Whats Wrong With Stock Plugins? ReaEQ vs Pro Q3

Pro-Q3 is bristling with advanced features. But when using the basic essential EQ features, does it sound better than ReaEQ?
Drums played by Bobby Arechiga
If you like this type of content and you want to see it more often, consider signing up for Channel Membership: / @danworrall
Affiliate links: if you make a purchase using one of the links below I'll get a small commission. You won't pay any extra.
Pro-Q3 (Gear4music)
tidd.ly/3t6cv0c
Made with Vegas Pro:
(affiliate link)
www.vegascreativesoftware.com...

[@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.

[@cerebralm]

"the difference is unlikely to cost you your grammy" LOL excellent video :)

[@traezaX1]

🤷🏾‍♂️😂😂😂 why take the risk 😂😂

[@kadiummusic]

I was thinking that. We are in danger of forgetting that a great song is better than a great production. Ideally you need both but a great song will carry a less than fantastic production. IMHO.

[@d-rockanomaly9243]

ReaEQ is so underrated. It's always been my favourite EQ, and ReaComp is my favourite compressor. Despite their less attractive UI, they are actually super easy to use and way quicker to use. They are small, like, they have a physically small UI. All the info you need is right next to one another. Other plugins you gotta navigate more. Sounds like a small thing, but when you spend hours in those windows, it adds up. Takes no time at all to dial in the settings you want. ProQ is nice too though, I use that for dynamic EQ.

[@boobo3763]

Honestly, I totally agree! Downloaded "ReEQ" (Reapers fancy version of ReaEQ as a JS plugin" and TDR Nova the other day and I would TOTALLY rather use the VST ReaEQ. So fast, so simple. Not sure what everyone's problem with it is...

[@vegardyrnes1793]

I totally agree with you. Reaper has got some excellent stock plugins! They all look like a rainy Monday morning, but they sound so good. They don't color the sound, either.

[@ladle3000]

​@@vegardyrnes1793lol "rainy Monday morning" 😂

[@CornSw]

Lovely! So glad you're putting out more material! Get so excited everytime I see 'Dan Worrall has uploaded a video'! Thanks a lot!

[@gabet3754]

Idk what’s going on. I just watch to hear him talk

[@JamilLeslie]

lol Low Key Asmr

[@lilsafmusic]

@@JamilLeslie loool quite the opposite but yh

[@thefellowshipreforged8901]

he acts like this is so easy

[@FusedAndLovingIt]

I am an electrical engineer so I do understand what is going on but I still watch to hear him talk, and he does have a gift for presenting potentially complicated subjects in a clear manner. He is the Bob Ross of audio.

[@Stormsurf001]

FYI - Maybe someone has already noted this or maybe I'm just a day late to the party, but the issue Dan describes above in ReaEQ has been fixed. Now when you move a band to be centered on say 15khz, it does not stub off at 20khz, but instead rolls off gently and steadily like ProQ3 does somewhere well above 20khz. Same for High Shelf. But my project was set at 96k sample rate. Many thanks to the team at Reaper for making a great product for an even better price. And many thanks Dan for all your hard work. We're all better for it.

[@ladle3000]

Thx for this update 👍🏼

[@paisleepunk]

makes sense, eq cramping generally isn't an issue at samplerates higher than 48khz because the nyquist limit is a lot higher. nothing was fixed (at least until reaper's internal oversampling was introduced), it's just that this particular eq behaviour doesn't affect your workflow

[@DanWorrall]

I missed the original comment, sorry. Yes, cramping is only an issue at 44.1 or 48k samplerates.

[@woodsdenis]

Brill as usual Dan, keep me coming. I have learnt more from DW videos than any other source. Relatively complex subjects explained with incredible clarity and ease.

[@peinmilan]

Listening to pink noise for 20 minutes... What happened to my life? :o

[@viktorsilvasi1338]

music got shit

[@kelvinfunkner]

I just recently switched from Pro Tools to Reaper and strangely enough, I'm one of the few that don't own Pro Q3, so this was HUGELY encouraging for me! Thanks so much!

[@matthill263]

Nice to see someone testing plugins scientifically. I'm sure in a lot of instances we think plugins sound better because they look nice.

[@18CC]

like nexus? cost an arm and doing nothing better

[@arrowintheknee9956]

Whats Wrong With Stock Plugins? Nothing! People just like to spend a shitload of money thinking it's gonna get better. It's not the plugins, it's your ears.

[@andreyaek2266]

Agreed. I think Dan's assessment that the advanced features and workflow improvements are the only significant difference is completely fair. It's not in the sound, not in this case. And if you have the ears and experience to use either EQ well, you'll get good results with the free one. Conversely if you don't. the expensive EQ won't save you...

[@xnoreq]

DSP developer here. Not only are most filters used in these plugins trivial (they can be implemented in minutes), min phase and linear phase filters are defined by the magnitude of the frequency response (= the curve you see in parametric EQs). Same frequency response = same filter. Mathematically.

[@wingsofpurityofficial4031]

@Jingo McFeirson But have you tried ReaEQ? You can download it from the Cockos site for free in VST format.

[@mitch150]

I can actually hear differences between mixes that use stock ableton EQ's vs ProQ. Generally for the most part everything sounds much more in phase, and you have way more control over the curves to get things sitting just right.

[@xnoreq]

@@mitch150 Unless you can prove that either of those EQs is broken I call BS on that claim.

[@clickthisforawsomnes]

I was kinda shocked at the blind test. On my laptop speakers I thought A sounded way brighter and punchier then B and definitley like it more so I was sure it was the Fab filter. And when he releaviled that it was stock I realised theres defo more to plugins then just how popular they are and the price tag. I'm defo going to do this sort of test more on all my plugins and actually learn what the quirks are. I kinda had a revilation that just because something has a nice interface, is popular and has good reviews and a "pro level" price tag doesn't mean it's what I want or need for what I'm doing. It's amazing how this sort of subconious knowledge blinds your judgement. At the end of the day anyone who listens to your music won't know what EQ or plugin you used. Just the finished output. Your videos always amaze me. After producing for about 10 years now starting from a very early age I thought I knew pretty much everything and 99% of tutorials on youtube boosted my ego but yours always make me realise how further down the rabbit hole there is to go. It's amazing.

[@Podcastage]

Phenomenal video mate. Keep up the great work!

[@henriquematias1986]

There is not many people who knows their stuff and you're definitely one of them! Thanks for sharing, great work!

[@lfox02]

Such wow. Amazing. I never thought the difference was so minimal. So many people starting our think you need great gear, or if not, great plugins, but ReaEQ is free, can be downloaded as a VST and is indistinguishable from paid EQs in most instances. This is going into my favorites. Also, your delivery reminds me of Scott (I think) from Image-Line, who does the voiceovers for every FL Studio video. Awesome.

[@Dan-pq1tp]

Tl;dr: Use ‘Natural Phase’ mode in Pro-Q when working above 5khz. (See: 10:00)

[@helmanfrow]

8:57 I leaned in. I squinted. I grimaced. I pressed my ear flaps out. No matter how I contorted my face I couldn't hear any difference. I miss my teenage hearing. What a difference three decades makes.

[@timmymartin7293]

Well Done! While I allways have many instances of ReaEQ doing good work, I was so glad to see the TDR VOS SlickEQ which I love and use often. Be great to see the free SlickEQ with the Molot and Limiter6 by Vladislav Goncharov vs Ozone8 on the Dan Worrall test track. Can’t believe I just found this channel. With this content I think you should have 100k or more subs easily.

[@iainmackenzieUK]

Very reassuring. Thank you Dan. As a relative newbie: I tried other DAWS and always return to Reaper but also appreciate the ergonomics and intuitive use of fab filter (though recognise I have much to learn about both even after a few years of exploring)

[@RecordingStudio9]

A great and scientific comparative test.

[@NazVonGates]

Glad to have found your channel, you've opened my eyes to eq. I was aware that it does cause phase shifting, and when I asked a recording engineer why that is he shrugged his shoulders. I really thought the pro q at 20khz sounded like the reaper plugin did at 10khz. It had that hot sound like I would normally expect anything to sound boosting that high.

[@diyrecordingstudio]

Your control test of using a null was such a great idea. Great vid.

[@Mikas_Emil]

Just amazing. So glad I found you, you knowledgeable, no bs man!

[@ok-tchau]

Great video. I hope you keep doing these!

[@Gnurklesquimp]

I was not expecting such a concrete video! Will subscribe and check the rest of your videos out.

[@JimGriffOne]

11:57 - This reminds me of the good old days of tuning amplifiers and filters for my pirate radio setup. Looks similar to the output on the RF spectrum analyser, but instead I'd be trying to get nulls on the harmonics while getting maximum amplification on the fundamental frequency.

[@DavidMaximMicic]

Thank you for this!! KZbin needs more content like this :)

[@KoriTV]

Extremely thorough. Thanks for the free method at the end!

[@clemcostes]

Love your content! Kind of scientific and rational approach and that helps!

[@thane_snipes]

Fantastic video! I'm kind of happy to have it affirmed to me that SlickEQ really IS that good. I considered the possibility that it was just placebo for a long time, but I always gravitated towards that plugin specifically for high shelf boosting, because it just has ... something that I haven't found in many other plugins.

[@cjcurcio]

Another EXCELLENT video, Dan! Thanks again!

[@ludwigmuller2023]

Hats off, I hope that every person starting out in audio gets to see your videos. Staggering amount of mythbusting!

[@AleArzMusic]

Thank you so so so much! Your channel is a real goldmine

[@musicbykinesthetics]

There's an audible difference with ReaEQ in the high end; almost like a resonance or a ringing sort of sound above 12kHz that ProQ doesn't have.. But I was pleasantly surprised how close each test sounded. Goes to show it's not the kitchen but the chef. Great video!

[@mimidhof2179]

Hey wonderfull, I'm glad to see your own channel. Best audio video maker of all time... since Camel audio in +-2007. Why haven't you told me you had your youtube channel before...!?

[@AironExTv]

Hats off. Good comparison. I've used both ReaEQ and Pro-Q2/3 on dialogue mixes. Fine, and scalable GUI on both, but it's the sonic and usability features that had me mostly shifting to ProQ3. Bandwidth on parametric bands are a god send, as are dynamic EQ and an excellent analyzer. The stellar automatabillity of Fabfilter products are the plus as ReaEQ only has three automatable parameters per band. I mostly use ReaEQ on individual clips now. Once did a memory usage test (5000 items with a ReaEQ instance on them) and averaged out the RAM hit to 142 kB per instance. 7384 instances per GB :) . The tools all have their place.

[@Andre-gy5ml]

Interesting video. Im proud of myself for hearing the differences on the EQ's on the blind test and also guessing which was which at the first try. I used headphones tho not really confident i would do it easily on any monitors (been using this headphones for years)

[@antiphones]

Great video Dan as always. I wonder about time domain differences like transient smearing, post ringing things of that nature which seem to be very different form EQ to EQ. Is there a way to measure those differences? I'm not sure you'd hear them with noise as a source.

[@jy6677]

Great video Dan. Very informative.

[@BrandonBames]

This is exactly what I've been looking for! It's been so difficult just to find a clear explanation of why I would need Fabfilter, besides "bro, you just gotta use Fabfilter...blah blah." Thank you for the free science experiment! Would you ever consider doing another one comparing TDR Nova to Fabfilter?

[@concrete_3vidence]

Very nice video. Thank you.

[@seemaven]

It is easy to match the two curves (or any curve) in the current ReaEQ. You leave your last band curve matching the beginning and simply add a high shelf that can be adjusted to any desired level.

[@robertopistolesi2735]

This was super clarifying and useful. Thank you. I wonder, as a reaper user, if you had tried the ReEq, which is supposed to even more mimic proQ. I hear lots of differences between Rea Eq and Re Eq, and I don't really have the sufficient knowledge to understand what's what. I've noticed though that if I high-pass with Re Eq using the hard slope, it sounds totally different from when I do the same With Rea EQ

[@Jkguitar96]

Great video Dan! Do you know if the results are similar with the stock eq in other daw?

[@DjClimamusic]

Thank you for the information, it can help a lot!

[@KUTEY]

Thanks for the great insight man, really interesting !

[@xaosnox]

Another brilliant video by Dan! FabFilter is known for how well they handle frequencies at the extremes, particularly Nyquist. They have almost a Baxandall sound. I can't help but wonder how many other EQs aside from TDR's are as good. I could tell a difference with the exception of the high shelf, but it was negligible. However, I was able to tell the difference between ProTools' included EQ and Pro-Q² very easily in a blind test between analog, FF, and PT, so it seems reasonable to assume that ReaEQ is far superior to Avid's, because I didn't even have to try to hear the difference.

[@dzonidbejsist4336]

Wow, that was super-interesting! Thanks! I recently bought Pro Q3 after having used ReaEQ as my go-to, and was wondering what the actual difference was. I definitely felt some difference, but just couldn't quantify it.

[@aivoryuk]

What a fantastic video I learnt a lot with this

[@johnpenguin9188]

I mostly use stock plugins in Logic. I’ve never had someone say “you know the sound of your EQ just isn’t good enough”

[@matthijsblomjous3671]

without reference it's sometimes hard to hear when something's bad. logic's stock EQ gets terrible phasing issues in the low end when you add or subtract something in the high end, at least that's what I hear

[@jamessharier7529]

For home recordings I’ll keep the stock, $180 seems like a waste of money but it was a truly informative video

[@robcosh9754]

Great video - thanks for this.

[@IDDQDSound]

1:13 another question is, how come the pink noise on pro q3 look like it's getting louder with higher frequencies and reaper looks the opposite? Is there something different about how they display incoming signal?

[@michaelanderwald4179]

Great comparison. I've never been able to spot a difference between the two, but I do tend to work at 96khz. In this video, the ReaEQ samples sounded a bit more grainy, or gritty to me. Like a recording would after downsampling from a high sample rate to a lower one with weak anti-aliasing. Anyway, for some reason I get better results by using less precise EQs with 3 or 4 fixed bands and hidden curves, because it makes me listen with my ears more instead of looking at a graph and second guessing myself.

[@joesalyers]

Best line of the video I love Pro-Q so much I load it with a hot key! Bravo Dan , I am the same way with my favorite EQ DDMF's IIEQ Pro which I load with a hot key!!!

[@hettovennik2887]

Was just thinking DDMF's IIEQ Pro deserves a mention - only just got it

[@artysanmobile]

At the end of the day only two things matter. 1. You get the sound you’re looking for. 2. You waste the least time getting it. I would argue that the more expensive plug-ins I have purchased have helped with both things, but more so with #2. Good design should only be concerned with accomplishing those two things.

[@MrBillsTunes]

Great video!

[@jsd1982]

That was phenomenal!

[@AlbertoEAF]

Good video, and the cramping you were taking about could be solved by a band+high shelf for the high frequency band comparison and reducing the gain for the high shelf comparison, as reaEQ band gain goes down to 0 at the project sample rate and the high shelf mantains the gain at the sampling frequency, both of which cause the different shape, of which you can get rid of that way

[@irisonic]

thanks a lot, it's very helpful to me!

[@erikcebokli9585]

6:10 I'm listening to the blind test on my Neumann KH310 - the difference was very much obvious right away. It very much reflected the curve difference as shown in the graph just before the test. I did hear a major difference and yes, the B sample was much brighter on top than the A sample.

[@proletaire6442]

Excellent video, subscribed.

[@akibakemono]

Brilliant comparison.

[@MrSRellz]

Revisiting this video as I’m starting to check out Reaper. I have an RME interface and while changing the sample rate in the usb settings from 44.1, 48, and 96Khz, I can see the change in cramping and phase in real-time on ReaEQ. Of course Reaper now has the oversampling option for plugins so it can be all done in-house. Very cool

[@Beatsbasteln]

really interesting to see how eqs really work

[@svenjohnson6629]

great rundown, I've been on reaper for years and use reaeq for all my corrective EQing. It's crazy to think that based on the fabfilter model just the stock EQ is worth more than cockos charges for the whole DAW. Lol. Great vid man, really dug it. Great

[@can_sarac]

just what i needed. subbed. are you thinking about turning this into a series for reaper stock plugins or free plugins in general?

[@DanWorrall]

I'll see how I feel. But the ReaEQ video was popular, so I might try some other DAW stock EQs.

[@magmakum4628]

I was surprised I could tell the difference between the signals pretty confidently.. even on my phone's speaker.. loving the videos, awesome channel. I would say this is the gamer's Nexus of music production, really in depth and scientific content. Would love to see something like daw benchmarks.

[@Hexspa]

My fridge is whirring but B always sounds darker in my mixcube which is -10dB at 10kHz last time I measured it. Maybe the phase discrepancy you showed accounts for this. Thanks for the tdr tip.

[@SebPerfake]

Quality content. Thank you for doing such videos

[@KozmykJ]

Very interesting. Always sound information from you Dan (see what I did there? 😉 ) I'm well chuffed that my old and battered auditory sensing managed to get the A/B tests right. Last time I measured my hearing I was getting somewhere near 12kHz Left - 15kHz Right. 63 years old My hearing took a major bashing at a 1993 gig (playing bass) where I was sandwiched between the cymbals on one side and the most awful screeching synthesizer sounds on the other, lots of high Spl asymetric waveforms. I spent the next year mixing live sound (my regular job) with earplugs in. Only removing them to judge tone balance. It worked though. What might have remained permanent tinnitus subsided to loss of high end on the Left, and occasional light ringing (but nothing 'orrible).

[@TheStephenKerrison]

Great video as ever, Dan, I've learned so much from you. One further thing I'd love to learn though, is how you loaded a JS plugin into Plugin Doctor? Not sure if you've seen that ReEq that some very kind and clever person has developed, but I wanted to run the same test you ran here against the FabFilter, but can't figure out how to! Thanks again.

[@filtertheory]

This comment is a year old now, so hopefully you've solved this already, but if you install the ReaPlugs you'll get ReaJS, a VST that lets you load JS scripts.

[@nichttuntun3364]

Heard all AB with closed eyes, rechecked than with opened eyes. Same result. Used cheap Sennheiser HP. Yes there is a clearly audible difference. But not a game changer difference. I don't like Q3 too much when boosted over around 2db, especially not in low and highs. Great video. Thank you.

[@nenadstojanovic6545]

Hi Dan! What are your thoughts on bx_console Focusrite SC? I wanted to compare ReaEQ and bx_console Focusrite SC, in the same way as you compared ReaEQ and Pro Q3, but even with all buttons turned off, there is some color/filtering thing programmed into the EQ by Brainworx and even with all bands flat in both plugins, the null test just wouldn't work... Otherwise I find bx_console Focusrite SC to be very clear and good sounding plugin, but I'm kinda puzzled but this failed null test

[@paniproduce]

This really makes me happy :D

[@alanthesheep6428]

I picked FabFilter on all 3 of the blind tests. The difference was obvious. Not bad for a 55 year old!

[@federline1987]

I imagine you could also solve the cramping by adding a high shelf in addition to the bell curve or even a another bell with a wider bandwidth set higher and less gain

[@markusklepmo6075]

Amazing video, do you think you could do this for other stock eq's like FL studio parametric 2? of course you dont need to make a video as long as this, but ti would be great to how it compares to pro q3

[@ObesityStupidity]

They are different. And somehow parametric EQ 2 has better match with Pro Q2 when oversampling disabled

[@markusklepmo6075]

@@ObesityStupidity yes. In the mix actually made a video comparing these two eq's.

[@MrSkyTown]

If we use high sample rates can we also use over sampling to help reduce fold back sounds or does high sample rates help by its own lol

[@jrengmusic]

Great demo Dan! This video convinced me to stick with ReaEQ for surgical problems. For shelving high freq, i'd certainly grab pultec anyway.

[@DanWorrall]

You're aware that a Pultec high boost is a bell not a shelf?

[@jrengmusic]

@@DanWorrall I'm aware that Pultec use different curves for Boost/Attenuate.

[@XRaym]

Very interesting video ! This is a really in depth analysis, we can learn a lot of that from that. Note: Compared to Pro-Q3, the core feature still missing to ReaEQ is Surround processing... And slopes!

[@rjsrox07]

One thing Ive noticed on Pro Q is that is the frequency spectrum is 20-30 hz lower than some of the of the other Eq's like waves SSL.

[@philzeovoice]

Shockingly, I got the 20khz test almost immediately.. because I spend so much time with ReaEQ! Strange, no? ;0 Incredible video!

[@davidhaggerty9850]

In the first few blind comparisons I definitely preferred the fabfilter because it felt brighter and livelier to me, though I generally am not a fan of bright sound, it was in a pleasant way. On the last comparison I think I leaned towards Reaeq for similar reasons, though I'm curious what it is about the differences that appealed to me more on the last one. Either way, I did feel like they were all definitely different, but I don't think it would make a difference to 98 percent of audiences which are so desensitized to hearing 128 kbps streams being overprocessed to compensate through mass marketed speakers, so it really just comes down to what it's worth to you.

[@reactions5783]

I guess the latest Fabfilter cheque bounced? ... Lol, just kidding. You're awesome, the best plugin tutorial creator on the interwebs and I respect your honesty.

[@reticularbeats558]

Man, thank you!

[@thiagodevares9512]

Thank you!

[@Audiomishran]

Hey man, I am a big fan but i could hear some air being chopped by ReaEQ at 20khz whereas Pro Q's version was more prominent. I don't know if that is after conversion by youtube but even after conversion it seems to be making a little difference in terms of air which clearly gets reflected in my Consumer speaker.

[@tappistrt]

Did you put that synth riff together with the drums at the end? Or was that also by Bobby Arechiga? Definitely dig it.

[@DanWorrall]

That was me :)

[@tappistrt]

Package up that song and sell it!

[@markhadman]

Dan - great video as always, I love the careful, level-headed analysis that you do. You'd probably by quite interested in reading the manual for the LSP Parametric EQ, as being an open source project the authors have no qualms talking about their DSP algorithm. In particular they talk about the pros and cons of Bilinear Transform vs Matched Z Transform. The former leads to the distorted bell curve seen in ReaEQ and many others, but the latter results in aliasing. LSP Parametric EQ offers both modes (and more), so I tried it and can confirm it's possible to create quite audible aliasing, at least with contrived situations. I wonder if the Fabfilter EQ does the same without oversampling?

[@DanWorrall]

Hi Mark. I've no inside information on how pro-q3 works internally, but I've always assumed that the cramping in zero latency mode is essentially just corrected with extra filtering, hence the extra phase shift. There's no oversampling btw, common misconception. Natural phase mode just eliminates the extra phase shift: my guess is the corrective filtering is linear phase in that case. I could be very wrong, but certainly there's no aliasing, it stays squeaky clean regardless of the mode.

[@DanWorrall]

* when I say "linear phase corrective filter" what I probably actually mean is "FIR corrective filter" as its probably correcting phase as well.

[@roninenlightened6350]

I prefer Pro Q3 for mid side processing. Its very handy for that. How is Pro Q3 compared to the EQ in iZotope Neutron 3?

[@Matchat11]

Awsome Dan! Could you review the JS plugin reEq since the interface is quite a bit more like Pro Q3? thanks very much for all your content!

[@daibaandtheghostmachine8952]

You sound like the dude who narrated Thomas the Tank engine. I love it. Great video also!

[@daibaandtheghostmachine8952]

Haha I just remember that was Ringo wasn't it? What voice was I thinking of then, I wonder?

[@mikosoft]

Ringo was the original narrator but I think he was replaced later on.

[@diobrando5896]

@@mikosoft with Alec baldwin

[@crimsun7186]

ReaQ also has INFINITE BANDS. You're not limited to how many the manufacturer decided you should have for that price range All bands can be set to notch, bell, high, low and bandpass, high and low shelf. You can also get ReaQ for free for any other DAW using the ReaPlugs installer. ReaQ does that because it's not a "color" EQ, and has no intention to sound like a hardware eq unit, which has physical constraints and limitations.

[@mrcarrino]

Brilliant!

[@troeteimarsch]

at the 20 kHz test you could tell by concentrating on the "air", the pro q definitely got more.

[@hrlysctt]

What if you added a high-shelf node above the 10k bell on REAEQ to phase match with pro-Q3?

[@squadtvofficial]

Mate, U r a legend!👑

[@monkeyxx]

Lucky enough for me, I preferred the ReaEQ in every blind test! I guess I just saved myself about $200

[@rockostiffredi4276]

It's easy to be dazzled by the GUI of Fabfilter plugins. When I actually compared it the sound to say my logic x channel EQ, I preferred the sound of the stock plugin. I think because the stock EQ, has been optimised to run with Logic. Why pay $200 for one plugin, when you can buy a whole DAW for

[@juanmarin9484]

Or not 😏⛵⚔️

[@OfficialMagnet]

Juan Marin hehehe, who buy's an eq plugin lol

[@blacksaona]

The boost in high frequencies defines the "hi fi" quality of the material. Losing information thats past 10khz its just a great loss. It will make your music sound cheap. I dont ussualy boost high freq with Pro Q, i just remove. thats why I use the Maag EQ for very high freqs and there's a GREAT diference.

[@chrisstevens2069]

@@blacksaona You gotta keep in mind no matter what eq you use if the song isn't good meaning the words and arrangement the listener won't like it, they can't tell or hear the difference between a stock compressor or 1176 so why do we get caught up with plugin colorations.I played my song for a friend thinking they were gonna say they love my eq curves and how I compressed this and that, but they were just listening to the song

[@Roderick_Legato]

7:17 Just for fun, put a brickwall low-pass, set near Nyquist, in series with the Pro Q3 and see if you can't get better cancellation. The ReaEQ looks like it has a steep output filter to prevent aliasing (so the high end is - always - going to look like that). I've seen this in hardware on a Audio Precision test set - if the 20kHz brickwall filter is engaged, you get a very different high end result, as you'd expect. Sorry if this has been brought up before.

[@DanWorrall]

That kind of filter would indicate internal oversampling, which would have fixed the cramping. But there's no brick wall filter, no oversampling. It's just normal digital filter cramping.