Passive EQ shoot out...

[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

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by MattGray

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?

There are caps in the signal path. It's what makes the EQ an EQ. They are not aluminum electrolytics and do not need to be changed. There may be aluminum electrolytic power rail bypass caps and PSU caps that do. But if it sounds good and the noise floor is low then leave it alone.

[MattGray]

Thanks Paul... noise floor is great, sound is great... as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[Piedpiper]

Originally Posted by MattGray

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?

The irony here is that caps will effect the sound regardless of where they are in the circuit. Audio electronics are essentially modulating the wall current which is why power supplies play such a prominent role in achieving good sound. Although the caps may not need to replaced, ala electrolyitics in less than stellar shape, it is likely that "better" caps could be employed. Whether that "upgrade" would be worth your while is another question, not to mention the practicality of the expense and logistics involved. It is interesting to ponder, though, how much of the sound that we're splitting hairs around is due to the particular parts used, and what other flavors or Nth degree of transparency could be achieved with more esoteric parts.

[thermos]

Originally Posted by Piedpiper

The irony here is that caps will effect the sound regardless of where they are in the circuit. Audio electronics are essentially modulating the wall current which is why power supplies play such a prominent role in achieving good sound. Although the caps may not need to replaced, ala electrolyitics in less than stellar shape, it is likely that "better" caps could be employed. Whether that "upgrade" would be worth your while is another question, not to mention the practicality of the expense and logistics involved. It is interesting to ponder, though, how much of the sound that we're splitting hairs around is due to the particular parts used, and what other flavors or Nth degree of transparency could be achieved with more esoteric parts.

I did talk to Burgess about it and he guaranteed me that changing the caps would not change the sound. I think its more about the age of the amplifiers. But don't take it from me, call Burgess! He'll talk your ear off about it.

[sabian]

Matt, PM'd you re upload.

[Silvertone]

Originally Posted by thermos

I did talk to Burgess about it and he guaranteed me that changing the caps would not change the sound. I think its more about the age of the amplifiers. But don't take it from me, call Burgess! He'll talk your ear off about it.

Rupert Neve told me the same thing on more than one occasion... but what does he know

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by Paul Gold

There are caps in the signal path. It's what makes the EQ an EQ. They are not aluminum electrolytics and do not need to be changed. There may be aluminum electrolytic power rail bypass caps and PSU caps that do. But if it sounds good and the noise floor is low then leave it alone.

Agreed!
It's probably best to leave it be if it's working well.

Different electrolytic caps can change the sound and response of a piece of audio equipment.
They are the reservoirs from which the amplifiers draw their current!

Many electrolytic caps are not made the same or with the same materials as they were back in the day, so to speak.

On vintage equipment that has been stored/unused for many years, I remove them, bake them and put the working voltage through them for 3 days, before re-fitting them.

Works a treat

On vintage equipment that has been used to the point that the electrolytics are spent.
I replace them with the best quality versions I can find that are being made today.

[sabian]

Originally Posted by Table Of Tone

Agreed!
It's probably best to leave it be if it's working well.

Different electrolytic caps can change the sound and response of a piece of audio equipment.
They are the reservoirs from which the amplifiers draw their current!

Many electrolytic caps are not made the same or with the same materials as they were back in the day, so to speak.

On vintage equipment that has been stored/unused for many years, I remove them, bake them and put the working voltage through them for 3 days, before re-fitting them.

Works a treat

On vintage equipment that has been used to the point that the electrolytics are spent.
I replace them with the best quality versions I can find that are being made today.

This guy knows his stuff...

My general experience has been that re-caping definitely changed the sound, which was really why I had it done. It usually opened up the top end, sounded tighter and more transient ("modern") at the expense of losing some warmth and smoothness...
So one has to be careful unless you can afford to put it back if not preferred I suppose just a thought
If you really like it don't mess with it I guess.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Silvertone

Rupert Neve told me the same thing on more than one occasion... but what does he know

fwiw -
I had Dan Zellman replace all the cheap Korean electrolytic caps on my Rupert Neve designed Amek Medici with better speced current Panasonics and it did make things sound a tiny bit smoother on it to me. More of a subtle change but I think worth it (also considering how this should extend the lifetime of the unit).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Piedpiper]

Originally Posted by Silvertone

Rupert Neve told me the same thing on more than one occasion... but what does he know

It is typical of engineers, no matter how illustrious, after working hard at developing their circuit designs, to think in terms of theory and what they think you SHOULD hear. It's how they operate. The fact remains that parts make a difference, even when they "shouldn't." There are almost always "better", usually more expensive, parts to be had than what is practical to use in a commercial product no matter how expensive. But we needn't hijack the thread any further with this.

[sabian]

Originally Posted by Piedpiper

It is typical of engineers, no matter how illustrious, after working hard at developing their circuit designs, to think in terms of theory and what they think you SHOULD hear. It's how they operate. The fact remains that parts make a difference, even when the "shouldn't." There are almost always "better", usually more expensive, parts to be had than what is practical to use in a commercial product no matter how expensive. But we needn't hijack the thread any further with this.

Absolutely spot on! A couple of well known designers that I know just don't "believe" anything will affect the sound of their superior circuits. Genius as they are they spend all day measuring and not listening to their circuits and readily admit so. So I very carefully avoid those "voodoo"subjects in their presence. Music and science, a very strange symbiosis ...

[Table Of Tone]

This is a mastering forum and yep....!
We all need to get out more!

[sabian]

I did this for fun while playing with the demo PQ. The intention is to give you a general flavor of those boxes. Not level or eq curve matched, I simply tried to do something similar to Matt's A+B files by ear, kind of crossover with low mid presence of A and upper mid/top of B. The PQ "B-ish" file is sort of that, the "phat" one is simply cranked to show the mids push. The 822s are a 30s job for the flavor. I used Matt's "original mix" file which is not his source file but passed through his AD>console>DA already.
Just to mention, the PQ has two sounds - Prop. Q and Const.Q modes. They sound very different. I used the Const.Q for bass boost and Prop. Q for top + mids, this is the smoooth silky colour with the posh "sheen". The Const Q sounds clean, tight and crisp with hardly any obvious coloration, just did an acoustic job with it, great. If there are any lonely very PQ - interested creatures out there I can run that too for comparison...

All files BWF 9624 as Matt used.... Out of Pyramix>Genex 9048 DA>EQ>Genex 9048 AD> Pyramix..... up here for 7 days, unless someone (Matt?) decides they're worth putting on a server for the future...


https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.p...cHYwZ2wzZUE9PQ
https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.p...OW5BNkhIRGc9PQ
https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.p...ayt6NEozZUE9PQ

[djwaudio]

Boy, I really like Matt's "B" example. It's perfect for that track. The dynamics are tracking across all frequency areas, great imaging, no honking, and it sounds like It's floating in a cloud. Yes!

[MattGray]

Ok it looks like everyone who is going to comment has done so already. So I'll reveal that sample A = Sontec, B = Buzz

I'm really surprised that only 1 person has commented on all the other EQ samples. Did no one else find them useful?

Sabian -> really liked the samples you did especially the EAR one, wasn't that keen on the mid pushed version of the SPL but the normal one sounded quite good. Haven't had a chance to compare either directly to the samples I did yet but it was still interesting to hear them. Enough to know that the EAR is worthy of further investigation.

Matt

[macc]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Ok it looks like everyone who is going to comment has done so already. So I'll reveal that sample A = Sontec, B = Buzz

Thank goodness for that It's funny though... In hindsight I am not sure which I like better overall.

I'm really surprised that only 1 person has commented on all the other EQ samples. Did no one else find them useful?

I think it's more them having... you know, lives and stuff.

Enough to know that the EAR is worthy of further investigation.

Having heard them in person a couple of times now, I assure you that they are very much worth it. Meanwhile, I'm after a sontec or a buzz. Really into both them, just what I need. Either will do really.

Seriously Matt - thank you *very* much for doing this.

[sabian]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Sabian -> really liked the samples you did especially the EAR one, wasn't that keen on the mid pushed version of the SPL but the normal one sounded quite good. Haven't had a chance to compare either directly to the samples I did yet but it was still interesting to hear them. Enough to know that the EAR is worthy of further investigation.

Matt

Yeah, EAR def. worth checking out - that's all I was trying to show. Got carried away with SPL "mid push", new toy and that. Also, I don't actually use the Prop. Q a lot, it's much tighter and more focused in the constant q ( the samples were in prop q). I love it more everyday! It sounds kind of similar to my Neumann W491As in character, sooo sweet. There's more news here though - KNIF AUDIO "ETIP" is here! -------- TO STAY!
That's all I'll say for now, more later. You're keeping the Buzz Matt?

[macc]

Originally Posted by sabian

There's more news here though - KNIF AUDIO "ETIP" is here! -------- TO STAY!

You absolutely kill me man

Seriously, you should be in the dictionary under 'gearslut'.

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by sabian

Yeah, EAR def. worth checking out - that's all I was trying to show. Got carried away with SPL "mid push", new toy and that. Also, I don't actually use the Prop. Q a lot, it's much tighter and more focused in the constant q ( the samples were in prop q). I love it more everyday! It sounds kind of similar to my Neumann W491As in character, sooo sweet. There's more news here though - KNIF AUDIO "ETIP" is here! -------- TO STAY!
That's all I'll say for now, more later. You're keeping the Buzz Matt?

Interesting to note that the Knif ETIP has Lundahl 79xx series Input transformers, the same ones that I was told by Chris to balance the input of the API 550M's.

And yes I have decided to keep the Buzz...

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by sabian

This guy knows his stuff...

My general experience has been that re-caping definitely changed the sound, which was really why I had it done. It usually opened up the top end, sounded tighter and more transient ("modern") at the expense of losing some warmth and smoothness...
So one has to be careful unless you can afford to put it back if not preferred I suppose just a thought
If you really like it don't mess with it I guess.

Back in my earlier years of mastering, my small analog chain had a Drawmer 1961 in it. Very fiddly to recall but at that stage of my career, I wasn't too concerned about things like that but did appreciate having a decent sounding tube eq as it was the first analog eq I had as an option to my Waves plug-ins!

So instead of saving to replace it, I asked a very knowledgeable tech guy to upgrade it.

$500. later it came back sounding clean as a whistle and not very pleasant! I took it to a local music store to see if I was crazy. We A/B-ed the stock and modified unit and we all peferred the stock. So I actually paid the guy to put it back the way it was!

[MattGray]

Andy, what did your tech do to the Drawmer 1961? Was it recapping only?

[Piedpiper]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Andy, what did your tech do to the Drawmer 1961? Was it recapping only?

And was the unit thoroughly burned in after the mod before assessment? A few hundred hours of the caps seeing signal is typically required. IME, true cleanliness is very pleasant.

[ed littman]

Originally Posted by MattGray

And yes I have decided to keep the Buzz...

Along with keeping the Sontec?......

Ed

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Andy, what did your tech do to the Drawmer 1961? Was it recapping only?

Originally Posted by Piedpiper

And was the unit thoroughly burned in after the mod before assessment? A few hundred hours of the caps seeing signal is typically required. IME, true cleanliness is very pleasant.

Sorry, it was in early days of my mastering career (probably 8/10 years ago) and so I was pretty much flying solo with no web boards or mastering mentors to bounce off for advice!

In other words, I had the ears to know I didn't like the mod but no idea about burning in an equalizer nor any memory of what the tech guy did.

I do remember that it was a fairly radical change and it has made me leery about mods! However I did again a couple of years ago when trying to turn my NightPro EQ3D into a unit more suitable for mastering and again (this time $800. spent!), wasn't pleased with the results.

Interesting comment about burning in a unit. If I take the comment "a few hundred hours" and translate that to number of albums mastered, I would get approx. 60 to 80!

Who could possibly take that long to evaluate a unit while using it during the process of mastering albums? How could one keep using a unit they didn't like the sound of while waiting for it to burn in and sound as intended?

I've evaluated every unit I own (except my ATR deck) before buying and if I didn't like the sound or think it was suitable for my work, I didn't buy it. However, almost everything I've tried was researched in advance and I have bought almost all the units I have demoed so not sure if the burn in comment applies to new units.

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by ed littman

Along with keeping the Sontec?......

Ed

Yep, won't be parting with either unless something better can take their place.

[Piedpiper]

Originally Posted by Andy Krehm

Interesting comment about burning in a unit. If I take the comment "a few hundred hours" and translate that to number of albums mastered, I would get approx. 60 to 80!

Who could possibly take that long to evaluate a unit while using it during the process of mastering albums? How could one keep using a unit they didn't like the sound of while waiting for it to burn in and sound as intended?

I've evaluated every unit I own (except my ATR deck) before buying and if I didn't like the sound or think it was suitable for my work, I didn't buy it. However, almost everything I've tried was researched in advance and I have bought almost all the units I have demoed so not sure if the burn in comment applies to new units.

Re: burn in. Caps especially but everything including even wire and solder joints will change the sound as they burn in. New units or any new component within a unit will take a while before it comes into its own. There are hard science reasons for this having to do with dielectric quality, crystal lattice alignment and other issues. I run signal through any piece of new gear for several days on end. With an EQ you would have to do this in every position so all the EQ caps especially get some battle duty of at least 100 hours before actual use. The sound can change pretty radically, and always for the better.

[sabian]

I had an experience with having a pair of TAB 376 pres re-caped and wasn't so sure about it afterwards.... cause I actually liked them in the first place. Soon after that I bought another pair from the same source (same batch) and after comparing them to the re-caped ones I was very sure I wanted those two re-caped as well. With every "change" you lose something as well as "gain" but after having a number of various bits of gear re-caped I sort of know more what to expect. It kind of brings "life" back into it, I never wanted to go back so far....
As for the burn in period, that's interesting. I never observed the change closely but I do normally run a signal through new gear 24/7 for at least a few days or more simply because it is not an effort and I do know what it does to speakers for example, not to mention cars etc ... It might be worth recording something before and after burn in to evaluate this... Has anybody done that? If so how would you describe the difference?

[Piedpiper]

Originally Posted by sabian

I had an experience with having a pair of TAB 376 pres re-caped and wasn't so sure about it afterwards.... cause I actually liked them in the first place. Soon after that I bought another pair from the same source (same batch) and after comparing them to the re-caped ones I was very sure I wanted those two re-caped as well. With every "change" you lose something as well as "gain" but after having a number of various bits of gear re-caped I sort of know more what to expect. It kind of brings "life" back into it, I never wanted to go back so far....
As for the burn in period, that's interesting. I never observed the change closely but I do normally run a signal through new gear 24/7 for at least a few days or more simply because it is not an effort and I do know what it does to speakers for example, not to mention cars etc ... It might be worth recording something before and after burn in to evaluate this... Has anybody done that? If so how would you describe the difference?

I haven't done it with recording before and after but I have noticed differences. They vary quite a bit though. The kind of things I've noticed are smoothing out of rough highs, tightening of bass, more liquid midrange, deepening of the soundstage, etc.. Personally, I don't enjoy smoothing over of detail any more than I enjoy aggressive so called clarity. I know I'm on to something when it sounds more effortlessly smooth at the same time as hearing more subtle information.

[bassfuzz]

Hey Matt. Long time GS lurker, not to much for posting, but wanted to say thanks for talking the time to set up and post the examples, since not many comments on them. I will give you my comments, so hopefully you'll do it more in the future with other gear.
Sontec, ended up being my favorite, as it seemed the most natural. I found the buzz to be similar and agree with your comments about the highs, but the low end of the Sontec beat out the buzz to me. In the country example especially , if I was the bass player in that band(being a bass player myself), I would defiantly want the Sontec. It sounded the most natural, giving it the least "electrified" type quality. Just curious, am I hearing the bass rattling the snares (think that's what I'm hearing on the bass in the turnaround on the middle instrumental break before the next verse)? The Buzz was so close and sounded great on all examples.

Least favorite to me is the Mini Massive, instant high end ear fatigue for me, especially on phones (Sen 280's phones and Westlakes BBSM12's fed by Benchmark Dac) on the transformerless RNB example. The tranformer options were not much to my liking either. Maybe my ears are sensitive but the forward highs gave me fatigue that drove me up a wall. Didn't want to listen to the RnB examples after 5-10 sec. Just not my bag I guess, not sure why, as the curves of all the eq's are very similar.

The 550M muddled up the lows to much for me for mastering, I see why you sent it back. I could see using the 5500 on some things although the highs weren't my fav, it has that sound I think some clients would like.
Massive passive with trannies I didn't like the bloated low end, but transformerless helped a lot in my opinion, giving a user some good options.

There's my thoughts for what they're worth, thanks again for taking the time for GS'rs to hear well executed examples of gear they probably wouldn't have much access to personally. Back to lurkn...