Professional Analog Mastering.
Professional Analog Mastering.
220K+ subscribers
The Pro-Q4 is here and there’s reason to be excited - the Pro-Q3 is probably the most used plugin for most engineers today.
And while the Pro-Q4 is a step up in many ways, some features concern me and in my opinion represent a trend in audio that’s more harmful than beneficial for most engineers.
We’ll look behind the scenes of this plugin while I cover what’s been added from the last version so that you can make more informed decisions while using it or decide if it’s worth adding to your vocal, instrument, bus, or mix bus chains.
Right when you open the plugin you’ll notice improvements in the user interface - the developers at FabFilter are experts in creating intuitive layouts and combining that with an incredibly well-optimized plugin.
The result is an enjoyable and responsive plugin that allows for quick and effortless changes.
As you may have noticed from other videos about this plugin, you can quickly edit other instances of the plugin by clicking the track title tab at the bottom - which just makes equalizing tracks around one another a seamless experience.
But by far, the most exciting new addition, to me at least, is the continuous slope feature.
In almost every EQ, both digital and analog, we’ve been limited to specific slope values - 6dB per octave, 12dB per octave, and so on.
And of course, some analog EQs have imperfections that add some small variation to slope values, giving them a distinct sound.
So, the ability to change the slope by 0.1dB increments while altering the Q value and introducing amplitude-dependent Q values takes parametric equalization, which is all about controlling minute details, to a new level.
Aside from specific harmonic distortion, just about any analog equalizer can be emulated more accurately than ever before. Pair this with the natural phase setting that mimics phase rotation in analog gear, and this plugin becomes the ultimate analog EQ emulator.
For example, a while ago I made some presets with the Pro-Q3 that mimic the width and depth functions of the Neve Portico - they’re close to the original, but now with the Pro-Q4 I can fine-tune the slopes of each band to almost perfectly match the unit.
Another feature I genuinely enjoy is the Warm setting.
Getting a second-order harmonic without the addition of odd-ordered harmonics is difficult, and takes some behind-the-scenes trickery to pull off.
The Pro-Q4 does just that. This means that if the fundamental frequency triggers the saturation, which it likely will due to a gradual roll-off of sub-frequencies and a slight emphasis on what’s typically the fundamental range, then I’ll achieve a perfect octave overtone.
Currently, I don’t know of another saturator or plugin that can pull off an isolated 2nd order harmonic.
So, that’s the good - although it may seem short when compared to the bad section of this video, make no mistake, I think these changes are fantastic and represent a huge step forward.
There’s a common argument being made about plugins - I noticed it when I critiqued Soothe 2 a while back.
That is, “A tool is a tool, and it can be misused just like any other.”
Well yeah. But not all tools are the same. The amount of damage someone could do with a hammer isn’t the same as what they could do with a bulldozer - tools are different, and by extension, so are plugins.
So, when I notice a certain tool that can cause a lot more damage than the typical compressor, eq, saturator, reverb, etc. then I think it’s worth talking about.
That’s exactly the case with the Spectral function of this EQ.
On the surface, it splits the selected bandwidth into multiple smaller bands that can trigger a threshold, resulting in precise frequency-specific attenuation.
This could be useful - maybe you want to use this EQ for de-essing but want the attenuation to be really specific. Or maybe you want to attenuate the scrap of a guitar, and it just so happens to be higher in amplitude than other signals in the range that you want to keep. But those are pretty niche examples.
So, for the most part, I can’t figure out what this function is for other than to make someone feel as if something is wrong with the frequency response and that this plugin is fixing what’s wrong.
To be clear, a resonance being higher in amplitude is not a bad thing - it’s often what creates the timbre of a particular instrument. And so I worry about a newer or intermediate engineer looking at this and thinking, ‘This will balance everything.’
But that’s not the truth - if anything, it will homogenize everything. The distinct overtones of an instrument or a vocal are not something to eliminate - they are the very essence of that instrument.
And I’m not just being dramatic, in the manual it says this function is for ‘treating varying problem frequencies.’
But look at the example they give - how can all of these frequencies be a problem? What about these frequencies makes them a problem if the only means by which they’re identified is by having a higher amplitude than other frequencies?
Looking behind the scenes, we can take a look at an impulse - a single sample, full frequency spectrum waveform used for measurement since it offers a solid way to determine how transients will be affected by a processor.
Look at how drastically this function alters it - consider what this means for the transients in your signal. Not only are the unique overtones attenuated, but the ADSR is completely different.
Here’s what that looks like with a single frequency sine wave of varying amplitudes - any change in amplitude is reshaped by this function, with the most aggressive changes occurring to high frequencies.
People complain about the effect of pre-ringing distortion from linear phase filtering - but this is so much more aggressive and destructive than simple linear phase filtering.
To be fair, this isn’t the only function that causes unexpected changes to transients; the warm function I like drastically changes the ADSR. But at least it adds something valuable in exchange.
I don’t understand this trend, and sorry if I’m annoying some of y’all about this, but I’m passionate about things sounding good, and this seems more like a marketing gimmick than something that’ll actually help engineers achieve better mixes.
Just for reference, here’s the EQ affecting the high range of an instrument. Does it honestly sound better to you with its “problem frequencies” attenuated? Let me know in the comments.
Watch the video to learn more >
Other folks reviewing this plugin have all said similar things - the draw function is kind of cool but I don’t think I’ll be using it.
And that about sums it up.
It’s a new feature that seems to add value but doesn’t.
The more time you spend trying to draw in your filters, the more likely it is you’ll add something you don’t want.
Which, to me at least, incentivizes quick and frankly borderline thoughtless changes to the frequency response.
Given how drastically EQ changes the sound of a track, it’s not something to rush. It deserves to be approached with a certain level of intentionality.
Like other people who have reviewed it, I see why it’s appealing. It feels like a more creative way to introduce EQ - but maybe it needed more time and fine-tuning to be the innovative feature FabFilter wanted it to be.