[MattGray]

Originally Posted by sabian

I listened to the A/B track (not too interested in the other boxes since I tried them all) and couldn't resist playing with the mix with the PQ that just turned up today (the demo one, while I wait). I also ran it through EAR822s, let me know what's the best place to upload the stuff.

Thanks I'll PM you the upload details to my server as I'm still keen to hear your take on it through the EAR's & SPL PQ.

Having said that, I'm not so sure about the whole curve matching thing anyway (not being critical). The A and B versions sound completely different to me and I think one could get closer if that was the objective.

Typically it wasn't about matching frequency for frequency on the front panels as that is kind of a fruitless exercise without objective similarities. To me these tests were about trying to match the curves to make the comparison more about the 'tone' or 'sound' of each EQ rather than just making each EQ sound it's best for each track. You need to have an anchor point or goal to aim for otherwise things become too subjective based on your ears & personal taste alone (everyones ears & tastes are quite different). Without any guide lines or objective it's a bit pointless as a wrong setting on one EQ could cause the other sample to sound better/worse or different for the wrong reasons making it an unfair comparison. So I felt we needed to be matching the frequency curves as close as possible not only visually on the impulse capture but also checking & adjusting by ear but within reason, meaning that the curves should still look very close on the graphs. This way it should only reveal the sonic differences of each box if the curves are the same (or as close to possible).

I hear more low mids/upper bass and less air in A, and quite the opposite in B, more air and low bass but certain lack of definition in the (low) mids. If I had to choose one it would have to be A. I'm really into "mids forward", there's vibe there, fullness, the vocals sound nicer and I believe it appears more intimate and "real" , especially on lesser systems where the top end sparkle of B can get lost. B in comparison sounds more "produced" with hyped top and transients (which A is definitely lacking!), probably overall better balanced though. A = music, B=production, to put it bluntly.

This is exactly what I mean, looking at the graphs the frequency response looks very similar but that's not the only thing that effects the sound we hear. Transient response, phase & distortion will not show up in the frequency curves but we perceive them as differences. These 'tonal' differences are what defines the 'sound' of each analog EQ as being unique. Which is what I want to hear without the frequency settings interfering. People like both samples for different reasons & that's what is cool about all this, there is no overall winner just our own personal preferences.

Out of interest, if A is Sontec, why did you not have it re-caped ? I don't know anything about them, wonder what's the reason? All my vintage gear gets re-caped and it brings back the top end, transient response, tightness, dynamics... Just curious.

Without giving away which is which at this stage, the reason why I haven't had my Sontec re-capped yet is more out of fear of changing the sound of it too much. I actually like that it's a little 'softer' sounding. You can push the highs or mids without things getting harsh or fizzy on the HF's. Having said that can anyone verify whether the caps are in the audio path on the Sontecs or whether recapping will actually change the 'sound' or 'transient response' of the unit? I read somewhere that Burgess has said that there is no caps in the audio path & that this was a deliberate part of the design? Is that true? If it is than what benefits would I gain from recapping?

Also, I think you said the original mix was ran through the same chain but in bypass? Through both EQs, bypassed?

No what I meant was that I used the same D/A -> Dangerous Master with inserts bypassed -> A/D as I used with the samples so that you could only hear the difference of each EQ compared to the source not the rest of my converters & console. The EQ's were completely out of circuit not just running audio through them bypassed. Hope that clears things up. If you would like the original sample without my converters & console I can give you a download link to it if you like? I just didn't want to get into a converter shoot out discussion.. : )

Matt