I use the Kirchhoff for this view only sometimes when I got bored

 

"world shattering earth quake simulator"

 

I don't final mix my stuff and both these eqs are a total overkill for me. Seams pro-q3 would get less in my way, but:

if I understand correctly 1% of the dynamic section part (just the beginning) - I think there could be a not-so-obscure case where I'd want to target the trigger frequency from separate part of the spectrum (like the snare setup in Dan's vid).

is this something only Kirchhoff does?

 

The quality difference is 0. With a 64bit EQ you would have to boost more than 288dB for the distortion to even exceed the dither level. And even then it would be masked by other elements...

 

and I doubt DAWs themselves are designed with such thing in mind to begin with,
for ex. Reaper having independent per-FX or per-FX chain oversampling already stirred waters of "incapable" plugins and DAWs

 

TDR Nova GE
Oxford Dynamic EQ

 

Exactly my thought. Thank you for writing down.

 

ApQualizr2, which is a modular monster. You can create multiple (many!) sidechain-filters withing the plugin, that controls all bands differently. So you can have an upward expander/transient designer boost on the 3k and a ducker/compressor/notch on the ringing annoying frequency - both triggered by the snares fundamental frequency around 180-ish Hz. Fun stuff!

https://www.apulsoft.ch/apqualizr2/

 

Last edited: Jun 14, 2023

His music *does* speak louder than his words. It says that he knows what he's doing, both composition-wise and engineering-wise. I imagine it takes a composer and an engineer to understand that however.

 

Last edited: Jun 14, 2023

No. You'd want FabFilter Pro-MB for that, generally. You can unlink the detection sidechain filters from the band you're compressing and set it freely.

 

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.

 

Can assure you he's in no way overrated. He regularly works in the same studio complex where I worked for many years and is a well respected and in demand engineer and producer. His music does speak louder than his words.

 

Having watched the video yesterday when Dan uploaded it, I have mad respect for the man. I once emailed him a question about a use case for a certain plugin, and he actually took the time to write a proper answer with multiple paragraphs. Other dudes on YT probably would mail you back a two sentence answer. For me, that alone speaks a ton.

 

My Kirchhoff Kock-up
Dan Worrall

In which I fess up to an egregious error in my Kirchhoff EQ review, and challenge some of my commenters to back up their claims in a blind test. Music: Separation and Beyond by Dan Worrall.

 

Humans can perceive a dynamic range of maximum 130dB (in exceptional cases a little more) or in other words 22bit.
ProQ has a dynamic range of 384dB. Kirchhoff has a dynamic range of about 702dB (117bit). That is a theoretical "difference" of 318dB (but in practice it's 0).

And that is all well and good. I am always in favor of companies pushing the limits of what is physically possible. But in this case it makes no sense. No matter what difference you tell yourself you heard.... and even if you have turned up your speakers to pain limit... that difference is more than 250dB below your hearing threshold, and probably never existed, unless you boosted an band by more than 318dB. Or by more than 572dB to make the difference audible. Well, but then there would still be electrical noise in your interface and your amp/speakers, so the boost would have to be at least another 10-16dB higher, because most interfaces do not manage more than 19-20bit.

In summery:
So if you did a 600dB boost on your "master", then I believe you heard a difference between 64bit and 117bit. But then there is something wrong with your master

 

Last edited: Jun 14, 2023

his music is terrible. what does it make you feel?

 

No, it does not! ... once you keep it truly objective. What you are actually experiencing is called expectancy bias or cognivitve bias - means you're beeing ticked by your brain whenever you press that 117bit button and it lights in such a nice orange at you. Read into this effect here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect

Try the following to verify it objectively: create a track with Kichhoff EQ at 117bit processing enabled and clone it. Phase invert this cloned track and disable all 117bit processing there. Press play or render to a file. You will result in a perfect null, means perfect Zeros! [= Null Test]
I expect your DAW runs with 64bit float internal processing, as my Reaper does.

 

Last edited: Jun 14, 2023

Same here. Anytime I compared myself, I preferred the Kirchhoff. To me it was most obvious when treating the lows in kicks/bass sounds. In my comparison Pro-Q3 always sounded more flat, less dimensional. Maybe it's placebo, maybe I did something wrong with Pro-Q3, maybe the way the plugins response when dialed in is different ... at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Kirchhoff replaced Pro-Q3 as a go-to in my workflow, I'm totally fine with anybody thinking this is pointless.

The 117bit part is interesting. At some point when EQ-ing tracks I switch around with the switch around with the 117bit/2x settings and make a quick decision, which option "feels" or "sounds" best to me. Sometimes I activate one of these, sometimes both, sometimes none. Most of the time I can tell what I prefer in seconds, no big time comparison is done here. Again, maybe my mind plays tricks on me, as Barncore says ... but on the one hand I don't think so, because to me there seems to be a noticeable difference. On the other hand, who cares? It is just a few clicks and a matter of seconds, then I leave it as it is. As you listen closely to the material when doing this, there is no disadvantage in speed of workflow, because you are supposed to listen closely to your audio a fair amount of time anyhow.

 

a

 

This does not explain why I sometimes prefer 117bit on, sometimes off. I am not expecting it to sound better all the time. But yeah, maybe you are right and even this "it differs if I like 117bit on" thing is expectancy bias