Kirchhoff EQ Better Than Fabfilter Pro Q 3

[Quick Math]

This is the hofa plugin for blind test and I was using the free version.

https://hofa-plugins.de/en/plugins/4u-blindtest/

 

5 hours ago, Tim Smith said:

Did you find this for  a better price than it normally is? I would love to see a 50% off sale on this. 

Well, I bought it much cheaper with the intro sale on their official store. So yeah it was the much better price for me.

Originally, the original price was $149 but they had extra intro discount iirc.

The developer is from China, and a Chinese shopping website (Taobao 淘宝) has their official store there. It seems like the price now is 699 Chinese Yuan which is roughly around 105 USD?

I am not Chinese but can read a little bit of Chinese and my friend helped me buy it on Taobao. So Technically anyone outside of China can buy it there, too and the price there could be lower. Also they might have BF sale or some, perhaps. 

 

 

 

[Tim Smith]

19 hours ago, Quick Math said:

This is the hofa plugin for blind test and I was using the free version.

https://hofa-plugins.de/en/plugins/4u-blindtest/

 

Well, I bought it much cheaper with the intro sale on their official store. So yeah it was the much better price for me.

Originally, the original price was $149 but they had extra intro discount iirc.

The developer is from China, and a Chinese shopping website (Taobao 淘宝) has their official store there. It seems like the price now is 699 Chinese Yuan which is roughly around 105 USD?

I am not Chinese but can read a little bit of Chinese and my friend helped me buy it on Taobao. So Technically anyone outside of China can buy it there, too and the price there could be lower. Also they might have BF sale or some, perhaps. 

 

 

 

Thanks @Quick Math. This is very helpful. I will check it all out.

[Tim Smith]

Yet something else to consider. Eventide's Split EQ uses an entirely different concept. It splits frequency adjustment from transients.

 

[bats brew]

i think the eventide split eq is the smartest plug to be written in a long time.

 

that said,

i love my Waves F6 dynamic EQ i bought for $29.

boom, done.

[Tim Smith]

3 hours ago, batsbrew said:

i think the eventide split eq is the smartest plug to be written in a long time.

 

that said,

i love my Waves F6 dynamic EQ i bought for $29.

boom, done.

I don't know if you have any of the Waves collections. I'm guessing you probably do. The last time I check my WUP it was up there.

One non WUP option would be to just buy something like the F6 and when WUP comes up for the collection ignore it until it becomes obsolete. Just buy another F6 for 29.00

I am not willing to buy either the Eventide Split EQ or the Kirchhoff for full price. I try to wait for a sale. If a sale doesn't happen I guess that's my answer. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Tim Smith

[bats brew]

i have the diamond bundle.

 

plus a bunch of one offs i've bought on sale, over the years.

 

 

***** the WUP!

LOL

i don't even bother with it.

 

 

i have a list of favorites now,

the list is not very long, but those particular tools get a lot of work.... like the F6.

[Tim Smith]

On 5/9/2022 at 4:41 PM, batsbrew said:

i have the diamond bundle.

 

plus a bunch of one offs i've bought on sale, over the years.

 

 

***** the WUP!

LOL

i don't even bother with it.

 

 

i have a list of favorites now,

the list is not very long, but those particular tools get a lot of work.... like the F6.

Similar here, only I think it's the Horizon bundle I have and a bunch of one offs.

Sticking with Waves over the long haul does cause me to occasionally think about WUP. I WUPPED once when I got it for half price.

So far using older plugins hasn't affected anything. Fingers crossed.

So far as accommodating plugins Cakewalk has to be right up there as one of those DAWs that will take just about anything and keep on ticking. Not so much can be said for others.

[Brian Van Tassel]

On 4/26/2022 at 6:38 PM, Tim Smith said:

Wasn't aware of Waves F6. I checked my Waves collection and I don't think I have it. Did some research. It's a very reasonable way to get into a dynamic EQ at Waves 29.00 asking price at this time. 

Has anyone mixed with Eiosis AirEQ?  Many report it being a fine EQ. I don't believe it's dynamic EQ though.

 

Yes !
The Eiosis Air Premium was my Favourite EQ, and now it is 2nd, right behind the Kirchhoff EQ.
The Eiosis  can be used everywhere. It gives amazing separation and "Tuning". 
It is also a must have "game changer", that works very well with the Kirchhhoff EQ.
Th Eiosis, Presets : "Mastering Balance", and "Mastering Frequencies" are spot on perfect for getting started with many things.
This is a "Character EQ" , where you can balance "Earth", "AIr", "Fire", and "Water" . . . The Strength fader is good for the gain scale.
Click on the musical note, and you can see what note your curves are centered on.

So, I now have Three Favourites that I use all of the time:
1) Kirchhoff EQ
2) Eiosis Air Premium EQ
3 ) AVA Mastering EQ (Great for subtle touch ups ).

I find myself using all three of these on my Tracks, Mix bus, and Master Bus.

(-;

 

 

 

 

[Brian Van Tassel]

On 5/6/2022 at 2:22 PM, Tim Smith said:

Yet something else to consider. Eventide's Split EQ uses an entirely different concept. It splits frequency adjustment from transients.

 

Wow !

This will be my next EQ acquisition!
This will be in my Top 4 for go to EQs.

(-;

 

[Marina]

On 4/23/2022 at 4:37 PM, Quick Math said:

I have this EQ and sound wise IMO Kirchhoff EQ is better than Pro Q 3.

I actually don't really think the sound of pro Q is that good. Functionality and dynamic EQ function of Pro Q is great, so without a doubt it's great EQ. However, Pro Q's output is 32 bit floating point and you actually get low level noise.

You can test it with sine wave and use Span analyzer with widest dynamic range so you can actually see very low level noise when you use Pro Q. It's possibly a transaction noise, which Kirchhoff EQ doesn't have.

With industry struggling to switch to 32 bit float (24 bit precision), 64 bit float (53 bit precision) looks like nothing else but an overkill. Look, there’s an article in Wired posted just a few months ago encouraging 32 float usage https://www.wired.com/story/32-bit-float-audio-explained/amp

EQuilibrium has 64 bit float for ages. MAAT thEQorange Has 80 bit FP since 2021, so Kirchhoff EQ is hardly the first 64 bit float equalizer. 

As of yet I haven’t heard any sample which could demonstrate that 64 bit float EQs bring better results with less audible noise compared to 32 bit float EQs outside the placebo zone

Edited September 1, 2022 by Marina

[Tim Smith]

I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.  I think in terms of higher resolution and maybe a more exact process. In reality it reminds me of the argument between 16 and 24 bit audio. Yes there are some advantages to 24 bit over 16 bit in terms of head room and sudden dynamics. The change actually threw a bunch of engineers off who were accustomed to mixing in 16 bit because they had to watch their peaks and responses per channel more.  High resolution 24 bit behaved slightly differently. Many who didn't wan't such a responsive mix stayed in 16 bit.

Maybe a lot of this was snake oil too, but I remember there being this big discussion with experienced engineers on Cakewalk who swore on the differences. When I mix in 24 bit I can tell some difference in track behavior. I think it's just a different way to see it in order to mix it.

When it comes to these equalizers, not the same concepts exactly. Like the saying, " You don't know what you don't have until you realize you don't have it." Most engineers don't have the time to niggle about frequency clashes that produce undesirable harmonics within any given plugin if those differences are barely noticed.. They trust the engineer got it right.  Since much it  falls into negligible territory beginners won't pick up on or might not notice, run of the mill EQs abound and are happily used. 

So I guess the way I see this is we get what we pay for. We really do most of the time. Sometimes we pay a lot more for only a small gain though. If any given EQ is touted highly and charged for accordingly, you can best bet all of the true engineers in the audio field who tried it would uncover a rat if the product was misrepresented in any way. I'm not talking about just the YouTube mixing engineers, some of whom could be design engineers but usually aren't. I'm also talking about the guys with the audio analyzers, the oscilloscopes, etc. Those people with specific training in the software/electronics end of these designs. These would be the guys buried in calculations who eat drink and sleep numbers. These guys would not let an inferior product get away with it because they test these things, so when Fabfilter Pro Q gets raves from these guys and my ears are really liking the results I am getting up against a basic DAW included EQ, I trust that product and will use it.

I asked about the Kirchoff EQ here, but I think one of the things I really wanted was affirmation of it by those more knowledgeable than myself in the internals of these things. Let's face it, some of these EQs are pricey, so good reviews from reliable sources count for something. When they make the claim that this EQ might be "better than" Fabfilter that's really saying something. The only thing I have to go on is a review or two on YouTube. Good reviews to be fair. User experience is important because I think we are all aware that YouTube channels can be paid off by plugin makers to demo their products in a positive way. There could be some bias there. Not that there is, but that's the thing with the web in general, we need to investigate claims because anyone can make them.

[MusicMan]

This one seems to be getting some good reviews recently, although I've learnt to sceptical and only pay a minimum amount of attention to praise in social media and other sources unless I know and trust the person's tastes and ethics.

I wonder how many people compare Fabfilter ProQ3 in zero latency mode against the Kirchhoff and think Kirchhoff is better too. I generally prefer the natural phase mode in ProQ3 more. Also with Linear mode I wonder if everyone is trying different quality settings etc. I know many will be, but I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few A->B with the default settings.

I do also wonder how much better than ProQ it is though, so might give it a shot too.

[Clay and Kelsy]

Wow, the Kirchhoff looks amazing.. I have used lots of eqs but always end up back with my trusty Hofa IQ EQ and the UA Pultecs. But this looks like it may deserve a place in my everyday mixing! 

How has everyones experience been with the Kirchhoff so far? 

[bats brew]

https://www.eventideaudio.com/plug-ins/spliteq/

 

this is the one.

[Sheens]

the TDR Nova (with dynamic eq funcion incl , threshold, attack.release.ratio, wet/dry etc etc) is FREE

(no installer/download manager or similar crab needed either)

you can choose several 'quality' modes with ofcourse different CPU / Latency.

it's got 4 bands, a lot of features,  A/ B, bypass, solo band, adjustable curve, hp/lp filters/shelves,  even mid/side processing.

there's also a paid GE edition at 60,- with more features.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Sheens

[Quick Math]

Kirchhoff EQ is going to be a part of PA mega bundle apparently.

I don't have any other sources but perhaps you could buy it a lot cheaper as it's PA...

https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/blog/blogpost/items/kirchhoff-eq-beta-available-to-mega-xxl.html

 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Quick Math

[Pilutiful]

How does Cakewalk LP EQ (set to non-linear) stack up to the mentioned above? I think the GUI is OK but not sure about sound-wise.

[Quick Math]

On 11/23/2022 at 7:44 PM, Pilutiful said:

How does Cakewalk LP EQ (set to non-linear) stack up to the mentioned above? I think the GUI is OK but not sure about sound-wise.

I actually have never thought about using Cakewalk LP EQ so I was curious abut that.

So I just tested it against Kirchhoff EQ now. It was very clear that Kirchhoff sounded much cleaner and more transparent.

As it was a quick test so I don't mean that Kirchhoff sounds "better" but it was simply very different in the sounds of two.

I did a further test using sine wave generated by a plugin called Sine by Blue Lab Audio, which I found very pure.. As you can see below, there is something added with Cakewalk LP EQ, while with kirchhoff there is nothing like noise nor any artifacts within measurable scale.

 

As there is no added noise in high frequency range with Cakewalk LP EQ when boosting lower area, the noise is maybe not a truncation noise, and I don't know what this is. 

 

 

So, Cakewalk LP EQ and Kirchhoff EQ aren't similar in terms of the sound quality.   

Edited November 25, 2022 by Quick Math

[reginaldStjohn]

What does the signal look like with no EQ added? Also, even in the Cakewalk graph that "noise" is down about 130db. I certainly could not hear that.

Edited November 25, 2022 by reginaldStjohn

[Quick Math]

13 minutes ago, reginaldStjohn said:

What does the signal look like with no EQ added? Also, even in the Cakewalk graph that "noise" is down about 130db. I certainly could not hear that.

It looks like the one with Kirchhoff EQ in as there is no value except the set frequency. 

The difference was clear for me on my test. Some people simply can't hear the subtitle quality differences but I tested it on master buss so the audio signal is way more complicated than a pure sine wave. Then then I put a limiter plugin after that because it was already inserted there in the project. In this case, cakewalk LP EQ has more noise fed to the limiter, and the noise was also amplified with non linear process which essentially produces more distortion. So, in such situation, you also could here or feel the difference.