Passive EQ shoot out...

[MattGray]

I'm looking to buy another EQ to compliment a Sontec MES-432C & Weiss EQ-1 Mk2. I'm thinking a passive EQ might be a good complimentary flavour to add to the rack as I'm not shy on adding some colour to my chain. I work on a wide variety of material but I do get a lot of rock, pop, hip hop, RnB & folk stuff.

Those of you who are using a Passive EQ for mastering, would you care to share which one you prefer & why you decided to purchase it?

These are a few that I'm considering, is there any others I should look into?

•Manley Massive Passive
•SPL PassEQ
•Thermionic Culture Pullet
•Manley Mini Massive
•Gyraf GXIV
•Buzz Audio REQ-2.2

Matt

[Riccardo]

This is going to be very interesting.
I briefly tried both the Mini Massive and the Pullet. Never had the chance to do an in depth test. The Pullet needs a line gain stage and that opens up the possibilities.

You could add a few to the list just for completeness sake.

The Fearns are passive (dual mono or stereo), The EAR is passive, the Amtech, I think Mr Dave Collins has a passive design (a faithful Pultec replica). I am sure there are others.

The Buzz is passive, have you succeeded in getting in touch with Tim?

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

This is going to be very interesting.
I briefly tried both the Mini Massive and the Pullet. Never had the chance to do an in depth test. The Pullet needs a line gain stage and that opens up the possibilities.

So what was your thoughts on the Mini Massive & Pullet? I have some 1272's I could use to drive the Pullet if it's enough gain.

You could add a few to the list just for completeness sake.

The Fearns are passive (dual mono or stereo), The EAR is passive, the Amtech, I think Mr Dave Collins has a passive design (a faithful Pultec replica). I am sure there are others.

I don't want to discount any options but I should've mentioned I'm looking to spend around $3500USD so this may exclude the likes of the EAR 825 & probably the Fearn. Unless they can be had used for around this price.

The Buzz is passive, have you succeeded in getting in touch with Tim?

No word whatsoever, I've emailed through the site, PM'd him directly as he moderates on here & so far I've not heard a peep. Which is why there is no mention of the Buzz in this shoot out, seems no one has heard this elusive REQ-2.2

Matt

[24-96 Mastering]

Interesting thread. I tried the mini massive recently. The low band was dry, punchy. Pretty cool. The high band I found way too unpredictable/coarse in the shelves and too whistly for my taste in bell shapes. May just not have been what I was looking for though.

[MattGray]

Hi Robin, I remember that thread.. you were chasing smooth HF if I remember correctly? Have you ever heard a Massivo? If so how does it compare sonically to the mini massive? I think at this point I'm kind of leaning towards the Massivo as it's so commonly seen in so many mastering rooms & it's flavour heard on so many great records.

The SPL PassEQ looks interesting & may be less maintenance than the Massivo, anyone tried this unit out? how does it compare to the Massivo sonically? I'm looking for size in the lows (without losing definition) & smooth mids.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Which is why there is no mention of the Buzz in this shoot out, seems no one has heard this elusive REQ-2.2

I was offered to test it 2 weeks ago. I was honest and said that I'd love to but that for that kind of money, it would really have to blow me away to make me buy it. I told the distro that if he had customers who have their credit card ready and - by default - WANT to buy that unit, he should send it to them first. And so he did.

D'oh.

[MattGray]

but I wonder if you had of agreed to demo it whether you would've actually seen the unit. Seems like there is a number of people who have been promised a demo & yet no one has seen it in the flesh let alone heard one to my knowledge. There is nothing to be found on GS or PSW besides marketing.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Hi Robin, I remember that thread.. you were chasing smooth HF if I remember correctly? Have you ever heard a Massivo? If so how does it compare sonically to the mini massive? I think at this point I'm kind of leaning towards the Massivo as it's so commonly seen in so many mastering rooms & it's flavour heard on so many great records.

I have actually never used the Massivo in mastering, so I can't really compare, sorry. But I know that it's usually called "soft" and the Mini Massive does not feel soft imo.

I could use a passive EQ too btw, though I'm not sure any of the choices listed are for me. Tube based pultec style (to some extent) would probably be what I'm looking for (dry lows, grippy mids). But I don't want to take over the thread and I'm very interested to what comes out of it for you.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by MattGray

but I wonder if you had of agreed to demo it whether you would've actually seen the unit.

I'd think so, yes. (The demo was proposed by the German distro, and he's been reliable before.)

But I agree, seeing how much buzz there was (pun intended), it's funny that noone has actually heard the unit.

[thermos]

I'll do mine!

I'll just quickly say I bought the Gyraf because I wanted something that sounded semi close to the Ear 822Q that I'm used to hearing. I've never used one in my room, but its been used on a lot of my mixes. From what I could gather and from pming with Yareck (who has used an 822 in his room) the Gyraf was similar/he actually preferred it. From his samples and from other times I'd heard the Massive, I really didn't like it and probably wouldn't put it in the chain except for very specific instances where I would want mid shelves or something. I just don't like its particular coloration. And I wanted a tube unit, so that disqualifies everything else on your list I believe. So far its all love for the Gyraf.

[MattGray]

Thanks Thermos,

I have heard these samples between the Massive & Gyraf. There is some things about both units I liked & in reality how you use an EQ can often be more important than direct comparisons. For one the Gyraf doesn't have accurate frequency labeling as it was done by ear which I thought was strange. This fact alone makes it difficult to directly compare the Gyraf to the Massivo. There were also shelf comparisons made to the bell comparisons on the Gyraf so of course the Massivo is going to sound more 'processed' in those comparisons & the frequency selections wouldn't be matching very closely. The other things I didn't like about the Gyraf is that it is bell curves only with no filters or shelves & there is no way to use it in M/S if you wanted to use it that way.

Don't get me wrong I don't think I would be happy to have a Massive Passive as my only mastering EQ. I am looking for a 2nd analog EQ with broader strokes & a musical colour to compliment the Sontec & Weiss for when you need to liven up some sterile material.

You'll probably laugh but I tried the Focusrite Liquid Mix HD TDM plugins for Pro Tools which has the Sintefex modeling of the Massive Passive (amoung others). This was very interesting to try after hours & I was quite impressed & felt like I got a sense of how this unit operates & sounds. It is completely different to any other EQ I've used & you can't really use it in the same way as any other EQ as everything is so interactive & yet it does things to the audio which can't be achieved with traditional EQ's. For instance the 22Hz low shelf fills in & extends the low mids & sub lows beautifully without clouding up the definition or clarity in the low end. Now normally I wouldn't even consider shelving that low, yet the Q was so wide it actually lifted the low mids in the process & yet it sounded amazing with very small boosts. Some of the bands just engaged without any boosts were often enough to add a nice sparkle to things higher up. I can only imagine that what I liked about the modeled version will be even better represented in the real unit compared to the Liquid Mix HD plug-in.

The EAR 822 is also modeled in the Liquid Mix HD plug & while it was smooth & quite pleasant (a bit like the other hardware EQ's I own, but not as flexible) I found it lacked the attitude & character I'm looking for in a 2nd analog EQ. It was very limited on options though (just like the real Pultec!) so maybe the EAR 825 would be a more interesting/flexible unit... but the price of the real unit.. ouch!

Matt

[sabian]

I used to have EAR 825, just sold SPL PASSEQ, keeping EAR 822s and the Pullet (forever?).... Want EAR 823s
Obviously I love passive eqs...

Subjective observation:
-825 - beautiful,warm, rich, a bit soft... gorgeous (probably my fav) top end, ... broad shaping only

-PASSEQ - tight, great bass (i.e. 10hz shelf boost), great (broad) mid boost (i.e. 720), ... broad shaping only ,"S-curves", except hi shelf boost with variable bandwidth, liked 6k but can get harsh.... EAR top much nicer

-822 - tighter than 825 (especially bass), top a tad sweeter on 825 but 822 more control (Hi bandwidth) and tightness... want 823s for mids. Just GREAT!

-PULLET - is a bargain and a real sleeper, if you have good pres. Sonically it really depends on the pres, after a lot of experimenting I ended up using TAB V376 most of the time. Boost has 3 q settings ( love the broad 6.3k boost), cuts seem pretty tight q (very usable 230, 330, 500... cuts). Never use the top shelving presets, too coarse...
Knobs a bit flimsy...

Tried Manley MP, could see the mids being usable (anyone tried MEQ 500 ?) but hated the (lack of) top and bottom, no definition, top just not nice at all

[212team]

check out the cinema engineering passive program eq 4031-b they are pretty good but you need a pair .

[jdg]

had a passeq for a while.
t'was something else. it wasn't the right choice all the time, but when it did, it was amazing. unlimited funds, i would have kept it.

the mid range is weird tho.
i wish the giant attenuation knob in the middle wasn't so giant, i only used it 2% of the time. so it was just a big round knob doing nothing.

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

[Gomez]

I have been using the Massive Passive for mastering over the last 3 years. I can tell you that the mids on this thing are beautiful, they're smooth and very musical - you can literally perform miracles in a mid- scooped mix. the actual "colour" of the eq is really nice.

I tend to agree with a bunch of people when it comes to the top and bottom end of MP - not a big fan. However, it works for some stuff. The 27K band can do wonders. The bottom end... well I do find it muddy between 240 and 80Hz (or around) but can be good below that.

The filters are OK. that's it - OK. I don't care if they're passive, the LPF rings out a lot. I do like the 18k filter setting.

I do like this machine a lot!

[thermos]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Thanks Thermos,

I have heard these samples between the Massive & Gyraf. There is some things about both units I liked & in reality how you use an EQ can often be more important than direct comparisons. For one the Gyraf doesn't have accurate frequency labeling as it was done by ear which I thought was strange. This fact alone makes it difficult to directly compare the Gyraf to the Massivo. There were also shelf comparisons made to the bell comparisons on the Gyraf so of course the Massivo is going to sound more 'processed' in those comparisons & the frequency selections wouldn't be matching very closely. The other things I didn't like about the Gyraf is that it is bell curves only with no filters or shelves & there is no way to use it in M/S if you wanted to use it that way.


Matt

To me so far it seems like just the top knob of the Gyraf that seems totally off freq wise. The other ones so far seem accurate/close. I'll check more diligently soon. I still use my Sontec for large high boosts because I actually prefer it, more neutral or something. But adding a dab of "22k" on the Gyraf is really great.

In regards to the samples, I was actually speaking of the tone of the units without eq engaged. If I don't love the sound of a unit when no processing is going on, I won't like it in my chain. But, I guess if you want to do M/S, the Gyraf is a no go. However, it may be worth asking Jakob if he'd make you one thats dual mono. Couldn't hurt. I really like moving 1 knob and having both channels affected. I feel like a god. Wouldn't want it on both eqs, and certainly wouldn't want it on a compressor (unlinked anyone?) but its great for the G14.

[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 ?

[grandmasters]

I like, and use, the SPL PassEQ. It's great at the end of the chain as it can handle lots of gain.

[Gomez]

Originally Posted by grandmasters

I like, and use, the SPL PassEQ. It's great at the end of the chain as it can handle lots of gain.

Should have mentioned this feature on the Massive too. I does have a lot of headroom.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by Gomez

Should have mentioned this feature on the Massive too. I does have a lot of headroom.

And also, the unbalanced outputs on the MP bypass the transformers, making it less coloured in the low end.

I use the Massivo probably 1 in 4 albums. It's not for everything but great to have when you need it.

[exwel]

Originally Posted by sabian

I used to have EAR 825, just sold SPL PASSEQ, keeping EAR 822s and the Pullet (forever?).... Want EAR 823s
Obviously I love passive eqs...

Subjective observation:
-825 - beautiful,warm, rich, a bit soft... gorgeous (probably my fav) top end, ... broad shaping only


-822 - tighter than 825 (especially bass), top a tad sweeter on 825 but 822 more control (Hi bandwidth) and tightness... want 823s for mids. Just GREAT!

l

Nice to hear so mething about the EAR 822.
Have my self 822 and 823 love it
Where do you use the ear for? vocal or something els
At the moment i use it for my memorymoog

[finetuner]

The MP was the first serious analog eq i tried and while i really wanted to like it because it seemed like the RollsRoyce of eq's, i just didn't dig it. Mostly because it seemed to diminish the tightness of lows. The high 'sheen' fingerprint on the other side can be nice but not always...

Tried some other famous (non passive) eq's like Millennia and Ibis but ended up with the MiniMassive. It has the response of a passive design, offering different sounds to the palette, yet it's neutral enough to not constantly add a fingerprint.
Clean and vintage at the same time ?

As Robin mentioned, the highs are not silky, rather metallic like. I like it for that reason when i need something like a very very gentle exciter. You know, to revive cymbals or add air. There is a danger in getting harsh but the choice between shelve and two bell curves and a Q that works in shelve as well, give many options to play with.
The lows very nice, broad and easily overused. Hardly ever over 1 dB or so.
Once more i'll mention the switch to disable the trannies. This should be on every eq !

Still i'd like to test drive Manley's Enhanced Pultec (limited stereo edition) one day.
Possibly closer to the Pultecs including tubes, but more reliable, servicable, available etc.

[MattGray]

The opinions seem very broad & varied, perhaps there is not one single Passive EQ that is a clear winner?

Seems a lot of you have tried/heard the PassEQ & Massivo but decided not to keep it. looks like this shootout will prove tougher than first expected. I might get a few units in for a test drive & see what suits my needs best.

Matt

[finetuner]

Originally Posted by Ben F

And also, the unbalanced outputs on the MP bypass the transformers, making it less coloured in the low end...

I must say i wasn't aware of this and wonder if it could have changed my opinion...
Maybe someday i'll give it another shot.

@ Matt: Be sure to try this if you do decide to test drive the MP.
Maybe the MP's reputation of slightly muddying the low end is undeserved ?

[sabian]

Originally Posted by MattGray

The opinions seem very broad & varied, perhaps there is not one single Passive EQ that is a clear winner?

Seems a lot of you have tried/heard the PassEQ & Massivo but decided not to keep it. looks like this shootout will prove tougher than first expected. I might get a few units in for a test drive & see what suits my needs best.

Matt

Obvously there is no "winner"! "test drive & see" is always the key....
Will be difficult with EAR unless you know somebody who owns them.

"I'm looking for size in the lows (without losing definition) & smooth mids."

Passeq would fit the bill. Takes some getting used to. I found I ended up doing only as little as 1 click cut or boost a lot of the time, very powerful. Especially in the mids. You can surely find a demo unit? Didn't sell it 'cause I don't like it BTW, just wasn't essential in my setup having EAR etc as well...
If you want GREAT highs + lows, 822, no question. Haven't tried the 823 but it should be the same circuit so I speculate just as great in the mids. I use the Pullet + TAB V376 for the mids, works great, more control than 823 I suppose. A bargain. Haven't tried the Manley meq-500 - anyone?
As I said before, 825 is great but not as tight (bass) as 822 or Passeq... lovely and rich, mids, top, mmmmm.... If you have another tight eq this might be the one, will bring life to any mix, the whole spectrum. Cheaper than 822+823 as well....
825 (rich) + Passeq (tight) would be a great combo - a friend of mine bought both of these from me and is very happy indeed. Again, didn't sell 'cause I don't like them! ... can't afford to keep everything I like yet... + having 10 eqs to choose from can get counter productive....

[sabian]

Originally Posted by exwel

Nice to hear so mething about the EAR 822.
Have my self 822 and 823 love it
Where do you use the ear for? vocal or something els
At the moment i use it for my memorymoog

I only have 822s, unfortunately.
This is the mastering forum and thread so obviously I use them for mastering.
Apart from everywhere else where top and bottom needs treatment - bass, vox...
Great on the mix bus as well, mids gel together nicely. Low boost + cut at the same time (pultec style), i.e. 60Hz is great.

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by thermos

To me so far it seems like just the top knob of the Gyraf that seems totally off freq wise. The other ones so far seem accurate/close. I'll check more diligently soon. I still use my Sontec for large high boosts because I actually prefer it, more neutral or something. But adding a dab of "22k" on the Gyraf is really great.

The freqs are "off" the measured freqs on purpose on the G14, did you realize that? The freqs were chosen by a panel of engineers who had to guess where a certain frequency was, and the average result is what you see on the panel, AFAIK the story. So when you get 3.5 kHz on the G14 it's not necessary exactly 3.5 kHz but what a lot of people think 3.5 kHz sounds like.

I think this is pretty funny and probably some kind of philosophical choice in the design, which some find weird and I find amusing. It doesn't really affect any choices I make, I always only use my ears on the G14. ITB I might prefer to know the exact frequency at which I'm cutting but not on the G14.

22k boost is indeed magic fairy dust. The G14 has a sound and it's not neutral though.

[Silvertone]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

I was offered to test it 2 weeks ago. I was honest and said that I'd love to but that for that kind of money, it would really have to blow me away to make me buy it. I told the distro that if he had customers who have their credit card ready and - by default - WANT to buy that unit, he should send it to them first. And so he did.

D'oh.

Robin,

You passed on something that is pretty special. I have the mastering version in for review and testing right now. Will be testing it against the Sontec 430 series, the GML 9500, the Masterpiece and the Prism EQ shortly.

This thing is sweet and musical sounding, I haven't had this much fun with an EQ in quite a while. I'll keep you posted.

best,
Larry

[MattGray]

Oh great to hear that you got your demo in to try Larry... definitely keep us posted for sure. I'm very keen to hear what this one can do.

Thanks to everyone for your advice so far, I can definitely try out the PassEQ & a MP. I'd like to get the elusive Buzz REQ-2.2 in as well (Larry it sounds promising!). Gyraf will be impossible to try without buying as would EAR.

Obvously there is no "winner"! "test drive & see" is always the key....

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??

The freqs are "off" the measured freqs on purpose on the G14, did you realize that?

Hi Holger, yes I did realize it was a conscious decision made with the G14's frequency markings. I guess my point is that it just makes comparisons more difficult (like the MP Vs G14 samples), of course it's best to use your ears but it's also nice to listen to music & know in your mind that it needs a lift at 3.5k & that when you dial it in there that it sounds as you would expect it to as well. Only a minor issue & I'm sure one would get used to working with it in this way, it's just a little odd & I haven't seen another EQ do this sort of approach before, maybe it makes sense for a Passive design.

Matt

[macc]

Originally Posted by MattGray

it's also nice to listen to music & know in your mind that it needs a lift at 3.5k & that when you dial it in there that it sounds as you would expect it to as well. Only a minor issue & I'm sure one would get used to working with it in this way, it's just a little odd & I haven't seen another EQ do this sort of approach before, maybe it makes sense for a Passive design.

Yeah man - this is what I meant before with the 'mental lookup table' comment (or was that another thread?). Now when I need that I go for the 4k2 switch. But then, the 3k5 switch sounds gorgeous in its own way. Great for making a snare punch out with q at max, or for just lifting a vocal out with a more moderate q. Sometimes I can't really decide. It's a PITA when it all sounds good /