Loving both these plugins! I just signed up for the PA $9.99 monthly subscription. It just seemed like too good a deal to pass up, and I think it should curb my impulse purchases for a bit - considering it was mostly brainworx stuff I kept picking up anyway. Anyway, on these two plugins, I still find myself reaching more for the Amek 250. It has a little bit more grit, which matches the recordings I have, but I did use the PQ on a vocal channel and it sounded so nice there. Anyway, I appreciate the time you put into these videos. Excellent A/B on this one! I find myself saving your videos as great reference tools to go back to when I'm using the plugins. And now I'm having so much fun in the bx playground! So many great plugins to choose from - something for just about every situation. So many new things to learn. Looking forward to more from you, Brad.
Thanks, Jim! And thank you for checking out the video. I'm so pumped you're digging the reviews! The PA subscription really is the best one I've come across. Hard to pass up! Especially considering how much they put out in a year. So many goodies! I think I lean towards the AMEK vibe a bit more myself, too. Especially with the feel of the bottom end, but that may change as I play a bit more with the PQ haha!
This is fabulous Brad - it's the sort of detailed review with different genre examples I'm always looking for, but rarely find. I have and like both PQ and 250, but now have a much clearer use in my head for both applications. Many thanks for all the work in making this!
Really enjoy your reviews. One thing I would love to see is what the plugins are like on the CPU/DSP wise, then compare the CPU/DSP usage against similar plugins that do very similar processing. That is always something I'm (and I'm sure others are) interested in, apart from all the good things you already cover.
Thank you! I'm pumped to hear you're enjoying the reviews! I've added your note to my review template and will be sure to work CPU/DSP usage in. Thank you for the feedback. It's greatly appreciated!
awesome review and comparison to the Amek 250. to me, the Amek sounds more clinical; super clear. the SPL PQ sounds more polished but kind of more airy, and as you said "expensive". i kind of liked more the SPL PQ on everything... thanks!!
Thank you! I'm glad you dig the review and comparison. Thanks for taking the time to check it out and drop me a line. I truly appreciate it! I'm definitely looking forward to playing with the SPL further!
Hm, after a minute or two i got the feeling I'm in one of those late night radio shows where the audience can phone in to recite their self-written (lost) love poems.
Another indispensable review. I snagged the 250 the other day and was walking on air. I mean... I just got one of the most coveted EQ's in history. I'm set, right? But hold on. Today the SPL is on sale... and Howie Weinberg is fond of that too... so maybe I need it? Nah. I've got GAS. And this review just got rid of it. They are BOTH great. And if I can't put the 250 to use, then it's time to watch funny cat videos. Thanks again Brad! Well done. 👏
GAS is a real problem haha! I suffer from it dearly. Actually going to be trying out the new Metric Halo Sontec emulation later today and will be comparing it to the 250 and probably a few other emulations. The video should be out later this week! Glad you enjoyed the review!
But there is another reviewer who reviews PQ with Plugin doctor, which showed no added harmonics , hence Analog mojo and concluded that it is a transparent EQ just like the ProQ3. Very confused. Thanks.
The plugin loads with the THD disabled. When you enable the THD you will see the harmonics in Plugin Doctor. Also, beyond the modelling and implementation of harmonic distortion, we also have to consider filter design, phase relationships, and band interactions. Plugin Doctor is a great tool, but I would recommend running your own comparisons before relying on Plugin Doctor for definitive results. Interestingly, SSL recently included a word on measurements in the user manual for the 4K B plugin: A note on analogue modelling and measurements This plug-in has been developed using the original circuit schematics, analogue simulations, component-level modelling and detailed hardware prototypes. When testing a plug-in, please note that the classical "transfer function" method is only defined for linear, time-invariant systems - and therefore the testing approach should be considered carefully. Some of the typical testing methodologies that you leverage in audio measurement software such as Plugindoctor, SATlive or Smaart can lead to erroneous results - so make sure you understand the caveats of the testing approach and whether or not it is valid for a non-linear system. Please take care especially when using the Linear Analysis tab on Plugindoctor, as the plug-in features non-linearities (additional frequencies or distortion added), and the results are likely to be incorrect and not representative. You can observe how the method of test can change the result, by comparing the results you get with different testing approaches, and understanding the caveats of each one. Of course, if changing the testing approach changes the conclusion, then the test is unreliable!
@@mr_bradsmith Wow, thank you so very much for taking time to help me. Very grateful to you Sir. Thanks for the amazing information you provided me. Thank you very much once again. Blessings.
This EQ possesses the same curves as the default stock FabFilter curve (without any tweaking or adjustments at all) or any digital linear EQ….its essentially a digital EQ with an SPL skin. They didn’t take the time to model the curves at all…what a shame
@@mr_bradsmith good question: based on the fact that each band has precisely the same frequency response and will null with a linear digital EQ even at default settings
Imagine making a preset in Fabfilter to emulate the SPL in terms of its listed frequencies/q factors and then designing an interface with the same layout as the PQ. They also added a proportional Q algorithm for when that switch is enabled of course. Basically thats what they made here. What would have been amazing (and yes, asking a lot- but this is what an “exacting model” means) would have been to capture or model the frequency response of the passthrough of the unit itself, and then also the curves from the EQ bands, including band interactions…instead of just essentially making a preset from a digital EQ based on the listed frequencies of the unit. Also the EQ cramping is a shame
As far as I'm aware of, most all digital EQs are based off of the same filter design. The differing factor between the SPL and the FabFilter is as you've suggested, it is the measurements of the hardware unit (passthrough, curves, band interaction, harmonics, etc..) and the implementation of those measurements in the digital world. You can, of course, produce a partial null between the FabFilter and the SPL. But not a full one. You could also produce a partial null between two different EQs in the analog world.
Loving both these plugins! I just signed up for the PA $9.99 monthly subscription. It just seemed like too good a deal to pass up, and I think it should curb my impulse purchases for a bit - considering it was mostly brainworx stuff I kept picking up anyway. Anyway, on these two plugins, I still find myself reaching more for the Amek 250. It has a little bit more grit, which matches the recordings I have, but I did use the PQ on a vocal channel and it sounded so nice there. Anyway, I appreciate the time you put into these videos. Excellent A/B on this one! I find myself saving your videos as great reference tools to go back to when I'm using the plugins. And now I'm having so much fun in the bx playground! So many great plugins to choose from - something for just about every situation. So many new things to learn. Looking forward to more from you, Brad.
Thanks, Jim! And thank you for checking out the video. I'm so pumped you're digging the reviews! The PA subscription really is the best one I've come across. Hard to pass up! Especially considering how much they put out in a year. So many goodies! I think I lean towards the AMEK vibe a bit more myself, too. Especially with the feel of the bottom end, but that may change as I play a bit more with the PQ haha!
Man this is one of the best comparisons I've ever seen on YT ! Cheers!
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it :)
This is fabulous Brad - it's the sort of detailed review with different genre examples I'm always looking for, but rarely find. I have and like both PQ and 250, but now have a much clearer use in my head for both applications. Many thanks for all the work in making this!
Thank you! I'm pumped you dig the review :)
How to get pre-sets to appear in cubase daw drop down?
Really enjoy your reviews. One thing I would love to see is what the plugins are like on the CPU/DSP wise, then compare the CPU/DSP usage against similar plugins that do very similar processing. That is always something I'm (and I'm sure others are) interested in, apart from all the good things you already cover.
Thank you! I'm pumped to hear you're enjoying the reviews! I've added your note to my review template and will be sure to work CPU/DSP usage in. Thank you for the feedback. It's greatly appreciated!
@@mr_bradsmith Legend, thank you for listening. It will be a great addition, well I and I am sure others will really appreciate it.
I'm thinking I'll just have the usage meter up on the top right of the screen and just leave it active all session. That way I won't forget haha!
@@mr_bradsmith That's a real good idea as the viewer can also view it at any moment they want. Love your work brother
awesome review and comparison to the Amek 250. to me, the Amek sounds more clinical; super clear. the SPL PQ sounds more polished but kind of more airy, and as you said "expensive". i kind of liked more the SPL PQ on everything...
thanks!!
Thank you! I'm glad you dig the review and comparison. Thanks for taking the time to check it out and drop me a line. I truly appreciate it! I'm definitely looking forward to playing with the SPL further!
for that we already have the Knif Soma , And Tomo Lisa, which sound more expensive than SPL, which is caught in the middle. Amek wins here
@@levondarratt787 I do love the sound of that Tomo Lisa! I just use the saturation on that from time to time.
Hm, after a minute or two i got the feeling I'm in one of those late night radio shows where the audience can phone in to recite their self-written (lost) love poems.
Another indispensable review. I snagged the 250 the other day and was walking on air. I mean... I just got one of the most coveted EQ's in history. I'm set, right? But hold on. Today the SPL is on sale... and Howie Weinberg is fond of that too... so maybe I need it? Nah. I've got GAS. And this review just got rid of it. They are BOTH great. And if I can't put the 250 to use, then it's time to watch funny cat videos. Thanks again Brad! Well done. 👏
GAS is a real problem haha! I suffer from it dearly. Actually going to be trying out the new Metric Halo Sontec emulation later today and will be comparing it to the 250 and probably a few other emulations. The video should be out later this week! Glad you enjoyed the review!
@@mr_bradsmith Cool. Looking forward to that!
This EQ or the 432 from Metric Halo??
The "Analog vs. Digital" comparison is even more obvious on the snare reverb. The analog just sounds more comfy to me (from desk chair to couch) 😅😂
But there is another reviewer who reviews PQ with Plugin doctor, which showed no added harmonics , hence Analog mojo and concluded that it is a transparent EQ just like the ProQ3. Very confused. Thanks.
The plugin loads with the THD disabled. When you enable the THD you will see the harmonics in Plugin Doctor. Also, beyond the modelling and implementation of harmonic distortion, we also have to consider filter design, phase relationships, and band interactions. Plugin Doctor is a great tool, but I would recommend running your own comparisons before relying on Plugin Doctor for definitive results. Interestingly, SSL recently included a word on measurements in the user manual for the 4K B plugin:
A note on analogue modelling and measurements
This plug-in has been developed using the original circuit schematics, analogue simulations, component-level modelling and detailed hardware prototypes.
When testing a plug-in, please note that the classical "transfer function" method is only defined for linear, time-invariant systems - and therefore the testing approach should be considered carefully. Some of the typical testing methodologies that you leverage in audio measurement software such as Plugindoctor, SATlive or Smaart can lead to erroneous results - so make sure you understand the caveats of the testing approach and whether or not it is valid for a non-linear system.
Please take care especially when using the Linear Analysis tab on Plugindoctor, as the plug-in features non-linearities (additional frequencies or distortion added), and the results are likely to be incorrect and not representative.
You can observe how the method of test can change the result, by comparing the results you get with different testing approaches, and understanding the caveats of each one. Of course, if changing the testing approach changes the conclusion, then the test is unreliable!
@@mr_bradsmith Wow, thank you so very much for taking time to help me. Very grateful to you Sir. Thanks for the amazing information you provided me. Thank you very much once again.
Blessings.
No problem! Thanks for checking out the review and dropping me a line. Cheers!
This EQ possesses the same curves as the default stock FabFilter curve (without any tweaking or adjustments at all) or any digital linear EQ….its essentially a digital EQ with an SPL skin. They didn’t take the time to model the curves at all…what a shame
How did you come to the conclusion that they didn’t actually model the unit?
@@mr_bradsmith good question: based on the fact that each band has precisely the same frequency response and will null with a linear digital EQ even at default settings
Imagine making a preset in Fabfilter to emulate the SPL in terms of its listed frequencies/q factors and then designing an interface with the same layout as the PQ. They also added a proportional Q algorithm for when that switch is enabled of course. Basically thats what they made here.
What would have been amazing (and yes, asking a lot- but this is what an “exacting model” means) would have been to capture or model the frequency response of the passthrough of the unit itself, and then also the curves from the EQ bands, including band interactions…instead of just essentially making a preset from a digital EQ based on the listed frequencies of the unit. Also the EQ cramping is a shame
As far as I'm aware of, most all digital EQs are based off of the same filter design. The differing factor between the SPL and the FabFilter is as you've suggested, it is the measurements of the hardware unit (passthrough, curves, band interaction, harmonics, etc..) and the implementation of those measurements in the digital world. You can, of course, produce a partial null between the FabFilter and the SPL. But not a full one. You could also produce a partial null between two different EQs in the analog world.