MusicMan Posted August 13, 2023 Share Posted August 13, 2023 48 minutes ago, dubdisciple said: 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. Dan is really knowledgeable and has some brilliant videos but he definitely has some very wide misses and fails where he completely glosses over, or misses the crux of what he's reviewing, which it's hard to think isn't intentional. I will say I loved that he stated up front all of his bias and his long affiliation with FabFilter for anyone that wasn't already aware. Even by his own examples, he did mention in some situations there could be a difference in sound and I would've liked to see more focus on the dynamic EQ part from a sound perspective and how close they can be. You're absolutely right, he laboured any of the minor UI benefits of ProQ3 and then downplayed more significant advantages with Kirchhoff. On the plus side, I liked some of his suggestions for improvement and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those get added. Considering Kirchhoff is easily sub $50 with a loyalty voucher and they aren't that hard to come by, even based on his own biased review, ProQ3 is far from an easy sell now. Kirchhoff has everything it can do and more, so there's not much of a reason to spend double or more on ProQ3. His comments about stability were interesting.. I've never seen any issues like that with Kirchhoff ever, so I can't comment on that.. could be machine, or DAW specific or something. Paul and Dan now seem to try to focus more on clickbait and controversy as it drives views. That's completely fine, that's a core part of their business model and it works, but it does dilute their reviews more and more these days unfortunately. I still pick up a few interesting bits of info in them, but it's pretty transparent their motivations and drivers. Good callout on HoRNet Total EQ, that is a whole lot of bang for buck and having inbuilt saturation is something the others don't have. I actually still reach for it at times. I think it barely cost me the price of a cup of coffee from memory! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fleer Posted August 13, 2023 Share Posted August 13, 2023 For me it’s the FabFilter environment that just makes me smile and want to use their plugins. As if their FX are actual instruments in their own right. Simply marvelous. They rule the digital FX world IMO, while for emulations, I add Arturia’s and Slate’s for good analog measure. Plus some additional seasoning by Zynaptiq, Wavesfactory, Eventide and that sweet, sweet Gullfoss. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteven Posted August 13, 2023 Share Posted August 13, 2023 (edited) On 8/10/2023 at 4:33 PM, 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. 1 hour ago, MusicMan said: he laboured any of the minor UI benefits of ProQ3 and then downplayed more significant advantages with Kirchhoff. Main differences I've seen/heard about... CPU usage is lower with FF. Didn't know about this, handy to know. + to FF Analog Emulations - not in FF I'd consider this a solid win for Kirchhoff if it didn't nuke your settings when switching models. As currently implemented this for me is useless, hope they fix this soon. Possible bonus points to Kirchhoff but needs work. Dynamic EQ More advanced options than FF, but no auto mode. So to me is a 50/50 for both. 50/50 to FF/Kirchhoff. Kirchhof has a variety of filters not offered by FF. + to Kirchhoff Kirchhof has a Mixed Phase mode (linear phase for hi frequencies) + to Kirchhof? I've stopped using linear phase eq - because greater hit on CPU, I can't say I've heard the difference, and supposed issue with ringing (that I haven't AFAIK experienced). I'll have to play with this (Mixed Phase mode) to see how useful it actually is. Is there some other difference I'm missing or misstating? I have both (thanks to my lapsed Forever29 subscription) but haven't really dug into the Kirchhoff yet because ProQ3 is my go-to EQ plugin and haven't had the need for the advance surgical features. Edited August 13, 2023 by TheSteven 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteven Posted August 13, 2023 Share Posted August 13, 2023 (edited) ... double post due to stupid frikin missing edit button... Edited August 13, 2023 by TheSteven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicMan Posted August 13, 2023 Share Posted August 13, 2023 (edited) 46 minutes ago, TheSteven said: Main differences I've seen/heard about... CPU usage is lower with FF. Didn't know about this, handy to know. Analog Emulations - not in FF I'd consider this a solid win for Kirchhoff if it didn't nuke your settings when switching models. As currently implemented this for me is useless, hope they fix this soon. Dynamic EQ More advanced options than FF, but no auto mode. So to me is a 50/50 for both. Kirchhof has a variety of filters not offered by FF. + to Kirchhoff Kirchhof has a Mixed Phase mode (linear phase for hi frequencies) + to Kirchhof? (I'll have to play with it to see how useful it actually is) Is there some other difference I'm missing or misstating? I have both (thanks to my lapsed Forever29 subscription) but haven't really dug into the Kirchhoff yet because ProQ3 is my go-to EQ plugin and haven't had the need for the advance surgical features. I think that covers a lot of it, but I will add: The CPU usage is higher, but from recent usage I'm not sure that actually matters unless you have a pretty insane amount of them in a project. This seems to be fine now really. My view on the analog emulations is a little different to you and Dan there. If I was going to try a Pultec on a particular track and then a Neve for example, they would be separate plugins I could A->B. Kirchhoff includes the A->B options and you can have multiple instances to A->B like separate plugins anyway. I'm less likely going to try and A->B advanced curves at the end of tweaking everything inside Kirchhoff, I'd normally pick one go with it and adjust to suit. Then choose B maybe, pick an emulation and adjust to suit then compare. The curves are sometimes so different, that having it retain the same frequency points often becomes irrelevant. Think of things like Pultec, Amek / Amethyst, Maag and hwo different they are even when setting the same frequencies. ProQ3 doesn't emulations at all, so easy win for me. Kirchhoff has relative mode which covers auto from my understanding, but I like being able to set the threshold, attack and release which to me, I wouldn't called advanced. Sure there are some great compressors where you can't, but most of the time I prefer being able to tweak those to suit and I don't like the Waves one knob series style. For me personally, easy win to Kirchhoff. The mix phase is a really interesting concept. I'm a little the same as you though, I'm not sure if I need that in real world situations, but pretty cool having it as an option within the one plugin. Maybe it's the perfect combination and best of both worlds, but who knows. I don't think there's necessarily a need for you to change to Kirchhoff. ProQ3 is still great, it's just that Kirchhoff can do all the same for a lot less money for anyone who doesn't have either. Dan's point about all the dynamic EQ part being able to to be done in FabFilter ProMB is true, but that's then another more expensive plugin making Kirchhoff even more attractive from a price perspective and considering they're pretty similar feature sets, Kirchhoff smashes FabFilter on the price (with voucher, or those on subscription, who have it anyway as their PA bundle or Forever29 etc) Sometimes I prefer using Kirchhoff purely for something different as it keeps the process a little more fresh and inspiring, sometimes I like ProQ3 because it's just what I know. There's no real bad choices here Edited August 13, 2023 by MusicMan 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubdisciple Posted August 13, 2023 Share Posted August 13, 2023 I can't really rationalize buying either, but if did feel the need, Kirchoff seems like a better deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubdisciple Posted August 13, 2023 Share Posted August 13, 2023 I do concede that if you are already used to one it might be worth it.i can't imagine replacing one for the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now