The difference is that one EQ is called A and the other one is called B

@MrJC1

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha. +1

@andrwewl

Жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂

@davidspingler6337

Жыл бұрын

pretty much, yeah 😂

@thevi_olin

Жыл бұрын

Great, that means we are about to prove that A - B = 0

@Projacked1

Жыл бұрын

😆

plot twist: this was an excuse to get us to listen to an entire dan worral song sounds cool so thanks, i didnt mind

@aschelocke5287

Жыл бұрын

We all know it doesn't 😅 (better than the usual stuff though, i gotta admit)

@gius_taakstudio

Жыл бұрын

🎶💸

@djsuvy

Жыл бұрын

hahaha

@ts4gv

Жыл бұрын

@@aschelocke5287 you don't have to like a song to admit it sounds cool. all of dan worral's stuff sounds cool.

@ComplexConfiguration

Жыл бұрын

@@aschelocke5287 What? No..

MASSIVE differences here! A - left/right continuity is excellent but A has an angular feel to it. The top feels pointy and closed in. There's a noticeable increase in width and sense of space at the bottom. B - This example is hard to assess as it's REALLY right-heavy. That being said, there's a pleasant roundness to the right side which is strongly reminiscent of the numeral 3. I can't help but wonder if this test would be better served by using a serif font.

@DomMcsweeney-DoomPlugs

Жыл бұрын

😆😂

@Skizane

Жыл бұрын

Ridiculous. Anybody with any professional experience working with audio knows tests like this can only provide reliable data if comic sans is used.

@eroero830

Жыл бұрын

@@Skizane But what would be the sans in that?

@DomMcsweeney-DoomPlugs

Жыл бұрын

@@eroero830 This is pure 'comic sans' to my ears.

@drrodopszin

Жыл бұрын

I haven't set up my platinum plated audiophile USB cable to my speakers, so I can't comment.

I though A sounded really warm and creamy, just like B, but B had that same softness and intimacy exacly like A.

@godofspacetime333

Жыл бұрын

I also thought A sounded really musical, while B was also very musical.

@GingerDrums

Жыл бұрын

@godofspacetime778 yes I thought A had just the same transparency and musicality as B. Both very useful to have, as they can be implemented in the same way in the same situation. Edit: I also have 3 copies of Microsoft XL 2023, the difference in copy is amazing.

In all honesty I'm just reading the comments knowing that the video is switching between A/B and I perceive no difference and just enjoy the track.

@jamludentertainment

Жыл бұрын

That is me exactly

@Snowness

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I have to agree with this. There's no notable differences to my ears using a decent set of wired earbud monitors, and as long as the settings are matched up, as Dan has clearly taken the time to ensure, then I suspect you really could just switch between the two back and forth on a mastered and released track, and it's likely that nobody would ever know.

@compucorder64

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, same. But I watched the video first. And when looking, my brain was trying to latch on to non-existent differences. Honestly, you could run this test as 'is it genuinely switching', rather than which sounds better. Or test whether if when listening only people could detect the switching.

@gitarrenpost

11 ай бұрын

Same here - should I now consider a consultation with doctor?

A - Fruity Parametric EQ 2 B - Ableton EQ Eight

@nunnukanunnukalailailai1767

Жыл бұрын

No its the reaEQ, everyone knows that parametric eq 2 sounds like ass because its fruity loops smh my head

@leopoldbluesky

Жыл бұрын

@Shangex Rubbish - it's obviously an original 1st-generation Pultec from 1951

@SianaGearz

Жыл бұрын

@@TheJohnsofDoes Luckily EQ cannot alias regardless of whether it's oversampled or not and how well or not. It can have a slight difference in the resulting curve though; if you happen to EQ by copying the values from some other EQ rather than by ear or even by FFT.

You can clearly hear the difference at 3:58 when it switches from EQ A to EQ B. EQ A is so bad you can't even hear the guitar at all, but as soon as it switches to EQ B, you can hear it crystal clear!

@julianklietz6558

Жыл бұрын

dang

@Trickey2413

Жыл бұрын

good catch /s

@ShaunYouth

Жыл бұрын

😂

@dwightdeon2421

Жыл бұрын

hahaha!

@erfho8y

Жыл бұрын

Lol 🤣

EQ A was clearly an equalizer and EQ B was a plugin that equalizes

For future, if you really want to blind test people, don't tell them when the switch occurs. They need to also post the time stamp when the switch occurs and to which it is switching to. If it is so obvious then it would not be a problem for them.

@mttlsa686

Жыл бұрын

The interesting thing is that this kind of tests clearly shows the power and the influence of the sight and how it can trick our brain messing with other senses. Another good example is the phantom hand experiment.

@Tekkerue

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't put it past Dan to switch in between the visuals to see if anyone notices. 😉

@em.1633

Жыл бұрын

Look up the experiment Penn and Teller did with water. They made a bunch of different super fancy glass bottles of water with fake brands on them, claiming to be from the top of the Himalayas, the Amazon river, whatever. They secretly filled every bottle with tap water and had people taste test them. Almost everyone they tried said they could taste the difference between the bottles, the mountain one tasting more "earthy" and etc

@achanonymous

Жыл бұрын

I was sure I could hear a really subtle difference between them, though I had no idea which was which. Then I listened again with my eyes closed, and I honestly couldn't tell you where the switches happened. I'm half thinking that there weren't any switches and Dan was just playing with us all to prove a point.

@ComplexConfiguration

Жыл бұрын

toruuuuuuuuuue

I almost expect you bamboozling us with the A/B and in the next video you tell us that you were actually not changing anything at all just to further bury those placebo listeners in their bullshittery xD

@DanWorrall

Жыл бұрын

I was tempted! But no, it's for real :)

@jbenoit1962

Жыл бұрын

@Jon Switch I'm listening on shitty laptop speakers and it seems that B might be brighter in some respect. Some might say more "open". I didn't watch the first video but they're definitely marginally different. Whether or not that difference is better or worse is largely redundant in a professional context and if Pro-Q3 is the seemingly duller A I'm still going to continue using it. Scroll the mouse wheel to widen the Q and raise the band a db or two. We mix with our ears and add to the chain as necessary. The nuance between two EQs at exactly the same setting are hairs I prefer Dan to split on behalf of our collective education.

@flriso

Жыл бұрын

@@jbenoit1962 just watch the first video. The two settings are nulling each other out. There is no way to hear a difference.

@BrunodeSouzaLino

Жыл бұрын

This could be possible, since there are examples of our eyes changing what we hear, like the classic compressor anecdote where you're asked to tell which one sounds better and shown the visuals of a badly set compressor pumping the sound on one of the sounds. After giving your choice, you're then told you're wrong because both sounds were exactly the same and you should've paid attention that the compressor was bypassed the whole time.

@jean-lucbattista2492

Жыл бұрын

​​​@@jbenoit1962 the phone here , I get the same impression. B seems a lil brighter. But not in a good way. Prefer A. But it's probably just the order of appearance correlated to the song's progression. Maybe a perfect loop would be better for such a test... Anyways it's all marginal

My bats appreciate the 117bit mode. They pee on me if I don't use it! Also very nice track Dan. Liked it a lot!

@pcmaster888

Жыл бұрын

Aaaaactually the 117bit mode just increases the bit depth, which doesn't mean you can reproduce higher frequencies for your bats to enjoy. They would probably rather appreciate increasing the sampling rate ;)

@bakharandi

Жыл бұрын

(-;

@bakharandi

Жыл бұрын

😂

It almost feels to me as if the music is sad because it's the last day of the Kirchhoff demo and afterwards it's farewell.

@snowwsquire

Жыл бұрын

This is why i buy a new computer every 7 days, so i keep using free trials to get the strong emotions out of the plugin

@Tekkerue

Жыл бұрын

@@snowwsquire What a great loophole! 😂

@ovonisamja8024

2 ай бұрын

Music can't be sad, nor happy. It doesn't express anything other than itself. How you feel while you listen to some music is entirely up to you. I suggest you read the book about music aesthetics called "The beautiful in music by Eduard Hanslick".

Long live Dan Worrall.

@lauriliinat7262

Жыл бұрын

...and prosper!

I really like that chord progression. It reeks of instability but remains palletable. Haha.

@SianaGearz

Жыл бұрын

I like that word. Maybe stacking chord progressions like with a forklift is something we have been missing all along. I'm not making fun of the spelling, i am having a genuine tangent enlightenment moment here.

@EdwinDekker71

Жыл бұрын

I hate diminished triads on top though

The thing I really notice is how when I close my eyes I can hear no transition. But if I open my eyes and see A transitioning to B. Then my monkey brain seems to go listening for differences. And it latches on preferring one over the other, even when there is no difference. Other than that visual cue to go look for a difference. It's even worse in the previous video where I can see which EQ, then bias sets in and I look to prefer one. Brains are bad. Reminds me of the many blind tests where people can't distinguish between a mic'd tube amp, and a pure model - which you'd think should be not so hard; but no. On the plus side, the conclusion appears to be ... that excellent audio tools these days are very much good enough to get on with the job.

@antoniomonteiro7783

Жыл бұрын

That's the big problem with how the hearing works and how easy it is to be fooled. It's called Mcgurk effect. It's an auditory illusion caused by what we are seeing. Basically the sight takes over and we hear what we are seing instead of hearing the actual sound. It's amazing how so many "pros" with "magical hears" are not even aware of this fenomena.

Hot take: listening in this way (with the music playing for extended amounts of time if a fundamentally flawed approach to a listening test. In order to actually take advantage of echoic memory, you need to loop a small section (often the short, the better - I usually go for a half note or a single bar) over and over that way the audio you hear is consistent and the only differences you will notice are the actual differences in EQ. Otherwise, you wind up with a situation where you *may* notice a difference, but you may also be tricked by momentary musical elements that happen to be enhanced at the instant that you switch to the other plugin. Psychoacoustics are much easier to overcome when given a fair shot - a scenario where you are given a limited amount of music to "process" and "remember" (echoic memory). This is truly the best way to actually hear such minute differences, even if it is contrary to the intuitive notion that this isn't how we normally listen to music or are traditionally taught to engineer.

@DanWorrall

Жыл бұрын

You're asking me to make it easier, in effect. Others have suggested I shouldn't have let you know when I was switching, and challenged you to state the time code when I switched. Make it harder in other words. But you've missed an important consideration: I'm also trying to make entertaining videos that people enjoy watching ;)

@davidharrison5873

Жыл бұрын

If the aural differences are that minute, I would suggest that workflow becomes the deciding factor.

@djkimotei

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I do it exactly like this as well. 1 bar loops, or even a half bar if I need to “zoom in”. I find it optimal for the finer details of my audio memory. Its that short of a memory. After about 2 seconds a lot is lost to me. When shooting out converters, eqs, cables, that sort of thing with micro differences.

@TheOrphicCreative

Жыл бұрын

But the question in that case is, what's the point? If the difference is really so imperceptibly small that you need to set up the equivalent of laboratory conditions to hear it, then it really doesn't matter. Nobody is ever going to hear or care whether you used plugin A or plugin B.

@ovonisamja8024

2 ай бұрын

What you're actualy sying is, it doesn't matter which is wich because there isn't any obvious difference between the two. :) Also, what you're saying is, technology doesn't matter because the music is what's important. :) And I think we all agree.

Mistakes are so fun-I remember a video on youtube with a mixing engineer (well known) who didn't notice the plugin wasn't activated while commenting how much better the sound got.

@tryingtotryistrying

Жыл бұрын

it's a rite of passage (or of the seasons depending) to sit and fiddle with settings for 20 minute confused/"THIS IS MUST BE VERY SUBTLE" before realizing youve got it bypassed. fortunately I don't make youtube videos to do that on camera

@cornerliston

Жыл бұрын

@@tryingtotryistrying I'm quite certain this has happened most of us at least once. If you understand how easy the brain can fool you you'll have a good laugh about it. If you don't understand it you probably end up arguing with yourself in an endless loop of cognitive bias denial.

@jamesgrant3343

Жыл бұрын

Yep - only one week ago, ringing out a foldback wedge. Took probably a full minute to realise the GEQ was bypassed. The 10dB cut seemingly doing nothing to the squealing and the increasing wide Q had my brain very confused

@tryingtotryistrying

Жыл бұрын

@@cornerliston I read a story where that happened to an entire college class and teacher- and it IS a good lesson if like you said you can recognize it. what's really fun is when something DOES sound subtly better and you're suspect of yourself. thankfully I got hd600s/amp 6 months ago and I'm the most confident I've ever been in 20 years in what I'm hearing. I had dt770s before but having the ability to reach over and blast sound into my head for a second with the amp was long overdue.

@cornerliston

Жыл бұрын

@@tryingtotryistrying Very fun! And good to hear your headphones and amp makes the process more confident.

Both A and B sound great, which leads me to believe that they are both the Kirchhoff-EQ, as I just dropped $300 on it and I need to cope with that by assuming it's the best plugin ever and that it will automatically make my mixes sound better, because it's expensive! I can also make it purple, and everyone knows that the visuals of a plugin make everything sound better

Dan: "oh no, I messed up and the amplitude on the Kirchhoff side was 0.01dB louder I need to make a follow-up video" Good stuff!

@SianaGearz

Жыл бұрын

It was 0.15dB louder. Not that i think it matters enough.

This video brought up a very interesting point. When I first watched the eq review video, my gut instinct was screaming at me saying there's a subtle difference in audio between the two, but my rational side just shrugged it off thinking I was having auditory hallucinations and 100% trusting Dan's authority on the subject. So I guess my point is that authority and science is a very delicate topic, but more importantly for me, I should really really listen more to my instincts. Good lesson as always from Dan. 🤘

So in my ears, i feel like i like EQ B better, but it is so subtle that i know damn well that it could also be that my brain making me believe that there is a difference when there is not. This is also the occasion for me to say that your videos are amazing Dan, thank you for sharing your knowledge, your passion and your music that i appreciate more and more, they are pretty unique and original and so damn well mixed. Much love !

@menelik23dedon

4 ай бұрын

A has more bottom end

Having just been going through the Kirchhoff for the first time after buying it because of your previous video, I was just very happy from moving from other EQs and replacing a bunch of them with the Kirchhoff. The flexibility is insane. Between the Fab Filter and the Kirchhoff, for me it was just a matter of price. They’re both awesome. But I did find a use for those “analog” curves.

@TransistorLSD

Жыл бұрын

Great! But keep in mind, analog EQ models that *should* have a proportional Q behaviour lack it. Like SSL G series from Kirchhoff. It's constant Q for some reason.

@DanielPestanaTranslations

Жыл бұрын

@@TransistorLSD Thank you for pointing that out. I truly appreciate it.

@Trentcast

Жыл бұрын

If it’s just a matter of price then why did you buy something that you essentially already have

@ZoneZero253

Жыл бұрын

@@DanielPestanaTranslations I truly appreciate you acknowledging that!

@DanielPestanaTranslations

Жыл бұрын

@@Trentcast Well, because, first, this is way better than anything I got. Second, all of the other EQ plugins I got are free. Third, instead of using three or four different EQ plugins, with this, I only use one. Also, it was on sale, got it pretty cheap.

Dan, love your channel! Huge respect! A = ProQ / B=Kirchoff. To me, there is a difference in the stereo width and depth from the upper mids upwards. It's more noticeable on the earlier, more open parts of your track. The track subtly narrows a bit for me with less depth in the reverb when switching back from B to A. Thank you for doing this! Cheers, Robin

I was expecting Dan to have reversed the visuals of the EQs during the A/B test just to prove a point to "those people". 😂

Clearly, one sounds like plastic, while tho other…a choir of angels. Both are incredible tools, it would appear, though the giants whose shoulders are being perched upon are the developers of the one I own, and the one I will continue to support. Great video, as always. Ever a treat!

Loved the breakdown on both videos and the in-depth matching of the filters as usual. Thanks for being honest and pointing out the small issue with the first AB, I certainly didn't catch it in my watch through. I appreciate longer AB's like this as well (very awesome song btw ♥) it's easier to settle in and relax to focus on the tonal changes. (I appreciated this a lot on your Fabfilter videos too) *As for the AB*, A sounded like Pro-Q to me or another EQ similar to it. B sounds like Kirchhoff having a deeper and slightly clearer sound. To me the difference sounds very similar to the difference of listening to 16Bit audio and switching to 24Bit. Or going from 24Bit to 32Bit (granted only if the examples are being limited to 0dB on both tests for that scenario). This is just my perception of this effect though. Does it really really matter at the end of the day? Probably not. I found that the TDR SlickEQ's and Nova seem to have a similar effect to Kirchhoff's strange depth phenomenon. I assume this might be because they also run at (what I assume is) 64Bit floating point. I really doubt I'd be able to hear this difference on anything except for headphones (at night, and in absolute silence. Like I am and was for my own tests). I feel like being in an anechoic chamber with speakers would probably allow a similar listening experience, honestly no idea though haha. To end this off, at no point as a listener (without an A/B) would I stop mid-song to think "oh yeah sounds like it has a tiny bit more depth, must inexcusably be a 64Bit/117Bit depth EQ" But some might be a lot more passionate about achieving that type of sound signature. I rarely comment on videos out of fear of being ridiculed. But I just wanted to add my 2 cents to this conversation because I think it's also fun to be part of the community instead of just lurking in the background :) Keep up the great work and being a cool audio person ♥ I'm forever thankful for your hard work in the audio community. 🙏

Just a small suggestion for future blind tests Dan. What I do when setting up blind tests trying to prove bullshitters wrong is deliver 4 or even 8 samples. I don't say how many of them are processed by one or the other, I just ask them to tell me which ones are the ones processed by one or the other. Up to this day no one ever tried to guess hoping they at least get that 50% chance of getting it right and walking away saying "see? I was right, I can hear the difference" As always, great content Dan! Looking forward to your next video :)

Separation and Beyond is such a brilliant song with phenomenal stereo imaging

That bass was rad. I cannot be sure if it was the music, my sound system or the combination of the two, but it hit just those right spots to... Let's just say to have some positive effects on me.

@mrnelsonius5631

Жыл бұрын

I love the bass part too. Beautiful round sound and a killer part. A/B test? More like “just vibe man, who cares”

The man using the EQ is much more important than the EQ itself. A gerat engineer can create a fantastix mix with bith EQs.

Well im really enjoying this A B test. Great tune to turn up and just really listen. No I don't hear any difference, but I dig that bassline

Excellent piece Dan.

I really like that you responded that fast. I didn't comment under your last video, because there was no point doing so. But I've listened to your high shelf comparison with a 2:1 upward compressor on the output (my "watch some movies at midnight without any dynamics" setting via EqualizerAPO for Windows) and Kirchhoff sounded better to me. I'm feeling sorry to say that, really. But in a mix adding this hf-aliasing up accross multiple tracks is certainly going to be audible as it is with 2:1 upward comp. Oh I really put myself into trouble here...

@troeteimarsch

Жыл бұрын

Dude, it's the transients. EQB is Pro-Q3.

@troeteimarsch

Жыл бұрын

But it also might be both the same eq with different dynamics processing before it :D

@troeteimarsch

Жыл бұрын

It's both pro-q 3 xD lov you for that ! :D

I'm more curious how said person can even work on projects that require 300 dB of dynamic range without dying, as 172 dB was the loudness estimated by the Krakatoa explosion heard 165 Km from it and it was enough to rupture the eardrums of the sailors on a ship stationed at that distance.

@comradestinger

Жыл бұрын

Maybe some wild kind of signal processing, unrelated to music or sound meant for listening to. I've heard of Audacity being used for some non-audio things.

@qasderfful

Жыл бұрын

Bells are a relative scale. Like percentages. That means, it indicates the difference between two values. 300 dB of dynamic range means the quietest a sample can go is 300 dB lower than 0 dBFS. "Real life" decibels are measured relative to a human hearing threshold.

@echodream

Жыл бұрын

300dB of dynamic range doesn't necessarily mean louder. Whether it's a 16-bit CD with 96dB of dynamic range or a 24-bit render with 144dB of dynamic range, 0dBFS remains the same. In the context of the 117-bit mode test, I wanted to clarify that in order to perceive the benefits, you should feed Kirchhoff EQ at -300dB or lower (preferably in a 64-bit session) and then boost back or normalize the signal afterward. This allows you to hear the difference when comparing it to the null test.

@BrunodeSouzaLino

Жыл бұрын

@@echodream Which means that you have to make everything 300 dB louder in order to hear that difference down there.

@echodream

Жыл бұрын

​@@BrunodeSouzaLino Yes, it is necessary to boost back to an audible range (or normalize) in order to hear the difference. So essentially, this 117-bit mode does work. It is obviously overkill or even completely unnecessary, but it works. The benefits of a larger dynamic range should be audible in both directions (feeding Kirchhoff at -300dB or overloading it by +300dB), and they are. However, for some reason (possibly due to protective internal clipping or other factors), the null test behaves better in the negative.

I did hear it yesterday and preferred one of the mixes. I did have my eye closed the entire way so didn't spot the mistake but replaying the video both times my ears locked onto that section. Ultimately I put it down to some random bias and figured I would take a look another day in the studio vs with my reference headphones. I do have a few plugins from Plugin Alliance as well as the Fab Filter boys (and others). Interface and workflow make a big difference. Right tool for the job but its got to fit comfortably in your hands.

That's one of the best songs I ever experienced for a A/B test ^^ Frankly I can hear no difference.

Just left it playing in the background. Relaxing track.

With digital eq it's really about interface and how easy it is to make non typical curves. Assuming no cramping most digital eqs should sound the same tip dynamics or saturate are added. Now some don't have curve options. I use both cubases and slates infinity eq depending on what I need and speed. Daw eq is often easy to just adjust on the fly without Windows. Slate eq is good for weird curves and using an analyser for either spot problem fixing (resonances etc) or sound design.

As you mentioned. You need to spend more time with this plugin 14ays ain't enough ... In the early versions. The low shelf curve was shaped different. until version 1.6 Now you have the option to choose the different behaviours in the low end when using different eq curves I bought the eq for cheap when it first come out and updated along the way ... The developer always responds and tries to add feature requests and improvments... I think that's why it's got so complex Abit like Reaper DAW . If you used it from Day. You knew what was new but going to Reaper from another other DAW is a huge learning curve... Just my opinion. But Dan.... you are the GOAT !!!!!!!! Keep being you and never give up

Very nice song mate!!! The one in the blind test! Absolutely lovely! Fantastic harmonies. Don't really care about the sound differences (my brain wants B to be pro-q but I really can't tell a difference)

@DanWorrall

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Niklas :)

If there IS a difference, even if I could hear it, it's definitely not enough to matter to anyone.

All of this could be seen as semantics, the greatest difference is that Pro q 3 has eq match. The ability to match an eq, create its inverse and place it on another track to carve holes is one of the most useful tricks it can do…but missing on the Kirchoff.

@gh0stransist0r

Жыл бұрын

that masking red thingy too.

@jeff92k7

Жыл бұрын

You can do part of that. Once you have an EQ that you want to duplicate, you can select all the points, and copy/paste it to another instance of the plugin, then manipulate at will (remove gains, reverse, make all cuts, etc). You just can't automatically create that initial EQ curve; unless there's a way to do it that I haven't found yet.

@irishfitz

Жыл бұрын

@@jeff92k7 I'm not going to pretend I know what EQ match is, like does it calculate each freq. difference from flat and say this freq. has been boosted by this much to create the curve? Either way, making your own curve would yield the utmost best results on a case by case basis, however you could just pick a preset for each sound and flip the copy of each on the respective sounds. I just did this with a synth and guitar purposely playing the same range, it went very well choosing the "low guitar" preset for the guitar (which is a low funky grungy chuggy guitar)...I copied that to the synth, highlight all nodes and dragged the opposite way noting the frequency of the node I just grabbed to place in a similar range just the other way....Then I loaded up "epic strings" on the synth (buzzy saw synth)...copied that over to the guitar, It even has dynamic nodes, yolo just highlight all and drag the opposite way, and bob's your uncle. Without even bothering to try all that hard (didn't fuss with dynamic nodes) and I've got very usable results. I love this Kirchhoff EQ.

@jeff92k7

Жыл бұрын

@@irishfitz Fabfilter pro-q3 has a feature called EQ Match where it will automatically build an EQ curve based on a selected input source, or you can load a previously saved EQ curve. I'm assuming that is what LennonStephens was referring to. It is a useful feature, and I've seen it used for things like creating an automatic EQ curve of a lead vocal, then applying the inverse curve to a mix minus bus that contains everything but the lead vocal, and using dynamics to apply the EQ curve based on the side chain of the lead vocal... basically, you're carving out the vocal frequencies from the rest of the mix, but only when the vocal is present. It's a pretty advanced and creative technique, and one that Kirchoff can do most of - with the exception of the automatic EQ curve analysis/creation. You can still manually make your own EQ curve where the center points are on the vocal's fundamental tone and harmonics and then do the rest of the effect very similarly to fab filter. It just takes a little more time to make the EQ points since Kirchoff doesn't have the "do it for me" option.

@irishfitz

Жыл бұрын

@@jeff92k7 I appreciate your response. Yeah I get the concept mostly, but how the curve is generated is not clear to me, I'll look into the specifics on my own time. This does sound useful and the sidechain use makes perfect sense, you wouldn't want to carve giant holes in a mix bus for no reason. I'm currently still messing with the Kirchhoff EQ and there is an option to "paste inverted" in the upper left hand menu. And isn't that what presets are tho, the do it for me option, so you pick a preset that suits the audio instead of the ai doing this, then highlight the nodes found in the preset....the ones generated for you by choosing a preset, then right click one of them, then click copy, then in the second EQ instance in the upper left hand menu you click "paste inverted". Is the Pro q 3 version of this effect just click a button and get a curve, then it's automatically applied to a second instance with the inverse curve loaded up? Or would you have to load a second instance, then do the copy paste thing but the pro q 3 way? I dunno, I clearly never used pro q 3. But in my opinion saying "creating an automatic EQ curve of a lead vocal" is fancy talk for load a vocal preset curve. I'm not down talking pro q 3, it sounds like it actually listens to the audio and generates a curve rather than simply apply one, but what is that process, would it not land on the same sweet spots for vocals as you or I would manually, therefore suggesting that a preset chosen from Kirchhoff is going to be similar to a generated curve from pro q 3? Ya know there abouts or so. For example, vocals get a 1.5 - 2.5k boost to bring them forward in the mix, then 4.5k for clarity, then 8k for sheen, the a low shelf cut around 200 for muddiness. This is ball parked, but fairly standard starting points for vocals, would pro q 3 not find all the same spots? And honestly the 1.5k might be 1.7k or something, likewise for the others, it all depends on the surrounding information, so after EQing the vocals to the track, you now have a rock solid vocal curve for the specific track it resides in, then you would use that curve to carve out room from other elements in the track. I doubt pro q 3 will generate a curve based on the whole track, so really I can't see the generated curve beating a chosen one. As @LennonStephens mentioned, All of this could be seen as semantics, we're definitely in the weeds now. haha

After got hooked into using clippers for mixing drums I realized that actually I shouldn't care about teeny tiny details. I have bigger tasks to do, so to say, and when you build character you will do way more drastic changes than the difference between two digital EQs.

tony banks would be very proud of that chord progression. thanks for the follow up vid

'new is always better' -Barney Stinson

Wow I love how you write basslines, so interesting

The only practically inaudible difference in the first test is a subtle shift of high-frequency signal in space by about 2° to the right by Kirchhoff. In the second EQ test, at a certain spectral distance, EQ A behaves as if it subtly focuses the sound, while the EQ B gently blurs it. The changes behave more like subtle cosmetic adjustments to the spatial perception rather than audible frequency correction.

One of the emperors has no clothes on and the other is naked but for three hundred quid you can imagine one with magnificent robes.

trick question! they're both the pro-q 3, if a Kirchhoff had been used, the session would've crashed by now

@DanWorrall

Жыл бұрын

Lol

I did notice a significant difference in the original listening test, but I didn't think much of it. Makes more sense knowing that it was just a volume thing

And the winner is... "Separation and Beyond". BEAUTIFUL!

For me, if you can’t make up for whatever perceived difference there is between these two plugins through adjustment, something else is wrong. At this level of hair splitting you either have an extreme edge case that warrants the use of a different tool, or you prefer the workflow of one over the other. Either way, I’m glad Dan is patient and takes things as far as he does.

On the original video i saw both meters was lit for one small period of time, but on the phone speaker i wasnt dialed in with any depth of perspective as i made tea in the kitchen, and anyway, who would have the balls to call out haha, the audio oracle mr Worrall is a special breed

Yeah my main reason for wanting Kirchhoff is probably for the dynamics, but only because I'm still on Pro-Q 2 instead of 3. Right now my options are TDR Nova and Ozone, which are fine but I just like having everything in the same place. I actually have no clue which is cheaper between Kirchhoff on sale or the Pro Q 3 update 😅

Honestly I couldn't hear any difference but I'm glad I got to listen to a dan worral track in full

I genuinely closed my eyes during that part of the video in the original so I didn't hear it, but I did notice something was up the first time I saw it with visuals

Bass tone is amazing. Great track 💯

Pausing at 2:00 now to place my thoughts on the original video (forgot to comment, but I loved review. Will probably still buy it at some point as I'm tryiing to step into PA ecosystem and enjoy what I've gotten so far). When I watched the first video I thought the clips were the same, but watching it this time I feel like the top end shelf has either more "airy" top end (or wider q/ just more gain to attempt to translate the difference into technical terms)

I noticed the meters in the previous video but didn't hear the volume jump, which I guess means I should save my money and just use whatever old eq I find in the bin since I'm unlikely to notice anything audibly different. Were I setting up the AB test I would have made both of them the Kirchhoff.

Both sound great. Your song is the shining star here! It evokes such moody feelings …

EQ C sounds really warm and superior!

Difference or not, that is a damn nice song you made there, sir.

I only noticed visually this time because I was looking for it and saw the bar hanging around after it was supposed to be gone. I didn't notice it otherwise and didn't notice any differences when swapping aurally.

I like both. Kirchoff is more surgical, especially with dynamic bands. And has those hardware modelled curves are nice imo But Pro-Q is just faster to use imo, leading to less ear fatigue. Which is probably more important. Kirchoff is more distracting to my attention, i want to "play" with it more.

Thank you Dan for this video and other reviews you make! For me it´s clear like day and night. EQ A is Pro Q, EQ B is Kirchhoff. This is so easy to spot because EQ B has much cleaner transients.

I hear a subtle phasing effect happening with EQ B which is not present on EQ A and Gives A a more natural vibe. I hate being descriptive in audio but I just wanna mention that I hear some sort of difference. I'm anticipating to see the result Dan. Thank you for the wonderful content and I keep my fingers crossed that these two are not identical in fact. also I would like to mention that the thing I'm hearing here can be a modulation which is a part of the performance and not having anything to do with the mixing stage.

Your music is fascinating..We love you.

At the beginning I thought EQ A was sounding softer and B was making the sounds more crunchy, sometimes muddier, and I was preferring A. After the 1st minute of the song I stopped noticing any difference - they sounded exactly equal. So I'm tempted to say that I was tricked by changed on the song and I did not hear any real difference.

@jean-lucbattista2492

Жыл бұрын

Same experience

Always so interesting when a song doesn't start with the whole image centre. Equally concerning because I have slightly bad hearing in my right ear and the song started I was thinking "wtf my hearing can't be THIS bad!"

@ludfde

Жыл бұрын

Same with my sound system 😅

I think I'm wrong, but if any difference is possible to hear, there might have been something I preferred a tiny bit on A when the hi-hat opened up. I think that was a coincidence of how the playing, or sample velocity/round robin, or how that opened high-hat sat in the mix, at that exact moment on one or two occasions that made me biased so that I continuously pseudo heard it throughout the rest.

If you need to worry about the difference here it means your production skills are GOD LEVEL, I still have much to learn and practice before this makes a difference in my tracks 👽

The A/B didn't interest me at all, neither does the answer, but man that song, just genius. As always with you Worrall. Great way to inject your beautiful work to our ears. I truly listened and I'm happy I did. Brought the game Bastion and the incredible musical work of Darren Korb in it to my mind for some reason.

Just found out about your channel Dan. This is the third video I’ve watched. Don’t know which was which but what I did notice - with eyes closed and listening though my television - was that I knew when the switch happened because the ambience changed, particularly the reverb on higher pitched percussion. It was consistent enough that when I opened my eyes because I heard that change the eq on screen was different. EQ B had maybe 50 to 100 ms more ambience. Don’t know why but interesting to hear.

Interesting test! I would prefer to do a local A/B test here which randomly would choose which file to play so I could remove the psychological part of making up my mind of which is which from the start. After doing tests like this for ages, I know that my brain sometimes likes to fill in the missing information, so it would be nice to remove that possibility. Anyways, I do experience differences between these two clips even when jumping around without first looking at which clip I'm listening to, but yeah, I'm still open to the slight possibility of my brain messing with the test. EQ A: Most of all, I experience that I feel the "room" of the mix with this EQ better than with the other EQ. I can also hear a tiny extension both in the lows and in the highs, but at the same time, I can hear some added contrast in the high mids/highs from EQ B, which at first tricked me into thinking that EQ B had a slightly larger boost in the highs (or a tiny bit extended bandwidth/lower Q) until I noticed the different transient response in that area. Overall, the sound of this clip feels more "loose" and natural. EQ B: This one feels more processed and in some aspects in a good way for this track. I miss some of the room (width, height, and depth) when switching to this EQ, but on the other hand, this one feels more controlled / a tiny bit more defined. I would guess that this EQ is calibrated in a way that it gives a tiny bit more focus to the transients compared to EQ A, and EQ B gives you a bit more focus on what happens "between the notes" than EQ B, but there is more to it... Very subtle differences, but for me, EQ A overall sounds more "high quality". Still, in this exact example, I would probably prefer to stick with EQ B and go on with my life.

Hi Dan Worrall. Can you give me some advice? Still, you had a lot of experience. As I read more and more articles and watched tutorial videos, I started to get a little confused about which plugins I should use. In the beginning, I tried the FabFiltre plugins and I really liked them. Their cleanliness, sound quality, and convenience are very impressive. But famous engineers used analog equipment, and many other plug-ins. So do I need to use well-known emulations of compressors, equalizers, such as Pultec, or UAD 1176? Will FabFilter and iZotop plugins be enough for me? Do I need emulations, old hardware from the 1960s+? Are there any new plugins with their own unique character? How to track new products?

@DanWorrall

Жыл бұрын

You don't need vintage gear, or emulations of vintage gear. FabFilter and iZotope plugins are absolutely capable of polished, professional sounding mixes. Some people like the modern interfaces, other people prefer the vintage styled stuff: there's no right or wrong here, it's an artistic endeavour. It's also ok to buy new plugins just out of curiosity or GAS, assuming that doesn't mean you won't be able to eat. Generally speaking though, you're much better off with a small collection of tools you know well than with a huge folder of plugins you don't know how to use.

@Skrecky

Жыл бұрын

@@DanWorrall Thank you very much! That was a great answer. 😇

Dan, just had a thought. I am doing a course on somewhat basic statistics for my political science degree, and if you want to do your test on whether these audio-fanatics can hear the difference between Kirchhoff and Fabfilter, I suggest you do this (by the way, I would gladly do the actual analysis of the data collected if you do this haha!) : You want an experiment with a control group and a Treatment group. The assignment to either the treatment or control group must be random or at least as-if-random. (Birthdays are for an example an okay way to imitate randomness for our purpose). The control group hears the same audio clip, and does their voting The treatment hears the actual two different clips, and then does their voting also. We can then use OLS linear regression to check if the control and treatment group actually differ from each other. The reason I post this is. There will always be somebody who gets it right by randomness. Doing it this way, we can do a null hypothesis at say a 5% significance level and actually see, if the difference in voting (=hearing) is actually real, or just a random occcurence for this particular sample that we got from your audience. Just wrote this up quickly, but would genuinely be interested in doing this. Kind regards, a thankful viewer Anders from Denmark

@jurajhadzala951

Жыл бұрын

Please give this likes so dan sees it

@JoshWiniberg

Жыл бұрын

+1 for this!

eq A clearly has more sheen, while B has more warmth. also A seems to add more vibe, while B has more depth. The soundstage of A is a lot wider, and B is more in your face. Unless i’m mistaken ofcourse, in which case it’s the other way around.

EQ A had a nose with notes of cinnamon and tobacco, just the tiniest hint of caramel. Very smooth mouthfeel without any astringence. EQ B had a similar nose, but a uniquely brusque aftertaste. I’m going to guess EQ B is a Macallan 15-year double cask.

...and as 114 is not a power of 2, we expect another video 🤓 love what you do Dan !! 💙

I watch these Videos on mobile and I closed my eyes last time, couldn't tell the difference

Love the original musicat the end dan."Separation and Beyond". Love that massive bottom end and shiny top end ❤

I never commented on your other video but i could hear a slight difference when i listened last night, and your mistake was likely what i was hearing though i never caught it until you pointed it out. it was still very very subtle. In this case, i can't hear a difference, and i'm almost suspicious that there is no difference/they are the same plugin in A and B. If not, then Kudos to both developers on these amazing tools.

@DanWorrall

Жыл бұрын

No funny business, I promise. I'm switching between the two EQs exactly as described.

@dwightdeon2421

Жыл бұрын

@@DanWorrall good to know, Dan, and thank you for all the videos you post. Cheers

It would be hilarious if Dan is actually comparing with another EQ that doesn’t null nearly as well, but still nobody can hear a difference 😂

your review convinced me to by the K EQ, i don't know if it was your intent but thanks! :)

@DanWorrall

Жыл бұрын

My intent was genuinely to be as fair as I possibly could, so I guess that's a win :)

@lameraviglia

Жыл бұрын

@@DanWorrall you were, i had a discount for it but my worry was "can it replace the Pro-Q (that i don't own) to a decent degree", and your review sounds like a yes to me. also it was hilarious.

Interesting. In the original review video I didn't perceive a tonal difference between the two EQ's, at least not on that material. In this new A/B, on this material, I don't notice when the switch from A to B occurs, but I do consistently perceive a very very subtle loss of top-end air when switching from B back to A. I can't say that either sounds "better" - only that one (B) *seems* to have just a touch more air, but that the addition of that air isn't particularly noticeable, while the other (A) *seems* not to have it, and that its absence immediately after a switch is subtly noticeable. I'd be very curious to see whether a null test supports what I think I'm hearing.

My brain says A sounds better, but I have no notion which is which. B sounds “ringy” to me or something, but that could just be me hearing things. I closed my eyes and checked if I could open my eyes when it crossed over, rewinding to check that the timing was actually at when the text changed, and I was successful about 8/10 times. I went back to certain parts after forgetting them, using the still visuals to scrub through with no audio. Not exactly scientific, but enough to say I heard something, even if somehow I just tricked myself.

I bought Kirchoff a while back and I do sort of regret it. It's not that it's a bad plugin - for anyone that doesn't have Q 3 already I would think Kirchoff is a great choice. But as someone who uses FabFilter already, I haven't really found much reason to use Kirchoff when I can get the job done quicker with an interface I'm more familiar with. By itself it really is a good plugin, I wouldn't rate it badly. It's just a crowded market and it doesn't bring enough innovation to justify that purchase for those of us who already have FF at our disposal.

Cool tune. Both eq's sound fine.

Using my kitchen digital scales, eq B weighed in at 24 pounds at 96k. I tared them at unity gain and Nyquist, so no margin for error.

It should be the same phrase or loop repeating without so much musical variations in the journey, as the higher notes or even the subtle instrument performance progression can play with perceptions of differences to the ear

There were times people discussing which hard drive sounds best and those people are still alive.

Staring at the screen I genuinely felt A offered a more natural sense of space. I've always had a penchant for that letter.

The UI is so cluttered, Pro Q³ is still the king of surgical EQ imo

EQ A is Fabfilter and EQ B is Kirchhoff. Wild guess, but I do *think* I hear a tiny difference in the highest frequencies. Which I can’t explain, but Kirchhoff seemed slightly sparklier in the first video. Not better, but something different up there. Mind you, that could be a consequence of the testing faults and now I’m hearing things! For what it’s worth I’ve stuck with FF for general EQ, I don’t need the extra features of Kirchhoff and I prefer FF’s dynamic EQ controls.

when You asked to pay extra close attention for the misstake, i did say to myself "is Kirchhoff a bit louder?", but then i closed my eyes and tried again and couldn't even confirm that observation anymore. brain is brain.

@RiddimWook10

Жыл бұрын

Yknow, I actually did too! but I thought it was just me imagining things lol.

@insulatedworld

Жыл бұрын

@@RiddimWook10 exaclty that! word for word

If this was about like a 10 band EQ where you can only adjust boost / cut or something I might understand, but this is about a full control EQ.. with standard curves all differences are user made, and if you don't like the sound then change something.. that's what EQ is there to do.

I believe that EQA and EQB are both plugins made by different manufacturers. I also believe some people will believe whatever they want, regardless of if it makes sense or not!

A and B are definitely different. I don't know if the volume value has changed or the tone has changed, but there is definitely a difference.

The differences are inaudible, null tests rather prove that (note these literally take into account transients and steady state behaviour). Most people have bias when it comes to listening and comparing audio files. As to which is which who knows if they null test then it really doesn’t matter!

Interesting set of notes 😁