kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,084 
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 17, 2022 12:33:28 GMT -6
Thoughts ?
|
|
|
|
Post by ab101 on Nov 17, 2022 13:01:50 GMT -6
And I am also interested if anyone here has compared the Kirchhoff with the Crave 2. Thank you, kcatthedog.
|
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Nov 18, 2022 23:54:09 GMT -6
I'll be damned — finally give this thing a whirl, and it DOES sound better than FabFilter. Not by much, but enough to where I prefer it. Pretty surprising.
I can't get them to null, either, even with all of the bells and whistles in Kirchhoff disabled (i.e. oversampling, 117-bit, analog/mixed phase mode). And when you enable them, the difference gets more pronounced. Thicker/more dense midrange, less digital fizz in the highs, more solidity to the sound overall. FF, in comparison, feels a little more sterile/flat. Also seems like I can get away with more drastic moves than I can in FF.
That said, these are all pretty minuscule differences overall. Just trying to describe what I hear. I still think I prefer FF's workflow, which is not insignificant.
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,084
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 19, 2022 6:47:09 GMT -6
Interesting, but not going to pay $150 for what seems a marginal sonic difference and maybe slower workflow ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 13:59:47 GMT -6
I’m selling my Kirchhoff license if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 21, 2022 11:47:59 GMT -6
I like Kirchoff, too. However I just think pro-q is a little faster for me. It's kind of my "desk eq" I just grab and work with. I think Kirchoff might sound a bit better esp in 2x. IDK. I can get work done on either. Fun to try different tools out!
|
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Nov 21, 2022 12:20:13 GMT -6
And I am also interested if anyone here has compared the Kirchhoff with the Crave 2. Thank you, kcatthedog. I have them both. For general EQ duties, they seem interchangeable. If I think I will ever need the dynamic section, I use Kirchoff. Most of the time I just use Crave 2. I can work super quick in it. But like I said, they are a toss up to my ears. |
|
|
|
Post by linas on Nov 29, 2022 3:44:18 GMT -6
FabFilter all day & everyday for sure!
|
|
|
|
Post by chipbuttie on Feb 14, 2023 8:59:18 GMT -6
Didn't watch the video but maybe I am qualified to discuss. I was an early Fabfilter guy, been using their stuff for a long long time, at least 8+ years. Still think they sound excellent but recently demoed and then bought the Kirchoff EQ, which I do believe is superior in sound. Realize that when I say that, we are splitting hairs in the grand scheme. I'm sure some dork could fool me in an A-B test but I do not care about that particular mode of comparison (false empiricism in my book). I care about usage over larger (more inherently biased) chunks of time. First, the Kirchoff EQ somehow feels even smoother in use than Pro-Q. Adjusting the slopes and Q is a breeze. I don't think some features are as elegant as Pro-Q (the dynamic EQ is a little touchier and less intuitive) but I do think others are wonderful, including having favorites and extensive configuration in the settings. It has a number of modeled curves (not harmonics/saturation) included (Sontec, Neve, G/E series SSL, Pultec). Both Pro-Q and Kirchoff have a sound that I'd describe as very pleasant and, over time, quite recognizable. A lot of the records of the 2010s sound like "Fabfilter everywhere" to me. Just the nature of tools being ubiquitous. The Kirchoff is a subtle improvement but no doubt, an improvement. It is even less harsh doing extreme things. Smooth but still respects transients even more than Pro-Q, though I think MDWEQ6 is probably tops for keeping timing cues intact.
Ultimately, is it an order of magnitude better? Probably not, so if you don't want to spend the money, don't. But it is better.
What is your reason for using Kirchhoff over MDWEQ6? Is is a workflow thing or other than timing cues do you find the sound preferable? |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Feb 14, 2023 9:24:56 GMT -6
Kirchhoff replaced FF for me, because of its superior sound and workflow, plus the excellent dynamic implementation, but the most recent update has broken a number of gui features, which is a huge bummer.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Feb 14, 2023 11:10:01 GMT -6
Kirchhoff replaced FF for me, because of its superior sound and workflow, plus the excellent dynamic implementation, but the most recent update has broken a number of gui features, which is a huge bummer. I was using it on a mix the other day and noticed some odd behavior that I had not seen. I did get a recent update. maybe that was the cause. Hopefully it will get sorted. I use it mainly for the dynamic functions. For general EQ, I still prefer Crave 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2023 11:22:32 GMT -6
I hear difference in FF and Crave. FF gets there in linear mode though. I miss having a dynamic eq in crave.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Feb 14, 2023 21:41:57 GMT -6
I hear difference in FF and Crave. FF gets there in linear mode though. I miss having a dynamic eq in crave. Kirchhoff is a pretty clear sonic improvement over ff. If you’ve ever used Sonnox claro, that’s in the same family of “digital” as Kirchhoff. in fact, claro was ALMOST my ff killer but the ui didn’t quite work as quickly, and it was too cpu intensive. Sounds great though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2023 22:22:47 GMT -6
I hear difference in FF and Crave. FF gets there in linear mode though. I miss having a dynamic eq in crave. Kirchhoff is a pretty clear sonic improvement over ff. If you’ve ever used Sonnox claro, that’s in the same family of “digital” as Kirchhoff. in fact, claro was ALMOST my ff killer but the ui didn’t quite work as quickly, and it was too cpu intensive. Sounds great though. Claro still has bugs. I own it and have never used it over Oxford EQ. It’s slower and lacks some of the cooler filters. The Paul Frindle plugs are still the most useful and unique other than Oxford Drum Gate. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Feb 14, 2023 22:28:27 GMT -6
Kirchhoff is a pretty clear sonic improvement over ff. If you’ve ever used Sonnox claro, that’s in the same family of “digital” as Kirchhoff. in fact, claro was ALMOST my ff killer but the ui didn’t quite work as quickly, and it was too cpu intensive. Sounds great though. Claro still has bugs. I own it and have never used it over Oxford EQ. It’s slower and lacks some of the cooler filters. After Paul Frindle left, the only thing they’ve made as good as the classic plugs is the Oxford Drum Gate. Even Envolution is not as effective ad Transmod. The Dynamic EQ is overpriced and a Nova clone but is good. Tokyo Dawn outlasted them anyway as an independent developer. Yeah, Claro has its problems. Frankly, the Drum Gate does too. Nice idea, but a bit clunky IMO in the UI, and has a few glaring workflow issues. Showed a lot of promise, but it didn't end up being what I'd dreamed. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Feb 15, 2023 1:31:19 GMT -6
My go to for anything critical is DMG Equilibrium.
When you’re willing to commit some CPU cycles and have the pulse length extended I personally cannot distinguish any difference between Equilibrium and my Uber expensive Millennia hardware EQ in solid state mode - Equilibrium I’d that good, at least it is to my ears.
I call it my analog-digital EQ.
When using it in its standard mode I still prefer it to ff pro Q2 as I like the selectable curves of different EQ’s.
I like how with Equilibrium I can reduce the GUI to just the knobs of a typical desk or rack EQ and use my ears and not my eyes.
Clearly, not a popular plugin around here.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Feb 15, 2023 10:09:17 GMT -6
I'm also a Equilibrium guy for the critical stuff, with all the graphs and RTAs off - just knobs.
I have other EQs I use for color, which is usually 98% of what I use in mixing, but when I need clean and precise, Equilibrium does more than I need.
I get the complaints that it's got TOO many options, but once it's setup the way you like it, couldn't be easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 15, 2023 11:15:38 GMT -6
I'll be damned — finally give this thing a whirl, and it DOES sound better than FabFilter. Not by much, but enough to where I prefer it. Pretty surprising. I can't get them to null, either, even with all of the bells and whistles in Kirchhoff disabled (i.e. oversampling, 117-bit, analog/mixed phase mode). And when you enable them, the difference gets more pronounced. Thicker/more dense midrange, less digital fizz in the highs, more solidity to the sound overall. FF, in comparison, feels a little more sterile/flat. Also seems like I can get away with more drastic moves than I can in FF. That said, these are all pretty minuscule differences overall. Just trying to describe what I hear. I still think I prefer FF's workflow, which is not insignificant. What mode do you have FF in? Linear? |
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Feb 15, 2023 11:33:12 GMT -6
I'll be damned — finally give this thing a whirl, and it DOES sound better than FabFilter. Not by much, but enough to where I prefer it. Pretty surprising. I can't get them to null, either, even with all of the bells and whistles in Kirchhoff disabled (i.e. oversampling, 117-bit, analog/mixed phase mode). And when you enable them, the difference gets more pronounced. Thicker/more dense midrange, less digital fizz in the highs, more solidity to the sound overall. FF, in comparison, feels a little more sterile/flat. Also seems like I can get away with more drastic moves than I can in FF. That said, these are all pretty minuscule differences overall. Just trying to describe what I hear. I still think I prefer FF's workflow, which is not insignificant. What mode do you have FF in? Linear?
I mostly use Natural Phase, usually sounds best to me. But the other modes are fine. They all sound good. I just think Kirchhoff has a slight edge. FF is still faster and more intuitive, though. |
|
