Passive EQ shoot out...

[carlsaff]

Originally Posted by jdg

i'd love to try a "mastering" massive passive, as the regular one was too fiddly for me, so it was a non-starter.

I understand this. Thinking almost every day about upgrading from my standard model to the mastering edition. But some version of the MP will always be in my desk. It doesn't do all things well, but the things it does do well -- scooping out honky mids and overly-woolly low-mids... boosting in the 2k-5k range without harshness ... clarifying the highs via shelving ... tiny boosts in the subwoofer range -- it does better than anything else I have.

[sabian]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Yes of course, nothing is ever cut & dry... it just seems that all of these units have extreme strengths &/or weaknesses rather than one overall great performer. People cite the MP as having nice mids but metallic highs & muddy lows, EAR seem to have 3 different EQ's that suit one area more than the other going by Sabian's description, 822 tight lows, 825 smooth highs, 823 great mids. That's a lot of money to get a complete spectrum to sound it's best! It also seems the SPL PassEQ is good at lows & mids but not as great on the highs. Maybe the Gyraf or Buzz could be a better all-rounder??

Matt

Matt, there will be good all-rounders out there, but you'll always find it better to use 2-3 different eqs for different areas - what do you already have? What are you missing?
BTW , IMO 822 has tight lows AND smooth highs... 825 highs a bit softer and silkier, 822 tighter, both SMOOTH... splitting hairs here... 825 softer in bass but still very full, rich and defined, much less wooly than MP ... 825 probably the best all-rounder IMO... (remember I haven't tried 823...)... Yes, you'll have to buy to try EAR, but the re-sell value is very good in the unlikely event that you don't like it. PM me if you want more info...
You should really check the Pullet for the mids if you're prepared to experiment with pres.... After owning all of the above (+ Passeq) and testing MP I chose the Pullet + TAB V376 and 822s for the Pasive part of the setup ...

[sabian]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Very interesting, Sabian, thanks for the comments. So SPL PassEQ did not impress you that much ? (that you sold it).
I use Gyraf G14 most of the time. Pondering about Pullet (which I have as well). Initially I liked it (connected to Earlybird 2.2). But mostly somehow found I prefer Gyraf in the same setting. Pullet /EB combo somehow seemed to be a bit sharp/thin in comparison ...I also tried to connect it to Forssell SMP-2 ... but still ... Yes, the pots are a bit flimsy (now I even have some scratching pot problems) ... Any Pullet users could share their experience ?

Hi Ivo, the Passeq did impress me (big and tight, especially lows, mid boost very strong but tight, didn't like the highs that much...) but wasn't essential in my setup so I sold it... There is no single unit that does everything for me, so I use 3-4 eqs in a chain as "1 all-round" eq...
The Pullet - I spent a lot of time trying different pres which is what really makes the sound. My choice now is TAB V376 - clean yet warm and rich mids, slight roll-off over 15k and below 40hz but no problem. Works great! ... not to mention the price, I need the pres for tracking anyway... that is the sound of the Pullet. The control is pretty good, cuts seem tight enough q for most things (but not surgical), boost with 3 q settings quite flexible. For me the mids shaping winner at the moment...
I also use Great River MAQ BTW for low mid cuts, more surgical... and the 22k shelf is a genius, .5dB boost most of the time.... 822 doing 10- 12k... Pullet 6.3k broad...
Never tried the Gyraf , might do in the future, although I feel sorted with valve/passive side of things.... actually I'd love a pair of 823s!

[Riccardo]

How is the Pullet build quality? Some of you mentioned scratchy pots and so on.

[sabian]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

How is the Pullet build quality? Some of you mentioned scratchy pots and so on.

About a year old, used every day, no problems here. The pots feel a bit flimsy so I'm just being gentle...

[sabian]

Since I talked a lot about it, I thought it's worth making some general comments on EAR gear, for what one person's opinion is worth... They're hard to find to demo, hand made to order and not cheap, so this might be useful to some of you...
I own 822s, 660s, 509s (power amps) and used to own 825

I LOVE them all because:
- they are not "tubby" , "mushy", "all mids", "flabby and boomy bass", no "air" sounding valve units... (Manley?)...instead, class A type of full bandwidth and clarity in all areas, yet just the right amount of "warmth" and "musicality" . More "3D depth" than anything I heard.
EAR is a big name in audiophile HI-FI for a reason.
- no revisions, mods etc here, a great design from day one, stands the test of time
You can mess around with valves if you want (Tim won't appreciate it!) but stock units are just spot on. I normally do all kinds of experiments but have left Tim's stuff alone (he's only an hour down the road though).

I was lucky to have had an engineer work here who brought in his 660s - I was definitely not planing to spend this kind of money on a comp at that time. Got all usual suspects in for a demo (Fearn, Manley, Pendulum, Phoenix, TG Zener, owned STC8 and Trakkers...) and without a shed of a doubt made an order for 660s.... It was an easy decision.

Had I not heard 660s in the first place I would not have any of the above.
Which is why you don't see many of these around. Know anyone who has them?
Try to get a demo.

Just realized this might sound like a plug, so the usual: not associated with ear in any other way but loving their products and Mr genius Tim de P

Matt, sorry, I didn't mean to hijack your thread, back to PASSIVE MASTERING EQs.

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by sabian

Matt, there will be good all-rounders out there, but you'll always find it better to use 2-3 different eqs for different areas - what do you already have? What are you missing?

As stated I'm currently using an original Sontec MES-432C & the Weiss EQ1-Mk2 for EQ. I also use an API 2500, The Phoenix MC & Weiss DS1-Mk3 for compression duties, an ATR-102 half inch with ARIA electronics for tape layback duties, Cranesong HEDD 192, Lavry Gold A/D for conversion & Dangerous Music mastering console with Chris Muth DAC. What I'm missing is another great analog EQ, I will definitely purchase an API 5500 in the near future but for now I'm looking for something broad & musical with a totally different character to the Sontec. I think passive might be the go as I would like something that sounds completely different to normal parametric designs.

You should really check the Pullet for the mids if you're prepared to experiment with pres.... After owning all of the above (+ Passeq) and testing MP I chose the Pullet + TAB V376 and 822s for the Pasive part of the setup ...

How do you think the Pullet would work with some original vintage Neve (Brent Averill racked) 1272's? I could get a Pullet in on demo easily enough too.

Matt

[sabian]

Originally Posted by MattGray

How do you think the Pullet would work with some original vintage Neve (Brent Averill racked) 1272's? I could get a Pullet in on demo easily enough too.

Matt

Hey, you have a great setup! Don't be lazy, try the Pullet if you can! From my experience it will have the sonic quality of the pres with smooth and musical eq action, I never found it sounded harsh or nasty in any way , even with large amounts of boost... Never put it through some crappy pres either... Used to have API 5500, not so sure, sold it...
mainly bought it for the mids (much prefer lows and highs on EAR) but it actually has quite scooped mids when flat, not great definition in the lower mids IMO... 550 sounded nicer and warmer but 2dB gain unworkable for me, even for mixing... Have 560s now, never tried them for mastering but really like them, might give it a go .... tighter than 550s, smaller, not so inflated lows..

[MattGray]

Are you saying that you prefer the sound of 550's over the 5500? The standard 550's are too coarse for mastering but what about 550M's? I thought they would sound basically the same as the 5500?

I think the API stuff is good for cut & punch, the 2500 has many nice tones with a variety of compression options. The API 5500 would be more suited for mid & low end boosts when you want to give those areas punch or cut through. I'll still demo that one before buying too.

Matt

[MattGray]

Hey Larry, I've heard back from Tim at Buzz Audio & he is going to organize an REQ-2.2 MP unit for me to demo. There is none in Australia at the moment though so it may take a little time.

In the meantime I'm trying to to organize an SPL PassEQ & Pullet to try out. I'll report back when I have made some comparisons.

Matt

[sabian]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Are you saying that you prefer the sound of 550's over the 5500? The standard 550's are too coarse for mastering but what about 550M's? I thought they would sound basically the same as the 5500?

I think the API stuff is good for cut & punch, the 2500 has many nice tones with a variety of compression options. The API 5500 would be more suited for mid & low end boosts when you want to give those areas punch or cut through. I'll still demo that one before buying too.

Matt

Haven't tried 550Ms, I thought 550s sounded different to 5500, softer, warmer ...
5500 tighter and punchier, kind of a bit "plastic" in comparison... I also bought it for the mids
but wasn't that impressed...low mids sound scooped... lows were nice but I have other things. I could only ever use 0.5 or 1db , q too wide. Try it... (and the Pullet! - boost only from 800hz up mind you...)
I tried 2500 on the drum bus, nice mid punch and colour but API stuff always seems to lose me some top definition ("air")... except 560s maybe, which I use for drums at the mo... It's all good stuff anyway, just get it in and try it in your setup, see if it tickles your ears...

[rjs]

There are a ton of ways to accomplish what others get with an eq. I am not sure if what I do is even within the spectrum of what the discussion is about. But my trials led me to a few conclusions. The most important (to me anyhow) is to keep the signal chain analog right up to the digital conversion.

I am an analogue (analog) believer. Analog mixer, analog eq, analog whatever you can do for input right up to the conversion. For eq on everything I play and record, I use 31 dual band Ashly GQX-3102's. For what an eq is supposed to do, this does it, and it accomplishes it the way I believe an eq should be eq'ing. I am not much on other types of eq's. Like I say, not sure this even fits into this discussion, but when it comes to eq, I tried many things over the years and was never happy until I started to try, as I could, to keep the chain analog up to the point of conversion. Then of course you need to figure out what conversion/converters it takes to produce the best sound that your analog system produced as output. Always trial and error as far as I'm concerned. Never been happier since I purchased these Ashly eq's (3 years ago). That is only one part of the chain, but an important one never the less.

If I mis-interpreted the conversation, please forgive. I do everything by trial and error.. Mostly error until I have a room full of needless equip. Oh and that is Ashly not Ashley..

[jdg]

the 550(Ms or whatever) sound diff then the 5500. i've had several of both. i personally like the 550s way better.

the 5500 has an extra opamp balancing the input (which i think is the "change" in the sound)

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by rjs

For eq on everything I play and record, I use 31 dual band Ashly GQX-3102's. For what an eq is supposed to do, this does it, and it accomplishes it the way I believe an eq should be eq'ing. I am not much on other types of eq's. Like I say, not sure this even fits into this discussion,

This thread is mostly dealing with passive EQ's designed to work in a mastering situation. I don't think a 31 band graphic EQ is going to work in that context. In fact 31 band graphic EQ's were mainly designed for tuning FOH PA systems.

Matt

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Hey Larry, I've heard back from Tim at Buzz Audio & he is going to organize an REQ-2.2 MP unit for me to demo. There is none in Australia at the moment though so it may take a little time.

In the meantime I'm trying to to organize an SPL PassEQ & Pullet to try out. I'll report back when I have made some comparisons.

Matt

thumbsup

[sabian]

Originally Posted by jdg

the 550(Ms or whatever) sound diff then the 5500. i've had several of both. i personally like the 550s way better.

the 5500 has an extra opamp balancing the input (which i think is the "change" in the sound)

That explains what I heard then ....

[sabian]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Hey Larry, I've heard back from Tim at Buzz Audio & he is going to organize an REQ-2.2 MP unit for me to demo. There is none in Australia at the moment though so it may take a little time.

In the meantime I'm trying to to organize an SPL PassEQ & Pullet to try out. I'll report back when I have made some comparisons.

Matt

Please report back!

[Silvertone]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Hey Larry, I've heard back from Tim at Buzz Audio & he is going to organize an REQ-2.2 MP unit for me to demo. There is none in Australia at the moment though so it may take a little time.

In the meantime I'm trying to to organize an SPL PassEQ & Pullet to try out. I'll report back when I have made some comparisons.

Matt

You wont be disappointed.

Worth your time to try it out, let us know what you think.

best,
Larry

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by sabian

The Pullet - I spent a lot of time trying different pres which is what really makes the sound. My choice now is TAB V376 - clean yet warm and rich mids, slight roll-off over 15k and below 40hz but no problem. Works great! ... not to mention the price, I need the pres for tracking anyway... that is the sound of the Pullet. The control is pretty good, cuts seem tight enough q for most things (but not surgical), boost with 3 q settings quite flexible.

I have some 676 around. Not sure about the 15k roll-of but how do you deal with the 40 Hz low cut? Isn't it too much?

[sabian]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

I have some 676 around. Not sure about the 15k roll-of but how do you deal with the 40 Hz low cut? Isn't it too much?

It works fine for me, I run 822s after it with low+ high boost ... The roll-off is not too steep, apparently there are mods to tackle this but they sound great as they are...
I used V676b before, very tight bottom, thin mids and a bit harsh top, sounded compressed... not class A those... also have V672 which are very nice, prefer 376 for the mids, richer , more 3D, sweeter top too.
This is one pair of my V376, have another now that match even closer.

[dave-G]

Sorry I'm late to post on this thread, I just haven't been on the forums as much as I used to be.

I own and love the SPL PassEQ .. and, I'm also the guy who was quietly hanging onto the first mastering version of the Buzz REQ for the month of January. Larry has it now!

As for the PassEQ, I have acclimated to the funk of its interface, but can completely understand how some could write it off on the consequences of it's not being immediately intuitive. To me this is not to be underestimated, as there really is something about intuitive ergonomics that allow an engineer the ability to quickly see how an EQ can respond to his/her intentions. While the PassEQ sounds really lovely, IMO, it took a lot of looking at it for the first several days or so, searching for the knobs I wanted before I got the feel for it. And I agree with John that the giant attenuator knob in the middle might have made for a bold visual statement in the design of the front panel, but in actual use, it serves little purpose to be that big. All that said however, I find it to be a really lovely sweetener; for broad strokes, its gives really smooth and musical results. Coupled with a more general purpose/cuts-friendly EQ, it's an excellent tool.

Then came the REQ2.2 ... Which, despite my lack of eagerness to spend money or disrupt my existing chain, is something I really wish I had not sent along to Larry. It sports the classic control layout, which makes for quick think-n-turn work, and it simply sounds great. I'd have to say that much of what I loved about it felt very similar to what I love about the PassEQ, it's not overtly 'color'ful, rather, it's clear and does not heavy-handedly alter the source in ways other than the changes you're dialing in. But, in that, it seems to have something smoother and sweeter about its response than your average 'transparent' digital box (or my NSEQ-FF, by slight, non-damning contrast).

Hope I'm making sense here. Talking about equalizers is like dancing about CADD software.

Anyway, my favorite feature of the REQ quickly became the shelving-slope settings. Once the top or bottom band is switched to shelving, the bandwidth control becomes a slope/shape control, which proved so useful in its range (if not merely interesting), that I found myself using shelves with the REQ more often than I usually do.

I did not get too deep into the saturation control, except to see that its effect seemed confined to thickening in the lows/lowmids, might be of use on some occasions.

Anyway .. IMO, it's well worth checking out if you're shopping. And though it's better suited to the role of 'primary EQ' than the PassEQ, I still wouldn't throw the PassEQ out of bed.

Cheers!
-dave

[MattGray]

Thanks for posting Dave, your opinion here is very much appreciated. I've pretty much narrowed it down in my mind between the PassEQ & the REQ-2.2. So let me ask you this, knowing what you know now about the PassEQ & the REQ-2.2 after using them both & comparing them to each other; if you didn't own the PassEQ which one would you buy given the choice today?

Matt

[Studio 13]

We recently got a EB/Pullet here and I'm using it on guitars. The client was impressed. Gonna test it out during mastering soon. Agree with the sleeper comments, very nice!

[dave-G]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Thanks for posting Dave, your opinion here is very much appreciated. I've pretty much narrowed it down in my mind between the PassEQ & the REQ-2.2. So let me ask you this, knowing what you know now about the PassEQ & the REQ-2.2 after using them both & comparing them to each other; if you didn't own the PassEQ which one would you buy given the choice today?

Tough one. Probably depends on what you need this EQ to do for you. To be completely honest, and assuming you're asking with money a non-factor, I'd probably choose the REQ. It's more versatile and has better ergonomics. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's 'better' in an absolute or qualitative sense (I get great results when I use my PassEQ, and really do like it), but the REQ is a do-more box, no doubt about it. Putting that kind of control over this style of EQ makes it rather unique, I think.

One tangential thing to note about the REQ is that it does run pretty hot. The PassEQ is also 4U, but seems to run cool enough that it can merely occupy its chassis' own rackspace needs, while I'd think the REQ needs some breathing room around it in the rack, making it potentially a 6RU space committment.

Cheers!
-dave

[MattGray]

Just a quick update... nothing much to report at this stage. I'll paste my reply from another thread about Passive EQ's for the sake of keeping this thread alive.

I have the Buzz Audio REQ-2.2 on it's way over shortly... been reading & talking about this box with Larry D, Dave G & Dave M. Talk about flexibility...

From the manual... "The high and low bands can be switched from a bell filter to a shelving filter, and the bandwidth control reverts to a shelf slope control when in shelf mode. The mid bands can be switched between two frequency ranges as indicated on the front panel."

This gives a total of 72 different frequency selections & a decent number of frequency overlaps spread over the 4 bands. Each band can be bypassed as well.

There is 6 HPF frequency choices (mastering edition uses lower scaled points), 12 LSH frequency points & 12 HSH frequency choices. Add to this the 6 position transformer saturation switch & you've got an entirely different sounding unit in the low end bands.

From all reports from users & various EQ shoot outs it's a stand out box sonically as well which is the main reason why I'm interested in the REQ-2.2 in the first place. Looking forward to putting it through it's paces soon & I will also post my review here as well. I'm still trying to organise demos of the Manley boxes as well but the Mini Massive isn't in stock at the moment & neither is the SPL PassEQ or the TC Pullet for that matter. I've got a sneaking suspicion that the REQ-2.2 will end up residing somehow.

Matt

[Tube World]

I really like the Langevin Mini Massive. It sounds like the Massive Passive, but the low end is more solid and not as smooth. There is a transformer switch in the back with 3 settings. The overdrive setting is good for electric guitars, with the switch in the middle, good for tracking. Then with the transformer off, it sounds great on mastering.

On the high end, bell 1 option is great for tracking. Bell 2 which is tighter is best suited for mastering. I have heard some great results with this unit. Like most of these high end units, it's made so well. The low end adds a nice full sound, and the high end adds wonderful sparkle. It's also a lot cheaper than a lot of these other units as well.

[mainframe]

i use a tube modified summit audio EQP-200B in my mastering chain. it just offers the most basic tasks of boosting and cutting bass and hi freqs but it does it in such a nice way i would'nt want to miss it. actually, i always start with this eq, giving warm and broad boost to the material, while attentuating a bit with the cuts. pultec style. the highs can open up a mix nicely and the bass boost rounds the overall picture up to where i want to go - together with my millennia nseq2 and an occasional linear phase software eq (plpareq) i feel i got all the options i need/want. additionally the summit gives some nice rich depth to the sound.

[Roc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by Tube World

I really like the Langevin Mini Massive. It sounds like the Massive Passive, but the low end is more solid and not as smooth. There is a transformer switch in the back with 3 settings. The overdrive setting is good for electric guitars, with the switch in the middle, good for tracking. Then with the transformer off, it sounds great on mastering.

On the high end, bell 1 option is great for tracking. Bell 2 which is tighter is best suited for mastering. I have heard some great results with this unit. Like most of these high end units, it's made so well. The low end adds a nice full sound, and the high end adds wonderful sparkle. It's also a lot cheaper than a lot of these other units as well.

+1 For the Mini Massive!!! This post is SPOT ON!!! The Low end "silk" and flavor you can add is nothing short of remarkable.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Just a quick update... nothing much to report at this stage. I'll paste my reply from another thread about Passive EQ's for the sake of keeping this thread alive.

I have the Buzz Audio REQ-2.2 on it's way over shortly... been reading & talking about this box with Larry D, Dave G & Dave M. Talk about flexibility...

Matt

I'm wondering how the Buzz will compare to your Sontec!

I've always wanted an EQ with 4 bands and shelf options (much like the Maselec) with the sound of the Sontec.

[inlinenl]

Originally Posted by Ben F

I've always wanted an EQ with 4 bands and shelf options (much like the Maselec) with the sound of the Sontec.

well I've never been close to a sontech ... but next to my MEA-2 I've got the NSEQ-2 with the FF mod since 2 months now and find the NSEQ-2-FF an amazing sounding EQ , okay it's not so recallable as the perfect controls on the Maselec MEA-2 but it sounds so way different ...

I always capture at 24/96 and peak at -01.00 dB .... it's so cool just to run that file again through the nseq-2-ff and set the weiss-ds1 as limiter to that ...

you def. need to check that EQ someday ...