Jump to content

Kirchhoff-EQ ⚡️ 48h Flash Sale

Larry Shelby

By Larry Shelby
in Deals

 Share

Recommended Posts

MusicMan

MusicMan

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Fleer said:

Been thinking about this one a few times, but always going for FabFilter. 

I have both and use ProQ3 for tracks, but this has replaced ProQ3 on busses, stereo buss and mastering, as well as bass and kick for me.

No need to pay anywhere near $99 now it's with PA though. Up to $50 it's still easily worth it (and more really) , but should be able to get it cheaper like everything PA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MusicMan

MusicMan

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, audioschmaudio said:

I've never seen Kirchhoff EQ anywhere near $50 yet, but did manage to get it for 38€ by buying a "Forever 29" voucher on Knobcloud. Currently two such vouchers are being sold there again, for €40 each.

Same, I was more meaning with vouchers, i.e. with a $75 or $50 which are often floating around for free.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MusicMan

MusicMan

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, pseudopop said:

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer Fabfilter for tracks?

Mainly two reasons. CPU usage is lower with FF which is the biggest reason and a lot of track EQ is pretty basic so it gets the job done . It's also familiarity and in some of my templates.

You can do everything with Kirchhoff though and it has more features like analog emulations and more control over the dynamic EQ than ProQ3 and Kirchhoff  gets very surgical if you need it and sounds really good even with pretty extreme curves / cuts.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pseudopop

pseudopop

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, MusicMan said:

Mainly two reasons. CPU usage is lower with FF which is the biggest reason...

Yeah, that makes sense.

8 hours ago, MusicMan said:

...and a lot of track EQ is pretty basic so it gets the job done ...

Uh... yes. I also settle for expensive top-of-the-industry EQs when I'm just doing some basic stuff.

8 hours ago, MusicMan said:

...It's also familiarity and in some of my templates.

You can do everything with Kirchhoff though and it has more features like analog emulations and more control over the dynamic EQ than ProQ3 and Kirchhoff  gets very surgical if you need it and sounds really good even with pretty extreme curves / cuts.

I have never demoed ProQ but this has been my impression from other people. I have pretty much removed FabFilter from my must-have list a long time ago, since this is just a hobby for me and I already have Kircchoff and plenty of other plugins.

Thanks for the info!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MusicMan

MusicMan

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, pseudopop said:

Yeah, that makes sense.

Uh... yes. I also settle for expensive top-of-the-industry EQs when I'm just doing some basic stuff.

I have never demoed ProQ but this has been my impression from other people. I have pretty much removed FabFilter from my must-have list a long time ago, since this is just a hobby for me and I already have Kircchoff and plenty of other plugins.

Thanks for the info!

Welcome Pseudo and if you have Kirchhoff already, definitely no need for ProQ3. The stock Frequency2 EQ in the latest Cubase is very good too and it's not uncommon for me to choose that over ProQ3 also so there can be some hidden gems. For a stock EQ it's amazing.

ProQ3 is still a really good EQ. But there has been some more competition for it in that space.

ProMB is my favourite workhorse multi band compressor though. I've got some analogue emulation multibands I really like, but the UI in ProMB is much better.

I like the UI of their regular compressor and for a standard compressor it's not bad either.

ProL2 is worth having and on some material it's just right, but I often get better results from the other limiters.

FabFilter are still very decent, we're just insanely spoilt these days!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Walton

Brian Walton

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, MusicMan said:

Mainly two reasons. CPU usage is lower with FF which is the biggest reason and a lot of track EQ is pretty basic so it gets the job done . It's also familiarity and in some of my templates.

You can do everything with Kirchhoff though and it has more features like analog emulations and more control over the dynamic EQ than ProQ3 and Kirchhoff  gets very surgical if you need it and sounds really good even with pretty extreme curves / cuts.

Kirchoff is super light on the CPU so I'd be curious to see a side by side with the same filters applied to see if there is in fact a material difference in consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MusicMan

MusicMan

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brian Walton said:

Kirchoff is super light on the CPU so I'd be curious to see a side by side with the same filters applied to see if there is in fact a material difference in consumption.

I just duplicated a track, added nine instances of ProQ3 on one of them, nine of Kirchhoff on the other and checked the CPU usage. Both stock default settings but then applied similar curves.

ProQ3 track was 0.45%, Kirchhoff was around 0.8% so still not bad, but just shy of twice the CPU hit.

When I first tried it, which was right before the PA version was released and then the PA version itself (which is where I noticed the CPU the most), dropping it into a heavy mastering session was very noticeable. I hadn't noticed the performance hit quite as much recently and now I'm thinking about it, I wonder if the PA version was optimized, or they previously had the oversampling enabled by default, or the 117-bit Ultra-High Precision enabled by default, whereas now they're both off. That could explain it too.

I uninstalled the non PA version demo the other day, so I can't check now.

Adding it to a project was similar hit to adding TOMO Audiolabs LISA from PA when they first released that as well (which I also really love). Adding ProQ3 into the same project made no impact at all.

Edited by MusicMan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MusicMan

MusicMan

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

$170 for an in the box eq is simply too much given the alternatives.

Yes, I like the interface better but that is about it.  I wouldn't pay $100 for KEQ either but it can be had for a lot less.

Somebody should really tell MAAT that.. I always laugh even seeing their sale prices.. ?

"thEQorange Perpetual License: $589" 

The price for the Weiss EQ is somewhat a bit of a joke too.

Given the vouchers and PA pricing for Kirchhoff, I would likely not get ProQ3 by itself over it these days. I did get it in the mastering bundle though and that still might make it compelling on sale, as the others in the bundle are really good.

ProL2 is easily better than any PA limiters.

Some companies probably need to reassess the current market and how many top quality competitors and options there are for much less.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubdisciple

dubdisciple

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TheSteven said:

Slightly different opinions on Kirchoff EQ

 

 

Dan poisoned his own review by making sure to remind us every chance of how biased he was. He downplayed everything that Kirchoff was better at. He did make sone good points, but it was hard to ignore the fact that he made it clear from the beginning what his conclusion was going to be. I love Dan's videos but like all of these guys, he (same goes for Paul) is showing signs that his popularity has swollen his ego to the point where I can only take these guys in doses. Thanks for posting though.

  • Great Idea 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...