What's Wrong With Stock Plugins? Ableton Live EQ8 vs FabFilter Pro Q3

[@DanWorrall]

I've added some affiliate links to the video description. If you make a purchase using these links I'll get a small commission, and you'll be helping to encourage more such videos in future.

[@harrisbeatsfrankou6304]

I've got to try it later on eq8. RIGHT CLICK...you can edit in numbers for Ableton Automation...which is far, far quicker for me. But Ill try the Eq 8 tonight with right click.

[@Omaga297]

this mans voice makes me feel like I'm watching a nature documentary on BBC lmfao

[@glennoberlander]

Thanks to David Attenborough. ;)

[@Joe-mz6dc]

Incredible voice. Sonic gold. He should make a Dan Worrall Vocal plugin. lol

[@CuriousPassenger]

true. that was my first thought too.

[@KevinSimpson031]

🧐 "The mAjestic stock equalizer, exists everywhere however each is unique to it's on digital audio workstation" 🤣🤣🤣

[@Ivan-ib4hz]

The David Attenborough of music production

[@scandinavianserialki]

damn I came here just to say this

[@doncristobalaspee5925]

Reminds me more of an Open University presentation. Something about the tone of voice and the way the screen changes to the next thing to demonstrate a small time before the voice over starts talking about it.

[@samprock]

Xactly! :)

[@ntrval]

@hallo jullie sounds like you've claimed all digital EQs are the same before

[@ntrval]

@hallo jullie idk, i may have my own issues but im not the one calling ppl ive never met "arrogant". ;)

[@Delston05]

IMO, the biggest feature EQ8 has on any other EQ in Live is it is visible in the rack without opening a window, thus I can see the settings at a glance, whereas FF ProQ1/2/3 I have to open it to check them. For this reason alone, I tend to still pick EQ8 over FF when doing basic EQ. If FabFilter did this in Live it would be game changing. For the record, I have submitted a feature request to Ableton for 3rd part vendors to be able to do this in Live, but I won't hold my breath...

[@ryanvincentjaeger]

I just wish Ableton had a mixer view overview of the EQ, like in Logic.

[@GuidoGautsch]

If you're a Push 2 user, it's also on the Push display, which is Super nice. Love the hands-on control

[@TheNightquaker]

Yeah. It's one of the best features of Ableton, for all of its built-in instruments and effects. Everything is visible in the rack, at a glance, on one surface. As opposed to having to open and position windows around. Though, the "configure" function in Ableton can show you the raw values of the plugin.

[@slimyzombie]

@@TheNightquaker Also getting a second monitor fixes all that... but it aint to big a deal to me really :)

[@TheNightquaker]

@@slimyzombie Yeah, second monitor is another way to go about it. Still, Ableton's rack is quite amazing. Compact, yet shows a lot of information.

[@KonkaBass]

Stock for the quick and simple curves (90% of the time it's to cut low end on random elements), Pro-Q for the important/precious adjustments

[@KnzoVortex]

just so you know: you shouldn't low cut if you don't need to (there is no random rumble) because it actually introduces phase issues or some other things (see 26:20 to get an idea) For this reason you should only low cut when there is rumble, and when you do, try to stay as far away from the actual intentional sound as possible.

[@johnguymer8063]

@@KnzoVortex or use linear phase eq that does not do this

[@b_markovic]

@@johnguymer8063 Or use a low shelf with ample gain reduction, which introduces much less of phase issues while still cutting enough for majority of mixing needs.

[@unused0011]

@@johnguymer8063 to which then you gain latency (if its an issue depending on the context of what you're doing)

[@kowloonbroadcast]

@@KnzoVortex or you may also keep it 6db slope low cut, which is a kinda the least phase-offensive approach to the degree of practically no significant alternation induced by it and safe to basically just ignore it. even 12db in that sense will be ok in most cases to the same level of success, but 6db pretty much will always have no backlash in a form of phase altering consequences that require addressing them. but, all in all, I agree with what your main point is - applying LP to every track in “by default” fashion is quite a flawed practice. as it is the case with pretty much everything that tends to become “by default” while mixing and producing.

[@McMxxCiV]

"I've not yet found a way to edit EQ-8's parameters directly by typing in values". Well, you click on the parameter you want to edit and you type in your value. It literally is that easy.

[@manny_f]

Source: man who makes his own filters.

[@trxxblx-wxs-hxrx]

he just said he's knows, he's just giving his say to a new person coming in.

[@nate_creates]

Editing values *should* be done by double-clicking the parameter like literally every other DAW on the market, but in Live it’s not. It’s unintuitive and a failure of design on their part.

[@glugblub7524]

@@nate_creates nah bro if u click 2 times it become 0 if you click one and type u can basically its perfect and takes around 10minutes to get used to

[@DD-sw1dd]

Nathan 😆

[@lapestenera]

I really enjoy these videos, because instead of just watching yet another video about "insert plugin or tutorial", I actually feel like I've learned something, at a more fundemental level.

[@s3thooligan]

You have some of the highest quality audio engineering videos available on youtube. As both a software developer and a live sound engineer, watching your videos i got many answers that were impossible to google out or find in a book laid out in this way. I also use reaper and fab filter plugins regularly so that's great for me too. Thanks!

[@invalid.reference]

To edit EQ8's parameters directly by typing in numeric values, simply click the parameter you wish to edit and begin typing the numeric value.

[@seek.sample.start.1325]

so i'm glad i stuck with eq8. for me it's cheap easy while still offering decent quality for basic adjustments. i prefer soft adjustments, if a sound needs so much work i take that to mean i should probably find a different sound. great analysis though.

[@xradical89x]

my thoughts exactly. 100%!

[@hekutokku]

not only that since it’s a default plug-in the performance is miles better, whether you have a powerful system or a less capable one more room for plug-ins is always nice

[@DerpySwag]

I had to stop before I finished this video. This is literally the best video I have ever watched. I want to be an audio engineer like you. You talking about the freeware just made me realise how much I love music tech and has really reignited the passion I fell in love with. Thank you

[@PeiloJ]

Nice!

[@DrBotwing]

Hint: There is an option in Ableton Live that allows to keep multiple plugins opened from different tracks at the same time. You could have use that to see and adjust both plugins at the same time instead of clicking each track individually every time you want to change setting.

[@Ravver]

what is it?

[@ericjamescarl]

@@Ravver In Live's Preferences, go to Plug-Ins > Plug-In Windows, and you'll find the options there.

[@Ravver]

@@ericjamescarl ty Eric :)

[@DrBotwing]

@@Ravver Preferences -> Look Feel -> Plug-In Windows Section Turn on Multiple Plug-in Windows Turn off Auto-Hide Plug-in Windows

[@gomesdiogo]

@@DrBotwing wow that is so amazing, why did this not come on by default lol thank you so much

[@tomaszwerbicki]

Putting all of the awesome information about EQs themselves aside... The one minute segment when you shaped the drum loop by the end was probably the best mixing tutorial I've ever seen. Concrete example, with specific steps, explaining *why* you're doing what you're doing using no more than one sentence that explains everything.

[@cornsockgabz]

the solstate tips with disclosure are perfect for that. No guff, succinctly edited and genuinely useful and rare advice.

[@mimisaiko]

Very nice share Dan! Thank you a lot! As a Live user, I want to share an opinion with people: A big advantage for Live is its unified UI language, which is intended to make it easier to learn, read and keep you in the flow. The tradeoff is limited option, like what the video mentioned! In fact, even compared to other DAWs, Live isn't versatile at all, but the design principle is to keep all the crucial function in few clicks away. When you are more focused on the big canvas, big brush design, Live is really good at it, you can experiment very fast with high performance! When you need a surgical tool to tackle the details, Pro Q3 is the Excalibur, with all the function you need to achieve anything!

[@LavenderAudio]

Do remember in Live that the whole UI is scaleable. It's the main reason I use it as my primary DAW as someone with a vision disability, too many DAWs sacrifice accessibility in lieu of an overemphasis on flashy skeuomorphism.

[@alejandromagana1554]

An extra option, FL studio has done some cool upgrades regard this matter too! : )

[@LavenderAudio]

@@alejandromagana1554 FL is still way too visually busy for me. Too much pointless flashy eye candy. Live's minimal simplicity and high contrast is a tremendous benefit for me.

[@alejandromagana1554]

@@LavenderAudio different strokes for different folks I guess, I find Ableton's interface quite confusing and dull, still both top quality daws : )

[@LavenderAudio]

@@alejandromagana1554 I'm the complete opposite and really don't understand people who find Live 'confusing' when there is zero clutter in the UI compared to all the visual fluff things like FL have.

[@alejandromagana1554]

@@LavenderAudio I think it all goes down on how much time you spend learning your tools really, I find amazing how Ableton's racks and instruments get stacked but hate it's mixer so much, still I bet you can get very close results on both ends IMO.

[@mrdjchasm]

Just opened the video thinking it would be a standard review.... good heavens

[@BrunoNeureiter]

😌

[@gautreaux]

Thank you, Dan! That's was incredibly illuminating. As Live and Fabfilter user, I was very happy for all the conclusions you've drawn. It was wonderful to understand EQ8 to such an extent. Of course, Pro-Q3 offers so much more than Live's EQ8, but I was glad to see it hold its ground so well. Thanks again!

[@draztiqmeshaz6226]

"you can do so in the comments below" Boss right there.

[@osmark86]

It's not arrogance. It's fighting misinformation.

[@controlfreak6429]

Dan Worrall: "my math isn't going to cut it I fundamentally don't understand it and sometimes you just have to accept your limitations." Randon KZbin commentor: "he's so arrogant." Hahahahahahahahahaha

[@nicebluejay]

@hallo jullie lol silly

[@penya6628]

He’s dreaming hardly anyone admits there wrong on KZbin 😂🤣

[@Kevinschart]

i laughed out loud. all of a sudden he became very sassy

[@franciscoraupp]

A masterclass on EQs and filters. Thank you for the video. You have inspired me to try and design filters using the RBJ cookbook algorithms.

[@TheAnthraxBiology]

I payed 400 for Ableton Live Suite. It came with loads of great effects, cool sample packs, instruments that are super useful. A single EQ plugin or instrument or synth can cost the entirety of what my DAW cost and that's usually why I stick with stock stuff. It's just too expensive otherwise. My live music and real pedals/instruments already set me back enough.

[@johnnytluxury]

A thinking consumer, u are!

[@serfasleep]

TheAnthraxBiology Beatles recorded Sgt Pepper on a 4 track.

[@LYFoulidis]

The Beatles only used stock EQ’s because the DAW was already expensive.

[@DanWorrall]

Yeah, but they didn't cramp at Nyquist ;)

[@SjN7HETIK]

@@johnnytluxury better say 'a SMART consumer'... because actually in a mix NOBODY can hear the difference. So stop being nerd and exhagerated. EQ8 is embeded in Live and make the job. If u spend 200e on a digital single eq, U R STUPID. Is not that hard to understand. It's like who spends a lot of money for a SINGLE VOICE-super banal setting-average Moog: u pay 3 times the price of other SAME analog possibilities. Usually: 2 osc, 1 filter and 2 ADSR, from everybody costs about 600£, some 400, some 800... THE SAME BUT MOOG COSTS 1400-1600. In a mix: THE SAME SOUND OF THEIR CHEAPEST COMPETITOR. So WHO'S ACTUALLY SMARTER?

[@gillsgills]

That was a top-notch video. Thanks so much for educating me on more than I realized I wanted to know about EQ's. You've also convinced me that I don't need to buy a higher end EQ plugin. It would for sure be nice to have the extra flexibility of Pro-Q 3 in the future, but when it comes to basic mixing, the stock one seems perfectly sufficient to get pro-level results out of.

[@alexhormann8931]

Well done Dan! Thanks a lot man! :) By the way ... you can select live's knobs or sliders and simply type in values without any double clicking. And holding down the Ctrl key enables fine tuning.

[@CornSw]

And the final touch that made my week-end finally came in the form of this video. Awesome as always Dan! Thanks!

[@valentin8626]

great vid, as usual. but i dont think many of us believe that all eqs null perfectly, i personally believe that difference in sound between eqs is simply unsignificant. this test works more like proof of that

[@johnnytluxury]

I agree. The difference matter so little, though there is a difference, its just not THAT severe, at least with EQ8 and PQ3.

[@mitch150]

@@johnnytluxury There's a pretty big difference in CPU usage for sure. Plus to me, (I wear headphones all the time) I hear a difference, and the way I think about it. If you're mixing full songs, all those slight differences are going to add up overtime. you can still make great quality music with EQ8s but id rather have that slight edge in my favor personally. :)

[@johnnytluxury]

@@mitch150 "There's a pretty big difference in CPU usage for sure" Irrelevant as my question stated what was the difference in SOUND. That said, modern CPUs handle plugins with aplomb; CPU usage is hardly an issue especially with EQ plug-ins. I regularly run projects with EQ on every channel, whether I use them on not, plus synths and whatnot; 100+ plugs running at 40% cpu is not unusual for me in Ableton. I mix at home and do most of my work in the box as well. I wear headphone as well. As Worrall demonstrated, null points that were off by either eq are hardly worth writing home about. Indeed, there's a difference, but honestly, to the consumer who is actually thinking, HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE? A quantifiable demonstrable number, not allegory. If u have a preference for a "slight edge", enjoy. But if that "slight" edge" revolves around a 1-5% (if that even!) audibly "superior" sound for $170 investment, I'd say the issue aint the quality of the plug. I'd rather put that money in a better set of monitors or more room control.

[@PsychoCaki]

@@johnnytluxury true

[@iainmackenzieUK]

Nice to hear you talking about your own (maths) limitations and then go far beyond my capabilities of mixing knowledge and skills in your video ! Your humility is genuinely inspiring. And even though I will never need to compare EQ8 and Q3. (I am pretty well hooked on fabfilter by now as a general go-to ) ; I find I learn stuff from you by osmosis by listening / watching your demos. Thanks a lot

[@mrnelsonius5631]

This was awesome!! I write/produce in Ableton, and use EQ8 for all my general lowcut/hi-passing of tracks as I’m producing. In that context I’ve never noticed any appreciable difference between the Fabfilter in non-linear phase modes, with the added benefit that I can see how it’s EQed simply by looking at the track. I’ll go on to use Fab filter for more surgical work downstream, because I also find it easier to work with for fine adjustments. Where I start getting picky about sound differences in digital EQs is almost always with the top end of the spectrum. There are differences, not always simply better or worse in general, but different. It was cool to see this explored in so much detail. Thank you!

[@bide7603]

Some nice guerrilla marketing for fab filter haha. An interesting comparison for my workflow would be to identify average CPU load for EQ/latency to audible quality difference stock vs 3rd party EQs.

[@isnowboard4god]

It really smacks the CPU, I never use it more than one time in a session and most of the time i just use the brick wall slope to roll off the super low end of the kick and freeze it anyways. Oh and the dynamic function is amazing I have to say but 98% of the time I just use eq 8 because of CPU load

[@chuckf3109]

Not only do plugins smack your CPU in the face but they also introduce latency to the whole track. If you hover your mouse over a plugin in the chain at the bottom of the screen, the info text in the lower left hand corner will then tell you the total amount of latency that plugin adds to the track. If you had 10 fab filter eq's on a track, it might introduce enough latency to make recording another midi or audio track difficult as it adds more latency. What I've found is that stock plugins from Ableton typically add 0 latency to your tracks, outside of convolution reverb and wave tables.

[@DanWorrall]

@@chuckf3109 that depends on your settings. Linear phase or natural phase modes add latency. Zero latency mode doesn't (obviously).

[@nrosko]

Should really point out the fact that you work for Fabfilter.

[@joshk2181]

@@nrosko does he really? what a shill

[@qasderfful]

Hey @Dan Worall, sorry for being late. EQ8 doesn't run antialiasing filters because it doesn't need any. It doesn't introduce any new harmonics, so there's nothing to filter out. Hence, its oversampling just increases the internal sample rate and pushes the Nyquist higher, so cramping happens outside of audible range. No additional filters needed. Finally I can one up you!

[@DanWorrall]

I don't think it's as simple as that. The filtering is an inherent part of the upsampling: its how you generate the correct in between sample values. I got the correct answer from the developer actually, but didn't fully understand it. But basically I think EQ8 doesn't actually, strictly speaking, use oversampling anymore, but they're still calling it oversampling to avoid confusion.

[@flowinsounds]

@@DanWorrall why do you even need correct in between sample values? you can just ignore them. you are throwing them all away, anyway. i'm looking at this as if its in a frequency/phase space. all you do by upping the stated sample rate is extend the length of your f zxis, so the filters have more room to spread out. then when you've done the math, you cut off that extra f axis and only keep the what you started with, so there's no need to worry about having data in the extended area. its not like the filter is doing any frequency modulation, just amplitude or phase

[@Poldoore]

There's obviously nothing wrong with stock plugins, but the FabFilter is 200 times more user-friendly and powerful for detailed/surgical EQ'ing. No doubt about that.

[@proverbalizer]

I guess if your stock eq only has 8 bands and you use 1600 bands on the FF then yes it's 200 times as powerful....

[@wrldonwill]

Indeed.

[@Poldoore]

​@@proverbalizer Apart from the number of bands FabFilter is still way more powerful than, for example, the Ableton stock EQ (I don't have a lot of experience with the stock EQ's of other DAW's, just to be clear). Dynamic EQing, more cutoff slopes, more shapes, auto gain, phase invert, different processing modes,... + it's a lot quicker (using your scroll wheel to adjust the Q, double click on the extremes for an automatic cut off band,...). Once again: nothing wrong with stock EQ's, but you can't argue with the fact that the FabFilter has a ton more capabilities than most stock ones. It comes at a price though...

[@proverbalizer]

@@Poldoore True, still I wouldn't say 200x more powerful, maybe 2x more powerful. I'm just starting to mess with Dynamic EQ...it's pretty cool...to get similar results you would have to combine a stock eq with a multiband compressor (or maybe D-esser). Another cool feature of Pro Q3 is you can open one instance of it and choose to ad the frequency curve for ANY OTHER TRACK that has Pro Q3 on it- it will even show red shading for frequency regions that have the most overlap...can be very useful for getting rid of masking...again you can do it with stock eq's using your ears and your intelligence and experience and opening separate eq's for both tracks to see the analyzers... but the FF workflow and visual aids are great

[@AlekVila]

Pro Q3 definitely had more air in the A/B comparison. You did the best you could to null them out, and it's clear that the higher frequencies that are coming through are on the Fab Filter side, whereas EQ8 is cramping them out. Incredible analysis!

[@ABC-rh7zc]

If only all KZbinrs delivered the quality content that Dan does!

[@kasidejcha-umpong5551]

well done. You are one of the few KZbinrs that actually understand DSP. Subscribed!

[@LANeverSleeps]

Thanks! Long time Ableton user but picked up some new tricks here.

[@reflekshun]

I have never ever seen a more detailed look at comparing digital EQ. Freakin bravo, I love this insane attention to detail!

[@mu_on]

Actually I preferred EQ8's sound on highs in the AB comparison, and thus assumed it was ProQ3. A comparison at various dynamic ranges would have been interesting also. Anyway, awesome video, solid quality content, and great music too. You sir, deserved my subscription ;-) Have a beautiful day

[@RaphaelSepulveda]

Fantastic presentation, Dan. Love the bit about Sync Modular/Reaktor. That's my kind of storytime.

[@b3at2]

Raphael Sepulveda that part was what blew my fucking mind hahahah i came here for eq and got something more..

[@bitflux2]

Dan is doing God's work, i could watch these videos till the end of time as an audio nerd, please keep em coming

[@MonkeyTurtle100]

There was the tiniest difference in the snares, but I couldn't say I preferred either or would ever notice it in a mix, the phase and latency were stronger takes from the video for me! Great video Dan, thorough as always

[@briancase6180]

Very interesting analysis. Thanks! I think one bottom line: if you can't afford an awesome plugin, you can still get great results from stock plugins.

[@aCeruleanStateMusic]

Didn't really expect much when I saw this video in my Recommended videos, but this was very interesting. Great video!

[@mitch150]

11:54 god damn savage lol. *(Long comment but I promise its worth a read!)* For any Live users, I did a CPU stress test that surprised me. 1.) I grouped 100 EQ8s and grouped 100 ProQ3s on a different audio channel. 2.) Both sets of EQs had no bands active but the plugins were all active. 3.) With a blank project besides the 2 audio channels with no audio on them. I disabled the 100 ProQ3s, and enabled the 100 EQ8s 4.) I clicked play (spacebar) and watched the CPU meter up at the top right. 5.) I did this same test for all the ProQ3s being active (EQ8s not active) *RESULT* : I found it was very clear the 100 EQ8s used up much much more CPU than the 100 ProQ3s. Believe me, I was pretty surprised as well, If you have ProQ3 try it for yourself. :) This is mainly why I use ProQ3 exclusively now. If you made it this far hats off lol. Thought it would be appropriate to share my story, may be helpful for those who care!

[@evighvitveis]

Did you check if oversampling in EQ8 was active? (Right click)

[@mitch150]

@@evighvitveis Yes it was not active :)

[@ghost_clock]

Just picked up the ProQ3 a few weeks ago, thanks for making me love it even more now.

[@thehitter2708]

Thank you for this info. I assumed the stock plugin would be better for cpu but glad to know i can use pro q3 as a track default now.

[@russcontact]

THANK YOU! One of the most important A/B comparisons for sure, and yeah I am surprised too, but glad I know.

[@tristanawild380]

Really loving your presentation style and thorough investigation- glad to have found this channel!

[@nevian]

You can just type in a value when a parameter is selected to change it in Ableton Live.

[@DanWorrall]

Thanks. That could have saved me some time...

[@adaptedvinyl]

@@DanWorrall Yes - you can get some really fine values into Ableton that aren't obvious from the interface. I've ended up trying to match a tempo to audio without stretching and found that I could get down to the 4th decimal place by typing into the tempo value. The display only shows two decimal places but the finer values always worked as typed.

[@m4ki9h76]

@@adaptedvinyl / You can control finer values with mouse by ctrl + drag.

[@mikeexits]

To type numerical values into EQ Eight (or any other Ableton module/device), you simply click the knob/slider, then type the value and hit enter. You won't see a cursor or the string of text highlighted until you actually start typing, so I can't blame you for figuring out that it's possible. Thanks for your work, much love.

[@Zarabozo]

Pro Q3 has a setting for different types of phase handling. The default is a kind of proprietary setting that says "no latency" on the bottom. You need to know what kind of phase handling EQ8 has and match that first if you want to get close to perfect phase cancellation in your test.

[@tdavis85]

wow. a technical yet simple comparison. no just imagined or biased opinion. honest technical comparison. brill

[@kuusteist]

I actually preferred EQ8 in the blind test, thanks I have been avoiding it for some time especially for boosts, but now I know it's safe to go back to it.

[@mcmuffin8784]

I wasnt sure if i wanted to buy the fabfilter instead of using ableton stock eq, but thanks to your molecule level analysis, now i know what the difference is and it made my decision much easier! Thank you so much!! :)

[@DanWorrall]

So was it a yes or a no? You can't not reveal that!

[@mcmuffin8784]

@@DanWorrall haha whoops lol! I decided to give the eq8 one more chance! As you demonstrated, most of the algorithmic stuff are suprisingly the same to me. So i thought if i can’t do it with my eq8, it wont bring a miracle difference using the fabfilter. and it also costs like 200 so its not worth for me.... yet! Thats what i decided. Again, solid clean demonstration, good song so im checking out your other stuff and subscribed! :)

[@BaijuSharda]

Wow, this was great. I almost exclusively use the EQ8 for graphical EQs but recently I've been looking into and trying the Fabfilter plugins because I've heard great things and I'm also really enjoying the Pro L demo. But I'm genuinely shocked that I preferred the EQ8 during the A/B. Maybe I'm just so used to it now.

[@stu9000]

I also prefered EQ8 (I think)

[@nathanpirzek6200]

Another goldmine of incredible information! Shows just how deep down the rabbit hole you can go if you're curious enough! Love your videos!

[@MetaFunction]

@Dan: There are many potential differences in the way IIR and FIR algorithms are constructed (i.e. pole / zero relationships in transfer functions, coefficent value rounding errors, pre-warping calculations in the bilinear transfer function etc). Using the same parameter values for two different manufactures digital EQs is not accurate enough to expect phase cancellation. However, if two manufactures used identical filter design topologies, then they could be described as mathematically identical. ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/filters/Recursive_Digital_Filter_Design.html

[@joaquinscopel3680]

TNice tutorials is THE most helpful tutorial on KZbin imo. I am starting production in Hardstyle, and I find soft soft really useful

[@ficklebar]

Interesting to note, the Q of “0.71” is probably rounded from sqrt(2)/2, which is the length of cos/sin at 45 degrees. Fabfilter probably normalizes this value to make it human readable, whereas it otherwise just emerged from some signal math, probably.

[@Thermolizer]

Been using pro q 3 regularly for over a year and learned a few new tricks watching this, great vid!

[@johnchase8510]

Nice one, Dan! Had my eyes closed during the A/B, opening to check when hearing a change to confirm there was. The timbre of the snare, and the HF content gave away the switch for me. Love my Fab Filter plugins, though I must say that EQ-8 is impressive as a native product. Thank you 👍

[@lucaswojatschke3883]

yea i heard that too and wondered where it's coming from. i had the feeling that somehow the EQ-8 drums had a bigger transient response or something?

[@hithere4289]

@@lucaswojatschke3883 probably the crambling lol but really wtf I had always taken for granted how good EQ Eight actually is even thought I use it every day in every track

[@BarmizzIe]

This is the most in depth comparison for any type of software/gear I've seen. I had to keep rewinding to make sure I got everything! thank you my guy

[@duncansmith6318]

Comprehensive and you've certainly answered the technical question as to whether stock plugins are as good as high end third party plugins. It now boils down to whether the difference in quality justifies the extra cost? I cannot justify spending the same amount on plugins as i have for my entire DAW, so for me the answer is no. For those with more money, quite possibly. Same argument with spending £100 on a microphone rather than £1000. Is the more expensive mic better? Yes. Is it 10 times better? No. Diminishing returns. Great vid Dan.

[@shaft9000]

You're half-right in pragmatic terms, but then also missing the larger thing that you wrote right under your nose. It is : "10x" = ten *TIMEs* (!) As plug-in reverbs go....to each their own. One person's 'crucial lifeline' is another's ear- candy. However, a truly great instrument really IS ten times better, magical...when you find "The One"- when you finally get that special instrument (to YOU, the player) and you want to hear it sound out playing everything you know - all over again - the realization is like a quasi-orgasmic BANG! Whether you linger on the 'oldies' or not, you'll still want to spend waaaay more time listening to (and creating with) The One than anything else you've had before. _'Reason is slave to the passions' - David Hume_

[@owlmuso]

Dam fine exposition. I only recently discovered this channel and am mightily pleased to have done so. As an aside... I been using eq8 for a few years and I had no idea about some of those features... that alone was worth the watch

[@manifestgtr]

I think the overriding theme here is this: don’t let anyone tell you that you need to be spending extra money in order to create quality music. I worked with pro tools’ stock eq for years and it was fine. What you pay for are features, an interface that isn’t migraine inducing and better sound *more easily*

[@amaze2n]

You have a gift Mr. Worrall. I haven't seen a single video from you that didn't blow my mind.

[@forkayebee3831]

At the end, at first, my ears thought EQ A sounded different in the high end and I thought it said EQ 8 before closing my eyes, IE when I realized it was a listening test, but I had a hard time telling there was even a switch. I never really cared to upgrade plug ins just because "eww stock plugins are gross" only if something offers more utility. If something gets the job done, also in context even if a $500 EQ plug in sounds slightly better there will probably be ample frequency masking so you can't even really tell. Idk Fabfilter make great stuff to me because of the utility and it doesn't sound like dog shit, I never used their plug ins because I thought they sounded better, but this was definitely an interesting vid. Thanks I will also note, mixing plug ins were never big things for me. I always care about sonic differences in spacial and distortion type plug ins over utility there. And then price doesn't matter nor does quality but the application and how it sounds. I may not be able to tell a difference between a free EQ and a $300 one, but I can hear the difference between a shit chinese distortion pedal and a nice Fuzz Face (even thought it's super simple circutry) Then again, I guess maths and circuitry do all lead to different outcomes obv, but I don't think I've ever once cared if my EQ cut at 10hz folds back or what not as long as it gets the job done. But if my reverb on my over heads sounds like shit, they I riot. I guess that's my point.

[@LeoZenRock]

Thank you for inspiring me to learn more about the tools I'm using to make music. Mixing and mastering tools have always been an afterthought for me, but your explanations have given me a deep interest in learning more about them!

[@PharoahJardin]

Ableton is correct on the default value for Q (point at which the filter displays resonance), which is the reciprocal of root 2 for these filters.

[@draztiqmeshaz6226]

... which is what, precisely? ;)

[@MK-vi2cm]

Damn where'd you learn that? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious.

[@PharoahJardin]

Draztiq Meshaz Why don’t you fire up Ableton to find out ;)

[@PharoahJardin]

Draztiq Meshaz In a physics class actually. We worked on electrical engineering for a while and eventually filters.

[@draztiqmeshaz6226]

@@PharoahJardin just making math jokes good buddy

[@borogove]

I was kinda taking this for clickbait a few minutes in since since you took a lot of time to compare the features of EQ8 to ProQ3 specifically. But I'm glad I took the time to watch your video in its entirety - this was very informative and made virtual EQ plugins seem less of a voodoo blackbox to me! Thanks a lot!

[@punky2deep]

pro q3 vs izotope would be fun

[@gaganaggarwal7599]

more like meticulous vs lazy producer

[@macrondo5852]

@@slctdmbntwrx true even neutron's zero latency is like minimum 20ms, I gave up on it for everything before late mixdown/mastering

[@mitch_tmv]

@@slctdmbntwrx At one point I tried using Ozone as an output limited for running guitar amp sims live because it was less effort than most of the other limiters I had available... Bad idea, it was a significant CPU and latency hit even just for the maximiser on low latency mode. The assistant definitely has its place though.

[@esahm373]

Izotope makes really bad DSP. Their stuff is so not CPU optimized and their AI doesn't produce any good mixing starting points. In theory Neutrron Pro has some cool features, but not at that high CPU tax.

[@Bthelick]

EQ8 was the first inbuilt daw eq I was happy with just from an aural judgement. It's been a staple in hundreds of my releases under this name and others. I work very fast, and I simply use Eq for correctional, and the Slate rack for flavour, covers 90% of my needs. Fab is obviously great stuff too. I never liked the sound of ReaEQ interestingly.

[@PhillipeGrishin]

Just... wow... 👏I’ve been producing for years and you’ve just taught me so much about my favorite and most fundamental tool - the EQ... hats off to you chap.

[@ilovehowilikethat]

It seems I gain more knowledge every time I watch one of your videos. Stunning work.

[@danivalles7638]

Hey Dan, It seems to me that EQ8 is not oversampling the audio path, it's only oversampling the difference. This plugin may take a copy of the audio A and oversample it to A', then filter it to obtain F' and then subtract A'-F' to obtain the difference D'. Finally D' is downsampled to D and and your Equalized signal will then be A-D. Only one single math operation in your audio path and oversampling artifacts will only be in the difference itself, so at much lower level typically than the whole signal. TDR plugins also implement this or some similar technique to throw oversampling out of the 'equation'

[@kaitsu9608]

It has oversampling mode! Also i think pro-q isnt either, oversampling generally introduces latency

[@vVGistopVv]

@@kaitsu9608 pro-Q 3 and I believe most fab filter plugins have toggleable Oversampling up to 8x

[@nidavis]

You can turn on Oversampling on an EQ8 in Live by right-clicking the plugin.

[@danivalles7638]

@Kaitsu and @nidavis I'm not saying that EQ8 is not Oversampling, it is. What I'm saying is that EQ8 is not oversampling the audio path, read my explanation.

[@sub-jec-tiv]

This video is gold! In the blind test I absolutely heard a difference, listening with eyes shut, in high quality studio headphones i know well. Definitely heard PQ3 as cleaner in mid-detail. EQ8 was slightly but noticeably muddier in the mids. I use Ableton for making things (not mixing), and only use EQ8 for non-critical EQ tasks like hi-passing a reverb buss. It was a blind test, and the result to my ears was, i think i’ve been doing the right thing all these years. For most tasks i use EQ3, or if i want musical coloration there are lots of great analog-like options out there now! To me half the fun is choosing a colorful tool and making some harmonic magic, especially once i get past basic surgical clean-up.

[@painstruck01]

you should be called this "why do plugins I've never used before don't seem as familiar as plugins I've paid for and use all the time?"

[@ShadoutMusicOfficial]

Well if u read question 2 or 3 times u may find the answer :)

[@paisleepunk]

*yawn*

[@kylemccombmusic]

I never realized that you were platinumears! Been subscribed to your channel for a year or so and never caught that haha. Your plugins were used in all of the music I made in high school

[@mynameislinea]

The fact that I spent the entirety of this video in a state of rapt fascination has made me really question some of my life choices

[@Maxmaxmaxmaxmaxmaxmaxmaxxx]

im also stoned

[@Onjayyy]

Right there with ya fam

[@marshalldestro]

its ok, i once watched a 45minute video about how to solder jacks to cables... and i was already pretty decent at soldering :)

[@wooja8975]

Very good video. Nicely explained, top quality audio, calm narration and scientific method. What people often seem to forget that even though code is reproducable it still can be supplied with different constants, windows and methods that shape the overall sound. So "every d. EQ sounds the same" is out the window even without proof, imo.

[@ollpu]

26:05 There's nothing special about the oversampling technique: You don't need an anti-alias filter when all you do is linear filtering, as no frequency content over Nyquist should be introduced, and thus doesn't need to be filtered out. That does put into question the necessity of oversampling though :) Insightful and intriguing video by the way! Now you have me curious about the cramping issue and how it can be avoided. Edit: This is partially wrong. You do need extra filtering in between the upsample and downsample, though not for both of them.

[@pbholmen]

It seems this video has demonstrated the necessity of oversampling in EQ's. The typical algorithms used behave differently as you approach the nyquist frequency. This is clearly mitigated by raising the nyquist frequency through oversampling. But I agree you don't introduce any frequency content above the NQ, so probably don't need to filter when you downsample.

[@adwind3055]

That was an excellent tutorial, Dan. Very thoroughly explained 👍😎💪

[@janrechberger8601]

Source material is what matters over eq choices.

[@RestorationsFOD]

of course. But you could have a song full of quality source material, but that doesn't mean to say they are going to work together without finding them their own place within a mix.

[@JoshuaHardee]

Awesomely good! Thanks for your effort in putting this very detailed tutorial together. Appreciate you!

[@tenchudjmusic]

There are only few mathematical ways for EQ Alghorithms, so most EQs sound the same when Algo and parameters are matched. You can also assume, that copy and paste was strong within plugin developers.

[@videomove]

😃

[@JohnBack]

One of the best reviews I have ever seen, and super inspirational to boot.

[@sondrestrmme4006]

I also admit i was wrong, but i will say that making music sound good is possible with both.

[@Archlense]

@Artex PXM Corpoate uses stock plugins for his neuro tracks as well as a number of professional neuro bass producers.... me personally I'd stick with ProQ3 for my major cuts however I'm starting to lean towards 6-24dB cuts

[@noice7381]

Awesome video. I use both and it's a good reminder to turn on oversampling when I use eq8. The number of Bell and filter slope settings make pro Q3 a must-have though.

[@lucasnoordhoek]

I watched it all and basically they sound the same however the fabfilter pro has a slight user interface advantage.

[@qyu]

27:42 Do EQ plug-ins usually require anti-aliasing filters if all they do is static EQ with no saturation? I don't know much about the DSP behind oversampling but if the EQ isn't adding anything higher, it doesn't need to filter out anything right? Of course the compressor plug-ins you're comparing it to would benefit from the anti-aliasing filter, but now I might try looking for some other static EQs that offer oversampling and see what they do. My only guess is that any noise introduced by the EQ, would be higher than nyquist and would foldback as aliasing, and while arguably negligent, it'd reduce the noise floor a slight bit more. But again I'm not familiar with most of this DSP, definitely going to test out some plug-ins though,

[@DanWorrall]

A clean digital EQ won't add any harmonics, so won't alias, so oversampling won't help there. Noise is likely to be negligible also. If the EQ cramps near Nyquist then oversampling will fix that. But it's kind of a brute force approach, most modern clean EQs use more elegant methods to de-cramp curves without oversampling.

[@pquic]

great video really enjoyed the comparisons and how they were made how about a video on ableton's operator vs popular VSTs

[@Audiojunkk]

Wow! What an excellent video! So thorough. Cannot wait to go through your other content!

[@ollpu]

20:27 There's something wrong with the font there, the expression isn't actually that crazy

[@natigrinkrug]

Numerical values can be entered into EQ Eight via clicking on a value and typing. Example: click on the Q "box" and type "0.71" with your keyboard. Should work. Great video btw, love you stuff!

[@NoiseBoulderRecords]

Long story short: nothing.

[@angelusnielson7135]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. While it can help, the quality of the instrument means nothing compared to the quality of the person using it. Digital or otherwis.e

[@manny_f]

In the end it boils down to workflow and whether what you hear sounds good.

[@PsychoCaki]

LOL

[@FlexBlur]

Thank you

[@disorderedfox]

Nothing if you're not touching neither the extreme highs nor the linear phase/natural phase (which you would typically involve when adjusting extreme lows). In zero latency mode, a lone bell here and a lone shelf there would normally null, yea - which is good to know.

[@marcorademan8433]

.71 (0.7071) is the correct default Q, since this corresponds to sqrt(2) which is used for optimally damping a system, i.e. optimally between resonance and step response rise time.

[@Jimbo386000]

You should start a tv show on BBC that features nature style documentaries, but talking about music production.

[@Mamotreco]

This probably will have been mentioned before but you can enter numerical values for many knobs and parameters by double clicking on the knob or parameter in Ableton Live stock plugins

[@gurratell7326]

And also hold shift when dialing a knob for some fine tuning.

[@DanWorrall]

Thanks, I did find that one. The problem is when the GUI says 100Hz it might actually be 100.2Hz, or some other fractional value. Numeric entry would have helped lots: I totally missed that one :)

[@gurratell7326]

@@DanWorrall Yep sure it might not perfect, but perfect enough for me anyway! Thanks for a really well made comparison btw! Really like this kind of thorough and also educational type of videos :)

[@Phipanjo]

Very accurate comparison. EQ8 - as a stock plugin - made it for me. FabFilter produces mixing plugins only; Ableton a complete DAW. It fits perfectly in Push‘s GUI & for the main use, it hasn‘t to be that accurate, which it is more like I thought, before watching this video. As a mixing engineer, I would buy Q3, as a producer/live performer, I would stick with EQ8. It is a very good EQ & for fiddling around with 0.03 Q - Settings, the life is too short. Anyways, thanks for the good video!

[@emiete]

I liked the A version, great stuff, looking forward to watching all of the videos. Thank you Dan👊

[@venroarharima]

Hey Dan. Thank you so much for another great video. I also have noticed some oddities around return tracks in Ableton . I found this source last year that explained some of the inner workings of Live's rendering engine that may be of interest to you in case you are curious: forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?t=157548 "...2. There will always be at least 1 sample delay when routing a return track back into an ordinary audio track. This has to do with the computation cycle of the audio engine. Here's a (simplified) explanation: Live basically "scans" each of your tracks from left to right and "collects" each track's audio data, sample by sample. At the very end of each cycle, the master track's audio (or anything that is routed to your soundcard's output) will be sent to the DAC. Then it starts over, calculates the next sample and so forth. Now, if you route audio from a return track back in to an ordinary audio track, this signal will always be delayed, because it falls into the next computation cycle. Thus you will never be able to reach full phase cancellation in such a routing scenario. There is no workaround for this. Note that this really only affects return tracks which are routed back into audio tracks. Routing an audio track into another audio track is no problem, regardless into which direction." Its a minor detail but it had befuddled me for some time. All the best, Alex

[@ryacky]

Wow! This video is extremely thorough and very well done. Great work!

[@DavesDomeTube]

Eq A was slightly more transparant, thus my preference. A bit disappointed that this was the expensive version, was hoping version A was the stock eq to be honest.

[@xradical89x]

yeah me too

[@rokeys]

This is an amazing video, I would never have expected a youtube video to go into so much detail... I get the impression that a lot of DSP programming is done without any real knowledge of the theory behind it. BUT on the other hand, although I know a bit of the theory, I have to admit I'm not that good at programming. Concerning the "squeezing": From a quick glance at the cookbook, the approach there seems to be to design continuous-time ("analog") filters for the different EQ types and then convert them to discrete-time ("digital") using the bilinear transform. Without going into too much detail about the math, this transform does exactly what Dan points out in the video: The continuous-time frequency of the analog design (which goes up to infinity) is mapped to the discrete-time frequency (which is limited) in such a way that it needs to be "squeezed" in order to "fit". It's probably worth mentioning that there are other methods of converting the analog filter designs to digital, as well as design methods that skip designing the analog filters altogether. Which is presumably what the guys at fabfilter do

[@rickmcguire1761]

Just got here but I’m ready for my mind to be melted

[@InXLsisDeo]

I was not disappointed.

[@claudiuswaldschutz9179]

Wow Dan, thourough, on point, appealing to all senses. Thank you so much for your work