I’m not an expert and won’t pretend to be. But it seems to me this kind of discussion misses the point. The benefit of an emulation is that the hardware did something specific and the way the knobs interact with each other creates curves that you would otherwise have to be highly knowledgeable about in the first place to even know to program fab filter to do that. So I can make fab filter sound like pultech If I know what a Pultech does when I turn the boost and the cut at the same time already. But I don’t! So I need hardware emulations to help me find the magic in those old units. Even selecting the frequency much less the curve. An SSL emulation gives me limits to play with that I would never get to with the infinite options of the pro Q3.
But... there are a bunch of presets you can find online where people have emulated all of these curves for Pro-Q3. Or check out DMG's Equilibrium - which comes with many popular EQ curves built in and you can even change the interface to just be dials if you don't want to be fooled by the visual graph.
I don’t think that holds up to my point. I get a preset curve in proq3 that mirrors a particular setting on a pultec. Now tweak it like you would on an emulation. Not going to happen for most people. Even audio animals had to use plug-in doctor to match the curve. And those were very very simple curves. Not the kinds of things you would be creating turning multiple knobs on an emulation of a massive passive.
@@jeffbaumet794 I mean it literally has been mirrored exactly with the exact same pultec behavior... even with proportional Q. Just look up pultec emulation on equilibrium and you will see it works exactly like the hardware; it's not just a curve match. With that said, saturation is a different story.
@@Trackformers what are you on about? The concept he is testing is whether or not a "digital, clean EQ" can match an "analog modeled EQ". Using a clean and flexible parametric digital EQ to match the curves of ANY analog emulation is the perfect way to conduct this test. If it nulls, then the analog modeled eq is a waste of money for those that understand how to recreate the workflow benefits of the analog EQ (for instance the pultec trick, which I can easily recreate in a digital EQ). If you cannot understand the logic of this test, then you might struggle with critical thinking skills.
Sitting on my desk, I can hear a difference. The difference is very small/ negligible and its all about color and nothing else. I stopped using analog emulated EQ plugins long time ago before all these arguments. I just throw in Kirchhoff EQ anytime I need EQ in my mix, as I also like to visualize what I am doing and take full control over the curves I am creating. Nice Video 👍
It's such a subtle difference that can't justify buy another plugin emulation at £299 if you already have a great EQ like the Kirchhoff or Pro-Q3. I feel using these EQs and having the visual analyser you can be far more detailed. If I want to have the limitation of not having this visual representation I'll use analogue.
I can hear it on my laptop speakers, but can only tell by the dynamics funnily enough rather than any frequency content - if you listen to the dynamics of the kick drum in the loop the difference is there, the Pro Q3 is just a bit flatter.
Seen a few videos on this recently and yes, time to wake up - selling off all my EQ plugins except 2 (Q3 and Split EQ). I've been had by the plugin industry.
Honestly, I came to this realization and decided to upgrade my console one to MK III from Softube. Its got everything in there. Tons of analog modelled EQs, and an incredible great “stock” (with Console One purchase) digital EQ, as well as a more broad strokes EQ, part of the core mixing suite. With the ability to load 2 (technically three) EQs, two compressors (including UAD EQs and comps, and Fabfilter or even Weiss plugins), about ten preamps, a few dozen line amps, and 2 gates PER INSTANCE, all with dedicated hands on control - with flexible routing- it honestly just makes sense to stick with the ecosystem and mix like you’re on a (more powerful and flexible) analog console. I view any other plugs inserted other than Console One as similar to inserts on a console. It’s absolutely incredible, has made mixing fun again, and I highly encourage anyone to check it out.
Yep I came to the same conclusion after spending hundreds of dollars on various "legendary" EQ plugins. Basically Q3 gets the job done on most jobs. I do use a mastering EQ for tiny changes on the master buss but again that could be just one needed (SPL, AMEK, etc). I sometimes use the Pultec if I want something with broad strokes (or I'm feeling nostalgic) but for the most part I know the moves I need to make on the Q3. Character really comes from saturation/distortion along with creative reverb/delays. I know the argument for these various EQs is how long someone has been using one and if they know it very well to get the sound they want. That's all fine and I'm not making the argument they are crap. It's just where I'm at now after dialing in so many EQs. Couldn't tell the difference anymore. I'm having more fun playing with saturation (especially tape) and revoerbs/delays then anything else.
Great video - maybe a slightly different perspective: I very much assume that the code generating the effect of a certain curve is „always the same“ - so they sound the same. BUT: I would assume two hardware eqs of the same topology would also sound damn close. The reason for having multiple hardware eqs for me is the fact how fast you can achieve a particular curve and how convenient it is to get there… so - all of those emulations of old eqs is not so much the fact that the same curve sounds different but the simplicity of getting to „famous“ curves
I have conducted the same test a few months ago, and came exactly to the same conclusion. To be honest, even when precisely matching outboard EQ curves with Crave DSP (Analog Phase) - or any other analog phase plugin eq -, some hardware, on mixing tracks, when not exceeding 6-9db of boost, were as indistinguishable as this (and yes even one with some obvious saturation). Interesting innit :).
Besides the workflow thing, which has been pointed in other comments, the cool aspect of hardware emulation channel strip plugins is when the saturation part works. And you can drive the preamp and make it interact with the eq. Then you can easily get harmonically richer sounds without rising the peak level. Voosteq Model N is fantastic in that regard. Pulsar Modular Sidecar, UAD Vision channel strip and Helios Type 69 can do that too for example.
High Quality, and very revealing video. But also keep in mind that we sometimes hear effects and tweaking of plugins, even when they are bypassed lol so… 🤷🏻♂️ The mind is a very powerful thing to make us hear things we expect to hear.
Your videos are very constructive. I stopped buying plugings over a year thinking that would improve my mixing/production. Please do an updated video of hardware/resources for optimal mixing/production🙏
I have to confess that Pro Q was the first 3rd party EQ I bought but then I did buy a few other eqs (and channel strips), mainly because I fell victim to GAS and some rather dubious youtube video channels. I don't use any of them any more because Pro Q(3 now) is all I need. Except I did buy the Pulsar 8200 because, as a parallel eq it does do things a bit differently and Split Eq which sometimes solves problems other eqs can't.
Ultimately, no end listener cares what plugin, eq etc. we use. For the producer, engineer using the plugin - if they all sound negligibly similar, then it does comes down to familiarity, ease of use and GUI design.
Honestly, I’ve been wary of the claim “this plugin sounds good”. Yes, the processor plays a role in shaping a sound. But in the end, it’s the sound itself that should matter, not what plugin is being used. I also have way too many plugins at this point and any additions I make will be incredibly selective. Personally, having a lot of options doesn’t bother me because I like having choice in general and I’ve developed a method to where I make near-definitive choices about what to use (or even what not to use) on any given project. Yes, you can achieve pretty much any EQ curve using the Fabfilter Pro-Q3 (or the TBT Kirchhoff EQ as an alternative) and thus not needing anything else. That said, the advantage of using a good emulation of a pre-existing hardware unit is that because it’s emulating the hardware, it will compel you to use your ears and its “knobs”, not curve lines with an FFT analyser. At this point, it should be about functionality and workflow. That’s my two pence on it =]
Most of the modeled plug ins are total bullshit. This is a great video. I think there are about 5 that I’ve encountered that actually do something special/different. UAD Pultec Pro Legacy (ironically think the updates sound kinda bland!), Acustica Gold 5, Acustica Ultramarine 4, Acustica Purple, Acustica Erin. Really just the Acustica stuff lol
Proud to say I got 3 out of 3. The SSL was the most obvious, however, i agree that neither of them warrant paying extra for if you already have one of them
Could be my imagination, but I think FabFilter plugins do a pretty good job of adding 3D depth. I noticed that first when using the FF Compressor, and thought I heard it here as well. The frequencies are almost the same here, but I think the FF guarantees a satisfying soundfield. The rivals in this video don't seem to have the same overall quality. I used the SSL one for a while and removed it. FF is just so fast and convenient as well.
They're very similar, but I think the way you work with them, in real time is where the differences are because of the different mindset between looking at the gui of a "normal" digital eq and using knobs of the emulations and using your ears more. That's where the differences are for me anyway. Sometimes I'll boost way more on the emulations because my ears tell me that's what's needed. I do find the "normal" Pro q type gui to be distracting, but maybe that's just me.
Yes 100%, it's not just you. If a plugin like Pro-Q3 reacted the same way, for instance like a proportional EQ does then you'd capture the same or similar sound. If you match the curves identically it'll sound the same but the way the curves are produced is what makes each EQ emulation different. I
hope you can make a video about SPL PQ hardware vs emulation but this time match the curve perfectly and the harmonics to as close as you can on plugin doctor.
I got the SSL eq right :) Enlightening if you use it in the right way in terms of curve matching. I personally use a Pro-3/Ableton stock to remove dirty sounds. Then use a console emulation for the wide curves. Brainworx has the random function to create the feeling of analog.
I could hear the slightest difference between the first two, but the last one I couldn't tell any difference. And I agree the differences between each of these EQs are so minuscule that it doesn't warrant buying one over the other. Just get the one that gives you the most control.
It would be interesting to test if ppl could hear a difference between analog and plugin eq’s with the exact same settings! If it’s possible to match them perfectly?
You know what might be an interesting one? The Sontec from Make Believe / Metric Halo. It sounds really really good and I found the difference very subtle compared with HW, and nigh imperceptible when it run through DA AD
Have you tried matching the curves of hardware to measure how different they would sound? Maybe not that different after all either, even though we know we can't test this with hardware. The curves themselves play a huge part in the sound of a plugin AND the hardware. And although you can get Fabfilter to match every curve in every plugin emulation, that doesn't seem to be a very practical thing to be doing while mixing or even mastering. The other thing that plays an important role is the interface and the selection of bands available. I love Softube's curve bender for it's excellent fixed frequency points choice, for being stepped and for the nice curves interacting with each other. It just sounds great most of the time. Same goes for UAD's Massive Passive and so on. You don't get this with Fabfilter. The third thing to consider is harmonic distortion. One of the plugins you tested, the SPL PQ, has THD modeled inside. If you crank that button you will certainly hear it doesn't sound like Fabfilter anymore. If you use 20 instances of it in a mix with the THD button in the default position (about half way) your mix will most certainly sound considerably different than if you used Fabfilter instead, even if you painstakingly matched the curves (which would be a silly and near impossible thing to do in every mix).
They're not very different at 128kbps or whatever I'm listening to... But if you do 20 instances of the same EQ across 20 tracks or busses, then I bet it'll sum to a big enough difference. I don't think you need anything besides Pro-Q, except for certain non-linearities or some kind of phasing stuff. The BM change is bar 3; can hear the high frequencies get a bit weaker.
What's interesting is that you'll hear it as the bettermaker being better, others say it's worse and I'll say there's minimal difference. There's no one answer. We're all perceiving the results different.
The video was very entertaining, I had a great time. To me the PA equators sound a little more "tight", less resonant than FF. Questions: Are those "resonances" accumulated in several tracks more noticeable? Can they spoil a mix? Now, it would be very interesting if you added SPL PQ hardware to the comparison!!! And even more so if you could upload the files (including the version without Eq). A hug, thank you very much
A bell at each end...bell ends! I managed to notice a very slight difference on both the Bettermaker and the PQ, there seemed to be slightly more air in both, but that is an easy fix. Personally, I think the Pro Q really is the only eq anyone needs. If you are looking for characte, find it in saturation and compression.
Hi, im had said this for a loong time. Its actually much more difference between the zero latensy mode and natural phase mide on pro q3. Zero latensy mode is the one i dont like, it deffently has a sound that sound restricted out. Can you test that?
30 instances accross could possibly make a difference if the emulation has saturation ‘character’. Phase shift accross a whole mix might lead to different mix decisions. That’s all I can think of. Otherwise I get it. Where do you go next though, perfectly matching compressors attack and release curves with the stock plug-in?
Hey, while I don’t necessarily disagree, there are a couple of things to consider. EQ, Compressors, Reverb even microphones as pieces of music machinery , do all pretty much sound the same. If they are well made, an EQ from one manufacturer is going to sound the same as another and any difference always is going to be very subtle. In high end audio, the subtleties do matter, but when the hardware versions of these were made, it wasn’t so much about an EQ sounding better, as much as it was about an EQ having low noise, with more EQ points or simply being more effective at getting a certain end result. We later start to recognise the sonic thumb print in either an EQ being punchier (cleaner) or warmer (non-linear) and have since over indulged this otherwise minor (but important in some ways) different characteristics. Thirdly, as the comment below mine says, each original hardware design, either through its limited EQ points - such as Pultec or its user interface, has encouraged the user to select certain curves that then become synonymous with that unit. Final point, it maybe that fabfilter can recreate ANY curve, but if we are being creative, we use the gear to find interesting curves, not to copy other curves. Lately curve copying and setting one unit to sound indistinguishable from another, or its hardware counterpart has become something of a sport, which says more about the type of people making music from their home studios than it does about pro audio in my opinion.
It would be fun if you made the same test with hardware eqs 😊 But yes it is true that the eq plugin are the same But they differ in the option of saturation and stuff like that 😊 So they need to step up in simulation programing of the caracter of the Sound in the units
This is one in the list to do. I'm going to create curves using analogue EQs then use fabfilter to recreate the curves. Then we can all compare the difference. This will be very interesting.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio please also do a comparison with linear-phase mode (high) on Pro-Q3 vs analog eqs. Linear-phase mode keeps the low end sounding a bit better
I've spoken with quite a few over the past day or so since posting the video about being bored of plugins. Have a few meetings lined up for this week to discuss how we can change this and develop plugins that people actually want. So they are chiming in, just in the background. Which does tell you something. I think they are genuinely concerned and all who I have spoken with that have got in touch have expressed that they want things to change.
This was hilarious lol. Yea with most plugin EQs you're getting straight forward frequency gain and nothing else that's audible. And that's why a plugin can get close to a clean hardware EQ. Only EQs like UAD Pultec add harmonics and actually give a little perception of depth - since i guess they were emulating the tubes of the hardware. Then you have EQs like the Massenberg, MAAT, DDMF Grand EQ, etc which are clean but offer an improvement in sound.
These video comparisons are great ! I've promised myself I'm buying no more plugins ! I think we've come to a point where like you say there is little to no improvement on sound
What can I say, the difference is minimal. The real difference that makes a great mix or master is a great produced and recorded song. When we want better sounding mixes and masters it needs to be done right at the recording stage. The arrangement is more important that minimal differences between gear. Work with what you have, it will do the job just fine. At least in the box 😊
Woah... Dude, thank you so much! This is exactly what we needed. Videos like these bring the industry further and encourage these lazy ass developers to get to work on something more meaningful. Stuff like soothe, SplitEQ, AI Noise Removal, Repair Tools, etc. u know? Thats where it makes complete sense to say "Alright, its better to go digital for that" I mean, watch THIS video and then go back to the marketing videos of some of those plugins... I understand the digital realm has its limitations, thats ok, but... They were NOT emulating hardware, they were just copy pasting code. Everyone in the community should see this before buying another plugin!! What an absolute joke (Excuse my language)
I feel it's not emulating hardware, just emulating the curve characteristics of that piece of hardware. Two EQs sound very similar when matched perfectly but what it is missing that the hardware has which is the box tone of passing through the analogue components.
I got none of them correct. Honestly I am thinking this is all about plugin makers marketing and cork sniffing for the consumer to get hyped up and make a purchase. Am I wrong?
I really appreciate your content, but everyone of the eq comparison videos never include any Acustica Audio eq's. Not that there would be any difference but would love to get an honest opinion if sampled plugins are better than emulation.
Not sure anyone would pass the 6 bars test if 2 different analog units are that closely matched on plugin doctor, even if they have different saturation profils. That test is the devil mate.
if you had only the fab filter and want an SSL4000 sound in an entire mix (like 40 tracks) how can you match the curve without having the 4000 to copy from? Sometimes is the practicality of a channel strip that counts because they have a certain sound (eq curves, phase shifts, etc...) and it kinda conducts the way we mix using them. Another point to me is comparing eqs with only one track or loop is like to compare AD/DA converters quality recording with only 1 single channel. Nowadays low price converters are pretty good but if you stack dozens of tracks the differences are very obvious when comparing with a hi end AD/DA. I think the real difference between different types of plugins is better shown in a complete mix context. Try to mix a song using fab filter and the same song using a UAD 1073 for example. I bet the difference will be obvious. I'm not criticizing your video in anyway...I'm just making a point.
I CHALLENGE ALL UAD users (like me) to look at their account to see just what was spent on UAD plugins. It's probably more than $4000 ! And yes, most of them don't get used because you move on to real analog gear.
The thing is in reality you will never choose the curve that an analog emulation gives you. They are usually a lot wider and smoother than anything you would choose with a digital parametric graphic EQ. Do they sound the same, yes. But analog emulation EQs make you mix with your ears instead of you eyes and stop you getting analysis paralysis because there are fewer choices of EQ points.
Nice video, I'm appreciating the new mic and camera angle. AP Mastering just did a great video on this topic too but Paul Third started up a turf war with him over it lol
Apologies in advance as I know this comment off topic. "Audio Animals Studio. Have you seen an increase in Power Bill costs for your studio in the past year?"
That is really off topic. But yes, partly down to installing a 3rd studio. Also down to having more equipment in the studios. I would say electric bill has doubled if not tripled over the past 2 years. The same can be said for the price of electric at my house though too.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Thank you. In the past year I was able to build a studio which is very close to what I've always wanted with outboard gear. The downside is power bills and having to restrict how often it's used for that reason. Frustrating!!
They sound the same because software code is the same. Only graphic interface is different. All other things is marketing bullshit. Some plugins only have several lines of code.
I watched that video after a few people mentioned it. Mostly good and accurate, some comical parts in regards to trying to recreate an anti aliasing filter. The point he was making in the video is valid.
The all sounded the same through my speakers. I stopped buying plugins especially EQs and Compressors a long time ago as I came to the same conclusion. Most of it is snake oil in my humble opinion. Pro Q3 or something similar is all of the EQ you will ever need. The market is over saturated and has hit its limit as they keep rehashing the same old thing. Rinse and repeat. Even UAD are practically giving plugins away.
Woop, called the Better Maker on bar 3 with just my headphones sitting on the desktop without me wearing them through my Prism Sound Lyra 2. Most likely fluke though ha ha.
Depresses me as I have spent mad amounts of money on plugin emulations in the pursuit of finding something that sounds as close as possible to my hardware.
Whoever doubts today that the business of plugins (especially emulation ones) is just that, a business and a way of selling smoke, still hasn't figured it out. An EQ plugin is binary, lifeless, and no emulation plugin will sound different from a Q3 or a Kirchoff. All they offer are preset curves that have been proven to be more effective, something you would have to create from scratch with a Q3. But if you can replicate them, as in this case, you will have an identical sound. My advice is to have a couple of analog emulation plugins for this purpose and delete all the others. Anything else is useless, will cost you money, and won't give you any benefit.
That's just dumb and not true. Some plugins emulate the phase and nonlinearities. That's just a fact. If you can't hear the differences, then use your clean digital EQ's and don't spread misinformation. A simple check on Plugin Doctor instantly refutes all the trash you just spewed. Shrug. Some people just talk out of their asses, really.
I’m not an expert and won’t pretend to be. But it seems to me this kind of discussion misses the point. The benefit of an emulation is that the hardware did something specific and the way the knobs interact with each other creates curves that you would otherwise have to be highly knowledgeable about in the first place to even know to program fab filter to do that. So I can make fab filter sound like pultech If I know what a Pultech does when I turn the boost and the cut at the same time already. But I don’t! So I need hardware emulations to help me find the magic in those old units. Even selecting the frequency much less the curve. An SSL emulation gives me limits to play with that I would never get to with the infinite options of the pro Q3.
This is very true. And is the reason why I have so many different hardware EQs.
But... there are a bunch of presets you can find online where people have emulated all of these curves for Pro-Q3. Or check out DMG's Equilibrium - which comes with many popular EQ curves built in and you can even change the interface to just be dials if you don't want to be fooled by the visual graph.
I don’t think that holds up to my point. I get a preset curve in proq3 that mirrors a particular setting on a pultec. Now tweak it like you would on an emulation. Not going to happen for most people. Even audio animals had to use plug-in doctor to match the curve. And those were very very simple curves. Not the kinds of things you would be creating turning multiple knobs on an emulation of a massive passive.
@@jeffbaumet794 I mean it literally has been mirrored exactly with the exact same pultec behavior... even with proportional Q. Just look up pultec emulation on equilibrium and you will see it works exactly like the hardware; it's not just a curve match. With that said, saturation is a different story.
@@Trackformers what are you on about? The concept he is testing is whether or not a "digital, clean EQ" can match an "analog modeled EQ". Using a clean and flexible parametric digital EQ to match the curves of ANY analog emulation is the perfect way to conduct this test. If it nulls, then the analog modeled eq is a waste of money for those that understand how to recreate the workflow benefits of the analog EQ (for instance the pultec trick, which I can easily recreate in a digital EQ).
If you cannot understand the logic of this test, then you might struggle with critical thinking skills.
Sitting on my desk, I can hear a difference. The difference is very small/ negligible and its all about color and nothing else. I stopped using analog emulated EQ plugins long time ago before all these arguments. I just throw in Kirchhoff EQ anytime I need EQ in my mix, as I also like to visualize what I am doing and take full control over the curves I am creating. Nice Video 👍
It's such a subtle difference that can't justify buy another plugin emulation at £299 if you already have a great EQ like the Kirchhoff or Pro-Q3. I feel using these EQs and having the visual analyser you can be far more detailed. If I want to have the limitation of not having this visual representation I'll use analogue.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio perfectly said boss
I can hear it on my laptop speakers, but can only tell by the dynamics funnily enough rather than any frequency content - if you listen to the dynamics of the kick drum in the loop the difference is there, the Pro Q3 is just a bit flatter.
Seen a few videos on this recently and yes, time to wake up - selling off all my EQ plugins except 2 (Q3 and Split EQ). I've been had by the plugin industry.
Honestly, I came to this realization and decided to upgrade my console one to MK III from Softube. Its got everything in there. Tons of analog modelled EQs, and an incredible great “stock” (with Console One purchase) digital EQ, as well as a more broad strokes EQ, part of the core mixing suite. With the ability to load 2 (technically three) EQs, two compressors (including UAD EQs and comps, and Fabfilter or even Weiss plugins), about ten preamps, a few dozen line amps, and 2 gates PER INSTANCE, all with dedicated hands on control - with flexible routing- it honestly just makes sense to stick with the ecosystem and mix like you’re on a (more powerful and flexible) analog console. I view any other plugs inserted other than Console One as similar to inserts on a console.
It’s absolutely incredible, has made mixing fun again, and I highly encourage anyone to check it out.
Today I've ordered my MKIII using trade-in program from Softube (upgrading from mk2). Can't wait to test it out
Yep I came to the same conclusion after spending hundreds of dollars on various "legendary" EQ plugins. Basically Q3 gets the job done on most jobs. I do use a mastering EQ for tiny changes on the master buss but again that could be just one needed (SPL, AMEK, etc). I sometimes use the Pultec if I want something with broad strokes (or I'm feeling nostalgic) but for the most part I know the moves I need to make on the Q3. Character really comes from saturation/distortion along with creative reverb/delays. I know the argument for these various EQs is how long someone has been using one and if they know it very well to get the sound they want. That's all fine and I'm not making the argument they are crap. It's just where I'm at now after dialing in so many EQs. Couldn't tell the difference anymore. I'm having more fun playing with saturation (especially tape) and revoerbs/delays then anything else.
Great video - maybe a slightly different perspective: I very much assume that the code generating the effect of a certain curve is „always the same“ - so they sound the same. BUT: I would assume two hardware eqs of the same topology would also sound damn close. The reason for having multiple hardware eqs for me is the fact how fast you can achieve a particular curve and how convenient it is to get there… so - all of those emulations of old eqs is not so much the fact that the same curve sounds different but the simplicity of getting to „famous“ curves
I have conducted the same test a few months ago, and came exactly to the same conclusion. To be honest, even when precisely matching outboard EQ curves with Crave DSP (Analog Phase) - or any other analog phase plugin eq -, some hardware, on mixing tracks, when not exceeding 6-9db of boost, were as indistinguishable as this (and yes even one with some obvious saturation). Interesting innit :).
Besides the workflow thing, which has been pointed in other comments, the cool aspect of hardware emulation channel strip plugins is when the saturation part works. And you can drive the preamp and make it interact with the eq. Then you can easily get harmonically richer sounds without rising the peak level.
Voosteq Model N is fantastic in that regard. Pulsar Modular Sidecar, UAD Vision channel strip and Helios Type 69 can do that too for example.
High Quality, and very revealing video. But also keep in mind that we sometimes hear effects and tweaking of plugins, even when they are bypassed lol so… 🤷🏻♂️
The mind is a very powerful thing to make us hear things we expect to hear.
100% we've all sat there EQing a sound and then realised it was in bypass the whole time.
Your videos are very constructive. I stopped buying plugings over a year thinking that would improve my mixing/production. Please do an updated video of hardware/resources for optimal mixing/production🙏
I have to confess that Pro Q was the first 3rd party EQ I bought but then I did buy a few other eqs (and channel strips), mainly because I fell victim to GAS and some rather dubious youtube video channels. I don't use any of them any more because Pro Q(3 now) is all I need.
Except I did buy the Pulsar 8200 because, as a parallel eq it does do things a bit differently and Split Eq which sometimes solves problems other eqs can't.
Same, i fell for that too. But in my honest opinion its:
Digital = Repair - Analog = Flavor
I get the best results when i strictly separate these two
Great video! For my personal favourite VST EQ has to be the original UAD Helios 69 plug-in, not the second revision. Has a lovely flavour.
Ultimately, no end listener cares what plugin, eq etc. we use. For the producer, engineer using the plugin - if they all sound negligibly similar, then it does comes down to familiarity, ease of use and GUI design.
You are right Paul, difference is minimal if any. Just stick with one EQ and be done. Thank you.
Honestly, I’ve been wary of the claim “this plugin sounds good”. Yes, the processor plays a role in shaping a sound. But in the end, it’s the sound itself that should matter, not what plugin is being used.
I also have way too many plugins at this point and any additions I make will be incredibly selective. Personally, having a lot of options doesn’t bother me because I like having choice in general and I’ve developed a method to where I make near-definitive choices about what to use (or even what not to use) on any given project.
Yes, you can achieve pretty much any EQ curve using the Fabfilter Pro-Q3 (or the TBT Kirchhoff EQ as an alternative) and thus not needing anything else. That said, the advantage of using a good emulation of a pre-existing hardware unit is that because it’s emulating the hardware, it will compel you to use your ears and its “knobs”, not curve lines with an FFT analyser.
At this point, it should be about functionality and workflow. That’s my two pence on it =]
Most of the modeled plug ins are total bullshit. This is a great video. I think there are about 5 that I’ve encountered that actually do something special/different. UAD Pultec Pro Legacy (ironically think the updates sound kinda bland!), Acustica Gold 5, Acustica Ultramarine 4, Acustica Purple, Acustica Erin. Really just the Acustica stuff lol
Proud to say I got 3 out of 3. The SSL was the most obvious, however, i agree that neither of them warrant paying extra for if you already have one of them
prove it, you got all 3 right, cuz i didn't
@@DaGabbaGangstai guess I must be lying then. Because if you can't hear any difference, nobody can.
@@LeeFrancis only teasing ya
@@DaGabbaGangsta prove it. lol
@@LeeFrancis lol
Could be my imagination, but I think FabFilter plugins do a pretty good job of adding 3D depth. I noticed that first when using the FF Compressor, and thought I heard it here as well. The frequencies are almost the same here, but I think the FF guarantees a satisfying soundfield. The rivals in this video don't seem to have the same overall quality. I used the SSL one for a while and removed it. FF is just so fast and convenient as well.
They're very similar, but I think the way you work with them, in real time is where the differences are because of the different mindset between looking at the gui of a "normal" digital eq and using knobs of the emulations and using your ears more. That's where the differences are for me anyway.
Sometimes I'll boost way more on the emulations because my ears tell me that's what's needed. I do find the "normal" Pro q type gui to be distracting, but maybe that's just me.
Yes 100%, it's not just you. If a plugin like Pro-Q3 reacted the same way, for instance like a proportional EQ does then you'd capture the same or similar sound. If you match the curves identically it'll sound the same but the way the curves are produced is what makes each EQ emulation different. I
hope you can make a video about SPL PQ hardware vs emulation but this time match the curve perfectly and the harmonics to as close as you can on plugin doctor.
@@gh0stransist0r this video was already done some time ago. The curves are matched in this video.
got the bettermaker coming in on 3 on my laptop speakers, more saturated and slightly louder top end - which is about all i can hear on the laptop!
I got the SSL eq right :)
Enlightening if you use it in the right way in terms of curve matching. I personally use a Pro-3/Ableton stock to remove dirty sounds. Then use a console emulation for the wide curves. Brainworx has the random function to create the feeling of analog.
I could hear the slightest difference between the first two, but the last one I couldn't tell any difference. And I agree the differences between each of these EQs are so minuscule that it doesn't warrant buying one over the other. Just get the one that gives you the most control.
Why does the gain change with each bar in the example? Seems to get louder with each passing bar.
It would be interesting to test if ppl could hear a difference between analog and plugin eq’s with the exact same settings! If it’s possible to match them perfectly?
Yes this is possible to do. I will add to the list of videos to do. Will be very interesting.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I'd love to see that video too.
You know what might be an interesting one? The Sontec from Make Believe / Metric Halo. It sounds really really good and I found the difference very subtle compared with HW, and nigh imperceptible when it run through DA AD
Have you tried matching the curves of hardware to measure how different they would sound? Maybe not that different after all either, even though we know we can't test this with hardware. The curves themselves play a huge part in the sound of a plugin AND the hardware. And although you can get Fabfilter to match every curve in every plugin emulation, that doesn't seem to be a very practical thing to be doing while mixing or even mastering. The other thing that plays an important role is the interface and the selection of bands available. I love Softube's curve bender for it's excellent fixed frequency points choice, for being stepped and for the nice curves interacting with each other. It just sounds great most of the time. Same goes for UAD's Massive Passive and so on. You don't get this with Fabfilter. The third thing to consider is harmonic distortion. One of the plugins you tested, the SPL PQ, has THD modeled inside. If you crank that button you will certainly hear it doesn't sound like Fabfilter anymore. If you use 20 instances of it in a mix with the THD button in the default position (about half way) your mix will most certainly sound considerably different than if you used Fabfilter instead, even if you painstakingly matched the curves (which would be a silly and near impossible thing to do in every mix).
They're not very different at 128kbps or whatever I'm listening to... But if you do 20 instances of the same EQ across 20 tracks or busses, then I bet it'll sum to a big enough difference. I don't think you need anything besides Pro-Q, except for certain non-linearities or some kind of phasing stuff. The BM change is bar 3; can hear the high frequencies get a bit weaker.
how can i hear a noticeable difference . Pro q 3 vs bettamaker was big. Bettamaker sounded better more open and tighter. Or i'm hearing things.
What's interesting is that you'll hear it as the bettermaker being better, others say it's worse and I'll say there's minimal difference. There's no one answer. We're all perceiving the results different.
The video was very entertaining, I had a great time. To me the PA equators sound a little more "tight", less resonant than FF. Questions: Are those "resonances" accumulated in several tracks more noticeable? Can they spoil a mix? Now, it would be very interesting if you added SPL PQ hardware to the comparison!!! And even more so if you could upload the files (including the version without Eq). A hug, thank you very much
A bell at each end...bell ends!
I managed to notice a very slight difference on both the Bettermaker and the PQ, there seemed to be slightly more air in both, but that is an easy fix. Personally, I think the Pro Q really is the only eq anyone needs. If you are looking for characte, find it in saturation and compression.
Hi, im had said this for a loong time. Its actually much more difference between the zero latensy mode and natural phase mide on pro q3. Zero latensy mode is the one i dont like, it deffently has a sound that sound restricted out. Can you test that?
30 instances accross could possibly make a difference if the emulation has saturation ‘character’. Phase shift accross a whole mix might lead to different mix decisions. That’s all I can think of. Otherwise I get it. Where do you go next though, perfectly matching compressors attack and release curves with the stock plug-in?
Hey, while I don’t necessarily disagree, there are a couple of things to consider.
EQ, Compressors, Reverb even microphones as pieces of music machinery , do all pretty much sound the same. If they are well made, an EQ from one manufacturer is going to sound the same as another and any difference always is going to be very subtle.
In high end audio, the subtleties do matter, but when the hardware versions of these were made, it wasn’t so much about an EQ sounding better, as much as it was about an EQ having low noise, with more EQ points or simply being more effective at getting a certain end result. We later start to recognise the sonic thumb print in either an EQ being punchier (cleaner) or warmer (non-linear) and have since over indulged this otherwise minor (but important in some ways) different characteristics.
Thirdly, as the comment below mine says, each original hardware design, either through its limited EQ points - such as Pultec or its user interface, has encouraged the user to select certain curves that then become synonymous with that unit.
Final point, it maybe that fabfilter can recreate ANY curve, but if we are being creative, we use the gear to find interesting curves, not to copy other curves. Lately curve copying and setting one unit to sound indistinguishable from another, or its hardware counterpart has become something of a sport, which says more about the type of people making music from their home studios than it does about pro audio in my opinion.
How plugins react to automations (digital artifacts, accuracy), CPU consumption and stability are where I judge the quality of a plugin today.
It would be fun if you made the same test with hardware eqs 😊 But yes it is true that the eq plugin are the same But they differ in the option of saturation and stuff like that 😊 So they need to step up in simulation programing of the caracter of the Sound in the units
Wouldn’t it be great if you did another video on test but using analog?
Yes, this video is being recorded today.
Please make a video where you A/B your analog EQs. Thanks!
That would be so good
This is one in the list to do. I'm going to create curves using analogue EQs then use fabfilter to recreate the curves. Then we can all compare the difference. This will be very interesting.
Cool!
@@AudioAnimalsStudio That is perfect I can’t wait, hoping the pro Q3 can surprise us
@@AudioAnimalsStudio please also do a comparison with linear-phase mode (high) on Pro-Q3 vs analog eqs. Linear-phase mode keeps the low end sounding a bit better
I would be very curious to see the manufacturers chime in on this as far as I know it’s been total radio silence. That should tell you something.
I've spoken with quite a few over the past day or so since posting the video about being bored of plugins. Have a few meetings lined up for this week to discuss how we can change this and develop plugins that people actually want. So they are chiming in, just in the background. Which does tell you something. I think they are genuinely concerned and all who I have spoken with that have got in touch have expressed that they want things to change.
Would be cool to do a video about what they tell you
Yes I will talk about what I am able to say about the conversations.
Just leave the names out lol
Bettermaker more like worse maker.
It's the only one I could hear a difference with, and not in a good way.
The rest of them sounded identical to me.
This was hilarious lol.
Yea with most plugin EQs you're getting straight forward frequency gain and nothing else that's audible.
And that's why a plugin can get close to a clean hardware EQ.
Only EQs like UAD Pultec add harmonics and actually give a little perception of depth - since i guess they were emulating the tubes of the hardware.
Then you have EQs like the Massenberg, MAAT, DDMF Grand EQ, etc which are clean but offer an improvement in sound.
These video comparisons are great ! I've promised myself I'm buying no more plugins ! I think we've come to a point where like you say there is little to no improvement on sound
Not enough to say we definitely need to replace one plugin with another for £299.
Nice camera angle 👌
Not often you get to see that side of the room
What can I say, the difference is minimal. The real difference that makes a great mix or master is a great produced and recorded song. When we want better sounding mixes and masters it needs to be done right at the recording stage. The arrangement is more important that minimal differences between gear. Work with what you have, it will do the job just fine. At least in the box 😊
Woah... Dude, thank you so much!
This is exactly what we needed. Videos like these bring the industry further and encourage these lazy ass developers to get to work on something more meaningful. Stuff like soothe, SplitEQ, AI Noise Removal, Repair Tools, etc. u know? Thats where it makes complete sense to say "Alright, its better to go digital for that"
I mean, watch THIS video and then go back to the marketing videos of some of those plugins...
I understand the digital realm has its limitations, thats ok, but... They were NOT emulating hardware, they were just copy pasting code.
Everyone in the community should see this before buying another plugin!!
What an absolute joke
(Excuse my language)
I feel it's not emulating hardware, just emulating the curve characteristics of that piece of hardware. Two EQs sound very similar when matched perfectly but what it is missing that the hardware has which is the box tone of passing through the analogue components.
I got none of them correct. Honestly I am thinking this is all about plugin makers marketing and cork sniffing for the consumer to get hyped up and make a purchase. Am I wrong?
I don't think anyone would get every one right unless they knew what to listen out for.
I think you're right that these all share standard EQ software libraries!
I used to think the Maag 4 EQ was so different with it's air and sub bands. After this test I'm not sure about anything.😅
I'm going to shoot a video on how you can test this for yourself using a free plugin.
I really appreciate your content, but everyone of the eq comparison videos never include any Acustica Audio eq's. Not that there would be any difference but would love to get an honest opinion if sampled plugins are better than emulation.
yes.. 100% agree.. because its digital it's "perfect"
Nice bro! Very good to know
Not sure anyone would pass the 6 bars test if 2 different analog units are that closely matched on plugin doctor, even if they have different saturation profils. That test is the devil mate.
i think it was bar 5 where the ssl came in
Do pls FabFilter vs Hardware EQS
This one is on the list to do.
if you had only the fab filter and want an SSL4000 sound in an entire mix (like 40 tracks) how can you match the curve without having the 4000 to copy from?
Sometimes is the practicality of a channel strip that counts because they have a certain sound (eq curves, phase shifts, etc...) and it kinda conducts the way we mix using them.
Another point to me is comparing eqs with only one track or loop is like to compare AD/DA converters quality recording with only 1 single channel. Nowadays low price converters are pretty good but if you stack dozens of tracks the differences are very obvious when comparing with a hi end AD/DA.
I think the real difference between different types of plugins is better shown in a complete mix context.
Try to mix a song using fab filter and the same song using a UAD 1073 for example.
I bet the difference will be obvious.
I'm not criticizing your video in anyway...I'm just making a point.
I CHALLENGE ALL UAD users (like me) to look at their account to see just what was spent on UAD plugins.
It's probably more than $4000 !
And yes, most of them don't get used because you move on to real analog gear.
I personally have all but 3 plugins which are guitar amps and I only use the Ampex ATR 102 on a regular basis.
The thing is in reality you will never choose the curve that an analog emulation gives you. They are usually a lot wider and smoother than anything you would choose with a digital parametric graphic EQ. Do they sound the same, yes. But analog emulation EQs make you mix with your ears instead of you eyes and stop you getting analysis paralysis because there are fewer choices of EQ points.
Wish I saw this video 3 years ago 😂 before spending thousands
Haha me too, but you get to feel like you are using the hardware with those crisp GUIs.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio could have bought the real thing after so many years. Never too late though
We have all made that in music, learn one thing well. "The sword is strong as it's master" that sword is Pro-Q3.
Do the same with compressors for science ;)
Uff.. thats baaaad. Thank God I invest in Acustica Audio EQs. There are big difference. But maybe I am blinded by the nice GUIs ;)
The diff is so small you would never know...i got to many eqs ive collected over the yrs
Makes me wonder how different the actual hardware is too. Probably not hugely.
Going to shoot a video on this later this week.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Awesome! I'll be tuned in for that one.
Nice video, I'm appreciating the new mic and camera angle. AP Mastering just did a great video on this topic too but Paul Third started up a turf war with him over it lol
I thought it was about time I started making an effort with these videos. Oh God I haven't got time for a turf war. Please don't drag me into it.
Apologies in advance as I know this comment off topic. "Audio Animals Studio. Have you seen an increase in Power Bill costs for your studio in the past year?"
That is really off topic. But yes, partly down to installing a 3rd studio. Also down to having more equipment in the studios. I would say electric bill has doubled if not tripled over the past 2 years. The same can be said for the price of electric at my house though too.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Thank you. In the past year I was able to build a studio which is very close to what I've always wanted with outboard gear. The downside is power bills and having to restrict how often it's used for that reason. Frustrating!!
Bro this is a game changer for plugin addicts 😢 just say no peeps ❤️✌🏾
They sound the same because software code is the same. Only graphic interface is different.
All other things is marketing bullshit.
Some plugins only have several lines of code.
No difference I use whatever eq is best suited for the move and the quickest way to get it. More of a convenience thing.
they are all identical as they should be
I heard the difference even wiith my MBP speakers.
Yep
Sounds like your friend watched the AP Master video that already proves all EQ plugins sound the same
I watched that video after a few people mentioned it. Mostly good and accurate, some comical parts in regards to trying to recreate an anti aliasing filter. The point he was making in the video is valid.
Yes to me all plug ins sound the same to me just using fabfilter
Do the test comparing ReaEQ to justify maximum cheapness lol
It’s been done. It’s all the same
The all sounded the same through my speakers. I stopped buying plugins especially EQs and Compressors a long time ago as I came to the same conclusion. Most of it is snake oil in my humble opinion. Pro Q3 or something similar is all of the EQ you will ever need. The market is over saturated and has hit its limit as they keep rehashing the same old thing. Rinse and repeat. Even UAD are practically giving plugins away.
Woop, called the Better Maker on bar 3 with just my headphones sitting on the desktop without me wearing them through my Prism Sound Lyra 2. Most likely fluke though ha ha.
I can not believe what I am hearing......I hope you are wrong...ahahahha in this case they sound almost the same...and I hate that
Depresses me as I have spent mad amounts of money on plugin emulations in the pursuit of finding something that sounds as close as possible to my hardware.
I could tell the difference on my crappy phone speakers. But ok fine. Lets just keep the FabFilter hype going
Try listening on a decent system instead of a phone. You may feel otherwise.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio you mean a system that dresses up modestly and goes to Church every Sunday?
There is quite a difference actually, Maybe not as much the hardware.
But there is certainly a difference.
Just Listen closely.
Things that are different are not the same...🙄
Same curve, same sound. Different curve, different sound. 😴
Stating the obvious 🙄
in the box eq sounds crap no matter what you use
Dave Pensado has another opinion
I couldn't hear shite difference
now match it to some real hardware
Be honest, you have seem AP Masterings videos, he does this better then you with the null testing!
No. But it sounds like it's worth a watch. Good to hear other engineers are highlighting this subject.
Whoever doubts today that the business of plugins (especially emulation ones) is just that, a business and a way of selling smoke, still hasn't figured it out. An EQ plugin is binary, lifeless, and no emulation plugin will sound different from a Q3 or a Kirchoff. All they offer are preset curves that have been proven to be more effective, something you would have to create from scratch with a Q3. But if you can replicate them, as in this case, you will have an identical sound. My advice is to have a couple of analog emulation plugins for this purpose and delete all the others. Anything else is useless, will cost you money, and won't give you any benefit.
That's just dumb and not true.
Some plugins emulate the phase and nonlinearities. That's just a fact. If you can't hear the differences, then use your clean digital EQ's and don't spread misinformation.
A simple check on Plugin Doctor instantly refutes all the trash you just spewed. Shrug. Some people just talk out of their asses, really.