A Totally Biased Review of the Kirchhoff EQ 

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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! (-;

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?

I know right lol

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.

“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.

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!😂🤣

well I for one am glad you've been able to finally produce some audio from those instruments of yours! congrats! 😜

. . . Adendum . . . The 117 button and the 2x(Oversamplimg ) button, both feel useful to me . . . the sound . . . I hear the 2x as a "Thickening" to the sound . . . Sometimes I prefer it on, and other times, off. Yet the 117 button is only noticeable to me on certain sources . . . So, I find myself clicking it often now. I am happy when I do hear an improvement. Also, I do hear an audible difference (Improvement) in the High Frequencies over any other EQ that I have ever used, Including this Brilliant demo comparison with the Legendary Pro Q3.

i was expecting this plugin to be called the Knochoff

I nearly made that joke myself...

@@DanWorrall I can imagine

ReEq is no slouch.

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.

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.

totally agree. own both and fabfilter is a joy to use. kirchhoff is also more CPU demanding.

Has someone made a good tutorial video on how to use these features well?

Something the Kirchhoff needs is a simple RIAA curve preset but I'm just being lazy lol

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 ! (-;

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.

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.