Exactly! That's why I hate those A/B tests on YT where the plugins being compared are placed vertically on the screen. The top plugin always sounds to me like it has more treble. The same goes for colored overlays. Different colors lead to different expectations and thus to different perceptions.

 

Well, the main reason we have millions of hours of music tutorials and millions of words written in audio communities is mainly because people insist to make music with their eyes instead of their ears. If I were you, aka "hearing" differences where in reality the audio diffeference nulls or is insignificat, and seek to improve myself, I'd actually do whatever it takes to remove the eyes out of the equation when deciding the tonal balance of things: close the eyes and then move the knob at the desired location according to the ears.

Or another good one, when you can't really hear what a plugin does, is close the eyes and click fast the on/off button until you don't know if the plugin is on or off, then click at a slower pace and then make a decision, then open your eyes. Do it several times and see if you can consistently pick the same plugin state (to decrease statistical errors).

There's an entire world of sound out there that many people never experience because they're unknowingly using their eyes too much when making music, and often times any real, true, ears-based mixing advice, is perceived like a nerdy, overrated or unrealistic message.

 

I mean...he doesn't even need to if he's watched the vid. Dan does exactly this at around the 10 minute mark to prove that it nulls and that having 117bit enabled does absolutely nothing. Although tbf Worrell does repeatedly call it 114 bit processing. Maybe barncore was confusing that with 117 bit

 

Feel? LOL
Okay, if you want to go animal way, it makes me feel awe.
But mostly it makes me comprehend, not feel, and it's way more valuable. Any monkey with Fruity Loops can eventually make you feel down-to-earth stuff.

 

Thanx for the suggestions. I was thinking exactly what @justwannadownload wrote (but didn't want to use the SC term..)

Have to say, I heard the difference that he pointed out and was like: pro-q3 sounds like shit! But since I'm a mix-retard with probably mediocre hearing and no mix-eng training (and don't care much, I just compose music), I was just thinking to better STfu.. Funny thing - thought that the bass was lacking on pro-q3, where in fact it was just the old - louder sounds better ;)

 

Tbh i think this whole thing brings up an interesting point: the actual, audible differences between most top tier modern EQs like ProQ3 and Kirchhoff is incredibly negligible. A/B testing unless both selections are the same exact neutral color will cause you to exaggerate the differences in your head. I feel like i say this a lot, but much of what we do in audio is indistinguishable from placebo, as shitty as that is to hear. No one can reliably pick 2 EQs out of a lineup if the curve/Q is the exact same.

 

Fabfilter Pro-MB (which Kirchoff got the inspiration from), TDR Nova (both the free and full versions), iZotope Neutron EQ and DMG Multiplicity. I'm sure there are others as well. It's simply just an individual side-chain EQ for each and every band. Nothing especially new.

EDIT: Saw that others had mentioned Pro-MB and Nova already.

 

Last edited: Jun 19, 2023

I'm sure its an entertaining video but at the same time, like most video reviews, A/B comparisons, null tests etc on forums and YouTube, it all completely misses the point. I can get two straightforward EQ's to null pretty closely if I spend enough time on them. I can do the same with two clean compressors.

I mix into different processors and EQ's because I want them to influence my decisions. Reactivity is an essential part of our process and with all these null tests, A/B videos, it's an art that's being forgotten. If something forms a good part of your flow and positively influences the way you work, anything else is completely immaterial and nothing more than a waste of time that could otherwise be spent perfecting the skills that really matter.

 

I really don't think I have that problem of relying more on my eyes than on my ears. As I wrote, I decide which mode is active on the EQ in seconds, because I can clearly hear it is not a thing I have to pay much attention to. Oftentimes I don't pay attention to it at all. When I can't really hear what a plugin does, I usually don't give a shit. Saying this, there have been and will be occasions I gonna geeking out on something, but that's totally fine to me, since my main focus is making/listening to music. I am not the guy spending millions of hours in null testing, blind checking and gear/plugin comparisons, as others do. To me it is more about hearing and feeling anyway.

On the other hand, don't underestimate the power of visual content. Seeing the drummer in your band freaking out can certainly influence the way you play and sound. Even in the plugin world it is hard to deny, that certain plugin's looks influence the way you are performing (mixing is also performing). To get back to topic, even if there are only little differences between Kirchhoff EQ and Pro-EQ3, I get better results using Kirchhoff. The way it leads me to perform certain tasks is more inspiring to me. I'm not trying to convince anybody or trying proove Dan Worrall is wrong.

 

That's exactly what I was trying to say

 

[Rephrased]:
As already stated these comparisons (where you can see the switches) can easily fool you, so here's one which is a bit more tricky.
Pro-Q 3 vs Kirchhoff, how often did I switch (spoiler alert between 1 and 10), where and which is which?

 

Last edited: Jun 15, 2023

I think I have already answered this question in enough detail.

 

Since theres been a development in this discussion I'm of the opinion that people that actually spot major differences while A/B good digital EQs are completely delusional.

 

I mean, I always thought these eqs should sound the same. There are differences in workflow, gui, CPU load, features (sometimes less is more..) etc. And that is something to consider.

I bet I personally can't hear the difference between these two or any stock eq. That Kirchhoff feature to quickly set the internal sidechain source to some arbitrary frequency window was interesting to me from creative (umm.. fuck up!) point of view.

Yp, thanx again.. I saw I can do it with 2 instances of iZotope. Might be quicker with Kirchhoff.. idk yet

It's true though that Dan's example sounded best in pro-q3/Kirchhoff parallel eq (Vegas equalization?) when he fucked up the mute automation, lol. Might have done it on purpose..;)

When NoA puts those blind tests up for me it's like:
*how many fingers?*
uuugh, you know I don't like that..!

 

Sorry if this was too far back in the thread, but I have a question. Let's say I record or import audio into my 24 bit/48Khz DAW session. This is Fixed Point. The audio is then stepped up to 32 Bit Floating Point, or 64 as suggested. The plugin processes the audio internally at 32 or 64 bit float, and then is stepped back down to 24 bit Fixed Point audio as it leaves the Plugin/s back to that DAW channel. If the plugin processes even at double the bitrate, aside from the possibility of internally clipping the signal within the plugins being compared; Why should I be expecting anything other than Null, when the frequency content should only be what was possible to have captured or imported at the original 24 bit Fixed Point representation of that waveform?

 

Bit depth is about dynamic range, not frequencies. So in theory, when you make something quieter, it might need more dynamic range to be accurately represented.
There are two issues, however. First is, on the plugin's output, everything is converted to the bit depth your DAW's audio engine is currently running on. Whatever difference 117 bits might've made, it's gone here. Second, 32-bit floating point is enough for anything. If somehow you think that it's not enough for your super-immersive 32-channel Dolby Atmos project, 64-bit is a widely accessible overkill.

 

Last edited: Jun 15, 2023

He's released an interesting follow up video now too. Says there was a mistake in his original video, which wasn't picked up by those apparently able to hear the difference, despite also having a visual clue of the mistake He's also provided a blind A/B now too, to challenge commenters who claim to be able to tell the difference.

 

No, DAWs don't work like that - they don't have a 24-bit fixed point mixer engine. All DAWs these days generally have *at least* a 32-bit floating (or 64-bit floating) mix engine. All audio data gets into that 32-bit float mix engine, and stays at that bit depth throughout the mixer process, until it's finally converted back to your fixed point output for your audio interface/audio files after the mixer output.

There is no "stepping back down to 24 bit Fixed Point audio as it leaves the Plugin/s back to that DAW channel" going on. The plugin receives 32-bit float data, and outputs 32-bit float data, that's it.

Back in the day, some old plugins treated their inputs as 24-bit fixed point, but that was more than a decade ago, and pretty much all plugins do it properly (at least, I don't know of any that don't).

 

While the composition of his music might not suit everyone's taste, the production and mixing is quite good imo.
Usually, I don't find myself listening to his music a lot, occasionally it can be quite fun though to hear the creativity of somebody outside of my musical bubble.

On the topic: While Kirchhoff might advertise higher quality processing etc. I find it really hard to hear a significant difference during A/B-tests. Therefore, until I don't develop my ears and listening capabilities further and start hearing a difference, Pro-Q 3 shall be enough to work with. It hasn't made any problems at all and always sounded more than good enough to me.

 

I posted this a page ago already.