See this update video for quantified results with a more robust methodology: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/np9_priEvbHNdJs.html

I don't think people understand just how good we have it today compared to how it used to be back then. This is a good reality check.

I needed this 50 plugins ago. 🙃

When I started, I told myself, that I will only look for new plugins as soon as Im able to hear differences between plugins. Turns out I never had to look for a new eq, ableton stock eq does the job 90% of the time for me

Been preaching this forever. Marketing brilliance from the plugin makers. I fell for it myself for a while. I have been recording/mixing/mastering since 1976, so I have lived the changes. Y’all just don’t know!

I'm just a hobbyist, but this is so nice to hear. I had the same sentiment for a while: If you hear a problem, and know what tool is suitable to fix it, then it doesn't really matter which exact tool you've got, you can get the result you want.

Excellent and insightful. Love your enthusiasm... Keep it up!!

Hitting people where it hurts. Enjoying the honesty man. Thank you

Loving this type of content, nice roasting maaan. Thank you!

Guess you've inspired me to test out more plugins if they are worth using. I specifically only bought EQs with tasty saturation, but then again sometimes I might have made the mistake of hearing with my eyes :)

I believe it was Dave Gamble of DMG who said something like "All EQs sound the same except for the make-up amplifiers" and advocates for Clean EQs followed by a saturation plug if you so desire.

As an EQ designer who doesn't believe in the marketing, I'm deeply familiar with all the points you raise here. I also fully endorse null testing, and you're doing it right. One thing that might help you out is the difference between parallel and serial band topologies. Things like a Sontec or Massenburg EQ have parallel bands, so when you engage them they sum differently to a series EQ. Likely the issues canceling the Curve Bender stem from that, though I confess to not having checked the schematics. I don't know if your preferred EQ offers a parallel mode, but it's not too hard to add. Regarding the issue of particular things having interesting shapes and engineers preferring them, I'd draw your attention to the "SSL knob-colour wars". Engineers moving from studio to studio would get very used to things like Q tightening as they increased gain. Then going to a different room with a different coloured knob, the channel EQ behaved differently. If you're a gigging mix engineer (not that such a job really exists any more) and you're expecting your board to work one way, and suddenly you're faced with one that works differently, you feel hamstrung and slowed down. So I do believe that for people who are very used to a piece of kit working a certain way, there's value in them being able to continue to do so. If you've learned one EQ deeply, you will likely be faster with that EQ than with one that works differently. For me this has meant needing to be able to emulate all the subtle and varying weird shapes and offering them in one place. Phase cancellation in the mids and low end is, indeed, something to take for granted. The thing that drew me to EQ as a problem was the issue of getting the high end right. I refer you back to the "cramping" "warping" wars of the 2010s. You'll definitely find phase cancel content up near nyquist between some of these EQs. This is much less of an issue nowadays than it used to be, thankfully. But the 90s and 2000s were PLAGUED with EQs that warped at the top end. Bells were unsymmetric at high frequencies. This did make life a bit miserable. Using a second band to correct for it was not unusual, and in those days when you didn't have so many bands to play with, that was bad. That's something that contributed to the notion of digital sounding "cold" or "sterile" - the top end wasn't where you expected it to be! All the best with your endeavours. It's nice to see someone doing some science :)

I just tested the Iron plug in you recommended on some drums. Holy cow, what an amazing plug in.

good points - thats why i only use the fab filter proQ pretty much for eq and if I want something more ill use my Analog Empress Tube EQ or one of my other analong units for enhancement. Ive used digital for saturation but there is always something missing with digital and i use the tru iron ( sounds the best) but usually have to use multiple plugins - its just not the same with high quality analog units sorry if you think it is :)

Keep going! This is such valuable content. Would love to see a similar video for compressors debunking the “vintage”/“warm” marketing hype around so many offerings.

Thanks for this video. I feel like something like this would be pretty interesting with synths, filters and effects as well.

Fascinating video! Those null tests were really interesting. It makes me wonder about Acustica Audio's EQ plugins since they're based on sampling rather than algorithms. Do you think they would null out the same way? Curious to see the results if you have the time and energy!

Great video, and I must admit, I have been sold a couple of times by slick marketing. I just signed up for the pre-order for your course. I feel relatively confident in my EQ ability, but I feel like there’s something that I could learn from you. Looking forward to the course launch. 👍🏻👍🏻

I'm glad that at 26 years old I can still hear that high frequency noise lol. Nice video too.

3:16 Dan Worral recently made a video with some Softube plugin, showing that they were using a FIR filter for oversampling. If that Curve Bender has any modeled saturation maybe they're using the same OS filter and that would explain the phase weirdness. Great video btw!

Good stuff. I was the one who commented on having the quick curves handy for Pultecs, bax, etc. As a rebuttal, I didn't say they're used randomly. They're used when needed and with purpose, so you misconstrued the comment. I do, however, know what you're saying, which is basically that you need 1 good eq to handle everything. That's true. However, that's like saying that you only need 1 good knife to cut all your food. Yes, a good chef's knife will handle pretty much everything, but if you have a variety of knives, they are built to perform specific functions. Both get the job done. That's my point. On another token, thanks for the null tests. Hopefully I'm able to resell all my other non-specific EQs now before people see this video ;)

This is a big revelation, thanks for the information

I love how you approach non-sense comments with facts and science. Thanks for the content!

We've all fallen into the plugin rabbit-hole. They're leading us up the primrose path. The most important aspects of a track will always be the writing and musicianship/lyrical genuis, followed by the production/arrangement.

This is awesome, thank you!

Ok hold on. 1. Yes you can get away with just using one EQ if you had to…you don’t need 20 EQ’s. 2. In the video he’s playing white noise and when listen to it’s Delta, you hear a muffled hiss at a lower volume…People, that “is” the difference (this is normal). If he was playing music, you’d hear the music’s delta. If it was 100% silent using multiple EQ tweets, then those 2 EQ’s would scientifically sound exactly the same. 3. All EQ’s do NOT have the same “Q” factors and curves which makes them different from one another which also makes them unique. 4. If you own an EQ that could replicate different Q’s and curves, you could replicate any EQ (it’s saturation is another story). 5. A seasoned engineer is not going to waste his or his client’s time trying to make a stock EQ (w/no saturation) sound like a Pultec using 20 steps when he could just use a Pultec plug-in(that he bought on sale) that could do the job in 4 knob turns (with its saturation included). “These are Facts”. Bottom line: -Yes you don’t need 20 EQ’s and the best EQ is the one you got. -If you don’t know why you’d use one EQ over another, don’t worry about it if you’re only a producer, do your thing. -If you’re a Mix and/or Mastering Engineer, you’ve been doing this a while and you already know. -My advice to buying plug-ins is to only buy what you need and know why you need it.✌🏾

I like to use Fl studios EQ1 and EQ2 basicly they are the same but 1 does not have a visual monitor for the sound that saves screen area and makes you listen with your ears and other times i like to see the frequencies

Good video 👌🎵, but I do find the coloring on the amek 200 by P.A. to sound obviously nice compared with my stock options in Bitwig and Ableton, I think if you pushed the high end enough you would find some differences between certain eq’s

So glad to see a "no-bs" followup video!

Oh this is lovely, good job!

Would absolutely love more content on transformers and amplifiers! nice one.

Thanks for showing what I have always suspected.

I will say that I am hearing some noise differences in the delta null results of a few of the EQs. But is that enough to mean anything at all? Who knows at this point. I’ve been mixing in Nashville for 30 years and never thought to challenge these EQ plugins with null tests. Mainly because I assumed they each had unique curves and inherent tones due to the modeled circuitry. But I have tested “True Peak limiters with null tests to see if they were truly clipped peaks without overshooting with digital distortion. I’ve been too occupied turning out mixes to put time into null-testing the massive pile of EQs I’ve been using. 😂 Thanks for your boldness to challenge the ears of even seasoned engineers along the entire plugin industry. I like challenges. That closing metaphor with you banging on the guitar made me laugh out loud. 😂 You have a new subscriber with an open mind. You’re never too old to hear fresh and new ideas, perspectives, and challenges that step outside popular narratives. Cheers!

Priceless ! You got a subscriber

Excellent comparison. We are bombarded by companies to buy and we don’t do any tests to see what we are buying. I was buying a lot of plugins and I was doing it more because of an itch to buy and not really learning how to use my plugins

The delta varied a bit there, some nulled really well, some not so much. There was def some difference in some of them. I largely agree, except I would say you talk about EQing stuff surgically, but sometimes we use it for flavour and just having nice curves at a knob is nice to have. I've got multiple desk EQ plugins, and sometimes I just get a slightly better sound from one or another on a source.

Agree with everything except I think having some EQs for quick go-to "colors" can be useful. Pultec, Maag EQ4 (I use Luftikus, which is free), 1073 high end are about all I ever need. Just one/two knobs usually gets it pretty close.

I f*cking laughed my ass off. This is as entertaining as enlightening. Well done mate!

Subscribed. I like the format

Very informative! I want to know if the same applies to compressor and preamp emulations as well.

Fab filter eqs are super easy to use though and i love how you can make bands dynamic. I now mainly only ever use dynamic eq which i wouldnt have done b4 using it. I think most analog eqs add some komd of colour, not sure if distortion would show up in your graph? I have an actuall neve 1073 and for some reason the eq on it sounds alot different to just using a standard plugin eq

Well done. Got to love your guts and the truth of cold hard scientific evidence. 👏👏

Yeah! I finally know it. This explain why most of the time I only use daw stock eq instead of these famous eqs. I try to add these eqs and get confuse why they add odd "vintage/warmth" to the sound or they not did the eq curve that normal eq does, that's not what I expect them to do.They makes me work more to fix the "problem" that they create. I know most people like these famous eqs, but it just doesn't work for me.

I pretty much agree but i am not sure about „some“ EQs that mimic specific behaviour from an analog counterpart to speed up the workflow. When i first put a trial version of the UAD Manley Massive Passive on an insert slot that high shelf was magic. It put a sweet shine on the top end i couldn’t achieve with other EQs without getting harsh. Yes, it could maybe be reproduced with Pro-Q3 (my go-to EQ) but absolutely don‘t know how 😂 For saturation i am totally with you … no need in EQs since there are Top Saturation plug-ins available.

You are brilliant. I use Aquatica Audio Salt and some Plugin Alliance analog models like the Amek 200, Amek 9099, and Knif Soma, among others. I also use Pro Q3. Actually, the analog models sound better than Pro Q3 when I boost. Pro Q3 is best for surgical cuts, but if you boost it above 6 dB, it introduces an artificial tone in the high frequencies. Try this: there are a few analog model EQs that you can boost even over 10 dB, and they still sound natural. Test this.

I mean if it helps me get the job done, then whats the problem, you still have them and use them here and there. Like you can recreate a curve in any dynamic EQ, thats pretty known but if I have an EQ that can help me get there quicker than just wasting my time finessing Pro Q3, then Ill opt for that EQ

Long time ago I compare Ableton's EQ eight with fabfilter and sonically I found ProQ sounds much cleaner. Probably you have an answer to that.

It was always funny to me how you'd hear someone say that one company's 0's and 1's were "warmer" or "more open" than another's lol.

Nice vid! As a noob with to many plugins, this is golden👍🏻

Doing gods work, thank you

This all figures. I’ve gathered several different EQs from various plugin packages over the years, and only ever found myself using Ozone EQ for flexibility, the DAW for convenience, or one of the Overloud EQs that allows you to saturate specific bands (sometimes nice, sometimes lousy). I feel bad for the plug-in manufacturers because they covered most of the useful ground they could over a decade ago. I wonder if people like the vintage-style ones because they wouldn’t normally bother to mess with bandwidths, so just end up wider, more pleasant sounding curves, quickly achievable with a broad brush and less opportunity to over-correct?

I’ve always thought this to be the case with eq. However I mix better with something like an SSL channel strip because I can’t see the eq visually. I know this is a me issue and I could just not turn on the visual on new eq’s. Same with a Pultec I haven’t got a fucking clue what the curve is, but sometimes I know that +5 on the sub then attenuating by 5 is going to sound great. I can’t be assed to look up what it’s doing then replicate it on another eq.

I use analog style EQs more for tone shaping Then use a proper EQ when I wanna be more surgical

PART TWO For the first point, we need to answer the question if your input signal is able to probe the entire signal space relevant to audio signals and equalisers. If the system under investigation is completely linear, which also excludes any kind of quantisation errors that are always present in digital realisations, then you can correctly argue that white noise statistically probes the input space in a way that creates a complete picture of the system’s processing. But as discussed earlier, actual linear system implementations do differ in their quantisation handling, which won’t be detectable with this method. Even if you decide to ignore these effects on the signal outcome because you argue that they only make an audible difference (we’ll come to the meaning of that later) in certain pathological scenarios, your conclusion is still invalidated by the fact that you did not look at this case. But the main interest here is really the performance of modelled non-linear equalisers, so let’s focus on those. With non-linearity in place, you can no longer argue that white noise is probing your system sufficiently because the important step of decomposing into a sinusoidal basis does not commute with non-linear systems in general. In fact, there is no way to exhaustingly sample the input space of a non-linear processor and therefore any conclusion that a system is not deviating from linearity based on observation of a finite number of inputs and outputs is invalid in a strict sense. That is, unless you make certain assumptions about the kind of nonlinearity to expect, which allows you to look in the right places. So, does the white noise signal you are using look in some of the right places for the kind of non-linearity that is to be expected in EQs? Unfortunately, no. The nonlinearities of an EQ typically are in the pre or post stages or in the resonant feedback loop of the filters. Common to all these locations is that the (smooth) nonlinearity is tuned such that it shows at high amplitudes, usually at around -6 to 0 dBfs in a digital realisation. Your white noise signal peaks at around -6 dBfs and appears to follow an approximately Gaussian sample distribution, which is consistent with the rather low RMS level of -16 dBfs. The RMS level is equivalent to the expected amplitude that is driving the nonlinearity. A fairly typical memoryless distortion using a hyperbolic tangent comes with a power series expansion that has a cubic dominating non-linear term with a coefficient of 1/3 or -9.5dB. That means you would expect distortion products to appear roughly below - 3*16 - 9.5 dBfs = 57.5 dBfs. Your metering only goes to -24 dBfs and you never show the noise floor of your null-test, so your result is inconclusive, at best. Had you tested at an RMS level of -6 dB instead, we could have seen and heard the first distortion effects at -27.5 dBfs, which would have made a great difference in terms of audibility. Another way to clearly expose non-linearity is to make sure the gain loop is driven at a high level. That would require both a reasonable input gain and a filter setting that produces a significant feedback path gain. Such settings come with high Q and high band gain. You have avoided both in your tests. If you consider non-linearities with memory, which you should, then using a wide-band stationary signal like your noise signal can actually prevent the internal state of the non-linear system from ever getting into the region of significant nonlinearity. For example, a number of nonlinear circuits only reacts to transients. Others only react to strongly coherent signals like tones. You’ve eliminated both these possible results by your choice of using white noise. Let’s get to the point of perception. You asserted that small deltas are inaudible. And you’re right for your noise signal. A small difference signal does not change the perception so that both results would sound the same. The problem is that this conclusion does not generalise. To understand the significance to perception we need to look at the phenomenon of auditory masking. We can hear a quieter signal component only if it is not being masked by a louder signal component. The level difference for which the quieter signal is still audible follows from the masking relationship of the two signals, which depends on both distance in frequency and in time. Your noise signal masks everything, both in time and in frequency, such that any difference less than roughly 6dB below the noise level cannot be perceived. That is a pretty poor choice for trying to argue about a perceivable difference. A much better choice would have been using a severely band-limited signal, like for example critical band noise at different frequencies, and use that to see if there are any difference components outside of the masking volume of the test signal. Just for comparison, narrow band noise at around 1kHz allows for the perception of signal components at below 500 Hz at a level of more than 80dB below the primary stimulus level, or alternatively for the perception of components above 4 kHz at a level of more than 40dB below the primary stimulus level. That’s a lot more than what you have demonstrated. A linear EQ would only generate quantisation artefacts outside of the band, which you have also not looked at. A non-linear EQ may produce signal components that are making an audible difference and are being perceived as pleasant. You have not ruled out the existence of these components in any way using your methodology. The third and final concern regards your choice of system samples. The question here is, have you tried to maximise the difference between the EQs you have matched and thereby attempted to falsify your hypothesis? Good science must always try to falsify, otherwise you don’t proof anything apart from your confirmation bias. I’m trying to be perfectly fair here, but it doesn’t look like you didn’t really try very hard to challenge your hypothesis. Throughout your demonstration you have used single bands at moderate settings. You avoided high gains, high Qs, high center frequencies. From what I explained above, it is obvious that you have steered clear of band interactions like you have in alternative non-serial topologies, you have avoided filter warping due to poorly designed filters without compensation for response distortion or response aliasing, you have avoided non-linear effects. This is already a much too long response, so let me come to my conclusion. Your methods were only superficially scientific, despite your claims. Your strong conclusion and accusations have no foundation in what you have shown. I do not say that you conclusion is wrong, but you certainly have failed to prove it. To be fair, there are black sheep in the plugin industry, just like everywhere. However, your generalisation is false and just as unfair as suggesting you just did your video to manipulate people into buying your classes. Which of course is not true. So, if you do science, you have to go all the way. There’s no such thing as a little rigour. And if you don’t have the necessary insight, then I would suggest you do some research first and read a selection of the plentiful papers that deal with modelling of non-linear analog circuits. If you ever intend to do a follow-up video that corrects your mistakes and tries to arrive at a conclusion that is not agenda driven, then please get in touch. I’m more than willing to work out a scientific protocol that would actually try verify your hypothesis.

Thanks for doing this. Several of these didn’t null nearly as well as I expected. Definitely heard substantial hiss / noise on a few after attempted null. In terms of being scientific, I would say that leaving audible noise behind means that you haven’t demonstrated that these are equivalent. Equivalent would mean: there’s no audible difference. What you’ve demonstrated is most literally an audible difference.

In the back of my mind I always believed those "vintage" eq emulations were just a standard eq with those vintage eq curves dialed in but the GUI convinced me that It was real emulation that had mimicked all of the internal components. I've foolishly spent thousands chasing "that" sound when all I really needed was a stock eq & a saturation plugin.

Well done, very well done

I picked a particular channel strip to work with because I find it easy for me to use. My favorite one is the Chanev which happens to be totally free, but it crashes a lot. I'm switching channel strips currently because I don't want to keep paying Wavs updates . The only thing I'm concerned about in making a new choice? tada - how easy is it for me to use lol

Can you hear the 'noise approaching 20KHz'?

Right on the money, dude!

Hello, great video that will save me money from now on!:) I wonder your say about Dan Worrall's video of Ableton Stock Eq vs Fabfilter if you have watched it. Named "What is wrong with stock plugins"

I think the limitations of older stuff facilitated creativity. I’m a musician so that works for me but if you’re mixing / mastering perhaps less so. I recorded in a studio with pretty much all pre 1970s mics & pres and it sounded unbelievable - to my ear anyway. Modern gear can be really harsh sounding and that’s why I like slapping tape emulators / saturators with HF roll off on. Re: EQ I’m with you on the marketing but when I use my Pultec it’s feels more creative than ProQ3 (I use both for different jobs)

Have to agree on the ST Bender , can never use that on Master Bus , but their Limiter lives on the Master and does what no other Limiter Comp can do.

Thank you for your efforts, it is definitely a lot of effort to carry out these tests. However, I have a different opinion. So if you can't hear the differences then I think that's Pity for you. I keep comparing plugins and notice significant differences. Please compare the SSL 4000 E Strip from Softube Console one with other plugins. I'm not talking about frequency curves but about the detailed resolution of the edited audio track. If you were right, then there shouldn't be a significant difference between the different SSL plugin clones. The SSL from Waves and the SSL from IK-Multimedia sound significantly harder and less differentiated. Try equalizing a snare and the sun will rise with the Softube plugin.

can you do null tests between a proQ3 and some hardware eq's?

Cool video :D HiFi guys are on the top of the voodoo pyramid. Is the same true for compressors?

Are inductors really linear? Magnetic core materials could make them behave like transformers??

I started recording as a teen in the 80s. Gear was expensive and rar - the first MiDi gear appears and also the Multitrack Recorders. The noise from analog gear was horrible, 8 Tracks from Tape thru a "cheap" Mixer sounds like a Day at the beach. The beautiest "analog/warm" sound i knew from the last years is "Be the one" by Dua Lipa - and there were no analog Equiment used, afaik. I took the thing which sounds good - the "warm" comes from the Midrange - which is often masked by too loud Drums, Basses, Reverbs - mix first the Midrange, and put the others later with low volume together - and: wait, give your ears the chance - the best sounding knob is often the "off" switch.

I learned 2 things from this video. 1. I have “Golden Ears”. 2. Yea…I like the GUI basically. I’m aware ReaEQ can probably suffice 😅

In all the examples where you played music, I could always tell them apart 100% and enjoyed the emulated hardware more. And I don't even use emulated EQs, I only use FabFilter. I think now I have to do some serious blind testing. Thanks a lot, you sold me on the stupid thing you wanted me not to buy, lol. I wonder what it is though, maybe some sort of distortion in the frequency band or phase shifts? I truly don't know....

Why does my external EQ sound different than emulation. it's a WA73eq. I know it's not much I rather focus on it's strength rather then it's weakness I'm happy with it. Anyways it feels to have more depth or is that a miss conception?

You deserve subs for speaking your opinion without fear and its also a unique take that's worth listening to. Always give every sides a fair chance in a trial lol

I love that you own that multicoloured zylophone.

Exactly right. All plugin developers have are algorithms, not hardware. They all have access to the same ones, except for developers who use convolution and volterra vector kernels, or Neural Amp Modeller

“Old metal box though.” 😂 I still love the Pultec.

Compressors are where i hear a lot of difference between plugins. Some of the compressors i just can't get a sound and i need to tweak for ages and still nothing when others are easy and fast to get a sound from

What about compressors???

I hope you can agree that there are features that make some plugins unique in their funcionality. Two examples are Scaler EQ and Surfer EQ. I'm not debating or rejecting the results of the null tests, those are not up for debate, and I use only 3 EQs not for their sound but their functionality. However, I think that functionality or usability features matter when choosing plugins.

I haven't bought a plugin emulation in years, with the exception of reverbs/delays. I agree Plugin compressors and EQs that are meant to be digital like TDR products I think are worth the dough. Emulations are snake oil. Analog is my preferred choice for its saturation offerings and tactile more natural experience workflow wise

inexplicable phase shift in high end some plugins have might be be from minimum phase oversampling.

Science! Love it! 💛

Q3 and UAD pultec is all I use...aaaand sometimes SSL console strip

I actually can hear a difference in many of the tests but the question is whether you would actually hear it in a the mix?

Thank you so much for making this. Snake oil in the audio industry is so normalized it drives me insane.

bravo to every single point here! Is there a cours in german?

A lot of plugin developers won’t be happy with this, when Andrew Schepps designed a plugin for Waves they found that it didn’t match with the emulated hardware but on a 40 grand spectrum analyzer it did looked exactly the same but it sounded different. They ended up putting a high pass filter on 3 Hz and a low pass filter on 25 kHz and it matched. The filters were emulating the transformers 😉🤫🫡 Still I’m going to buy an analog equalizer for around 2 grand because I know it’s going to sound better than a plugin, maybe it’s the tube circuit and the transformers who cares.

Good job!

As a bedroom producer I still do not get why mixing and mastering should be two separate stages? I just fiddle around with the stuff until it sounds right to me, right? I have full control over every instrument and even when what others would consider mastering I can still have changes in the composition if I want to. I never quite understood the concept of mastering!?

Does this apply to hardware mastering EQ's too?

what about the UAD and Acustica Audio ones?

Man..thank u so gawd damn much!!! You are a hero now, no mistaking it

Well, I’m not sure how I stumbled upon your videos but this is the third one I’m commenting on. All on the same day. I rarely ever comment on youtube videos. I think you’re brave for taking this on. I’ve had conversations like this many times over the years. About many different facets of music creation, production and technologies. There are a lot of folks out there who’s egos and careers and livelihoods are tied to being the ones who CAN see the emperor’s new cloths. People tend to get defensive. As you pointed out, great music has been created under very primitive conditions in decades past. And in decades present. Botton line: It’s about the music. If your music is crap it doesn’t matter how much money you spend on recording equipment or mastering. If you’re a recordist or engineer, learn how to recognize what can be improved sonically and use what ever tools you have available. It’s a gift for some and others have to work harder at it. In the end, Content is king. I enjoy your videos. I think you’ll improve the confidence of some young artists who may be intimidated by the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Can You Make Similar video about compressor Plugins

I had fun watching your video....., you're right, I noticed a long time ago that EQ plugins always sound the same, there is no magic , only mathematics and maketing :)

My only argument is something I heard from Dan Worrall. Using an analog style eq forces you to use your ears, seeing weird curves on a frequency spectrum can make you doubt your ears because it "looks wrong". However, I use Pro Q 3 for everything, it's clean digital, no cramping and fully featured.

Thank you for the head's up about True Iron.

I've got so many questions since I'm in no way or shape a professional in this field. I can basically hear the delta in every one of the tests you did, is this because of the randomness of white noise? or because the curves are mathematically different? Also, when it comes to EQ plugins that mimic harmonic distortion, let's say Acustica Audio, who are know for their Hyper 3 sampling technology, would you also say that's a gimmick? I've tried different EQ's on my mixbus yet there's some that boost and cut more "musically" even at extreme settings. Is this psychological? or does the harmonic distortion emulation play a part in this? I have no scientific data or curve measurement to back any of this.

This channel is brilliant. 😃 Like debunking conspiracy theories, but better. 😁

Ooooooh I love you for this!!

can you do a video on saturators next? theres a million of them