Buzz Audio REQ-2.2 Resonance mastering EQ

[nomatic]

Originally Posted by aleatoric

Interested to read your impressions after spending some time with it!

I been tying to tell you its the sizzle.......

But who listens to me

[aleatoric]

Originally Posted by nomatic

I been tying to tell you its the sizzle.......

But who listens to me

Really? When? I don't recall you going on and on about it every time we talk...

I need to play with one of these in person.

[nomatic]

My Buzz will steal your Sontec's lunch money!

[Tube World]

Could someone explain how it sounds. How dos it compare to a Ibis, GML, and the Avalon 2055. It's tone is super clean, clean musical, clean but more character than the Ibis?

[nomatic]

Compared to the Avalon and Gml it will sound warmer and less clinical.
There is a elegance and weight to the bottom end when boosting and the highs are very sweet. The most interesting thing is the ability of this unit to seemingly move elements in a mix forward or back in the soundstage without
artifacts.
The other thing I will say is the Buzz does the least harm to music
when significant boosts and cuts are required.
One of the finest Equalizers currently manufactured.

[Tube World]

Thanks for the input, so if you have a Avalon or GMl this would be a good second Eq option. I would assume it does not round the signal as much as the massive Passive?

[Strut78]

Originally Posted by Tube World

Thanks for the input, so if you have a Avalon or GMl this would be a good second Eq option. I would assume it does not round the signal as much as the massive Passive?

I would say that the Avalon and gml would be a great second EQ to the buzz, try it out if you can The buzz really stopped me searching endlessly for the right EQ. I use it everyday as my main EQ, I also have a massive passive, ibis, api 5500 and bax in the rack, but the buzz gets used on every project and the others are just added to taste.

[Joelistics]

Originally Posted by nomatic

My Buzz will steal your Sontec's lunch money!

Hmmm... *strokes beard*

[nomatic]

Originally Posted by Tube World

I would assume it does not round the signal as much as the massive Passive?

It is not as loose and creamy as the massive which is a great eq in its
own right.....

[aleatoric]

Originally Posted by Ben F

I've been playing with the Buzz as well and will report back soon.

What's the word Ben?

Interested to hear your thoughts on the Buzz as it seems like you have owned lots of EQ's including a Sontec.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by aleatoric

What's the word Ben?

Interested to hear your thoughts on the Buzz as it seems like you have owned lots of EQ's including a Sontec.

Here is my review!

Buzz Audio REQ 2.2 Resonance Mastering Equalizer

[DominicWyeth]

Nice one Ben

[mmarra]

Originally Posted by Ben F

Here is my review!

Buzz Audio REQ 2.2 Resonance Mastering Equalizer

Really great write up Ben as it's one of my fav reviews I have read in awhile. Thank you for sharing your experience with the Buzz EQ

[aleatoric]

Originally Posted by Ben F

Here is my review!

Buzz Audio REQ 2.2 Resonance Mastering Equalizer

Nice. Good, informative review Ben. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[Paul Gold]

I like the review. The Fairman EQ is not a passive design. It's like the K+H UE100.

[nomatic]

Nice review!

I would add that the perception of the softening of transients in the
low end can be mitigated by using a much tighter Q in boosts
than is normal with other EQs.

[inlinenl]

Ben F, you're talking about the TMC which is the tube mastering compressor ... I guess you mean Fairman TMEQ ...

ooops !!

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by Paul Gold

I like the review. The Fairman EQ is not a passive design. It's like the K+H UE100.

Thanks Paul. It's still has no active components, so I would call it passive.

Wim thanks for that error it's been corrected!

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by Ben F

Thanks Paul. It's still has no active components, so I would call it passive.

You could but you would still be wrong. It has tubes which are active components. It doesn't have any inductors. Have you tried to design a passive band pass filter section without inductors? It's impossible. The EQ network is wrapped around the feedback path. Just like a modern design. It is absolutely not passive.

[Ben F]

The review doesn't show photos for some reason so here is a picture at King Willy's studio. You can appreciate the build quality inside and out.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by Paul Gold

You could but you would still be wrong. It has tubes which are active components. It doesn't have any inductors. Have you tried to design a passive band pass filter section without inductors? It's impossible. The EQ network is wrapped around the feedback path. Just like a modern design. It is absolutely not passive.

Debatable. I meant that the Fairman TMEQ does not use transistors or op amps. Yes the tubes are active. I think people will get the idea.

"In control systems and circuit network theory, a passive component or circuit is one that consumes energy, but does not produce energy. Under this methodology, voltage and current sources are considered active, while resistors, transistors, tunnel diodes, glow tubes, capacitors, metamaterials and other dissipative and energy-neutral components are considered passive. Circuit designers will sometimes refer to this class of components as dissipative, or thermodynamically passive."

Passivity (engineering) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Huntley Miller]

Originally Posted by nomatic

Nice review!

I would add that the perception of the softening of transients in the
low end can be mitigated by using a much tighter Q in boosts
than is normal with other EQs.

But it sounds like just putting it inline softens the bottom before you do any EQ'ing. It's the same issue I have with the NSEQ-F.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Ben F

Debatable. I meant that the Fairman TMEQ does not use transistors or op amps. Yes the tubes are active. I think people will get the idea.

Maybe not.

Passive means the curve is created separately from the gain stage.

A passive EQ has a loss (sometime very large, like 40-50dB) and is followed by a gain make-up stage.

As opposed to in feedback (like Baxandall, etc.) like Paul said. This makes it an active EQ.

There is really no inherent advantage to one over the other, although the great majority of EQ's are active topology.


DC

[zenmastering]

The TMEQ uses Resistor-Capacitor feedback around an active device (tube) to create the filters...it's active.full-stop.

Nice review of the Buzz...adds a lot of useful info not mentioned elsewhere.

Graemme

Originally Posted by Ben F

Debatable. I meant that the Fairman TMEQ does not use transistors or op amps. Yes the tubes are active. I think people will get the idea.

[zenmastering]

Ahh, so it's not just me...

Originally Posted by Huntley Miller

It's the same issue I have with the NSEQ-F.

[MattGray]

yeah the LF band on the REQ is one of the least used. Sontec is tighter & preferred over the REQ but more often than not the API 5500 does most of my LF cuts & boosts it's just tighter.

I still think the LF on the REQ is useful for some jobs where you need to smooth the bottom or make things warmer/larger. All 5 EQ's I have in here have their strengths & weaknesses. The REQ has great low mids, upper mids & highs, the LF sat is useful for some jobs. The LF & HPF sections don't get used all that often. Not a big deal when you have a 5500 or a BAX.

As mentioned though I think the Lundahl output transformers help with the transient softening you're hearing Ben. I believe Tim's output stage softens things a little where the Lundahls sound more focused, bigger, tighter.

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by dcollins

There is really no inherent advantage to one over the other,

I wasn't trying to make a quality judgment based on topology. I give both approaches a class A.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by MattGray

yeah the LF band on the REQ is one of the least used. Sontec is tighter & preferred over the REQ but more often than not the API 5500 does most of my LF cuts & boosts it's just tighter.

I still think the LF on the REQ is useful for some jobs where you need to smooth the bottom or make things warmer/larger. All 5 EQ's I have in here have their strengths & weaknesses. The REQ has great low mids, upper mids & highs, the LF sat is useful for some jobs. The LF & HPF sections don't get used all that often. Not a big deal when you have a 5500 or a BAX.

As mentioned though I think the Lundahl output transformers help with the transient softening you're hearing Ben. I believe Tim's output stage softens things a little where the Lundahls sound more focused, bigger, tighter.

The Buzz REQ is up there with the best, there is no doubt about it.

[Silvertone]

Great review Ben. Goes along with the one I did in Tape-Op, only yours is better.

This REQ2.2 is the only EQ that got me to sell my beloved Pultecs... no EQ would ever get me to sell my Pultecs... but this one did.

Tim built this EQ with real chokes and filters... most EQ's just simulate these (on a chip). It took Tim 10 years to get it right... but I'd say he GOT IT RIGHT.

As for the softened low end... no more than what a Pultec does... and I owned both tube and solid state Pultecs. I'd say the Buzz matches what the solid state low end sounded like (which were tighter than the tube ones).

That said with tight Q's I use the low end of the Buzz all the time. YMMV.

[nomatic]

That said with tight Q's I use the low end of the Buzz all the time. YMMV.[/QUOTE]

I use the Buzz for low end boosting daily.......
I get what folks are saying about the bass frequencies but my take
on it is that it feels like a very subtle slowing which fits my esthetic.
You know the way a good bass player pulls back slightly behind the
beat to create perceived weight in a track. The Req does this for me
very well but if a track is more aggressive I will boost with the Bax...