Dan Worrall: A Totally Biased Review of the Kirchhoff EQ

Peek · Jun 21, 2023

ᑕ⊕ֆᗰIᑢ said: ↑

ProQ vs EQuilibrium next?
Click to expand...

They are incomparable, or, rather, comparable only in part

Last edited: Jun 21, 2023

Peek · Jun 21, 2023

DiRG3 said: ↑

I really like Kirchhoff but i still end up instinctively reaching for Pro-Q, both are absolutely fantastic products. I think it really comes down to what you're looking for imo
Click to expand...

I think there are several digital equalizers that could give you a better result than Fabfilter ProQ. However, satisfaction, in the broadest sense, is always subjective as it's not called upon to meet standardized requirements. We can understand whether a curve of a given model is as close to the original as possible, but we cannot understand what is in someone else's head..

Last edited: Jun 21, 2023

Cefshah · Oct 2, 2023

Barncore said: ↑

I like Kirchhoff. Using the "free" band in the "relative" section of the dynamic EQ section is super handy for mastering, you can tame down problem resonances relative to say just the mid-range of the song, and it will dip those frequencies ONLY when they pop out of the mid-range, or when they're loud in contrast with the mid-range. It's pretty cool. Pro-Q doesn't have that level of control.

Also, Kirchhoff has always sounded better to me whenever i've A/B tested it on full mixes. I don't know, maybe my mind plays tricks on me, or maybe the differences don't show up in a null test with white noise. Weird that it nulled, but i'd be interested to see how it would test on more complex sound like full mixes. I'd bet that the transients would be treated differently between the different EQ's, or something like that

The 117bit button also definitely makes a difference. I was literally just using it a few hours ago on someone's master. It makes the EQ moves sound slightly clearer.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Kirchhoff is very clear and clean with its cumulative moves. It's almost 'felt'... the kind of way that only audio nerds would ever care though. I sense it in the musical effect, and what I'm hearing/feeling may not matter to even other audio-folk. FabFilter Pro-Q is stellar... and so if Kirchhoff!! If I had one or the other, I'd be satisfied... but having BOTH is perfect!!

Cefshah · Oct 2, 2023

Barncore said: ↑

I like Kirchhoff. Using the "free" band in the "relative" section of the dynamic EQ section is super handy for mastering, you can tame down problem resonances relative to say just the mid-range of the song, and it will dip those frequencies ONLY when they pop out of the mid-range, or when they're loud in contrast with the mid-range. It's pretty cool. Pro-Q doesn't have that level of control.

Also, Kirchhoff has always sounded better to me whenever i've A/B tested it on full mixes. I don't know, maybe my mind plays tricks on me, or maybe the differences don't show up in a null test with white noise. Weird that it nulled, but i'd be interested to see how it would test on more complex sound like full mixes. I'd bet that the transients would be treated differently between the different EQ's, or something like that

The 117bit button also definitely makes a difference. I was literally just using it a few hours ago on someone's master. It makes the EQ moves sound slightly clearer.
Click to expand...

I do love the Kirchhoff EQ also!! Every move I make with it, sounds crystal clear in the end.

Cefshah · Oct 2, 2023

lxfsn said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

Yes!! I do something similar to that a LOT... click the bypass button with my eyes closed. (First, I listen to see if one state is louder, then fix that... and click to try and find the processed file and/or the differences between the two.)

Similar Threads - Worrall Totally Biased	Forum	Date
Dan Worrall analog unit parallel mixing video	Mixing and Mastering	Oct 16, 2022
Dan Worrall I won the loudness war Song "Flac"	Music	Dec 13, 2021
Dan Worrall just won the loudness war	Lounge	Nov 7, 2021
Dan Worrall...via White Sea Studios! Pro-Q3 Feature	Lounge	Sep 7, 2021
Dan Worrall: Headphones Are Not Stereo (the other LCR problem)	Mixing and Mastering	Aug 4, 2021

Dan Worrall: A Totally Biased Review of the Kirchhoff EQ

Peek Ultrasonic

Peek Ultrasonic

Cefshah Newbie

Cefshah Newbie

Cefshah Newbie

PROFESSIONAL AUDIO LOVERS

Dan Worrall: A Totally Biased Review of the Kirchhoff EQ

Peek Ultrasonic

Peek Ultrasonic

Cefshah Newbie

Cefshah Newbie

Cefshah Newbie

Useful Searches