupid, why would they do that" specs and from the lil I heard and @jeff92k7 personal review, im sold...key word was "surgical" i know the Q when I used the trial was absolutely awesome in that respect...and that alone sold me on it...but im hearing kirch is the same and can be slightly even more detailed in surgery. As im not that good yet, what my ears here, the better the tool for me to take it out, as opposed to be doin this for 50 yrs and being able to do it with PT stock EQ7@@BTTRSWYT
Great review, as always. Watched until the end and sweat my ass off because I forgot to move - this is how curious I was and how I always watch Dan's videos.
Owning both, for me it comes down to what i'm after. If I want a quick easy EQ, I always go ProQ. whether it be dynamics or static, nothing beats the workflow and intuitiveness of ProQ. It's my "stock" EQ and by far the most used eq on every project. If I want to tinker with different curves or really fine tune the dynamics I go Kirchhoff. If I could only choose one, it would be ProQ. Side note, I prefer the liner curves. This allows me to add my own favorite saturation pre/post. And I've had very few crashes in Kirch. I can't remember the last time ProQ crashed
13:15 Acon Digital Equalize has had continuously variable filter slopes for years. One of the few modern, “graphic” equalizers that isn’t “inspired” by ProQ… Fabfilter sure have set the GUI standard for those types of EQs.
Considering Dan has used Acon Digital's Acoustica before I'm indeed surprised he never noticed the variable filter slope on Equalize. Even more impressive, is the fact Equalize had a 120dB slope way before other commercially available filter's did!
I've been using the Kirchoff on nearly every channel of 200+ channel mixes for several months. No crashes yet. Pro Q-3 is an almost perfect surgical eq, Kirchhoff takes it a bit further, while blatently copying all of Pro Q3's groundbreaking and wonderful UI. It's a case of "standing on the shoulders of giants" I suppose. Kirchoff's dynamics section is sooo powerful for sorting out problems while mixing. Dan's example of the dull snare is a perfect example. I agree, though, that the hardware-emulation curves are a waste of time.
I actually Love the analog emulations ! I often pop in a Blue High shelf node to get some of that Maag 40k goodness . . . then I pop in a Neve Bell node at 3,2 K to get that special Neve 3.2 K secret sauce . . . All of analog modeling curves sound different than the Kirchhoff curves, and they give a different flavour.
@@bakharandi They are just curves, they don't do the non-linear behavior of a modelled EQ. The only real use, like he suggested is for someone that is very used to a specific hardwares EQ curves and want to be able to expect what will happen when "turning the dial". There is no special sauce, using the specific curves, is sort of like using a preset. If you know how to EQ, you can achieve the same thing with the standard selection. But if you don't know how to EQ, they may accidentally give you a better result, than you already have... but in such cases, EQ presets are more likely to do that. There is no modelling, no emulation in this EQ, it is just a preset curve.
Perfect video Tittle, "Totally Biased Video" DW found so many excuses to don't like so much this plugin, so many extra features that maybe you can use in certain opportunities and are way better to have than not, but for me in the most straight fwd features this EQ is better than Fabfilter PRO Q3, even tho there are few features in Fabfilter that are not in Kirchhoff
Also notable: The spectrum analyzer portion of the Pro Q3 is also great. With the freeze, external spectrum, show collision and spectrum grab. Can’t find that in the Kirchhoff EQ. The eq match i Pro Q3 also work if you go for such things. Thank you Dan for sharing your knowledge and cutting through the general RUclips BS.
I really appreciate Dan's 'no nonsense' approach, and avoids the magical mystification that tends to come with music gear related info. Now, if only I'd come across his videos 20 years earlier.
As a proud American, the problem I have with Dan Worall is that he doesn't speak English and has that stupid foreign accent. He should learn English before giving any advice. Oh, before someone starts calling me a racist, I support Ukraine.
I would love to see a video from you specifically on Q, and where 1/sqrt(2) comes from? I understand that quality factor is an engineering term, but would really love a nerdy deep dive
@@edwardkenemorales the most trustworthy 59 euros that i spent on digital audio plugins. No "that looks not bad but totally useless when I'm doing my mixing" functions, great UI, sharp response, amazing sound and cozy workflow. wish him could add a dynamic EQ function and take another 40 euros from me, I'm all good with that, even beg.
@@ordinarymonster1187 true, I got Kirchhoff when it came out for the dynamic function and the eq curves but sold the license 2 weeks after I tried to love it but it didnt gel well with me. I went back to Crave and whenever I need dynamic EQ, I use nova. I am not sure Keith from Crave is going to add a dynamics function in Crave though based on his comments in GS but I can only hope for the best.
I know everyone worships Dan on these reviews, but I am gonna trust David Gnozzi that the Kirchoff is verifiably better in the hands of someone as his level.
In the settings you can make it so if you drag from the low or high range it defaults to a high or low pass filter instead of shelf. You can change the default for multiple ranges. Edit: If you go to settings, it's on the right side. Under "lower (or higher) freq default by dragging", then you can select the type, and what frequency area you want considered "lower/higher" Edit 2: Watched more. It seems as though you found it. lol.
Kirchhoff is better in almost every regard: - Has much better phase integrity on linear mode. - Has no noticeble pre-ring even on the most extreme configurations. - Has a tigther punch on linear mode. - Has oversampling, which is essential. - Has various compression parameters, which are essential. - Has continuous slope, which is really useful on highpasses and lowpasses. - Has more filter types, even if not considering the analog ones. - Has much more custom options to set. Downsides: - Can't combine frequency spectrums with other instances. - Interface is very CPU heavy once visible, and doesn't like other instances open at the same time. - Worse brickwall phase impact compared to Pro-Q (but better on every other slope value). - 117bit is a waste.
Brilliant as usual Sir Dan Worrall ! You are one of my Favourite RUclipsrs . . . ! . . . 🙂 (-; The Ever-Riveting Sherlock Holmes of Audio Engeneering ! (-;
Stunning review. I hope the people at TBTech takes notes! I made Kirchoff my first "professional EQ" purchase and haven't regretted it, but I certainly share your feedback on the behavior and organization of analog-modeled EQ curves.
Thank you for demystifying this. Love Fab. They're most honest in pricing and support, effortless to install and use thanks to the best interfaces. What more could one want.
I didn't detect ANY bios towards Pro Q3 whatsoever.. Ok maybe a little..:)) ......er maybe a little bit more than a little.. oh ok a lot.. but from what I heard with my ears, OR saw with my eyes? none of the bias was unwarranted! All in all.. a great video from the legend himself. I stuck with Pro Q before, and nothing I've seen or heard here will make me want to change! Thanks Dan!
I've owned the Kirchhoff for about a year and use it in Logic, Pro tools, and Luna and even in rosetta, it has never crashed, but this is an excellent review. Also I own the Pro-Q 3 and love the aboslute differences between them. I honestly can say the Kirchhoff is very confusing but your video has helped me out immensely. 🤘💀🍻🔥🙏
It's also my main EQ, but only because I bought the entire PA suite, and it includes this EQ, but I never use the modeling features, if I want an SSL sound, I just load a console plugin from SSL, or if I want a Pultec, I load a Pultec plugin. This is a no brainer, also Reaper nerd here. The 117bit button, to be honest I did never used that one, why such an amount blowing away your CPU power? It makes no sense.
Though I have not tested it as in-depth as Dan would, I am using Toneboosters Equalizer 4 in basically all projects atm. It is heavily inspired by Pro-Q 3, but a bit less surgical. It has neat saturation or dynamic options. It is dirt cheap, updated every month (often adding new features), and is very low on CPU. Toneboosters plugins rarely get the attention they deserve, mainly because they put no money into advertising. But that's the main reason their plugins are super affordable. Also Barricade, Compressor, and Reverb are excellent bang for your buck.
@@Pummelfay MBC is excellent, yes! Guess I'll have to check out ReelBus next... That one dutch main developer is also quite responsive and loves explaining his approaches. Long before Dan Worrall, he made a post explaining why he did not add linear phase to his EQ, and why it makes not as much sense as people think. EQ4 is designed so linearity is not needed, as far as I have understood ♥️
I agree, the best value for money out there and in many ways I love the workflow more in E4, so simple and fluent. I also like how it has input and output meters along the right. Thumbs up to the MBC too.
Sir Dan ! This is so Utterly Brilliant ! As I am watching this for the third or fourth time, I am suddenly getting the very appreciative feeling that this experience is somewhat parallel to a Devout iPhone Aficionado, breaking down and sharing the latest innovations of the newest Samsung Galaxy, whilst the iPhone Faithful watch with bated breath, at how Samsung took a boat load of the iPhone's Brilliance and had the audacity cultivate some very interesting new innovations . . . The iPhone Faithful, are, of course, very excited in anticipation of how the iPhone will respond, with its next incarnation . . . And the Samsung Galaxy Enthusiasts, like me, are very excited to be active beneficiaries of this new plateau of innovation . . . Even More Exciting, in this case, is to have a Grand iPhone Afficionado. explain to us the Heritage of this technology, and the specialty of the innovations, whilst offering intriguing insights and perspectives that I hardly, if ever would have discovered on my own! . . . Iron Sharpens Iron , , , ! . . . 🙂 (-; Many Thanks ! (-;
Interesting. Never had a crash with either EQ plugin. Sometimes running 20-30 Kirchoffs on a project with no issues. I use it on both Mac (Mojave/Catalina) and PC (Win 10) In Logic Pro, Ableton, Reaper, Resolve and occasionally Studio One. Never a crash. Wonder what's causing that behavior on your computer.
Great insight as always. I didn't know you could use SSL or Maag EQ curves as defauft in Kirchhoff but that's a great tip. It's true that the dynamic section is confusing compare to ProQ3. I don't have ProQ3 though but I prefer using TDR Nova or Tonebooster EQ4 for dynamic than Kirchhoff
I think the point of the 117bit option is to give you absurdly good dynamics, you could boost crazily some frequencies and still be able to here the quietest ones without ever saturating internally, even though since it goes back in a 64 bit summing bus in most cases (a part from sequoia maybe) I don't see it mattering most of the time and I never use it but I think you'd see a difference if you boosted way more... But all in all I still prefer the kirchhoff, it's got everything the ff has and more; I love the ff don't get me wrong, but this is just EVEN better, and I have no loyalty concerning plugins, if it's better, I'm just a gearslut ^^
Love it (as always). And in particular, I love the "Would you like a "WOULD YOU LIKE TO WASTE YOUR RESOURCES BUTTON???"" Brilliant as always Dan Worrall 😎👍
LOL ... I stopped paying any attention to that dude a long time ago, but especially after his video about how you MUST start mixing in Atmos. Just wtf.
Regarding the fully variable filter slope, the only plugin I'm aware of with any similar setting is TDR Kotelnikov, which has a fully variable filter slope on the sidechain HPF. No idea how this is implemented though, and I'm sure it's quite different from how the one in this plugin works.
It could be argued that perhaps Pro Q should have an advanced tab, to make it a more flexible tool, and in doing so, perhaps better implementing the useful features, when it comes to advanced dynamics processing. They both lack pitch-tracking feature of Surfeq and Auto Tune Vocal EQ. And the Transient split of SplitEQ. And the multiband sideband dynamics processing of Soothe 2 and Smart:comp and some others. And the smart EQ features found in several of products. And the boost EQ saturator in spectre (though fabfilter would point you to another of their products for that). All of that baked in to one, would be an extremely complex EQ though, but with the advantage that you would be able to use a single plugin for all your EQ related features, except for a perfectly modelled behavior, but then you would probably prefer it to mostly look like the hardware, but with possibly an visual mode that shows a spectrum display above the hardware copied UI. the kirchhoff EQ hardware curve features, while interesting for the right use-case scenario, will not be that common today, when few people would actually be that used to a specific hardware only, and one would probably also be looking for a bit of emulation of the sound, otherwise it will still not behave like the hardware unit.
While I don't disagree with your criticisms, I have to say it's very refreshing to see an EQ plugin that doesn't immediately fail because of cramping. I think we should commend them for getting this right as opposed to pretty much everyone else!! 😁
I almost bought Kirchoff based on all the nice things said about it and it was cheaper than Q3 at the time but the little DW inside my brain told me to stop until the null test was completed. I'm glad I have no choice but to listen. Solid review as always.
Thanks for this detailed comparison. I've yet to find an application for the free filter mode in my line of work(dialogue mixing), though I'll probably find one in time. I'm pretty happy with Pro-Q3 for now. It's my most dependable workhorse plugin. The only DAW I could manage to crash with Pro-Q3 was Davinci Resolve v17 or v16(not tested in v18). Its automation was a bit flimsy with VST plugins when I was working it though, in December 2021/January2022. In Reaper Pro-Q3 has been nothing but dependable.
This is a great example of why we need to be very careful of RUclipsrs some like Dan are very informed others are not so - I didn’t bother with this EQ as I hated the interface. I like fabfilter. I tend to use logics classic EQ and dive harder with another eq when I need something more
Thank you for the admittedly biased and clear review. I've also struggled with crashes in Cubase-- and know it may just be my system. Fab Filter plugins are rock solid in my case at the same time, and I use many instances on complex mixes with no issues-- regularly. I have enjoyed some of the dynamic features of Kirch., And will use it more if the stability improves.
I had it causing freezes on reaper in m1 native too! Sent a support ticket to PA and they claimed "they couldn't reproduce the problem" but I bet a future update addresses this even if they don't admit it! (Not a problem in Rosetta, which I've been using more and more for a bunch of plugins' sake, def just a band aid but ok for now)
I haven't used Pro-Q3 but I also imagine that side-chaining it to another channel is way simpler that it is with Kirchhoff, which seems unnecessarily faffy.
I'm surprised by the kirchhoff crashes. I've never had an issue, and I've loaded plenty of instances some with dynamics processing. Either way, I've used both pro q and kirchhoff and like them both. Fabfilter is generally my favorite no matter the plug. I do like Kirchoff's dynamics features quite a bit, and it's the main reason I use it. I'll be watching out for crashes though. I'm a bit disappointed to hear that.
No one but Dan could entice me to spend 45 minutes watching a detailed comparison of two practically identical EQs.
You still should question your self, in summer out there...
Pro Q3 really doesnt sound like Kirchoff, both during boosting and cutting. Im a daily user of both EQ .
haha same here.... :-@)
And watch it several times...
@@benbenzonHow is it different if it nulls?
Previously, I was using soundtoys decapitator for surgical eq and waves tune for dynamic eq but was getting mixed results.
Having watched this, I'll now be using waves Abbey Road Plate.
What in the actual…
Word!
Finally. Someone able to creatively think outside the box.
‘Mixed’ results - top pun
When I finish my mixes, I then bounce them down into the trash bin.
I really wonder what will happen first:
- Kirchoff developers implement the changes Dan suggested
- Pro-Q 4 comes out, having all the extra features of the Kirchoff implemented in a way Dan suggested
I wonders what ya'll think 🤔
Fabfilter, saying that as a non- Fabfilter customer. Considering the fact that Dan is the voice of Fabfilter ...
I love the sound of kirchoff. But i hate the interface so much
Cubase’s Frequency 2 has the best dynamic eq and sidechain section. But the big limitation is 8 frequency bands
so you get two identical plugins?
I wont be taking any bets!!! but I will enjoy the race
That moment when a Review of EQ is better than anything on Netflix...Yep!
everything is better than anything on netflix.
@@Tryggvasson true but this EQ review, great 👍
Well except maybe Stranger Things and Breaking Bad
@@Orrinton true. Breaking bad was awesome, haven’t got around to stranger things yet. But thanks for reminding me.
This sets a good example of what RUclips reviews should be like: If you state your known biases, remain aware of unconscious biases, keep your bullshit detector running at all times, and actually know what you're talking about, viewers will grant you the respect and admiration you deserve. For now at least, Dan, you own my trust. I hope you continue to keep producing authoritative video reviews and tutorials.
Watching Dan’s reviews are akin to watching a thrilling murder mystery. Plot Twists and excitement throughout. Well done 🙏🏽
Indeed! He's truly a master at creating compelling... ANYTHING. I was going to say "tutorials", but how captivating it would be to hear audiobooks of any genre delivered by Dan.
He is the Sherlock Holmes of audio engineering !
(-;
better than valium
As a proud American, the problem I have with Dan Worall is that he doesn't speak English and has that stupid foreign accent. He should learn English before giving any advice. Oh, before someone starts calling me a racist, I support Ukraine.
3:24 - You can add an HPF or an LPF by clicking near the ends of the spectrum, but you need to set it up to do so in settings. I don't know why they didn't make the EQ behave like this by default.
Probably because they want to be able to say ‘see ours doesn’t perform identically.’
@@sub-jec-tiv maybe! It is still a good alternative to Pro-Q, especially for the price, but it feels a little rough on the edges.
@@oleksiysytnik how so?
@@iainmcguire7190 sorry, "how so" what exactly?
@@oleksiysytnik how does it feel a little rough around the edges?
What a wonderful video to wake up to. we’re eatin good today, folks! regardless of whether Dan likes the plugin or not, I’m definitely excited to hear a fresh perspective on it
Amen !
Dan is Brilliant !
After watching the latest news dramas of Adolpho McTwitLer/Adolphus McDRumphy, and seeing flashes of Lord Hildemort, in the online news cycles . . . I was Saved by this New Dan Worrall Episode . . . Yet another Riveting Thriller from the Sherlock Holmes of Audio Engineering!
(-;
that 117 bit null test... hilarious!
I know right lol
The only review that matters is the Dan Worrall review
“Two L’s in ‘Worrall,’ please”
@@siondudley my apologies fellow commenter! I was in a hurry to write my comment due to my desire to immediately view this much anticipated review.
This might just the most candid and honest disclaimer I've ever seen in my life lmao
Other reasons I'll stick with Pro-Q3:
• Many of my clients and collaborators also use it, making session-swapping painless.
• UI conventions are consistent from one FF tool to another. I look at the total bundle as an integrative whole.
• A proven record of backward compatibility from one plug-in iteration to the next.
• Years and years of compatibility upgrades and customer support from FF have ingrained a sense of trust in the developers. I'm happy to pay a higher sticker price for a perpetual license knowing that the product will receive the necessary support going forward, and that FF are always developing something exciting in the meantime.
Maybe I could do the same things but cheaper with Kirchoff but FF is reasonably priced already for what they offer and the added cost doesn't just get pissed away. FF deserve to profit so they can pay themselves and reinvest in their product line. It's good for the long-term stability of the toolset they offer.
Why not both? 🤷🏽♂️
@@venericanone Why both?
- already own ProQ and fully happy with it for transparent EQ
@@parentteachernight Because if you are worried about not having the same plugins as others, having both would increase the likeliness seeing as Kirchhoff is also becoming more popular and is now apart of the plugin alliance bundle. Also would it not be likely that even if others have Q3, they may not have a number of other plugins in your list, which is the likely scenario for all.
Hi Dan. You can actually configure Kirchoff to add HPF and LPF in the extensive menu. You can make it work almost exactly like pro-q does, even setting the ranges for the area where these are added.
The Q value is only 0.7071..... - actually: 1/(2*cos(pi/4)) - for 2nd order filters.
Fabfilter offers higher order filters, which is why they came out with the clever idea of normalising the Q to its Butterworth value and multiplying or dividing the Q value of one of the biquads in the chain by up to 40.
Tree-Body-Tech. did the same for the same reason. Yes they stole the idea, but in a way they had to!
I've never talked to anyone from those companies, I only know the Q Butterworth-normalisation thing by having reproduced it in JSFX with RBJ filters (call it reverse engineering if you will).
whats this Butterworth thing? and when did both plugins start using it? Thank
@@lussyl1642 Butterworth filters are a type of (theoretical, then analogue, then digital) IIR filters (LP, HP and all the usual derivative) with no ripple in either the pass- or the stop-band, no resonance and a gain of 1/sqrt(2) = ~ 0.7071... (or ~ -3.01 dB) at the cutoff frequency. Their slope gets steeper as their order grows; a very high-order Butterworth filters comes very close to what is referred to as an "ideal filter" (vertical slope; pass-band-gain=1; stop-band-gain=0) - Elliptic filters with negligible ripple and sufficient attenuation come closer faster but they're considerably heavier on both brain and CPU.
For all the reasons above, Butterworth filters are considered the smoothest and most transparent filters. And because their digital implementation can be easily achieved with a very small impact on CPU usage, they've pretty much become regarded as the most basic (as in "basis", i.e. "starting point") filters by plugin developers and advanced users.
I tried not to get too nerdy but if you want more, maybe start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterworth_filter
off-topic: As I was writing the first paragraph, I realised that this mysterious dimension-less "Q" is just the gain at cutoff... (I checked in Desmos: www.desmos.com/calculator/q8jm8c5efb )
Which means that it could easily be expressed in dB: QdB=20*log(Q)/log(10); hence: Q=10^(QdB*.05); It would make so much more sense for the user that I wonder why it's not standard practice.
It could still be easily normalised to its Butterworth value, for instance a 2nd-order filter would have Qnorm=(10^(QdB*.05))/sqrt(2); which gives 1/sqrt(2) when QdB=0 dB, and 1 (i.e. 0 dB) when QdB=20*log(sqrt(2))/log(10) = ~ 3.0103 dB.
I'll admit that a bidirectional log taper on the Q knob makes it just as usable, but the numbers displayed hardly make sense to most people (and even if you're familiar with linear gain, I bet you'll find yourself spontaneously replacing the numbers by 6*n every 2^n step).
The only reason I see not to deal with the Q as prescribed above is that if you see a resonance peak on a plot and a value in dB on a knob, you might mistake the value for the peak's maximum gain and misuse the knob or assume the code is faulty or broken.
Maybe this is all obvious to everyone but me... if so sorry for the noise.
In preferences you can choose what is the default action for the double click on the left and right sides, doing shelf or high/low pass :D
Thanks ! That's a point to consider indeed :)
Yup, came here to say this. Mine is set so I can double click in different areas to get shelf or filter and get different shapes by dragging vs double clicking. The menu is as tweakable as the EQ. 😅
Also came here to say this too Lol!😂🤣
Love your videos Dan you have really helped me transition into the world of audio from being mainly an instrumentalist.
well I for one am glad you've been able to finally produce some audio from those instruments of yours! congrats! 😜
Interesting that Kirchoff has caused crashes. I use it as my main EQ now (forever 29 voucher with PA, couldn't grumble!) and I find it very stable and not particularly cpu intensive (I never touch that placebo button though 😜).
Reaper user here too.
I think Kirchoff wanted to be an upgraded ProQ3 and so crammed a lot of features in. Some are winners, others fall by the wayside a bit.
But I've had no grumbles. For a digital EQ it works great for me and cost very little because of handy voucher use.
Supporting a rip-off company... tsk
@ProudSausage Many companies are a rip off unfortunately 😬 did the forever 29 thing purely for Kirchoff then canned it.
I don't have a problem with PA plugins. Don't think they have good support from what I see online, but they work for me and work well. Similar to the few Waves plugs I use.
@@RoryButler I suppose that it's very subjective when someone perceives something as a rip-off. In tech as in music (or any art form for that matter) taking inspiration from existing stuff and then pushing it a bit further is common practice. But when it's done so blatantly it annoys me. The other thing that annoys me is BS marketing. Ranging from using buzzwords and made up claims that have no scientific base, to putting a high price tag to appear valuable, but then being on sale all the time (like PA and Waves). As you can probably tell, I am quite fed up with the plug-in industry. Who needs the 500th iteration of a compressor/eq/etc that simply has a shinier GUI and different marketing...
@ProudSausage aah I misunderstood, I thought you were against PA specifically.
Kirchoff is a bit of a clone, but I will give them their due in that they've attempted to "one up", where many ProQ knock offs I've seen are barely as capable as a standard stock EQ but with a ProQ looking skin.
The plugin market is rife with copies, buzz words, and swindles for sure. It's frustrating, but I can guarantee that Fabfilter will come out on top in the annals of history. You can skin an EQ a bunch of ways, but everyone still goes nuts for the original.
For me, I could justify the cost of Kirchoff given the ridiculous sale price it had. As much as the complete Fabfilter bundle would be nice.
Who knows, maybe Kirchoff will be a bit more original if they update in future (tho PA don't seem to put updating their existing plugins at a very high priority 😬)
Kirchhoff is a textbook example of "more controls doesn't necessarily mean more control." While Pro-Q, may not have all the features from Kirchhoff, it does put the more important controls immediately in front of you, so you don't have to click menus and figure what obscure buttons like "117-bit" do.
To nullify your intentional bias, I’ll state how exceptional Kirshhoff EQ is. Just amazing!!!
i'll watch this till the end and return to ReEq
ReEq is no slouch.
I assume you mean ReaEq? Or am I missing something?
ReEQ is a different plugin, confusingly. It's a Reaper JS build.
The honesty in the title just makes it that much more reliable information.
Expecting a Fuchhoff EQ from Fabfilter soon.
i was expecting this plugin to be called the Knochoff
I nearly made that joke myself...
@@DanWorrall I can imagine
I’ve been waiting to hear your thoughts on this EQ compadres to Q3. 👍🏿👍🏿
Well done and thanks you.
The analog phase mode in Kirchhoff only works for bell and shelf filter types. If you use a low or high pass filter for example, the phase in analog mode is exactly the same as in minimum phase mode. The only difference is that it increases CPU usage. Surprisingly, there is no mention of this in the manual or on their website. On the other hand, Pro-Q's natural phase mode works for all filter types.
Perfect timing. For last 2 days I was testing Kirchhoff EQ vs Pro-Q3 vs Steinberg Frequency 2.
Frequency 2 has the best side chain and dynamic eq functionality but has outdated interface, and is limited to 8 bands.
i feel like frequency2 is such a hidden gem. The only plugin I know of that supports multiple sidechain inputs. (please correct me if i’m wrong!) agree on the interface though.
@@BleuNoirProductionsin Cubase 12, all plugins that have side chain feature support multiple side chain inputs.
Just bought it after watching your video. It seems to suit my needs. Thank you for your high quality work, Dan.
UVI Shade has continuous filter slopes on some filter types up to 2000 db/o. But it's not really an EQ, it's more like a complex filter system like FabFilter Volcano
Your spoiling us with your long form content. I’m also really interested in this plugin.
Lirst ✨️👽💜🔥👌💯
Always here to learn from these lovely elaborately well-explained plugin videos ! Keep it up !
Slate Infinity EQ has continually variable slopes, as well as continually variable flatness of bell filters (which I find more useful).
Yes! While this feature hasn't necessarily made a difference for me, Slate did in fact implement it before Kirchhoff
do you need to subs to try it ?
@@TheJohnsofDoes Regardless, somebody implemented it before Kirchhoff
So does the Kirchhoff !
I chose the Infinity EQ over the Pro Q3, and I Love the Infinity EQ !
Yet, Kirchhoff gobbles them both up for Lunch and Dinner., respectively.
i have rarely used the Infinity EQ since, and I will never need the Pro Q3
(-;
@David Harrison
Yes, indeed. Yet the Range of the slopes and the shapes in the Kirchhoff EQ is Oceans Beyond . . . And I Love the Infinity EQ !
(-;
Thanks for this Dan! I would love to see you test the Lisa EQ from Plugin Alliance. Another dynamic EQ, but on steroids. We need you to dissect it 😊
Excellent video and I love the detail with which the Kirchoff was compared to the Fabfilter. I use the Kirchoff for the main reason that I got it on sale at PA, where the FabFilter is at least 3x the price, depending on the PA sale. The Kirchoff is my main surgical EQ now and I love the dynamics options in it. For flavor EQ, I use my SSL native plugins, where I mix by ear. Haven't had any reliability issues with the Kirchoff so far; and I use it on both Windows (Cubase) and Mac (LiveProfessor... yes, I run it live). Been trimming my plugin stable down to what is actually useful since I started dumping Waves after their licensing debacle. The Kirchoff is in my top 5 most used plugins and is on at least a handful of tracks in every project/show, having replaced my previous Waves F6/C6 plugins.
Excellent tool choices.
I'm a college student so I'm stuck with whatever I can get at a bare minimum price. Someday... someday.
welll the kirch is OUR choice for something real sweet and cheap...pro q is 169...kirch is a buck...fits my student budget...i just wanted to see if there was any "oh thats stupid, why would they do that" specs and from the lil I heard and @jeff92k7 personal review, im sold...key word was "surgical" i know the Q when I used the trial was absolutely awesome in that respect...and that alone sold me on it...but im hearing kirch is the same and can be slightly even more detailed in surgery. As im not that good yet, what my ears here, the better the tool for me to take it out, as opposed to be doin this for 50 yrs and being able to do it with PT stock EQ7@@BTTRSWYT
@@iansmith3261kirch looks solid to me. ATM I’m using waves f6 since I got it for 30 bucks. Kirch looks solid once I’m looking to spend more than that.
You mentioned in this video that you were approaching 96k subs, 9 months later you’re at 116k, wow! Great job! Congrats!
Great review, as always. Watched until the end and sweat my ass off because I forgot to move - this is how curious I was and how I always watch Dan's videos.
Owning both, for me it comes down to what i'm after. If I want a quick easy EQ, I always go ProQ. whether it be dynamics or static, nothing beats the workflow and intuitiveness of ProQ. It's my "stock" EQ and by far the most used eq on every project. If I want to tinker with different curves or really fine tune the dynamics I go Kirchhoff. If I could only choose one, it would be ProQ. Side note, I prefer the liner curves. This allows me to add my own favorite saturation pre/post. And I've had very few crashes in Kirch. I can't remember the last time ProQ crashed
totally agree. own both and fabfilter is a joy to use. kirchhoff is also more CPU demanding.
13:15 Acon Digital Equalize has had continuously variable filter slopes for years.
One of the few modern, “graphic” equalizers that isn’t “inspired” by ProQ… Fabfilter sure have set the GUI standard for those types of EQs.
Considering Dan has used Acon Digital's Acoustica before I'm indeed surprised he never noticed the variable filter slope on Equalize. Even more impressive, is the fact Equalize had a 120dB slope way before other commercially available filter's did!
I've been using the Kirchoff on nearly every channel of 200+ channel mixes for several months. No crashes yet. Pro Q-3 is an almost perfect surgical eq, Kirchhoff takes it a bit further, while blatently copying all of Pro Q3's groundbreaking and wonderful UI. It's a case of "standing on the shoulders of giants" I suppose. Kirchoff's dynamics section is sooo powerful for sorting out problems while mixing. Dan's example of the dull snare is a perfect example. I agree, though, that the hardware-emulation curves are a waste of time.
Windows or Mac?
@@v0nreagan windows
I actually Love the analog emulations !
I often pop in a Blue High shelf node to get some of that Maag 40k goodness . . . then I pop in a Neve Bell node at 3,2 K to get that special Neve 3.2 K secret sauce . . . All of analog modeling curves sound different than the Kirchhoff curves, and they give a different flavour.
@@bakharandi but they nulled by his own "Clean" settings ...no non linéarité or harmonics ...
@@bakharandi They are just curves, they don't do the non-linear behavior of a modelled EQ. The only real use, like he suggested is for someone that is very used to a specific hardwares EQ curves and want to be able to expect what will happen when "turning the dial". There is no special sauce, using the specific curves, is sort of like using a preset. If you know how to EQ, you can achieve the same thing with the standard selection. But if you don't know how to EQ, they may accidentally give you a better result, than you already have... but in such cases, EQ presets are more likely to do that.
There is no modelling, no emulation in this EQ, it is just a preset curve.
Pro-Q 3 is $169 as of this post. Kirchoff EQ is $99. If they're measurably identical in most respects, this point is won by Kirchoff.
Dan is back at it again to clear out the industry snake-oil bs. Great vid, Dan.
Perfect video Tittle, "Totally Biased Video" DW found so many excuses to don't like so much this plugin, so many extra features that maybe you can use in certain opportunities and are way better to have than not, but for me in the most straight fwd features this EQ is better than Fabfilter PRO Q3, even tho there are few features in Fabfilter that are not in Kirchhoff
Excellent and comprehensive as always. Cheers!
Also notable: The spectrum analyzer portion of the Pro Q3 is also great. With the freeze, external spectrum, show collision and spectrum grab. Can’t find that in the Kirchhoff EQ. The eq match i Pro Q3 also work if you go for such things. Thank you Dan for sharing your knowledge and cutting through the general RUclips BS.
I really appreciate Dan's 'no nonsense' approach, and avoids the magical mystification that tends to come with music gear related info. Now, if only I'd come across his videos 20 years earlier.
As a proud American, the problem I have with Dan Worall is that he doesn't speak English and has that stupid foreign accent. He should learn English before giving any advice. Oh, before someone starts calling me a racist, I support Ukraine.
Before you hit the 96k mark, let me say that my name is Elijah but people call me Steve.
Just starting the video, but you can change the behavior to be able to double click for a low pass and high pass filters on settings
The dynamics section in kirchhoff is easily my fav part, amazing for transient shaping or being surgical with resonances
Has someone made a good tutorial video on how to use these features well?
I really like the way you bring the facts here!
Just added ‘dog’s breakfast’ to my vocabulary 😂
The "mono widening" LR equalization is awesome because it makes a sound stereo while preserving perfectly mono compatibility!
I would love to see a video from you specifically on Q, and where 1/sqrt(2) comes from? I understand that quality factor is an engineering term, but would really love a nerdy deep dive
I was hoping the "sword" shape on Kirchhoff EQ would get a mention in your review, Dan. All the best and thank you
Amazing test, but I honestly think CraveEQ is one of the best.
Amen to that! Another CraveEQ fan here.
@@edwardkenemorales the most trustworthy 59 euros that i spent on digital audio plugins. No "that looks not bad but totally useless when I'm doing my mixing" functions, great UI, sharp response, amazing sound and cozy workflow. wish him could add a dynamic EQ function and take another 40 euros from me, I'm all good with that, even beg.
@@ordinarymonster1187 true, I got Kirchhoff when it came out for the dynamic function and the eq curves but sold the license 2 weeks after I tried to love it but it didnt gel well with me. I went back to Crave and whenever I need dynamic EQ, I use nova. I am not sure Keith from Crave is going to add a dynamics function in Crave though based on his comments in GS but I can only hope for the best.
I know everyone worships Dan on these reviews, but I am gonna trust David Gnozzi that the Kirchoff is verifiably better in the hands of someone as his level.
In the settings you can make it so if you drag from the low or high range it defaults to a high or low pass filter instead of shelf. You can change the default for multiple ranges.
Edit: If you go to settings, it's on the right side. Under "lower (or higher) freq default by dragging", then you can select the type, and what frequency area you want considered "lower/higher"
Edit 2: Watched more. It seems as though you found it. lol.
Kirchhoff is better in almost every regard:
- Has much better phase integrity on linear mode.
- Has no noticeble pre-ring even on the most extreme configurations.
- Has a tigther punch on linear mode.
- Has oversampling, which is essential.
- Has various compression parameters, which are essential.
- Has continuous slope, which is really useful on highpasses and lowpasses.
- Has more filter types, even if not considering the analog ones.
- Has much more custom options to set.
Downsides:
- Can't combine frequency spectrums with other instances.
- Interface is very CPU heavy once visible, and doesn't like other instances open at the same time.
- Worse brickwall phase impact compared to Pro-Q (but better on every other slope value).
- 117bit is a waste.
It's about time boys
Kirchhoff is pronounced like "Keer Shoff". The "ch" is a voiceless palatal fricative. :)
Sicher sicher!
Brilliant as usual Sir Dan Worrall !
You are one of my Favourite RUclipsrs . . . ! . . . 🙂
(-;
The Ever-Riveting Sherlock Holmes of Audio Engeneering !
(-;
Stunning review. I hope the people at TBTech takes notes!
I made Kirchoff my first "professional EQ" purchase and haven't regretted it, but I certainly share your feedback on the behavior and organization of analog-modeled EQ curves.
Thank you for demystifying this. Love Fab. They're most honest in pricing and support, effortless to install and use thanks to the best interfaces. What more could one want.
First time coming across this channel; is your voice actually this shaky, or it's just the EQ?
I didn't detect ANY bios towards Pro Q3 whatsoever.. Ok maybe a little..:)) ......er maybe a little bit more than a little.. oh ok a lot.. but from what I heard with my ears, OR saw with my eyes? none of the bias was unwarranted! All in all.. a great video from the legend himself. I stuck with Pro Q before, and nothing I've seen or heard here will make me want to change! Thanks Dan!
Pro Q is still my go to. Kirchoff has some cool features but most of the time, i just dont need them. Thats just the top and bottom of it.
@@MrJC1 That's the same for me, only I used several more unnecessary words lol
A biased review, just like it says on the tin - more useful than an unbiased review, in my opinion. I'll stick with Q3. Excellent video as always
I've owned the Kirchhoff for about a year and use it in Logic, Pro tools, and Luna and even in rosetta, it has never crashed, but this is an excellent review. Also I own the Pro-Q 3 and love the aboslute differences between them. I honestly can say the Kirchhoff is very confusing but your video has helped me out immensely. 🤘💀🍻🔥🙏
Something the Kirchhoff needs is a simple RIAA curve preset but I'm just being lazy lol
It's also my main EQ, but only because I bought the entire PA suite, and it includes this EQ, but I never use the modeling features, if I want an SSL sound, I just load a console plugin from SSL, or if I want a Pultec, I load a Pultec plugin. This is a no brainer, also Reaper nerd here. The 117bit button, to be honest I did never used that one, why such an amount blowing away your CPU power? It makes no sense.
I'd say the Q3 is more of an ABS type plastic and the Kirchhoff is more towards the styrene/phenolic family of plastics. 🤣
Though I have not tested it as in-depth as Dan would, I am using Toneboosters Equalizer 4 in basically all projects atm. It is heavily inspired by Pro-Q 3, but a bit less surgical. It has neat saturation or dynamic options. It is dirt cheap, updated every month (often adding new features), and is very low on CPU.
Toneboosters plugins rarely get the attention they deserve, mainly because they put no money into advertising. But that's the main reason their plugins are super affordable. Also Barricade, Compressor, and Reverb are excellent bang for your buck.
Their tape and mbc are insane
@@Pummelfay MBC is excellent, yes! Guess I'll have to check out ReelBus next...
That one dutch main developer is also quite responsive and loves explaining his approaches. Long before Dan Worrall, he made a post explaining why he did not add linear phase to his EQ, and why it makes not as much sense as people think. EQ4 is designed so linearity is not needed, as far as I have understood ♥️
I agree, the best value for money out there and in many ways I love the workflow more in E4, so simple and fluent. I also like how it has input and output meters along the right. Thumbs up to the MBC too.
@@ragismrotzrochen5776 that sounds interestesting how do i find that video?
@@Pummelfay He does not make videos, AFAIK. His name is Jeoren Breebaart, and he is quite active at Gearspace and other forums.
Dan Worrall, the only real reason for being on RUclips 😀
I did not subscribe to your channel due to your cynicism. That's not what I asked for.
...but I definitely would If I weren't subbed already.
Sir Dan !
This is so Utterly Brilliant !
As I am watching this for the third or fourth time, I am suddenly getting the very appreciative feeling that this experience is somewhat parallel to a Devout iPhone Aficionado, breaking down and sharing the latest innovations of the newest Samsung Galaxy, whilst the iPhone Faithful watch with bated breath, at how Samsung took a boat load of the iPhone's Brilliance and had the audacity cultivate some very interesting new innovations . . . The iPhone Faithful, are, of course, very excited in anticipation of how the iPhone will respond, with its next incarnation . . . And the Samsung Galaxy Enthusiasts, like me, are very excited to be active beneficiaries of this new plateau of innovation . . . Even More Exciting, in this case, is to have a Grand iPhone Afficionado. explain to us the Heritage of this technology, and the specialty of the innovations, whilst offering intriguing insights and perspectives that I hardly, if ever would have discovered on my own!
. . . Iron Sharpens Iron , , , ! . . . 🙂
(-;
Many Thanks !
(-;
dan worrall saying shit jumpscared me
Interesting. Never had a crash with either EQ plugin. Sometimes running 20-30 Kirchoffs on a project with no issues. I use it on both Mac (Mojave/Catalina) and PC (Win 10) In Logic Pro, Ableton, Reaper, Resolve and occasionally Studio One. Never a crash.
Wonder what's causing that behavior on your computer.
Great insight as always. I didn't know you could use SSL or Maag EQ curves as defauft in Kirchhoff but that's a great tip. It's true that the dynamic section is confusing compare to ProQ3. I don't have ProQ3 though but I prefer using TDR Nova or Tonebooster EQ4 for dynamic than Kirchhoff
" I don't believe in magic... except in the music itself."
Glorious....
Aaaww !!
I hadn't finished watching this Epic, and now there's an addendum video ... 🤪
I think the point of the 117bit option is to give you absurdly good dynamics, you could boost crazily some frequencies and still be able to here the quietest ones without ever saturating internally, even though since it goes back in a 64 bit summing bus in most cases (a part from sequoia maybe) I don't see it mattering most of the time and I never use it but I think you'd see a difference if you boosted way more... But all in all I still prefer the kirchhoff, it's got everything the ff has and more; I love the ff don't get me wrong, but this is just EVEN better, and I have no loyalty concerning plugins, if it's better, I'm just a gearslut ^^
Dan keeping it real as always
Love it (as always). And in particular, I love the "Would you like a "WOULD YOU LIKE TO WASTE YOUR RESOURCES BUTTON???"" Brilliant as always Dan Worrall 😎👍
It's always a good video when a 45 minute Dan Worrall video pops up
Only Dan can make me watch a 46mins plus video without skipping,... U are legendary, thanks
I would love to know what Colt Capperune has to say about this comparrison 😃 Nailed it Dan 🤘
LOL ... I stopped paying any attention to that dude a long time ago, but especially after his video about how you MUST start mixing in Atmos. Just wtf.
@@slamcrank Yeah I saw that too 😅
I guess gear shilling pays better than only Mixing & Mastering these days.
Regarding the fully variable filter slope, the only plugin I'm aware of with any similar setting is TDR Kotelnikov, which has a fully variable filter slope on the sidechain HPF. No idea how this is implemented though, and I'm sure it's quite different from how the one in this plugin works.
You did warn us ;)
Thanks for a great review!
That title alone… ooft!
Thank you. You confirmed my first impression.
The "Mix" mode is probably inspired by the "Transparent" mode of the CraveDSP EQ.
I can double click for HPF / LPF just fine on Kirchhoff
It could be argued that perhaps Pro Q should have an advanced tab, to make it a more flexible tool, and in doing so, perhaps better implementing the useful features, when it comes to advanced dynamics processing.
They both lack pitch-tracking feature of Surfeq and Auto Tune Vocal EQ. And the Transient split of SplitEQ. And the multiband sideband dynamics processing of Soothe 2 and Smart:comp and some others. And the smart EQ features found in several of products. And the boost EQ saturator in spectre (though fabfilter would point you to another of their products for that). All of that baked in to one, would be an extremely complex EQ though, but with the advantage that you would be able to use a single plugin for all your EQ related features, except for a perfectly modelled behavior, but then you would probably prefer it to mostly look like the hardware, but with possibly an visual mode that shows a spectrum display above the hardware copied UI.
the kirchhoff EQ hardware curve features, while interesting for the right use-case scenario, will not be that common today, when few people would actually be that used to a specific hardware only, and one would probably also be looking for a bit of emulation of the sound, otherwise it will still not behave like the hardware unit.
While I don't disagree with your criticisms, I have to say it's very refreshing to see an EQ plugin that doesn't immediately fail because of cramping. I think we should commend them for getting this right as opposed to pretty much everyone else!! 😁
I almost bought Kirchoff based on all the nice things said about it and it was cheaper than Q3 at the time but the little DW inside my brain told me to stop until the null test was completed. I'm glad I have no choice but to listen. Solid review as always.
Thanks for this detailed comparison. I've yet to find an application for the free filter mode in my line of work(dialogue mixing), though I'll probably find one in time. I'm pretty happy with Pro-Q3 for now. It's my most dependable workhorse plugin. The only DAW I could manage to crash with Pro-Q3 was Davinci Resolve v17 or v16(not tested in v18). Its automation was a bit flimsy with VST plugins when I was working it though, in December 2021/January2022. In Reaper Pro-Q3 has been nothing but dependable.
Fabfilter won. Congrats to everyone at Fabfilter.
The definitive digital eq. It's over.
This is a great example of why we need to be very careful of RUclipsrs some like Dan are very informed others are not so - I didn’t bother with this EQ as I hated the interface. I like fabfilter. I tend to use logics classic EQ and dive harder with another eq when I need something more
I don't understand how ProQ3 users "hate" the Kirchhoff interface, when it is so similar.
Thank you for the admittedly biased and clear review. I've also struggled with crashes in Cubase-- and know it may just be my system. Fab Filter plugins are rock solid in my case at the same time, and I use many instances on complex mixes with no issues-- regularly.
I have enjoyed some of the dynamic features of Kirch., And will use it more if the stability improves.
i keep coming back to this video just because that track is so good
I had it causing freezes on reaper in m1 native too! Sent a support ticket to PA and they claimed "they couldn't reproduce the problem" but I bet a future update addresses this even if they don't admit it! (Not a problem in Rosetta, which I've been using more and more for a bunch of plugins' sake, def just a band aid but ok for now)
I honestly didn't expect to spend 45 min on a review of this EQ but I'm glad I did. Thanks for the (as usual) amazing work Dan!
Ive used the Kirchhoff on literally every mix since I got it and love the flexibility of the eq and dynamics all in one.
I haven't used Pro-Q3 but I also imagine that side-chaining it to another channel is way simpler that it is with Kirchhoff, which seems unnecessarily faffy.
thie review so lit godamn i don really care about the eqs but the vid fire
I'm surprised by the kirchhoff crashes. I've never had an issue, and I've loaded plenty of instances some with dynamics processing. Either way, I've used both pro q and kirchhoff and like them both. Fabfilter is generally my favorite no matter the plug. I do like Kirchoff's dynamics features quite a bit, and it's the main reason I use it. I'll be watching out for crashes though. I'm a bit disappointed to hear that.