WHY buy a MAAG EQ2 after watching what the KIRCHHOFF EQ can do? .. no joke ..THEY MEAN BUSINESS!!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- WHY buy a MAAG EQ2 after watching what the KIRCHHOFF EQ can do? .. no joke ..THEY MEAN BUSINESS!!
I'll say it now... three body technology weren't dicking around when they created their kirchhoff eq. I didnt put much interest into the analog modelled curves it offered.. and I was an absolute idiot for not doing so!! Just look at how close the kirchhoff blue eq is to the plugin alliance / uad maag eq2.
My name is Paul Third and I am a Scottish youtuber / audio engineer / mixing engineer / audio geek. I mostly cover audio engineering related content ranging from audio plugin shootouts / plugin comparisons (acustica audio plugins, universal audio etc etc) to actual analog vs digital / gear vs plugins plugin tests via access analog and mix analog. I even include ddmf plugindoctor tutorials in my plugin reviews so you can be your very own plugin tester and experiment and understand whats actually going on under the hood. I also discuss digital music distribution from time to time and like to give my viewpoint on online music distributors such as onerpm and distrokid.
All of my audio blind tests involving music production software are conducted in avid pro tools 2021 which is my main daw and I also use HOFA blind test 4U as my blind test software. In terms of my audio interface I record and monitor through my audient id44 and use an audio technica AT2050 for all of my voice overs.
Join and also subscribe to the channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulthird
🌠SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
/ mixingwedesdays
🏷️ PRODUCT LINKS
pluginboutique.com/?a_aid=60a...
www.thomann.de/gb/audient_id1...
🎶 FOLLOW MY DEBUT ALBUM JOURNEY
• MY DEBUT ALBUM JOURNEY
🎤 RELEASING A SONG?
Music distribution playlist: • Playlist
Songwriting playlist: • MIXING SESSION WITH PA...
🖱️CONTACT ME
Email: paulthird.taysound@gmail.com
Instagram: / paulthird_uk
Next week I will be doing the pultec curves of kirchhoff and attempting a 3 pultec comparison. As a sneak peak.. It can do eqp1a curves but can it do other pultec styles ie DW Fearn & tube tech?.. I've still to find that out 🧐
If you ever compare the SSL curves, could you compare it against DMG's Equilibrium, which is Kirchhoff's closest competitor, feature-wise?
Always great work Paul! As I was mentioning on some other posts...I think it does now, filter purity aside, come down to how we work as humans. What I mean is eg I love the bX 2098...not because its doing anything special but because the curves work so well for ribbon mics...they are just spot on. Looking at all the comparisons being made eg Pultect blah blah...I really believe, having actual curve emulations will be far more meaningful...well thats what it looks like anyway. Its like they have done with cigarettes in Australia...you go to buy them, they all have the same colour, same box etc so there is nothing to tempt you except perception...no branding etc. So with an eq that you have confidence in, then it just gets back to how it feels in the workflow?
It seems to have so much...just add a splitEQ I would buy it immediately :-)
Paul, i have a lot of respect for you for the fact that you are replying to all comments, this is simply not happening anymore on other channels, because people take themselves so seriously. Self made celebrities 🤣 RESPECT!!!!
🤜🤛
Agree
Today I felt geeky and risky so I listened the whole Paul Third video by x2 speed, I can say I improved my english hearing skills in an exponential way.
If anything.. Paul Third x2 is risky even for my wife 🤣
Great video Paul! I can’t believe the effort you put into this stuff 🤣🤘🏻🤘🏻
Totally. I could be going a gym, going out on walks.. But no I spend my free time geeking out on plugins.. And over time slowly puting on more weight 🤣
@@PaulThird lol, better you than me!
Yes to more KIRCHHOFF EQ content. This was great, Paul!
🤓🤓
Really appreciated. Astute observations especially when using this to get what you want out of vocal tracks!
🤓🤓
Bravo, Paul! It's very clean and versatile. I'm using trial version, but haven't seen where to activate the dynamic section of the eq. Maybe more coffee and reading will do the trick. Appreciate all you do!!
There's a little D on the bands. You'll see it between gain & q 🤓
Kirchoff has made a name for itself quickly and seems to be the new reigning champ of digital eq. My wallet has been begging me ever since it came out I know Im about to cave.
😅😅😅😅
If you are unaware the EQ has a no time limit demo simply with no preset saving. Check it out
@@phadrus awesome didn't know that pretty impressive for a $150 app. I've been using acon digitals eq being the only other I've seen with mixed phase. Although I think they go about it different ways. Now I can compare and find out thank you!
@@chrishaake8126
Yes, I demoed it for almost a full month, for free, and then I took the plunge.
This Kirchhoff EQ is definitely my cup of tea.
I already have the Infinity EQ and the Eiosis Air EQ Premium, and this Kirchhoff EQ really gets along with them very well.
(-;
Same I bought the maag 2 on sale because the demo had me all geeked about the air knob lmao I have been mastering for clients so I thought it would make a difference all it does is cause problems IMO both in the mix and master. Your vids are on point brother its like you read my mind.
🤜🤛
Just Discovered your channel...
Great content...
Subbed.
For the longest time I've been watching this channel to get an understanding of how plugins relate to their hardware counterparts in the real world but this eq is amazing replacing some of the most irreplaceable eqz we use to mix just to know it's an ssl, pultec, maag and more sets it apart plus its dynamic #itsfrye
🤓🤓
Hello Paul! Beautiful video as usual man. 🙂
I didn't want to believe that I would set FabFilter on the bench... but this one is the better player, at this juncture.
(LOL... on the "40k" comments.) 😄
🤓🤓
Excellent video chief! I really love this plugin, super pleased I got it - only thing I wish it would do is show the external sidechain signal on the GUI like Pro-Q3 and then the plugin would be near perfect - even without the EQ matching features of Q3 which still would be amazing but they’ve done such a stellar job on this plugin that I’ll let em off for now lol 😂
🤓🤓
The Kirchhoff doesn't have an Analyzer to deal with masking. The ProQ3 does.
We need more videos of this sort!
They are coming 🤓
Mate, breath of fresh air in the audio community.
Informative. Scientific and straight to the point.
i know you review a lot of plgins, mainly it has been that way at least.
how about you give us a quick video on vocal mixing for podcast or streaming or VO?
This is what I mainly do, so id love that haha
anyways, great video as usual mate. have a good one!
I'm still experimenting with the whole voice over stuff but I do plan on doing one in the future 🤓
@@PaulThird don't sweat it my guy! im sure its going to be great.
keep doing what you do mate. videos are a breath of fresh air as I mentioned.
Too much "bad voodoo" surrounding plugins and hardware ad so on.
you're doing a fantastic job at proving many people wrong.
🤜🤛
great video as always
🤓🤓
I suspect this will be your new most-viewed video edit: of the year
If it beats the first kirchoff video I'll be happy haha
Hi, thanks for the great videos,
I've noticed that Kirchhoff eq does not display the frequency spectrum if you input only "Side" information I've separated mid and side with voxengo msed and let only "the side" to go out but krichhof eq didn't display anything, unlike pro q and span, it's not a big deal but that means that the spectrum displays only the mid frequency wich might be really bad in some cases, (i know that there is a button in krichhof to play and display only side, but anyway I think when working on stereo elements it's so important to see both (side/mid) frequencies on the spectrum at once, it can be separated by color or a bit more transparent, but not being there at all is, hmm not good)
Thanks
Ive not really looked into the M/S stuff but I'll see if it's the same on my version. I got a notification of an update today so it's maybe changed now but I'd need to check
Cool comparison, thanks. D’you have your ‘recommended plugin’ list anywhere?
Nah its more of an ask and I'll tell kind of thing
a plug-in with a interface like this can simulate analog hardware, this is when you truly realize things have changed.
Be interesting to see plugin chains in 5-10 years time
It doesn’t add saturation or analog color it’s purely digital, though you can model curves easily with the presets. Great plugin in any case
Good one, Paul.
🤓🤓
4:00 But, on the Fabfilter, there is the cogwheel-button between the Gain- and the Q-Knobs.
This links both knobs in such a way, that turning up the gain will influence the q-setting, too.
Probably (or even likely), this won't match the curve, perfectly, but the workflow-feeling is probably pretty similar, right? (I ask, because, I don't have the Kirchhoff)
I'd need to check it out tomorrow. Worth a try 🤓
@@PaulThird Thanks :)
Great video again, Paul. Which is no accident with you.
Have you used the Waves Q Clone to capture EQ curves from various plugins and if so, what is your experience from it?
Kirchhoff coming my way soon. 😂
Q clone is purely a linear test so you'd be better off with bertom as its free. Doctor is the full package as it incorporates non linearities via the fundamental sweep so for any eq's that audibly saturate or involve any dynamic processing.. Its the best test compared to qclone and bertom unless you have an eq that doesn't make any audible saturation, then 6 half a dozen but I like how doctor is now in the daw and you can A/B in real time, and use hardware
@@PaulThird love your detailed answer. Thank you ever so much.
Would you compare the Focusrite Red 2 and 3 plug ins to its competition. I have always loved the Red hardware and own the preamps.
The plug ins are often available for free and are shipped with a lot of focusrite soundcards. Slate Digital makes a version of the red compressor. It would also be interesting to see how they stand up to the Steinberg/ Rupert Neve portico plugins. Or even a Pultec eq or ssl buscompressor. As the Red hardware is often used on the mixbus.
This might sound like a niche request, but almost everyone who bought a focusrite sound interface has this plug in. I think it might be overlooked!
The other day I matched Reapers ReaEQ to Apogee's take on the Pultec. Shockingly close. It nulled at normal listening levels. You have to lift the volume about 30dBs or so before you hear the residual difference. Anyway... I'm not saying everyone should use only stock EQs since I also own too many emulations for my own good, it's just that a lot of the hype is around an EQ curve rather than the actual plugin programming. Yes, I know phasing, aliasing and saturation also plays a roll but a lot of the hype is just marketing and pretty interfaces. Trust your ears and if you can get from A to B with whatever plugin, just relax and settle into a familiar workflow.
🤜🤛
That Kirchhoff EQ plugin is definitely OP! though i will say that the frequencies didn't 100% line up on both of the plugins, but personally i use analog emulations because they are fast and easy to setup. I use digital plugins (fab filter mostly these days) mostly for noise removal and dynamic EQ stuff. This Kirchhoff EQ plugin is fabfilter to the next level, but do i need it? how many times would i reach for the unique features? Honestly not often at all. If someone doesn't already have the other plugins, this is definitely high on my recommended to own though.
I'm considering using it as my main eq and stick a seperate saturation plug on if I want some added vibe. When you get used to using the analog curves of kirchhoff it's so quick and easy as you are constantly using the same plugin layout whereas with analog emulations it depends on the specific gui in regards to its ease of use. The band list helps in kirchoff so if you need to go back and make ammendments it's a lot easier. The whole "I only eq with fabfilter" never really made sense to me where with this it does. I dunno.. I can't really put my finger on it, kirchhoff just makes sense to me for whatever reason
totally agree!
Finally an in-depth video about the mighty Kirchhoff! I'm a first day user and rarely i choose other options since i've bought it.
Is it cheap? No. Does it makes the difference? Yes. :)
Great job, Paul!
🤓🤓
It would be really cool to have a plugins knob detents within the eq models.
You mean like fixed steps?
@@PaulThird I do!
With the moves you're making on the Kirchoff it looks as if you are ready to join us in the dark side with Melda Productions! 😉 If you like deep diving Melda is an abyss!
The time will come... Haha
I did a demo of this EQ but decided not to buy it. Too much distraction for me. I am way faster with PRO-Q and prefered the sound of PRO-Q. Can't remember if I exactly matched the settings though🤔 so looking forward to your video when you compare those eq's.
Further I have compared the plugin with my own hardware EQ's. I prefered my own hardware. But none of my eq's are emulated in the plugin. I have the Zahl EQ1, the Tube-Tech Hlt-2a, the Cranesong Insigna and the Thermionic Culture The Kite. None of those have been emulated. If I did not had hardware EQ's though, then I would have bought the Kirchhof. Combine it with Saturn 2 to ad some colour.
Kirchhoff has a learning curve but as soon as I got my head round it i use it over proq3. The analog curves are really making me think I could easily mix with this as my main eq and using my saturation for colour if needed.
Tbh though if you've already got proq3 then you most likely won't need it unless you want to set the detection of dynamic bands to other parts of the source, utilise the mixed phase and have greater control over your dynamic threshold and overall detection. Or if you also want the ease of the analog curves for quick musical workflow decisions etc having dynamic analog eq curves is pretty handy for guys like me but not for everyone
If proq3 works for you as it is then you'd probs have no need unless you really wanted those extra features
Paul third real legend
🤜🤛
Legend
🤜🤛
Where's the cast - can't wait !!
🤓🤓
I have no doubt that these digital complex eqs of nowadays can match most of the "analog" modeling eqs out there in almost every form. However i came to think that this analog modeling plugins what gives you is a quick no brainer go to freq and curves that work most of the times very well and fast when we are mixing. Never the less i quite enjoy this comparative videos, keep doing them Paul, thanks!
🤓🤓
@4:39 LOL, gets me every time
This plugin has a no time limit demo. Just can’t save presets. What are you waiting for?
Didn't even know that haha
yes, Kirchoff is good and teamed up with EQuilbrium + external saturation they can cover basically any EQing task whether it is clean digital or convincing analog vibe
That's what I'm thinking. Kirchhoff and seperate saturation would be more than enough to mix any record im finding
@@PaulThird Perhaps I'm a huge nerd, but there's also question of FIR vs IIR and impulse response of the EQ itself.
For me - Kirchoff is a perfect general use static EQ with a fast workflow and as a dynamic EQ it's second to none ATM, however - EQuilbrium beats it in the sound deparment (!) at the expense of latency and processing cost if FIR is used.
EQuilibrium provides impulse response tweaking capacity as well, and that can make a significant difference in the sound.
Both very good plugs 🤓
Can i emulate maag 4? Looking to buy the maag 4 but might as well get this. Are the values fixed or would i have to play around with sweeps to get the eq values of maag?
The eq2 curves are same as eq4 so in kirchoff you can essentially have a maag eq12 as it has 32 bands in it haha
The difference between eq4 and eq2 is that eq4 at 0db already has bumps at those frequencies. And for example, turning the air band from off to 2.5k boosts a shelf there without any gain boost. And as you move to 5k it shows itself. That's without any boost or attenuation. The other thing is, like Paul mentioned, and I personally think it's a significant thing, is once you pass 1db of boost, it's not just the band that's boosting. The entire spectrum goes with to a small degree and that's going to change how we perceive that band boost. So when you consider that, and then you say, boost 5k with the air band by 3-4db which is quite normal with the eq4, the relationship to the rest of the spectrum just changed, too and so when you attenuate 160hz and boost the sub and 40hz, then it makes all the curves different to the same curves that only affect themselves not each other. And... I think that's the "musical" aspect of this eq. The eq2 doesn't have the same start point as the eq4. So... It's about the curves and how they boost, yes, but also how it works in tandem, and the fact that someone else decided those curves and frequencies. And on eq4 there's a screw to lower the output, because I always want to level match.
See, for me, I don't always use maag eq4. But when it's right, it's easy, and sometimes I would rather grab something like that and moves knobs for a minute and let my brain react than make finite decisions with something like pro q 3. I'll grab eq4 first or last. If I'm in Kirchhoff, which is a great eq, I'm still going to treat it like I can do a lot more with it. So at that point, I'd have to change my mindset of its purpose in use. If that makes sense. I think for any of us, the best investment is plugin doctor. And then trial the eq4 (until it's on sale for cheap) and the Kirchhoff and see what that all looks like in in Plugin Doctor and if it makes better sense for you to just choose one. Cheers.
While I like this eq for the workflow and unique filters like the sword, this plugin doesn't really do it for me. First is a missing knee for the dynamics. For recordings with a moderate dynamic range, this plugin just can't find a place between inaudible difference and jumpy, breathing artifacts. And honestly, the analog curves make no sense to me either. I don't understand why I'd waste time selecting a specific curve from a menu when I could dial in the filter half again as fast with the given Q and slope hotkeys. Is having the "exact" slope and frequency really that important? To me, the only thing I find that I care about is the unique non-linear response.
Compared to ProQ 3, it's a fine alternative, but I'll still be recommending SliceEQ because you can buy it second hand for $10 and spend your remaining hard earned money on TDR or other high value plugins.
Well from a workflow and cpu point of view it makes sense to me. In one plugin instance I can have pultec low boost and attenuation with an ssl E mid bell and a mag 40k air band. On top of that I can make them dynamic and detect from each other if I wanted, and then choose if I want the pultec and ssl eq phase to be analog and the maag air band to be linear.. All in one instance.
You've also got the band list where you can simply go back to that same 1 plugin instance and have all your bands organised and adaptable in a seperate little mini part of the Plugin. Way better to me than having to go through 3 different instances for tweaking and also gain staging works better as you only have 1 output to worry about as well as not having to worry about your input as its a linear plugin without the dynamics.
You can save a list somewhere where you input the exact values into fabfilter but as I showed you cant get the same q behaviour when boosting. Having these curves selectable quickly and requiring less faffing means quicker work for me.
In the end fabfilter and many other dynamic eq's dont have the dynamic features that kirchoff has regardless if you can't adapt the knee it still offers more than most.
However.. Very important.. I'm not here to sell you this plugin haha if its not for you then it's not for you. I think it's dynamite the more I play around with it but that's just me. Some plugins simply make more sense to others.
@@PaulThird I completely agree that it's far less of a pain to tune one plugin than a bunch of different instances, especially ones with limited knob-only UIs, but that's not exactly what I'm arguing. I'm trying to say that the actual analog curves offered by the plugin seem pointless because you've already got flexible, easy to dial-in filters that can do everything the curve emulations can already.
For instance, I can create a bell filter and a high shelf filter, cut with the peak a bit below the shelf frequency, and boost with the shelf. Voila, a Neve curve. I can then select both filters at once - conveniently, Kirchhoff and Shade both control the gain of boosted and cut filters in opposite directions when selected as a group - and immediately tune filters in without any hassle, and with more flexibility than the given Neve shelf.
Alternatively, dynamics and modulation are covered far, far more comprehensively by UVI's Shade. It allows separate modulation of any of its parameters, Q, gain, slope, and frequency included, with a volume detector.
To be honest, it seems like the best idea is to slap on a non-linear emulator of choice after the linear EQ and not even bother opening them up. You get the best of both worlds, then :P
I've heard a lot of good things about DMG Equilibrium. It would be interesting to see these compared. People are saying equilibrium is the best sounding eq. I was under the impression that an eq' s sound was a matter of the curves and the user's preference. I'd like to know what's actually going on.
Somebody mentioned about the difference between IIR and FIR but tbh i'd imagine the differences to be extremely minimal. I'd be surprised if they were really audible to the point of a qualitative difference but I'd have to do some research on IIR & FIR before I could talk about it in detail. A null test would be enough but I dunno if I can be bothered to get the equilibrium on demo and deal with the "shouldve done this, shouldve tried it that setting etc etc" as I know enough to know the equilibrium/fabfilter debate goes pretty deep haha
@@PaulThird yeah, it sounds like there are a lot settings in equilibrium. Maybe I'll have to look into what fir is a little more. Are all other eq's considered iir?
I'm not entirely sure. I contacted another audio geek as I suspected he would have tested this out and he told me that there was no qualitative difference between fabfilter and equilibrium in his tests. He didn't find that equilibrium had a superior audio quality to fabfilter and vice versa.
Makes sense to me as if it was you would probably imagine that it would be a very well known thing 🤷♂️
@@PaulThird interesting topic. Maybe it deserves a video?
How is the Kirchhoff on the CPU compared with Pro-Q3?
Double on my i7 laptop but I didn't compare on my i9 pc. On the i7 10 instances of proQ3 is 6-7%, 10 instances of kirchoff is 13-14% but thats using mixed phase & analog curves with dynamics on
Fortunately you bought the Maag so you are more certain you didn't need to buy it. And in my drawer I have 10,000 spoons when all I need is a really fine audio knife.
It's all about having the shiniest spoon these days haha
@@PaulThird Hey Paul, do you have any experience with Metaplugin by DDMF? I use their Magic Death Eye Stereo - but their Metaplugin (which I used in oversampling mode to "match" the quality of very high spectral boosts in the demo of Kirchhoff EQ), claims to work with VST 3, yet some of my vst 3's won't load, and I'm wondering if others have dealt with this issue successfully? (for me Fab Filter Pro Q3 does load into Metaplugin, but only the vst2 version).
It's only a matter of time before P3 gets so Meta he runs Plugin Doctor through Plugin Doctor.
Hahaha
How is it CPU wise compared to Proq3? Please. Please, Please start adding at least small note about how CPU friendly plugin is. For many it is deciding factor. I am constantly replacing all CPU hogs with lean killer machines. CPU information should have evaluation points. Like in games graphics for example. Thanks anyways!
I answered it in the first video somewhere. If I recall on my i7 laptop, 1 instance of fabfilter is 1-2% and 1 instance of kirchhoff is 2-4% With kirchhoff running mixed phase, and dynamic bands It's double the cpu of proQ3. So if proq3 is 3% kirchhoff will be 6% but tbh i'd use this instead of multiple plugin eq chains so it balances out for me personally. Cpu isn't really a bother to me tbh when you consider I use acustica and oversample plugins haha I noticed that the cpu stays the same even if I've got like pultec, ssl and maag curves at mixed phase in one instance and all working dynamically so it's not bad cpu to me as whatever I do in the plugin it isn't really affecting me any more.
I think when we talk cpu like this it's peanuts to guys like me but each to their own. I've not tested it on my i9 but on the i7 laptop I think 10 instances was like 12-14% and proq3 was 6-7%. Normally consistently double but on my i9 there's no chance kirchhoff would make my pc break a sweat
They're very identical I use both all the time. Mainly just cuz I'm used to using pro Q but Kirchhoff is more powerful really. It's just not quite as user friendly... but only slightly because it is pretty user friendly as well. Pro Q just has that down to perfection. Can move fast much easier with it. But they both use about 0.6 or 0.7 percent on my system. I'd say Kirchhoff uses everrrrr so slightly more but it really is only slightly if any at all.
I believe I bought the MAAG plugin for UAD for like $10 a few years back, mostly because I like to have plugins from as few sources as possible with UAD being my main one.
I use it every now and then but it's not too impressive. It is certainly not an accurate model of the hardware from what I hear. It's basically just using the same EQ curves.
Tbh most modern hardware eq's are as clean as plugins so would make sense why it's mostly just eq curves
....nobody can't beat "the life" between 0 and 1.
it summs up/stacked with more analog.
we feel it, we are humans....
hardware will ever be more organic.....
photo or real life....?!
No, no special sauce, no magic, it's all science. Only time you'll get a real audible difference when stacked is when dealing with analog in stereo or dual mono.
When lots of analog is summed you are simply just hearing the stacked difference of the left and right tolerances which causes a more audible side signal which gives the illusion of width and depth. Plugins by default are perfect stereo, analog in nature is hardly ever identical in its stereo capabilities. It's the imperfections of analog that give it its sound. Nothing to do with "life".. Its just inaccurate, which has its own sound.
Digital = precise
Analog = unpredictable
I can't help but be reminded of a certain eerrrrhhhharison video ;). The use of the phrase "circuit modelled" tweaks my bs detector in a similar way to their claims. So my first question is how is this any different? I get that the curves change with gain; and that's really useful to know. But does the 32c not do this too? Or is it much simpler? (sorry I am being lazy by not re-watching that video). Obviously as an "extra feature" within the context of Kirchoff it is valid - but circuit modelled doesn't sound right to me. I am genuinely interested though; as I have been thinking about trying to match EQ curves from AA plugins and just use the preamps and see if the restults can be matched. FWIW re slight differences in nulls, I think we shouldn't dismiss the affect that inaudible sound can have, as we already know that we can perceive differences outside our audible range. We often talk about 3D-ness in relation to AA plugins; and I really wonder how can that be measured with plugin doctor or any other tool?
Ironically I was thinking of messing with the harrison master eq to experiment with some of this, as the shape is completely drawable.
I'm not entirely sure about the exact definition of circuit modelled but I'd guess it's about puting the maths behind a schematic and coding an algorithm around that. Basically you take the circuit diagrams and convert that into whatever math which can then be coded into an algorithm. That's my guess so circuit modelled is probably just a term for a way of modelling a piece of hardware.
Harrison said that they had modelled everything meticulously down to every capacitor. It's THE digital version of the hardware.
Where three body tech said this:
"Get vintage and modern at same time! We modeled 9 vintage EQ hardware units as a total of 32 EQ types implemented in Kirchhoff-EQ. Benefit from Robust Nyquist-Matched Transform, every EQ type precisely matches the original hardware and won't cramp near Nyquist frequency. For a further step, unlike the original hardware that only allows to choose between several frequency positions, we modified the DSP model to make adjustable frequency points for all these types! Every type in these models can be used together with regular EQ types or other modeled types, and can be applied with dynamic functions (except lowpass and highpass types). This brings you more freedom and convenient operations.
* No non-linear behaviors were modeled. All vintage filter types only contain ideal linear parts of their physical model."
They are telling you its a modern take on hardware and actually a huge step forward with dynamic mode and a more flexible frequency range. You don't get the non linearities but tbh in most modern eq's they are super clean. Even pultecs have hardly any audible harmonic content.
What kirchhoff have done is their own take on modelling hardware eq's. What Harrison did was claim it was the real deal and the most accurate representation of the hardware when it actually wasn't
@@PaulThird - Exactly; so no different to H'sons claim that they "modelled every resistor". I find both claims to be most likely completely untrue: Why didn't they just say they'd modelled the behaviour of the EQ curves?
@@PaulThird But what my auty-brain can't help but point out, is that you've not held Kçhoff accountable to the same standard that you did H'son, as they seem to have made very similar claims; at least from what I can see.
Cause its very different
"* No non-linear behaviors were modeled. All vintage filter types only contain ideal linear parts of their physical model."
Kirchhoff are clearly telling you it's a digital eq with a linear circuit modelled eq section. You can create an algorithm from schematics, that's how analog obsession makes his plugins. He hardly ever has the analog to physically measure, he goes off the circuit diagrams.
Harrisons was very linear in many ways but unlike kirchhoff claimed full analog recreation. The full character of analog bla bla bla when it eq cramped and could null with a digital eq.
I'll remind you that Harrison said this:
"Harrison's new cross-format 32C Channel plugin brings Harrison's True Analog sound to your digital audio workstation in your studio... and will change the way you think about mixing "in the box".
The 32C Channel Plugin provides a complex emulation of the original Harrison 32C EQ. Every resistor, capacitor, and transistor is included in the model. When combined with the 32C Filter section, a huge range of tonal possibilities are available with just a few knob turns."
They are claiming true analog sound and then made a mostly linear plugin.
Kirchhoff stating that there are no modelled non linearities is what makes the biggest difference.
They are upfront that they have modelled the curves but not included the non linearities.
I did the same with melda when I made my motown eq. I copied the kit curves exact and even macro'd the proportional Q. Kit claimed the same as Harrison and made a linear circuit model of the motown but made out it was a full analog recreation when it was simply a linear circuit model. UAD's motown was the actual full circuit model as they actually modelled the non linearities as well (THD & clipping)
I also forgot that UAD's eq originals were circuit modelled but included no non linearities ie legacy pultec. So linear circuit modelling is a thing
From what I can see the kirchoff curves could have been circuit modelled without the non linearities as the maag curves are bang on which proves their claims that the curves are exact, as this video shows, as well as the pultec video does as well. The biggest difference is that they have clearly stated that there are no modelled non linearities. That statement proves that they are not claiming a full exact analog recreation, purely exact linear curves which is what Harrison, kit and waves Rs56 is but claim full analog sound which would include non linearities, but they don't, thus why they get heavily bashed
Love this accent on "thierry" Henry ? 😂
Shoulda gone for the eq4 my man... Eq4 is great deal more than its air band
Tbh I only ever used the maag for the air band but the eq4 is still the same q's as the eq2, as well as the frequencies. Which means that kirchoff can give you a maag eq12.. And more as its 32 band haha
@@PaulThird I have no doubt. Nonetheless, it does a couple things for me - only one of which is the air band - and it does it mighty quick. Same argument as Kirchhoff vs Pro Q3. Horses for courses
Totally. Good arguments though as id say its much better to be arguing about these sorts of plugins compared to 8 different ssl's haha
I think the more we focus on getting more out of the tools we've got, it can only be better for everyone else.
"WHY buy a MAAG EQ2 after watching what the KIRCHHOFF EQ can do? "
Simply because of a different workflow with a very easy interface ?
I mean, Kirchoff is strong af, one of the best eq out there and very affordable, is a S tier of eq plugin.
But sometimes you just want a small tool that go straight to the point cause you know what it does and does it fast. I would not use a Pro Q or what ever just to boost high frequencies, I'll use MaagEq 2 or Helios Type or Neve emulation or so that has a small interface but have what I need. Load maag eq, turns 2 knobs, done. No need to look after menus to find the right curve then mess with freq, q factor, having a complexe or I mean bigger/fuller interface.
That is something no one ever mention : taste, context and speed to go straight to what we have in mind.
If you've got it already that makes sense but if you don't then surely saving yourself money and copying over the curves over and saving them into presets is the best way 🤷♂️
Dunno I'm a tight arse so I refuse to pay for shit I don't need to haha
@@PaulThird I totaly get your point, it’s overpriced for sure, I had it for free in a bundle years ago. Tbh, it was maybe 19€ or whatever currency, it would be « acceptable » .
And I still refuse to use Kirchoff or ProQ just for a simple eq move. Just a matter of tastes once again!
Jesus, nobody wants a science experiment for a plugin, give me some pretty knobs and I will twist em. They sound good enough and my console adds the rest of the magic! 😜
Give me your console and we'll see if you can pick that magic out in a blind test 😜.. I'll give you a science experiment alright! 😂
@@PaulThird GULP. ..but i think i could still pick out a summed mix. Analog summing is the big difference when you compare mixes back to back. There is a diff in width and depth with summing and plugins can't do it yet. Getting better! But not there yet. (Not sure they will ever be able to do it. ) But i love your channel and I am rooting for the plugins. They have already saved us thousands in EQs. But bring me your analog summing challenge and I shall make short order of it because analog told me ( and all of us), that it is in fact better and we'd better believe it!
Kirchhoff is incredible. I love the hell outta it. I just wish it wasn't so confusing sometimes haha. But that's my fault honestly for not taking the time to go indepth with it's features
My first video took AGES before I could make it but when I eventually got there in the end haha there's a learning curve but once you get over that I find it a piece of piss haha
Can't believe I missed the sale for this EQ 🙄
Maybe it will be on sale again some point 🤔
I would imagine so.. Black Fridays only like 7 months away 😅😅😅 haha
Summer sales in two or three months!
@@erestube
Yeah but would it be 70% drop like they did 3 months ago???? 🤔
It seems like a faboulus eq, but I think I´d stay with Izotope and some analog emulation like maag because I don´t want to throw away all the money I have already spent for my toys to buy a new one...
🤓🤓
(Non-transferable) Plugins are a sunk cost, so our money is already gone. From a monetary perspective, we have to decide if the workflow saves enough time to "payback" the cost and if the emulations satisfy a need we would otherwise spend money on.
I'll stay with NovaGE and Luftikus for now, but theres no denying that Kirchoff looks amazing.
well I have maag2 &4 and fabfilter pro q3 so why do I need it?
Do you have eq curves of 2 ssl's, pultecs, Neve & sontec as well as maag .. In one plugin?
Can you set up proq3's compression or expansion to be detected from a certain part of that specific audio source, within the plugin. Actually can you change the dynamics of the threshold and choose how much the bands detect transients?
Can you get the maag curves out of proQ3 without having to change the Q more than once?
Can you get proq3 to give you pultec lows with dynamic low attenuation, ssl mid boost and the maag air band which is being expanded in conjuction with the lows of the pultec?
You dont need it.. But it can do a lot of cool shit in just one instance haha
@@PaulThird but I have those already coz I have been doing thus for a while now... and why would I need it if I have all the PA,Slate digital, Softube,overload and waves stuff
Cause you do most of it in one plugin instance. Better workflow. Quicker results. The modelled curves in conjuction with having the option of being dynamic takes it a level up from what slate, pa eq emulations etc do.
Instead of a chain of plugins you could easily do it in one plugin and have one saturation plugin for vibe. You've got full control that way.
However I'm not here to convince you to buy it haha you do you man
@@PaulThird makes sense thanks 👊🏿
@@PaulThird It's a stretch to say this plugin has SSL's, Neve and Sontec etc when it's a completely linear plugin (minus the dynamics). When Waves and Harrison didn't model nonlinearities you scolded them. I understand it's different because Three-Body Technology have been upfront about their goals for this plugin being clean/linear etc, but in this case you're the one who risks seeming disengenuous. Those emulations from Slate Digital and Softube etc get far closer to what they're emulating than Kirchoff - because they're actually trying to fully emulate the hardware. I'm excited about Kirchoff too, but telling people you get SSL's etc is mental.
You gotta' go out your way to match it, if you don't run plug-in doctor and just want things to "work" in a historic manner (or emulated manner here), then I'd say the MAAG EQ2 isn't a bad purchase... IF it's on sale though, I'd never full price with PA
Match it exact to the PA yes but you don't need to. You can just use your ears and use the curves as they are on any frequency you like.
Tbh if you've already got doctor and kirchhoff it'll take you 10 minutes and save you some money
PLUS having the air band as a dynamic option that can also be triggered by another portion of the frequency response is pretty damn handy
@@PaulThird The dynamic part is nifty though, I'll agree with that 100%. But I think the 'air band' is a fantasy knob for a lot of amateur producers, mix engineers and mastering engineers. It's really not that amazing to me honestly - and it isn't going to make things sound 300% better. I say it's like a weird romanticised fantasy that a MAAG air band will make your vocals sound better, your keys exc, exc.
Most people don't air band frequencies like the MAAG's air band.
so you're saying there is nothing more to the DSP than just matching EQ curves.
It's not that there is NOTHING more, there are other factors. There's a lot of coding stuff that I have no idea about but from any actual audible aspect it's just matching curves with these 2 due to the fact that they are both linear eq's. All the rest of the stuff going on is realistically inaudible
It doesn't go up to 40k!
Just kidding, nice video. Looks like I'll check out. KIRCHOFF
🤓🤓
Kirchhoff + kush preamps.
4:39 LMAO
Took me a good 3 minutes to find that photo 🤣
@@PaulThird the voice also matches perfectly LOL
That was the 4th voice I tried haha went through a few first
Guid video min!
🤜🤛
🤓🤓🤓
Remember to check out my autism channel if you want to learn more about my life 🤓🤓
I caved and got the damn thing. Couldn't even wait for the next sale. Right now it is the be all and end all of eq. Just the silly knobs keep getting in the way! Take a look at toneboosters excellent and affordable eq. Great stylish GUI on that. You can move the damn knobs out of the way! As someone said, Kirchhoff looks like a knock off of pro q on windows xp!
That's why i use the band list and the lighter coloured gui. The band list is a big thing for me in regards to workflow as it's easier for me to navigate through the bands and make adjustments. Maybe it's cause I've been using it all the time these recent months but I'm genuinely faster on kirchoff than proq3 haha
@@PaulThird nah don't wanna scan through that list, would be quicker if you could move it then point and click!
so this isnt a trainspotting video? (im happy about this) i just have a shallow relation of the scottish accent and a 10bag and pin...
4:30 "planet" 😂🤣 Visit DITRH my dude
Kirchhoff + Acustica Pres is fire
🤜🤛
...it has a ssl-sound 🤣
orginal pultecs are obsolute...👌
crazy world, with crazy peoples.....🤘
You are not flipping the phase, you are flipping the polarity………
Yes, that's true...............
hahahahaa you must be in #1 in the list of Most Wanted by Audio Plugin Companies! hahahahahaha naughty boy!
Let's put it this way... If I got hit by a bus in the next 5 minutes.. A lot of devs would probably breathe a sigh of relief 🤣
I like the gremlins voices. Do it again.
Need to wait for a new filmora update as they somehow made an arse of the pitch feature in the newest update 😢
The Kirchhoff doesn't have an Analyzer to deal with masking. The ProQ3 does.
Yes. That's true
@@PaulThird so in that way it's inferior to ProzQ3
Dynamic section