Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Shamiso, post: 92730, member: 160"] Balance 9 gives you nine static minimum-phase bands, while Pro-Q 4 can run up to 24 bands with static, dynamic, and spectral processing. Both can handle ordinary mastering EQ, but they arrive at the job from very different directions. The [B][URL='https://goldmidi.com/community/threads/rockheyday-brought-balance-9-eq-to-windows-and-macos.78127/']Balance 9 nine-band mastering EQ[/URL][/B] is deliberately narrow in scope. You get draggable bands, zero-latency processing, isolated solo auditioning, a 0 to 200 percent global scale, an analyzer, and the L-Curve without a pile of extra processing modes sitting behind every decision. [HEADING=2]Balance 9 keeps static mastering moves simple[/HEADING] A lot of mastering EQ work is boring in the best possible way. You notice a little low-mid weight, take out a decibel, add a broad top shelf, level-match, and move on. Balance 9 is built around that kind of static correction rather than trying to turn every band into a different processor. Nine bands are plenty for most sensible stereo-bus jobs. If a master genuinely needs fifteen unrelated static corrections, the bigger problem may already be upstream in the mix. Balance 9 also keeps every band in the same minimum-phase IIR world, so there is no phase-mode decision attached to each ordinary move. Its Solo mode is a real workflow difference. The [URL='https://goldmidi.com/community/threads/balance-9-solo-mode-makes-eq-moves-easier-to-judge.78140/']isolated Balance 9 solo comparison[/URL] lets you compare active band processing against a flat band-pass reference inside the same narrow area. Pro-Q 4 has intelligent band solo, but its job is mainly to let you hear the affected frequency region while you locate or inspect a problem. Global scaling is another overlap with a small difference underneath. Balance 9 publishes a 0 to 200 percent overall EQ scale. Pro-Q 4 also has a Gain Scale, but FabFilter specifies that its scale affects Bell, Shelving, and Flat Tilt filters with gain controls, not filter types that do not have gain. The [URL='https://goldmidi.com/community/threads/balance-9-global-scale-exposes-overworked-eq-curves.78142/']Balance 9 global-scale workflow[/URL] is useful when a finished mastering curve feels slightly overworked. Pulling the whole shape back without rebuilding every band is faster than second-guessing six separate gain values. [HEADING=2]Pro-Q 4 earns its size when the problem moves[/HEADING] Pro-Q 4 becomes a different tool once static EQ stops being enough. Any normal band can become dynamic, with attack, release, and optional side-chain filtering. Spectral dynamics goes further by reacting to specific frequencies inside the selected band instead of moving the gain of the entire band together. There is a technical catch worth knowing. Spectral bands automatically use linear-phase processing even when the rest of Pro-Q 4 is running in Zero Latency or Natural Phase mode, and the amount of latency depends on the selected processing resolution. On a mastering timeline, that delay may be irrelevant, but the processing architecture has still changed. Pro-Q 4 also gives you mid-side and per-channel work, EQ Match, Spectrum Grab, multiple processing modes, fractional slopes, Character modes, and an Instance List that can control other supported FabFilter processors across a session. Goldmidi's [URL='https://goldmidi.com/community/threads/fabfilters-flagship-eq-evolves-with-pro-q-4-release.8288/']Pro-Q 4 feature overview[/URL] goes deeper into those extras. Some of those features matter much more in a mix than on one stereo master. Instance List is brilliant when a session has EQs spread across dozens of tracks. On a single mastering file, it can sit there untouched. More capability is still more capability, but it is not automatically more useful for the job in front of you. [HEADING=2]The real split is fixed correction versus exception handling[/HEADING] For plain tonal balancing, both plug-ins can make the same basic kinds of bell, shelf, and filter decisions. The [B][URL='https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=7854']digital parametric equalizer design literature[/URL][/B] has treated accurate digital bell-filter behavior as an engineering problem for decades, so the interesting difference here is less about one plug-in possessing EQ and the other somehow not. Balance 9 makes more sense when you want a compact mastering EQ whose main job stays static and immediate. Its isolated solo, fixed minimum-phase architecture, global scale, and low-volume L-Curve all live close to the basic act of shaping a stereo signal. Pro-Q 4 makes more sense when the mastering problem keeps changing with the material. A harsh region that appears only on certain hits can become dynamic or spectral. A stereo imbalance can be treated in mid-side. A reference can feed EQ Match. A phase-sensitive job can move into another processing mode. Neither workflow needs every feature on every master. If four broad static moves solve the track, adding spectral dynamics because the button exists is just extra machinery. If a resonance appears only on particular notes, a fixed nine-band curve may force a compromise that Pro-Q 4 can avoid. [/QUOTE]

Name