I like finding out about any "industry standard" like Pro-Q. If you see someone not using it on Protools, it's because they don't want to pay for it, or show you it running inside Patchwork; also because they haven't paid for it.

Those kinds of plugins are the best for anyone starting out, and it never really tops out with Pro-Q to where you need a "better eq". More specific, but not "better". The reason I say this, is because when someone is at the stage where they know their mixing could be better; people start thinking (or believing) they should be using better plugins. Any question of that, with a "industry standard" tool goes out the window. It's a very fast way to figure out you are the problem with your mix, not your eq plugin. As an example. They make great points of reference.
No matter what DAW you might use somewhere else, or even if you change DAWs completely. Pro-Q is always the same.

 

Just dropping back in to see how this is going.

 

Every person on this planet is entitled to this type of choice whether it is a microwave, a car, the type of residence they want to live in or in this case, a plugin for their audio workstation. With any plugin some people will like it or love it and others the opposite.

It does not matter with any creation who calls something industry standard whether Sonible doing the first notable AI EQ plugin, not FabFilter, or someone else and then the next developer's product being more featured. There are now many industry standards in every type of plugin EQ, Compression, Saturation etc etc etc - Not picking the most popular one does not mean anything other than a personal choice.

We all like what we like and it should be that way. Understanding benchmarks is important but manufacturer is irrelevant if it meets that benchmark. I like FF that said, but she can choose what suits her and does not deserve shit for doing it because she said they're great and she just does not like them.

 

Last edited: Feb 28, 2026 at 7:53 AM

I think it would look much better if it had a big wooden rack around it, and 4 screws. No, 8!

 

thanks

 

Not every person on this planet really has the possibility of choosing. Some, for example, have to dig precious ores as children for someone else's (...) smartphones, but that is not the topic here. If we set aside the fact that perhaps not everyone actually has the right or the opportunity to choose many things, then it becomes easy to create a "first-world problem" drama out of choice, complaining, dissatisfaction. Which is not really a problem, of course. For who knows what kind of need for expression, everyone has the right to express themselves. When someone dares to speak up and opens a public topic about XYZ, it is not wrong to ask them about the reasons for their dissatisfaction, or about why they prefer one thing over another, is it? Public dialogues, which of course are not competitions in the style of "DAW wars" but rather a form of cultural exchange of individual opinions, help us in our attempts to understand the world outside ourselves, together with ourselves?

 

This is a very intellectually thought out post so I tried to ensure I did not misinterpret any of it.
First, I completely agree, it is never wrong to ask anyone anything in sincerity. Simply because the primary purpose of asking a question is because we do not know the answer.

Great discourse with informed opinions or simply just someone expressing their feelings without malice is always a fine cultural exchange.

Last to your opening statement. I am too old to not know better, that everyone has a choice. While one choice may well seem ludicrous or a terribly bad choice, there is always a choice. Thanks for a well thought out reply.

 

Oh it's going. Not sure where to but it's going.

 

Thank you for prompting this reflection:

Although the idea that "—there is always a choice!" is poetically powerful and very seductive, it ignores the fact that freedom does not exist in a vacuum. To say that someone chose hunger or obedience under threat is to confuse the capacity to act with the freedom to decide, disregarding the weight of the structures that shape and limit our human agency. Thus, the premise that "—there is always a choice!" fails by conflating the biological ability to act with the real freedom to decide!

Excess of romanticization (real needs are not "mere preferences"): For many professionals, "choosing" another plugin is not a matter of taste, but of technical infeasibility.

On the illusion of EQuality: Not every workstation user has the same "right to choose" if limited by obsolete hardware or financial constraints. Yet, in the professional audio market, the choice of ‘not using the standard’ can mean losing compatibility in shared sessions.

Quality vs. Existence: It is possible to choose not to use a given "standard", but whoever does so must accept that this may mean, in extreme cases, exclusion from the market. True freedom of choice would require the market to offer alternatives that do not force the user to choose between superior functionality or outdated interfaces.

Romanticizing choice without recognizing systemic inequality is like turning necessity into luxury and a technical debate into comic noise... but hey, it’s still noise (and thanks for this)!

 

Last edited: Feb 28, 2026 at 4:06 PM

Haha This is Incredibly Off Topic I know but in regards to soldering Does anybody have any advice on how to Make my tips for the iron last longer? I swear i go through them hella fast, I keep my iron around 360 C and i strictly use it to solder guitar pickups/pots/resistor/caps..

any advice would be greatly appreciated!!

 

What do they say, "unlike answers, there are no stupid questions," or something like that. Although I do not know exactly why, I have an almost visceral dislike of skeuomorphic UI. The fact that I cannot fully explain it does not mean that, in a spirit of never-enough humor, I cannot at least try to verbalize my dissatisfaction when the occasion calls for it. Wooden side panels, tiny screws, rusty-looking knobs... I always wonder why, and for whom, that is necessary. Especially if the DSP product itself is genuinely useful. So much screen real estate wasted on essentially nothing. Nothing that has anything to do with the "mix with your ears" philosophy of "mixing in the box." Pixels pretending to be wood grain cannot possibly alter the math of a filter algorithm, yet they can absolutely alter the user's perception. What we see shapes what we think we hear, the interface becomes a kind of cognitive suggestion engine. Even so, I can somewhat understand it when a developer tries to transfer the look of an existing analog device into the digital world, but adding "wooden sides" and "rack mount ears" to a product with five knobs is not something my brain can process. The fact that I organically dislike skeuomorphic UI, or gigabytes of unnecessary image files on a disk, or anything else I dislike for reasons I can at least attempt to articulate, does not mean that this particular form of UI interaction with a small DSP information package in the service of changing sound is not perhaps more popular, and therefore sells better, for reasons unknown to me. Which reasons, exactly, is the question.

It is a question of psychology, not a criticism of someone's choice that I fail to understand. If someone answers me in a civil way, perhaps the answer will enlighten me. Enlightenment will not change my allergy to skeuomorphic UI, or to whatever else, but through exchanging thoughts I may once again confirm, as if confirmation were ever in short supply, that I will probably never understand why some people "hear a juicier, more analog sound if a digital piece of code is wrapped in a digital skin whose pixels suggest something that does not exist in the digital domain." Maybe through such dialogues, through expressing personal preferences, dissatisfaction, confusion... we occasionally reaffirm what we already know very well, that not all people are the same, nor even similar. Because they are not, it happens that in war a person kills a former neighbor with whom, before a fratricidal conflict, he once had a more than good relationship. A digression. It may also be possible that a poorly coded DSP product, perhaps even an AI-generated afterthought packaged in visually pleasing leather, will sell better than a product from a developer who carefully listens to perpetually dissatisfied users and devotes exceptional attention to optimization, whose ergonomic UI does not need wooden sides or rack mount ears or anything of the sort. Perhaps it would be more rational for a developer from the very beginning to orient toward users who, as the market might suggest, maybe not consciously but still in practice, value a sexy UI more than the sound of a product designed for practical sound manipulation.

FabFilter really did pull off something rare with their UI design. Through ergonomic pixel distribution and, more importantly, a solid codebase, they carved out space in a fairly crowded market and stayed there. It is no surprise that many developers try to copy them, sometimes openly, sometimes with only a thin disguise, and with varying degrees of success. If, by some strange twist, the people at FabFilter responsible for that UI magic had not poured that particular something out of their sleeve, something that satisfies both small and large buyers of digital tools, the company might simply not exist in its current form. Tools for work and tools for play are both emotional purchases. A clean, responsive interface that feels modern but not sterile taps directly into that emotional circuitry. One can imagine an alternate timeline where FabFilter ends up in a position reminiscent of Native Instruments, though for entirely different reasons and in a different way. Markets are ecosystems shaped by timing, branding, psychology, usability, inertia, and sometimes plain luck. What makes FabFilter interesting is not just that it sounds good. Plenty of plugins sound good. It is that the interface reduces friction between intention and action. In cognitive terms, it minimizes "cognitive load," the mental effort required to use a system. When the distance between "I want this frequency gone" and actually removing it is short and visually intuitive, the tool feels powerful. Power feels good, even when it is partly or completely illusory. People tend to buy (or R2R-borrow) what feels good, even when reason suggests that spending money, or taking on credit that is never truly enough for everything a modern person supposedly needs, on a second or even third-rate product might not be the wisest decision.

 

Last edited: Feb 28, 2026 at 4:03 PM

Frederik Slijkerman and Floris Klinkert founded FabFilter in 2002. Their first product was FabFilter One, a synthesizer; the company initially focused on creative plug-ins that create or manipulate sound, such as synthesizers, filters, and delays. In 2007, the company began launching a range of mixing and mastering plug-ins, starting with Pro-C, a compressor.

Behind outstanding plugins are outstanding programmers. But all of this is of little use to the developers if they can't make a living from it. Therefore, the product must offer users a benefit or added value in order for them to buy it. Furthermore, if you spend three years writing the code and developing the plug-in, you also need to be able to support yourself for three years, either with a bank loan or an investor. Moreover, as developers, you don't necessarily know what the competition is currently developing.

As developers, you always bear the financial risk, and if you make a profit, you naturally get to keep it. If they have enough money and continue to come up with good, innovative ideas, they can develop the next plugin, perhaps in a year or two, hoping that the market for it remains strong and they can sell high volumes. They also need to keep in mind that hacking teams are hacking their software and offering it for free.

 

We live in a world and work in an arts environment this century, where instead of people thinking "rather than copy this, why don't I step back and spend my time finding something new that also looks new?"...instead, they either copy what exists or make some convoluted bells and whistles variation better resembling an all-in-one stereo system, that others then copy as well. I am not suggesting that some of those systems were not good, just that there used to be a time where developers and creators took their time and did not rush things out there.
I read on here every so often someone asking why does all the supposed new music sound the same. The answer is almost the same. The instant gratification age we are living in. Everything seems like it has to be 'now, now, now!" ...without thought of the potential that instead, they might create something that is actually new if they just spent a few more months time and did not copy what already exists.

I hear you with the look and feel thing. While certainly, some things are definitely wasted real-estate, I have used a couple of plugins where the interface is familiar to a lot of Neve desks I grew up with and they also surprisingly respond similarly. Sure familiarity can breed contempt but with those, I literally did not have to read one thing in the manual. I agree that wasted space is never a good thing, but there is a flip side I think where if that space is used correctly as the original machinery was, it becomes functional instead.

The proof with any performance, recording, mix or master is as the cliche says, in the pudding. It does not really matter if the plugin is a solid color square with cartoon knobs or done with intricately designed realism. It works as intended or it does not. FabFilter plugins with few exceptions, work great and do exactly as they say they do. I hope they do not go the path of corporate greed or sell out. It is intuitive and does respond beautifully to user choice. The built-in visual pre and post analysis facilities on many of their plugins are accurate too which is another fine feature.

I like them but I also respect some people do not. It is like an almost opposite, the acustica plugins. Some great features that for me are almost killed by graphic arts so I do not use them.

 

Last edited: Feb 28, 2026 at 9:11 PM

I do. It is. The OP might as well have called it "THIS IS FUCKIN' WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

My thoughts exactly
Now back to the trenches. Don't mind me guys

 

Pro-Q + Michelangelo covers all bases for me.

 

OP doesn't like how FF plugins look and that's all, why yall overcomplicating this

 

how about your trebles?

 

I really HATE wasted space in GUIs regardless of style.
And ease of use is paramount to me - it is a horrible fail in a GUI if the controls are "touchy" - with a single key assignment the full range of almost any control with precision is SIMPLE. Only ignorance or arrogance can explain bad UI for controls.
While I LIKE realistic ("skeuomorphic" is a new word to me ), UI should never be secondary to G.

 

I agree with Kate Middleton...

King Charles should abdicate, looks too tired and need to rest.

 

Nahhh, I strongly disagree. I seriously start questioning Mrs. Middleton’s credibility (the same amateur photographer famous for edits with more invisible hands than a kids’ party magician!). Her classic passive-aggressive style (perfect smile + —I didn’t say anything, but you got it, right?!) and that complicated miss-perfect aura don’t exactly help when it comes to serious opinions on succession and other things. Remember the drama with Prince Andrew and those not-so-Christmassy remarks? Anyway: are we now taking this retouching expertise (nail polish included!!!) into FabFilter’s interface? Pro-Q4 keeps rolling out immortal-level features (spectral grabs, per-band dynamics, all gorgeous under the hood), but apparently still looks ‘kinda ugly’ to royal eyes... really, a breath of fresh air...