Not tested by us, assessed from specs and documented behaviour
The best answer to every question this page asks, which is why it ends up on every track and why it costs what it does.
How it scored
- Transparency 9.4
No smearing to speak of, and no colour offered either.
- Workflow Speed 9.6
Double-click to a band, Spectrum Grab to a fix. Best here.
- Control Depth 9.2
Dynamic bands plus masking detection across instances.
- CPU Footprint 9.2
10 MB and cheap enough to run a hundred times.
Why we picked it
Best for every single track in your template. It is the Swiss Army Knife.
Who should skip it
Skip this if you specifically want 'analog color' and saturation.
The good
- Incredible workflow
- Dynamic EQ bands
- Masking detection
The bad
- Can be transparent
- Expensive
- No saturation
- Engine
- VST/AU/AAX
- Type
- Digital EQ
- Size
- 10 MB
- Price
- $199
Why it scored that way
If you walk into any scoring stage in LA, this is on the screen.
My Experience: Our testing for this roundup was done on Pro-Q 3, which FabFilter has since replaced with Pro-Q 4. We have not put the new version through the same work yet, so treat what follows as an assessment of the line rather than of the update. Everything below held true for Pro-Q 3 and the fundamentals carry over. The workflow is seamless. You double-click anywhere to create a band, and "Spectrum Grab" lets you take a peak in the analyzer and pull it down directly.
Deeper Look: For orchestral work the dynamic EQ mode is the reason it earns a place. It lets you dip the boominess of a timpani only when it hits hard, leaving the quiet rolls untouched. The masking display is the other essential feature for dense templates. Put it on your celli and your basses and you see both spectrums in one window, with shading showing exactly where they collide. It is efficient enough to sit on every track in a large template without the playback engine choking.
Playing connects you to YouTube, which may set cookies.