Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Music Computers (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/)
-   -   Fab Filter Pro-Q3 Quality settings (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/1329943-fab-filter-pro-q3-quality-settings.html)

Deleted 222f60c 23rd October 2020 08:49 PM

Fab Filter Pro-Q3 Quality settings
 
So... Which one do you use?

I tend to use "Linear phase" for drum mics and multiple bass signals and many times on also parallel stuff (and on the bus) but I noticed just lately that if it is NOT set on max quality, the default settings make the entire signal sound different, smeared stereo image, less detail, not in a good way. Not by a huge margin, but the degradation is noticeble to my ears... Then if you raise it to max settings, the quality is 1:1 but the cpu hit is large and my computer starts lagging and being a pain after multiple instances...

I tend to use "natural phase" in general, and "low latency" on more peripheral elements of the mix... I could probably load 3000 instances like that... But not on Linear phase/max.

I went a bit paranoid about it especially as it has been my main work-horse for the last couple of years, but i am now worried it might have been
a Trojan-horse instead eating up the fidelity of my stuff while lurking in the dark...abduction

I need to do a proper extended listening comparisons now of every mode, once I have time to spare, but as a reference, I was interested, how do most people set it? Do you even hear a big difference like I do? And what setting do you prefer for what application (especially when using linear phase)?

Thanks in advance!

szmola 23rd October 2020 09:41 PM

Video from Fabfilter YTube channel where this is nicely explained:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKabAQQsPQ

Deleted 222f60c 23rd October 2020 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by szmola (Post 15061323)
Video from Fabfilter YTube channel where this is nicely explained:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKabAQQsPQ

Thank you!

Although, the video wasn't really helpful for me as I am already familiar with the concepts of minimum phase vs linear and its uses.
My main doubt regards the importance of the "quality choice" on the linear phase mode on FabFilter ProQ3 and what it is doing to the overall sound per-se' (not in relation to other components in this case). The video doesn't give a definitive answer on this specific.

The rest is also curiosity as to what modes other people use for what application.

the fxs 23rd October 2020 11:39 PM

natural phase.
linear phase introduces pre ringing from time to time, at least in my case.

Chip Booth 24th October 2020 02:01 AM

Natural phase the vast majority of the time on tracks. I use minimum if am doing something like pre-EQing a reverb bus or key, something you don't hear directly. I use linear if I make micro adjustments on the mix bus.

Deleted 222f60c 24th October 2020 02:32 AM

So when you do use linear phase mode, do you just leave the default setting on it (mid if I recall correctly), put it on max and live with the latency, cpu hit etc, or you tend to prefer any one setting to another for a given task?
I hear a proper difference between the settings, hence my curiosity about that.
Thanks :-)

Deleted 222f60c 26th October 2020 10:50 AM

Bump

Chip Booth 27th October 2020 06:00 PM

Since I only use linear phase on the mix bus as a last minute correction I go with best sounding quality level (no matter how high), and don't care about CPU usage or latency. If I felt I had to use it on tracks while mixing I might use a lower quality level while setting up the mix then switching to higher when bouncing. I do this with some plugins that have optional oversampling as well, primarily to keep a large, CPU intensive mix running smoothly.

Oldone 27th October 2020 06:27 PM

I've noticed the smearing as well when I stared using it as my default in Protools and on the default setting. You can build yourself into a corner across a large mix if you use it on many tracks and I've had to clear instances to get some clarity back. I use it now only on critical items i.e. automated EQ situations and natural setting. But, it depends on the track because sometimes the smearing works.

dirtROBOT 27th October 2020 06:30 PM

there's no simple solution for every use case - use your ears and especially listen carefully to transient heavy information
basically there's tradeoffs on phase response where the filter type can affect a bass guitar or vocal performance differently etc etc

https://www.fabfilter.com/help/pro-q...processingmode

fabfilter's educational content is top notch and well worth the read

Deleted 222f60c 28th October 2020 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chip Booth (Post 15070089)
Since I only use linear phase on the mix bus as a last minute correction I go with best sounding quality level (no matter how high), and don't care about CPU usage or latency. If I felt I had to use it on tracks while mixing I might use a lower quality level while setting up the mix then switching to higher when bouncing. I do this with some plugins that have optional oversampling as well, primarily to keep a large, CPU intensive mix running smoothly.

Yes, that would be the the logical approach....
The news for me (confirmed by my ears and also the Fabfilter video) is that the highest setting doesn't 100% of the time translate in better sound...

Deleted 222f60c 28th October 2020 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtROBOT (Post 15070174)
there's no simple solution for every use case - use your ears and especially listen carefully to transient heavy information
basically there's tradeoffs on phase response where the filter type can affect a bass guitar or vocal performance differently etc etc

https://www.fabfilter.com/help/pro-q...processingmode

fabfilter's educational content is top notch and well worth the read

Thank you, you are perfectly right...
From what I could gather, yes it's a trade-off negotiation push-pull process.

My issue is ...
I want to simply EQ. Not have to think about the overall quality of the process, and just trust the tool for what it was intended for.
Ideally Pro Q3 is a transparent precision tool. Turns out it is a bit of a different story.

There is a huge range of results you can get form PROQ3 for the same EQ curve, and honestly that bothers me.
Maybe, for mastering, or just on the 2Bus you can take your time to try different settings and see what works best.
But for instinctive processing during a busy and fast flowing mix session, that is an added distraction for me.

That is why I was hoping there was a kind of "standard" intended use for each setting, especially as it is not just an intuitive "highest quality setting equals highest sound quality always".

I am considering trying the DMG offering to see if I can get more consistent results.

Thanks again...

Mercado_Negro 28th October 2020 01:28 PM

After years of using Pro-Q I recently tried Crave EQ and now I'll be using it instead of Pro-Q. Transparent model is a very clever solution for phase issues and pre-ringing. The clarity and definition of transients with Crave EQ is mind-blowing. Give it a try.

the fxs 5th January 2021 12:55 PM

i have recently gone back to using the medium linear phase mode on tracks that only need mild EQ on 2 to 4 bands.
anything that needs more than that will be treated via the natural phase mode.

dirtROBOT 7th January 2021 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro (Post 15072084)
After years of using Pro-Q I recently tried Crave EQ and now I'll be using it instead of Pro-Q. Transparent model is a very clever solution for phase issues and pre-ringing. The clarity and definition of transients with Crave EQ is mind-blowing. Give it a try.

I'm pretty sure crave eq is just using an automatic way of choosing the phase type that changes based on the frequency, they did not reinvent the eq wheel as that's basically impossible afaik.

Mercado_Negro 8th January 2021 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtROBOT (Post 15217027)
I'm pretty sure crave eq is just using an automatic way of choosing the phase type that changes based on the frequency, they did not reinvent the eq wheel as that's basically impossible afaik.

They didn't reinvent the wheel but found a simple way to solve a common problem.