Both are reliable but Pro-Q2 is way more flexible and has a couple of options ReaEQ does not have(yet?). Its interpolation from automation is very good too. Its analyzer is more precise as well, though my evidence for that is only my own experience. 6 to 96 dB.īand activation, band type are automatable, unlike ReaEQ. Its lowpass and highpass filters don't just have Q for resonance control like ReaEQ, but filter slope values too. As you boost, the Q increases, narrowing the bandwidth. There's a switch to have every bell band have a Q/gain relationship like those musical-sounding EQs. It can have different slopes at the flanks of the bands, creating flat scoops or boosts if you need them. Its filters are a LOT more flexible, especially the bell shaped bands, i.e.
It has a static amount of bands(24), but is light on CPU regardless, probably only processing bands as you activate them.
I don't automate its central processing modes(zero latency/analog phase/linear phase), but almost everything else. I just don't understand what fabfilter can do more besides looking prettier.Įverything is automatable for one thing. What are the advantages of using other alternatives such as fabfilter ? I'm talking about an EQ for mixing, not for analog sound effects. For me reaEQ is awesome, the interface has an integrated analyser, you can add as many bands as you like.