The Pro-Q3 can do the same width and mono thing the EQ4 is doing. At least on scopes it looks like the same M/S technique the EQ4M is doing. I could be wrong. That being said, I'd say they're too different to really compare. One is a mostly fixed frequency EQ with a lot of the choices made for you with saturation options and is as far from surgical as you can get and the other is a super precise eq with dynamic options as well as a lot of other things. beyond the lose definition of "EQ" they're kind of not in the same sandbox. If you have Pro-Q3 you could probably do the majority of what the EQ4 is doing. I think workflow and GUI have a lot to do with the differences. My "go-to" is the Pro Q3 for almost everything. Stuff like the EQ4 is useful (to me) in live situations. They have AAX-DSP options, they're fast and simple when I have a lot of mics open and in the middle of a live production. When mixing I tend not to use EQ's like that unless whatever they happen to be set to already sounds good enough for me not to bother changing. When mastering stuff like music content, I'll go through a dozen EQ's and kind of feel things out and whatever works for that time and day and track that's what will stay. That's where stuff like the EQ4M and similar EQ's sit for me.Putting the clipper and width FX aside, how is this better than Fabfilter?
Statistics: Posted by t.o.t.s. — Sat Oct 12, 2024 2:56 am