According to me, neither is better or worse in sonic quality. Experiment in PluginDoctor shows that the Q curve is a bit different for the same number. Q of 1 in Kirchhoff EQ corresponds to Q of ~1.4 in Pro-Q3. In my opinion, if Q curve is matched, they both sound the same (using the basic settings - not speaking for the additional features). For me this is the reason for the audible differences.
Nope. An eq is not just one filter, the routing does a world of difference inside the plugin. Fabfilter doesn't do parallel (all filters are chained), and there are other factors in coding which make up the sound of a plugin. No matter how "clean" they say it is, clean doesn't exist, there's always a sound.
While I have not tested the Q curves, regardless of the settings, shelf, or Bell, or what Q the band was set at. I preferred the sound of the Kirchhoff 100% of the time. There’s also something to be said, for the speed of not having to change the queue to get equal results (if they are, in fact, equal ). Certainly, to each their own. Thanks for watching!
@@ColtCapperrune Okee. “Something to be said for the speed of not having to change the Q factor?” You preferred Kirchhoff because it didn’t show you resonances like FF did. Think about that for a moment. Wouldn’t you want a clean clinical eq to show you resonances in program material as you boost? Flip that sentence and now it’s the speed of not having to change the Q factor in pro q3 to hear immediate resonances in program material where as in Kirchhoff one evidently doesn’t notice it unless you adjust the q to match pro q. Cheers!
I'm wondering if what I'm hearing isn't slightly better phase coherence in the Kirchoff EQ. Most of the times things sound mysteriously but noticably more or less pleasant to me it comes down to that. The bottom line for me is now I know that the Kirchoff is an EQ I can use for swooping 10+ dB adjustments with less negative impact than the Pro-Q, in addition to all its really useful features.
Opinions on sonic quality differences are bunk, Dan Worralls video proves that, do a null test and see. very cool plug-in and the dynamic section is very cool, but definitely not better than proQ3 just different.
Sorry dude I generally enjoy and appreciate your content but after watching Dan Worrall's recent video comparing these two EQs with a simple null test I'm inclined to call BS here. It seems the difference you're hearing is because the Q values are actually different, but when set the same they null near perfectly. It's also interesting that you're hearing a narrower band width as more "natural" too. And the deceptively named "analog" mode is just a minimum phase mode and doesn't add some kind of magic "analog" secret sauce. There are some features in the Kirchhoff that I would like to see on the Q3. Like a simple way to select a more analog style curve and a way to add more analog style saturation. But, I know fabfilter will do it better when they do and the Kirchhoff just seems unnecessarily cluttered with every possible bell and whistle.
@@R01499-y Audio placebo is a real thing that we are all vulnerable to whether we know what we are doing or not. But yeah, null tests are a pretty easy and definitive way of knowing. Dan Worral also compared Ableton Live's EQ Eight and Pro Q3 and they null. I'm pretty convinced that unless an EQ is adding saturation or something like this, it's just another EQ. But, workflow does matter too.
Switched from Fabfilter EQ to Kirchoff last year and never looked back. Sat down and gave it a good test sonically and it sounds so much better that fabfilter.. plus all the extra features is a no brainer.
Try setting the Kirchhoff EQ to tight mode in the settings and comparing to FF again, I would love to see that. These little things actually make a difference.
I have been using this EQ since PA picked up their plugin. My favorite part about the plugin is that you can hear a 1db boost/cut. It doesn't take a lot for this plugin to do what you need it to do. Ive been less heavy handed with with EQ-ing.
Pronounced "Kear-hoff" ☺️ And yeah it's amazing. I have a few EQs I use for 'color' but as just an EQ to grab w/ all the options this is 100% my pick. Just need them to model API curves now 😈 Waiting on TBTech to roll out a multi-model compressor, too. Would love to reduce my processing to just 2 plugins.
I’ve used Plugin Alliance’s subscription service for a number of years now as it’s relatively cheap and the amount of plugs you get for it is ALOT. That said - Plugin Alliance does sales all the time, so if subscription isn’t your cup of tea, chances are you can get this EQ for much cheaper than what I’ve ever seen fab filter go on sale for.
man, there’s ToneBoosters’ Equalizer plugin which has 95% of features what this one has, and it‘s existed for ages. its price is ~30 usd and there are versions for both desktop OSs and mobile ones - iOS/Android. i mean ProQ 3 is a good EQ, but not that it’s news that there are more versatile & reasonably priced options out there
I'm going to be honest...I never liked boosting with Pro Q 3. After switching to Kirchhoff a few months ago, my suspicions were confirmed. My go to now!
There's a lot of people out there, like me, that bought this plugin when 3body Tech were selling it themselves, way before PA came along and took over distribution. That army of people have been raving about it for a long time.
Just remember before you rush out and buy this plug-in, FF is a great EQ that's widely used and respected, and this one video doesn't make it any less capable. Also, every engineer has their own preferences--doesn't make one better or worse just preferred to their ears. Everyone's ears are different. Mixers are different. It's all opinion and preferences. Just listen to several different albums and you'll realize it's all subjective. Once you realize there's no objective rules, you'll mix better because then you will use your ears and do what sounds good to you and refine and build from there!
they have different Q values by default ,fabfilter is know for having it's own Q value , 1 in fab is 0.72 or the other way around i don't remember which one. both eqs are totally transparent they don't have resonances or harmonics you're just listening to a different Q, i read somewhere that kirchoff is a bit lighter on cpu and has more features so it's a matter of preference. still, IMO if you have one you don't need the other
Hmmm. You know, I always appreciated that anything I boosted with waves F6 sounded nasty, so that way I knew what I needed to cut! But the Fabfilter never gave me the nastiness - had softer edges or something. And so I think this is why I need both. The fab makes more stealthful changes. But it doesn’t add any character.
I was lucky enough to get this at $25 using a $75 voucher someone had gifted me. This EQ is just amazing. It's my go to over fab filter for any kind of transparent EQing needed. I love it. It may be a bit rough around the edges, but, it's worth it.
the [Kirchoff] filter (you're pronouncing the word Kirchoff wrong) is much better because it has much better algorithms. First, the algorithms that convert "digital analog" to digital data use the very fast Vinograd algorithm in Fourier transformation, which only needs 1.2 multiplications per sample. Secondly, in the spectral analysis, the Hamming window is several times more levels than the fabfilter. That's why everything is clearer, and the spectrum analysis graph works faster graphically. The quality of the Kirchhoff filter blows my mind.
Yep sounds much better but honestly I use pro q3 for cutting and using multi band eq/compression with the side chain I find the fab filter very transparent almost like a SSL or focus rite console. Im boosting with parallels and or channel strips .
The kirch can use a mix of both at the same time ... it will "seamlessly" switch between both across one instance, EQing one sound, depending on how you use the EQ and how hard you push each band (there's probably settings regarding this too, but this is it's unique way of functioning and is part of it's sales material). The way I read it is that you could have one boost applying linear phase EQ and one boost on the same instance applying ZL EQ.
when this EQ first became available on PluginAlliance I thought it was just because it was new that it sounded “better”, the placebo effect of new product… I’m glad to hear another engineer point out that it does in fact sound better than Fab!
I get your point, but that sort of stuff doesn’t concern me. I put the plug-in on, I use my ears to dial in settings, and I choose the tools that sound best to me.
Pro Q filter width set at a Q value of 1.5 is roughly equal to the Kirch filter width with a Q value of 1. So the Kirch *IS* a thinner band at the same settings.
I agree with your opionions. I switched once Plugin Alliance released it last year, really good EQ to me and I will be sticking with the Kirchhoff until further notice :)
I think you should watch the Dan Worrall video and realize you didn’t match the Q before doing the sound comparison. It’s really easy (even visually) to tell that the Qs are not matched. The two EQs sound the same when setting are set the same. You shouldn’t make reviews about stuff like this if you don’t fully understand how to do proper comparisons :/
PA has been doing some flash sales, and If you are a PA subscriber you can sometimes get emails with extra bonus deals, and you have monthly vouchers if you pay for other stuff that they sometimes get you, so it *might* be possible to get quite a lower price on the KO EQ.
as soon as you said something is better than fabfilter i knew exactly which plugin you were talking about. i have it in the mega bundle, but i really gotta play with it and experience it for myself.
Thanks Colt! Appreciate your shares. I absolutely love the Kirchhoff EQ, however I do really miss the frozen spectrum grab (of notable frequencies) that FF does so well. Lastly, I miss the modern and pleasant GUI of FF. If they can do an update to include that frozen spectrum grab of notable frequencies I’d never look back. 😅 The character EQ’s are simply amazing 🤩
I do hear the difference that he's talking about with the boosts. But, what sold me on the Kirchoff was the dynamic EQ settings... As a Pro-Q guy for years now, that's something that I've always said... "Why can't I control the attack and release of the dynamics???" If I wanted to do so, I'd always have to substitute the Pro-Q with the Ozone Dynamic EQ... which was kind of annoying since I don't really like Ozone's EQs.
I aim in awe for the mix mode. I have no idea what is happening code/math wise in the background there. My favourite eq plugin. I have yet scratched the surface of its dynamic capabilities.
"Mix" mode gives linear phase in the high end, and something different in the low end, as far as phase. Kirchhoff is like Rocket Science . . . They are really breaking new ground and moving things forward..
The only thing that I would like to know, is if it has matching capibilities- Absolutly agree, that it sound better, but for example for shaping a sound to be as close to one previously recorded is something that the fabfilter really is amazing at (for example for Post production)
I like a bit more the Farbfilter UI although Kirchhoff has more features. At the end of the day it does not really matter, both are fine and producers can make no. 1 hit songs with both of them.
I agree with you 100%. I downloaded the trial versions of both Pro Q3 and Kirchhoff having never used either of them in the past. Fab Filter seems to be focused on user experience and getting results easily and quickly, whereas Kirchhoff seemed to be more about how much can we cram into this plugin. They are both fantastic plugins, but for me, I prefer the workflow in Pro Q3 and that's the one I purchased.
Not to be nit picky with these comparisons, but are they both in the same phase mode? I’ve never tried any of the ProQ products because, as a Logic user, the built in Channel EQ and Linear Phase EQ seem to accomplish the same things that ProQ does (at least for what I need) aside from the dynamic EQ options.
About the comparison of the resonances that comes as a consequence of the phase shift - are you sure that the "natural phase" in the Fabfilter is equal to the "minimum" in Kirchhoff?
you can hear the difference on vocals. it seems as if the Q value on FF is larger and has a narrower band, although the values are similar or even the same.
Though I'm not a Kirchhoff EQ user myself (cuz the UI is a bit ugly and the functions are too complicated...), as a Chinese, I'm so glad to see you using a plugin developed by Chinese! Thanks Colt!! BTW, just want you to know that you do have fans in China as well lol!
I don’t use either one but I also would a 12db boost to test them since if I need that much boost or cut, I should probably just retrack it with a better mic or mic placement and I only mix things I’ve recorded so I guess if retracking isn’t an option I guess this would be one way to fix an issue. I’d still probably try cutting something else competing at the same frequency, some saturation or a different eq altogether. I’ve just found big boosts like that inherently cause other problems. I did hear the difference and I know the fab filter stuff has a lot of settings so maybe one of those would mitigate that issue but I go for simpler eq’s like the modeled UAD stuff, API, Pultec, Chandler etc…
I find the Kirchhoff very useful , especially with my Live Performance audio restoration projects . . . You know . . .the ones recorded with many random factors involved.
Plugin Alliance is great. I have a bunch of their stuff. The only ones I don't care for are the amp sims but I only have one. I like Neural if I have to use a sim
The Kirchhoff EQ is definitely great. However, though I was able to hear the difference between the two EQs, I am not sure if the Kirchhoff sounded "better". I think that they are using different algorithms, so matching parameters doesn't mean that they are on the "same" settings. (The same is if you compare two spectrum analyzers. Even if you match the settings, they will display different spectrograms).
I think the main difference (at least one of them) is the Q values don't mean the same thing. Someone was saying a Q of 1.4 on pro Q is = to roughly a Q of 1 on the Kirch, so in this demo the Kirch is basically using a thinner band filter, so it's picking up less frequencies ... and therefor less resonance around the boost.
I discovered the same but with a different eq. The Sonible SmartEQ also sounds better, especially on transient material like drums. Smart eq curves sound horrible but as a static eq it´s better in comparison. Unfortunately the SmartEQ isn´t that flexible so I still use Pro-Q3 for surgical and dynamic stuff. I should try my DMG Multiplicity as well although I don´t use it for surgical stuff but it also has the ability to address dynamic and transient material separately.
@@huberttorzewski Yes, it can be improved a lot. Also there´s no phase switch. But speed isn´t everything so I grab it from time to time for drum tracks. Everything else is Multiplicity because it sounds better and has the ability to to address body and transient material in a dynamic way. Like SpiltEQ on steroids and better sounding.
Hey Colt, I trust your judgement. But Dan Worrall made comparison Kirchhoff vs Pro-Q3 and to be honest I couldn't hear a difference with my eyes close. I was using my HD 650 cans when listening to the comparison
I woud love to see you do a video checking out Tone Boosters TBEqualizer4. It is an EQ similar to these in functionality but it is a faction of the price. I have been reaching for it lately instead if Kirchhoff EQ becuase it has a really cool autogain compinsation that you can toggle per band and you can add saturation to each band as well. I love turning on the saturation when I'm boosting. It also has the same mid/side splits and it can be dynamic.
I love this eq; however, I've never used the Fabfilter pro q3 (or any Fabfilter products on a constant/consistent basis). The only thing I wish Kirchoff had is the eq match---but I don't see or hear people talk about it (I if I need to eq match for whatever reason, I use Ozone's). Love that it's in PA subscription (in my opinion the only plugin subscription plan that's worth it for me). Now to finishing the video lol
You need to get over to the professional-grade mastering EQ and compressors they have. PQ and Oven..chef's kiss...not for the base mixer guy tho... Much better.... stock plugins like waves and fabfilter...boooooring ...
Are you sure the Q and real gains are actually the same (regardless of what the settings say)? The Q looks wider on the graphic of the Q3 (if that's anything to go by?) and the boost level sounds greater. Packed with features though.
Thanks for making me aware of this plugin! I downloaded it today in my PA subscription and did a similar comparison except in a rhythm section of a song I'm currently working on. Same eq settings as the Pro Q 3 and it was a marked difference in how much tighter and more present things were. And the fact you can add in Neve, SSL and API curve flavors to the eq bands is pretty damn cool (I really liked high and low passing with the SSL E while keeping everything else neutral). The dynamic eq was great too in having actual control over the compression/expansion. Good call on the analog setting btw, it was the most pleasing to my ears as well. Awesome heads up man!
It's important to note that the "same settings" in both plugins aren't showing the "same q factors". A 1 to 1 match is this: Kirchhoff at 1q is FF at 1.4q. / Kirchhoff at .7q is FF at 1q. Let us know if you notice a "marked difference" when the q factor is actually equal. :) Cheers.
@ChrisCatero Yes, I like putting a "250" or "Vintage Tube" Low shelf, a Neve bell node at about 3.5k, an SSL E high shelf, and a "Blue" (Maag) high shelf, with just a 1db boost . . . The Blue brings in that Maag 40k whistle tone . . . What a fun eq ! (-;
Great video as always, Colt! I have a question non related to the video: do you consider Audio-Technica ath-m50x a good choice to be used for mastering? I don't have a place able to receive treatment now, so I'll need to use headphones instead of a monitor. Thanks
Thanks! I think the M 50 strength comes in tracking, and the fact that every single studio has a pair. For mastering, I would use something much more high end. Love, my Focal clear MG pro. They are an excellent option for mastering. But really, I would look at a high end, like the most money you can possibly spend, open back headphone for mastering. Hope that helps!
It sounded to me like Kirchhoff got rid of some snare boxiness and sounded more bright and open. Especially on the vocals the Kirchhoff sounded way way better. I really wanna try it!
That's because.... a tighter q would sound less boxy than a wider q, right? If you want to match the "same q factors". A 1 to 1 match is this: Kirchhoff at 1q is FF at 1.4q. / Kirchhoff at .7q is FF at 1q. Cheers.
any recommendations for a good limiter? is there similar case with fab Limiter and if we can try some other limiter as well which gives similar results as this eq has given? thanks
When you did the matched snares, in my studio the FF sounded more natural. There was a ring / resonance that was more pronounced with the Kirch. But, with the Kick, I preferred Kirch. On the vocal I hated both, because of how the eq's are being used. That said, the Kirch is undeniably way more flexible. How's the CPU hit in comparison to FF? Whether I agree or not, always appreciate your vlogs, thanks.
They weren't 1:1 settings. FF sounded more natural to you because its q was actually wider, and the ring/ resonance that seemed more pronounced with the Kirchhoff is because its q was tighter. A 1 to 1 match is this: Kirchhoff at 1q is FF at 1.4q. / Kirchhoff at .7q is FF at 1q. Cheers.
@@jorykevinberger7047 I was telling someone yesterday when asked if I saw this. I said yes, but it's highly un-scientific. And if you really want to hear resonance, listen to a vocal, or an electric guitar, versus bleed from a snare drum. But hey, it's his vlog and he gets to do what he wishes, whether I think it's misleading or even pointless. And to be clear, I'm not a CC hater, I enjoy the vlogs. But these A/B demos, which he doesn't do many of, are done so in a vacuum. That's my opinion. I actually demoed this plugin ages ago, prior to PA's release of it. It's excellent, but not enough so that it's retiring my workflow with FF.
I have the "Extra" which is a transformer out, and GAR2520 opamps. I love it! It’s been on every vocal since I got it. That said, I haven’t compared them all side-by-side.
F***! I literally not two hours ago, finally bought Pro-Q3. OMFG, That reso sweep was a crazy difference.. one question. did you try the different modes like I saw you had on natural phase, did you try linear or no latency? Just curious if they change the results at all.
“Fear the man who has EQ’d 1000 tracks with the stock EQ, not the man who has 1000 EQ’s.” Q3 is a GREAT plugin, feel no regrets. You can achieve anything one EQ does with the other. These are clean digital EQs, no implicit “character” is in either one. The only tangible difference is the workflow. I appreciate these kinds of videos, but aching over the minutia between Q3 vs Kirchhoff is the definition of diminishing returns. Unless your career depends on these small returns (like Colt), make music with whatever you have!
Could end up being less expensive if you’re already in the PA ecosystem because they always have great sales and if you subscribe they give you that value right back.
Yeah if you don't have the PA subscription they are charging $150 more than you can get the plugin elsewhere, so only worth it from them if you're already a sub (or want the subscription anyway).
I agree that the Kirchhoff sounds crispier in this vid. That said, I’m going to stick with pro-Q for two reasons. 1. While it’s nice to have options, The Kirchhoff has TOO many options for me. I’ll end up tinkering with them all day and not get anything done. With pro-Q, I can be in and out and also spot any competing frequencies on any other tracks with a quick glance. If I want a neve style EQ, I’ll just do subtractive cleanup with pro-Q then grab a neve emulation for additive. 2. I have a relatively new mac with the latest OS and plugin alliance is the only plugin company that doesn’t support it. Nor do they seem to be in any hurry to. All my other plugins have been updated and run great but plugin alliance’s crash my DAW. Since they don’t value their customers enough to prioritize making our plugins work, I’m not giving them any more money.
what I don't like about Kirchhoff is, none of those analog EQ curves do any saturation, they are just different slope/Q curves, which still is useful, but doesn't add any character to the sound
