Leaving UAD Pultec for Kush Clariphonic or Mini Massive for mixbuss EQ? Alternatives?

[SoundHouse]

Clariphonic is an amazing eq. It is not a replacement for the three that you have mentioned but is a really cool tool on the 2 bus or even individual tracks. No filters but really great shelving. It is the type of eq that you really have to use your ears because there is not the normal displays as with other eq's. I haven't ever made this eq sound bad.

[baskervils]

Originally Posted by SoundHouse

Clariphonic is an amazing eq. It is not a replacement for the three that you have mentioned but is a really cool tool on the 2 bus or even individual tracks. No filters but really great shelving. It is the type of eq that you really have to use your ears because there is not the normal displays as with other eq's. I haven't ever made this eq sound bad.

Thanks! The Pultec clones / copies seem awesome but definitely Slutty bucks...$3k + for stereo.

Thanks for the Clariphonic advice.

Any Mini Massive lovers out there?

[zak7]

For real meet I will go with the Pultec Clones or A designs Hammer....

[baskervils]

Originally Posted by zak7

For real meet I will go with the Pultec Clones or A designs Hammer....

The Hammer is starting to look right...

[James the 2nd]

Retro has a lovely euphoric vibe, and adds weight to the mix.

The Clariphonic is purely a top end machine, and very very nice for that. Very transperant and not as glassy as the top end of the gml. Does nothing to the low end as opposed to the other eqs mentioned.

These are all serious eqs for a serious task (your mix buss), definitely seek to try before you buy. You really won't know if the heavily colored pultec style eqs that you mentioned are for you unless you spend some time with them in use.

[Transistor]

The Mini-Massive is super-sweet for bus-work. If you get the transformer option you can switch between clean, fairy dust and cane sugar in addition to the eq action. I espcally like the high shelf, but the bottom is also way down in booty land.

I just added a CO PEQ-1 to the MM, and I do think my EQ chain is done now.

r,
j,

[FunkyTek]

I picked up a Manley pultec used. Still slutty bucks but within the realm of the others you mentioned.
Wonderful EQ, in the Pultec style with some enhancement.
Extremely well made.

[ciggi]

I would consider an AM/CHA1 from BLA that unit lives on my Bus and has massive lows, creamy mids and a silky top end and brings a certain transformer color to the table - much more affordable then every clone outthere but you have to cancel all that blinky and bling stuff if you can test that unit somewhere

[priko]

Thermionic Pullet is also really interesting
ANd BAX of course

[AllBread]

Just heard a clariphonic and loved it for opening up the top end. I have a summit eqp-200a which I also recommend and those can be had for $1500 or less. I liked the ease of use of the clariphonic but the summit still as a great top end and of course te ability to add a little girth to the bottom if needed. Both of these boxes I prefer over my uad pultec.

[Kris Bang Boom]

go mini massive its the real deal.
subtle with sound.
Hard to mess up.
KBB

[GearGuy]

My own list to consider would be the A-Designs Hammer, Manley Pultec EQP-1A Stereo (assuming the MassivePassive is out due to budget) and the Dangerous Music BAX EQ. All three would be different but great, yet in different sounding ways... and any two could be purchased for the same price of just the Massive Passive or the Chandler Curve Bender.

[baskervils]

Thanks everyone! I still plan to use the UAD Pultec Pro if the occasion calls for it. After having it live on my mix buss for the last 3/4 mixes, I feel that having a hardware version(ish) may be useful. I think that I am going to give the Hammer a go. There are some great deals on that piece.

What's interesting about passive EQ recommendations is, like anything else in the recording game, no one box or plug is going to work for everything and opinions are so varied.

[dambro2]

Another MiniMassive lover here. It does the right thing, without much work.

[parisminzer]

I've heard good things about the Clariphonic, but I have heard the Mini Massive, and it blew me away.

I heard it in John Greenham's Mastering Room @ Infrasonic.

He was playing me the mixdowns of the new Aesop Rock album, so I could tinker around.

Cranking the 'Bell 2' curves on the high end just floored me.

Immediately the mix went 3d, and the vocals shot out like a cannon. So pure and magical.

Highly recommended

[jrod9900]

How's the Langevin Pultec? Just curious, seems like it may be a good value.

JROD

[ARIEL]

How about this as a contender ? new to the market but has plug in control as well EQ 232P . I Think I see one in Dave Pensados video series .

[DarkSky Media]

Originally Posted by baskervils

Initially I was looking at high end Pultec EQ1A clones like the Retro 2A3, Amtec PEQ-1A and Mercury EQ-P1. Those all seem to be great, but the best of the 3 seems to be disputed on Gearslutz.

If you're considering those three, you should really also be looking at the Pulse Techniques EQP-1A3, IMO. I would place both it and the Retro 2A3 above the other two you mention. After evaluation of the range of options, I chose to acquire the Pulse Techniques and Retro units to work alongside the Manley Pultec EQP-2A (which I already had). Of those, I have the Pulse Techniques EQP-1A3 pair normalled across the mix bus.

Originally Posted by baskervils

2 less expensive options caught my eye: The Langevin Mini-Massive and The Kush Clariphonic. The Clariphonic is the most affordable and widely liked but the Mini Massive seems to offer more options.

Feelings? Thanks in advance.

Until earlier this year, in addition to the pair of Pulse EQP-1A3 units, I also had a mini massive and an SPL Vitalizer SX2 on the mixbus. More recently, I've moved these latter two out to other duties and have placed a Kush Clariphonic on the mixbus to complement the Pulse units.

To some extent I think that having both the EQP-1A3s and the Mini-Massive on the bus was redundant. Although they each have their own sound, there is a degree of overlap in what they bring to the table. The Clariphonic, I feel, works as a better complement to the Pultecs and extends the palette. Its effect is useful and useable and it certainly earns its place in the rack.

On balance, I think if I could have only one EQ on mix bus, it would be a choice between the Pulse Techniques units and the Mini Massive. The Clariphonic is great but more limited in scope (it's a sublime tool for the upper registers) - so if I were choosing only one it would not make the list.

Of the other two option I mention, the Pulse pair costs more and will require 4RU of rack real estate (2U each), so space and/or budget may influence the decision. Rest assured the Mini Massive is also a worthy contender - sweet sounding and covering useful ground for bus duties. Hard to go wrong with either of these options, really.

HTH.

[nickelironsteel]

the only thing next to real pultecs tasty enough for the 2bus are real pulse techniques. theyre always on if not boosting just for the sound of the converters. no 'clone' can get ya there. only a faithful to the original re-issue.

[DarkSky Media]

Originally Posted by nickelironsteel

theyre always on if not boosting just for the sound of the converters. no 'clone' can get ya there...

I assume you mean the sound of the transformers (there are no converters in a Pultec)? In which case yes, I agree.

[nickelironsteel]

e

[Night Stalker]

I bought a hammer for 2 bus duties in mind. Drum buss whatever buss. But I must say that when I patch it in for lead vox, Ohh my goodness, sheen vivid heaven. Big surprise.
My 1.5 cents worth.

[baskervils]

There were a lot of good points made on this thread!

I ended up buying the Kush Clariphonic, because I realized that gleaming high end was what I was after.

I tend to favor 60s and 70s music, especially pop stuff, so I like lots of airy highs. The Clariphonic nails it. NAILS it.

I will never sell this box. They will have to pry it from my cold, lifeless hands.

[jrod9900]

I ended up getting a deal on a Hammer. I missed delivery on it yesterday, but it should be back today. I'm at the last 10% of a mix, and I'm gonna patch it in to replacer my UAD Pultec. Very similar situation to OP.

The Hammer seemed great to me for HPF and LPF, 3 bands, and tube. Downfalls, no linkability or stepped knobs. Bummer. I hope the sound makes up for it.

Cheers!

JROD

[soypancho]

I recently picked up the Hammer as well. You will not be disappointed. I'm still baffled when I bypass it and hear the difference it has made on a mix.

[jrod9900]

Man I hope so...

JROD

[WunderBro Flo]

I had the Hammer for some weeks for evaluation. At first I thought it is adding lots of overtones to everything, I kind of liked it on everything. Then I measured a little and found out that what I perceived as the addition of harmonics (highs) was mostly a dip in the low midrange even though the EQ was set to flat, which exposed the existing overtones more as well as the low bass area. Basically a subtle smiley curve applied to everything. Then I "sampled" the frequency response with Q-clone and blind compared that to the real thing and returned the Hammer, not special enough to spend the money IMHO. Buy I was fooled in the beginning, I swear...it is amazing how much we get fooled into "damn this sounds magical!" with the oldest tricks in the engineering handbook: hidden smiley curves, level boosts etc...I am not saying A-Designs did this on purpose though, maybe he designed something by ear and stopped when he liked the sound, well possible.

In addition, the channels were not perfectly matched either at identical settings, which actually makes the stereo width more interesting/wide...

I still love the Avalon 747 for mixbuss duties, opening up the highs like nothing else and cheap on the used market, especially for a stereo unit. If you like the UAD Pultec you should theoretically love the UAD MassivePassive to pieces. Whenever I can't use analog for mixbuss EQ that plugin is on and simply delivers, period.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by WunderBro Flo

In addition, the channels were not perfectly matched either at identical settings...

True, but to be fair, it's a dual mono unit, not a stereo unit. Any time anything has two channels with independent controls that are plain old rotary pots, there will be a small to not-so-small variation between the the two sides, all because of pot tolerances.

Pots were never that awesome, nowadays they can be downright horrible in their deviation from spec. Most pots I look at state a +/-20% tolerance, which means it's possible (unlikely, but possible) that any two controls on a unit can be off by 40% at the same degree of rotation.

This is why it's essential for *anyone* using dual mono units on stereo material, and who wants accuracy on the two channels, to use tones to align them. Use your ears to get you in the ballpark, then use tones to bring it home, and always split the difference. IOW, if ch1 low eq is +3dB and ch2 low eq is +4dB, set them both to 3.5dB so your aggregate boost is the same.

Or, do what I do: set it by ear, and call it a day. Because if it sounds right, what do I care if it's identical?


Gregory Scott - ubk

[WunderBro Flo]

Yes Greg, it is to be expected that there are channel differences, and again, I think those slightly faulty things are exactly what makes analog sound nice, there is no necessity for 100% match between left and right anyways. However the lowmid-cut in the flat position.....debateable