For EQs I think how quickly can I dial in a desired sound. I think you underestimate how important pulling up a vst and turning one knob to achieve your results is vs loading a blank slate and considering bandwith and curve shape etc. The fact one can replicate the other is irrelevant. For people who use controllers, the standardised surface mappings will be much simpler and more immediate with the analog vsts vs q3

Good call in re Ozone Clarity. The inability to process signal below 300 Hz is definitely a drawback. If, as the presenter notes, Izotope is saying,"Trust us, you needn't be bothering with frequencies lower than 300 Hz," that's all well and good. Still, I'd like to be able to see for myself if this is in fact the case. A sensible solution would be to have the plugin default to its ideal slider positions (maybe even with the lower slider deactivated until turned on by the user), and then allow users to adjust parameters without arbitrarily imposed restrictions - especially as it's well known the 250 Hz region is common problem area, etc.

Nice

Nice sounding track! 😊

oh my god it seams i am late can you help me to get it now?

Set up your own presets in any EQ.

Is that "Silvers of silver" song released? Who's song is it by?

I mix for a living. Channel strips are more efficient. I can do the job of 5 plugins in Waves Omni faster and it sounds good. Depends on what you're going for and how much time you want to spend on things...but it's crazy to not use them ever.

a commercial that spends time tearing down other products is just a commercial for a bad product.. spend the energy HIGHLIGHTING the product you're trying to sell

Within the first 45 seconds, you de-bunked your own idea First couple of seconds basically said "don't buy an EQ" The next couple of seconds said "use the affiliate link to buy an EQ" lol

Cubase stock channel EQ does the job for me.

Your first example of the pultec and pro eq 3 i could spot the difference. Fabfilter for me is still digital.

Wow, tough topic. I think in the end it really comes down to personal preference. There's absolutely no point in telling anyone what to use and what not :D Personally I use both - I mostly rely on channel strips and/or Console 1 to get the basic mix done (which works way faster to me with actual knobs), mainly because they give you all the necessary tools in one package and can be the only thing you ever need to do a full mix. In fact I even prefer those that are a bit more limited, like only giving you a certain set of frequencies instead of the full spectrum, simply because these limitations speed up the process a lot. You dial everything in and make decisions quickly rather than endlessly looking for the perfect frequency. Once everything is done I often reach for Ozone or Neutron EQs for more surgical tasks like ironing out resonances or masking issues, which those absolutely excel at. It's a bit like using two sets of brushes to me - first the broad strokes to get the sound where you want it and then the smaller ones to define the details. There's great use cases for both and no point for me in generally preferring one over the other.

The purpose of plugins is to utilize the tremendous power of computers and optimize the tweaks not to end up in a primitive 3-band eq.

What I do is plain and flat out lie to customers about what I use. They will never ever see what I do and what I use.They have to judge by ear and only by ear. If the don't believe me, they should f off. Do they like what I made? OK, take it and ask no questions. If you ask questions, I will tell you what you want to hear. And I give not the slightest clue if I lie or not. I will do this until they stop asking.

I use digital EQs and analog emulations also. My favorite EQs are the Fab Filter Pro-Q3, Universal Audio Pultec EQP-1A, and the Eventide Split EQ. Split EQ and Pro-Q3 are almost always going to be expensive (around 150) unless you get them on Black Friday, and they’re worth every dime. The Pultec you can usually find pretty cheap, like around 30-50. The variances in the 2 types of EQ will manifest mostly in recorded material and not some test tone being fed into a computer. My ears tell me what sounds right not some science box spitting out values. Use what works for you. Thanks for the video.

What an excellent review, thoroughly enjoyed it. I definitely will be purchasing this limiter. Keep up the great work🏅🎶🎶👌🏼

Just hit my 500 subscribers!!! Whoo! ❤️

AMEN to this. I have a few outboard EQ's I love to use (like the LinkAudioDesign SSL 242 500 series clones) - but EQ is handled so much better in DSP. Voxengo Curve is amazing and there's no way you could build an analog circuit that could do it. That said, compression is something I still like hardware for.

Record it RIGHT in the first place and don't worry about having to put plugins on it later to try fo fix it. Everybody wants to polish the turd. LOL

I’m somewhere in the middle on this. I fully agree that you can use plugin doctor to match eq curves and no one can tell the difference. And the clean digital version will be preferable over some Waves aliasing mess. However, I would never spend that time in a mix to stick a Pultec and Q3 into plugin doctor to match in the first place. If I want a Pultec smile on my 2 bus (well I have the hardware, but I digress) I’ll add the UAD and move on to the next thing. If I hear a resonance poking in the guitar track I’ll grab Q3 and clean it up. Sometimes the “color” EQs are less about the technical aspects and more about a feeling you get by using it. Sometimes it’s okay to trick your brain into thinking it’s working on an old API 550b because it sets a creative mood. To me, the real comparisons shouldn’t be “can you tell which is the Pultec vs the matched curve” but instead: do a full mix with only analog emulation style EQs, and without referencing, make another mix with only digital parametric. Then see if your decision making was any different

Congratulations on your 5k. I recently achieved 4k with my guitar channel.

I don’t understand this at all. To me those version with analog modeled plugins sound clearly different, they are: a) a little darker and duller b) they have a little amount of compression to them caused by modeled harmonics/saturation c) due to these two features they sound denser and thus ”sit” in the mix in a more musical way. Pro-Q is obviously clearer and more transparent, but it feels like you have to add something else to that in order to get that ”sit” in the mix.

its disposition is much closer to Bloom than Soothe2.

Why do these videos always use fake drums. Every damn time. You make a good point though, I rarely use anything but Kirchhoff EQ which is the next obvious step in EQ plugin development from pro q.

The vast majority of this industry is hype and marketing. You know...if YOU want to sound just like the LEGENDS...you NEED this thing or that thing. And, of course, people fall for it all day long. HAHA! Case in point, while I certainly have some "high-end" outboard gear, I've made epic recordings with a freaking $359 Presonus Studio Channel! Of course there is great and not-so-great gear...but people need to snap out of it. And don't even get me started on studio monitors. HAHA! :)

U R Totally right.

Cubase stock plugins are more than enough and better than 95% of third party plugins...

A tad confusing. So you are saying, Pro-Q at over $120 it can replicate other EQs that I've bought... Or any other EQ you mention that costs more than UAD or Waves :) Obvs, some have a demo, but many don't and I have way more value on my time to be replicating something that's already there. I get what you are hinting at. But that's like a sports car owner, convincing me my car can do the same as his, if I tweak it like his. Without knowing his settings.

MOST of them, but NOT ALL

There are hundreds of thousands of plugins out there I'm pretty sure you didn't try every single one of them. So you probably don't even now want your talking about.

I spent years working with algorithmic EQs, started producing and mixing in the early 2000. I couldn't get the sound I wanted and I spent hours and hours trying. Every little change on a digital EQ would shift the phase and I could hear it. I annoyed me a lot and I did not even know why back then. Phase shift is the real problem with algorithmic EQs (not the curves), so they need to be used surgically (narrow bands, small db changes) and as little as possible. My dad had a modular hi-fi and whenever I used the EQ on the preamp I was blown away. I could not understand why it sounded so musical. Every change I would made it sounded good! Then I started investigating more and learnt about phase shifts, linear EQs etc. My problem was eventually solved by using convolution EQs for broad changes, shaping the sound generally and then using an algorithmic EQ to do surgical changes. This approach reduces phase shits and artifacts and it is as close to hardware EQs which don't suffer from the same problems as algorithmic EQs. However, this does not always apply to time based plugins. Algorithmic compressors/limiters/clippers are more accurate than convolution emulations and are easier to use. There is no reason to use convolution emus on time based plugins like compressors or delays. For reverbs it does make a difference and I again find convolution emu reverbs superior, they sound more natural and less harsh. One point I agree though is that we are being served the same plugins with different clothes. So, fewer plugins, knowing them well is far more important than anything else.

Does this Exciter give super smooth & pleasant vocals ?

That's what I love about the kirchkhhoff eq, you have very good eq and on top you still have the analog eq curves if you want them

I agree, you're absolutely right. BUT I like to use analog emulations because they don't confuse me with beeing too analytical. Also I have the SSL UC1 so I rarely "look" at what Im doing. You are right that sometimes I get to struggle when I need more destinct EQ on the low end and I just have no band left on the E channel for example. In the end I like to use my hardware UC1 and channelstrips a lot, but when it comes to a certain problem I use highly precise EQing in the digital realm. For my workflow it is pretty cool to work in Cubase like I work on a console.

Oh look! I'm in the video

More than 15 years ago I was a beginner audio engineer playing around with my arsenal of cracked plugins... and even than I remember thinking "what the hell are all these analog eq's, can't I just use this very flexible digital one and recreate anything than these analog ones do"... and it turned out that yes, yes I can.

"Analog EQs" are just quicker to use. And its "famous character" only tells that you can stick with it, if the result satisfies you. This is it.

It’s not volume knob , it’s a phase shift of a freq mixed in various amounts with the dry signal

You are not a total twa. There, I said it. I agree that pretty much any decent digital parametric equalizer can do the job, and any distortion (if desired) can be added later with another plugin. Doing those things separately allows for much better control of the sound.

Could you do some videos on getting a vintage sound? Late 60s?

Agreed. I use channel strips for efficiency but certain analog modeled compressors cannot be replaced. And yes, the stock compressor on FL studio isn't as interesting either but it's still transparent. I find myself reaching for them with a stock EQ or TDR Nova lol. Great video

I see the good modelers more like amp simulators (same goes for mic emulation). I use these for a familiar sound…like reaching for a Strat & Marshal to sound like Hendrix. Sometimes I’d rather make these modelers work even when Fabfilter might be better, simply because I want to tip my hat to certain eras.

Very helpfull video !

Slate 1st one

I can’t live without the slate tape machine and VCC Nothing else like it Track sounding good … Put it on.. then take it off .. and notice mix fall on its face even tho it was good to start with

Love how some of the compressors really brought out the percussion in that loop. How is that u-he compressor? 🤔

Pretty much agree with everything you're saying here. I kind of treat analogue compressor emulations (and actually purely digital models too) as "presets" because you can get one to sound like another but dialling in compression can be pretty difficult and time consuming so it's often easier just to grab something which defaults to the sound that you want.

great! can you do something on clippers? not an analog vs dgital things exactly i'm just intrested in clippers overall and there's not much info around about what they're actually are under the hood