Buzz Audio REQ-2.2 Resonance mastering EQ
Old 9th March 2012
  #31
Lives for gear
 
nomatic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleatoric View Post
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
Old 9th March 2012
  #32
Lives for gear
 
aleatoric's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomatic View Post
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.
Old 9th March 2012
  #33
Lives for gear
 
nomatic's Avatar
My Buzz will steal your Sontec's lunch money!
Old 10th March 2012
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
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?
Old 10th March 2012
  #35
Lives for gear
 
nomatic's Avatar
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.
Old 10th March 2012
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
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?
Old 10th March 2012
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Strut78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World View Post
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.
Old 10th March 2012
  #38
Gear addict
 
Joelistics's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomatic View Post
My Buzz will steal your Sontec's lunch money!
Hmmm... *strokes beard*
Old 10th March 2012
  #39
Lives for gear
 
nomatic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World View Post
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.....
Old 17th March 2012
  #40
Lives for gear
 
aleatoric's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F View Post
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.
Old 21st March 2012
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Old 21st March 2012
  #42
Gear addict
 
DominicWyeth's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Nice one Ben
Old 21st March 2012
  #43
Gear addict
 
mmarra's Avatar
 

Old 21st March 2012
  #44
Lives for gear
 
aleatoric's Avatar
Old 21st March 2012
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Paul Gold's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I like the review. The Fairman EQ is not a passive design. It's like the K+H UE100.
Old 21st March 2012
  #46
Lives for gear
 
nomatic's Avatar
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.
Old 21st March 2012
  #47
Lives for gear
 
inlinenl's Avatar
 

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

ooops !!
Old 21st March 2012
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Gold View Post
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!
Old 21st March 2012
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Paul Gold's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F View Post
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.
Old 22nd March 2012
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 

Verified Member
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Buzz Audio REQ-2.2 Resonance mastering EQ-buzz-willys2.jpg   Buzz Audio REQ-2.2 Resonance mastering EQ-buzz-inside2.jpg  
Old 22nd March 2012
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Gold View Post
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
Old 22nd March 2012
  #52
Lives for gear
 
Huntley Miller's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomatic View Post
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.
Old 22nd March 2012
  #53
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F View Post
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
Old 22nd March 2012
  #54
Gear addict
 
zenmastering's Avatar
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F View Post
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.
Old 22nd March 2012
  #55
Gear addict
 
zenmastering's Avatar
Ahh, so it's not just me...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntley Miller View Post
It's the same issue I have with the NSEQ-F.
Old 22nd March 2012
  #56
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
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.
Old 22nd March 2012
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Paul Gold's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
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.
Old 23rd March 2012
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
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.
Old 23rd March 2012
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
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.
Old 23rd March 2012
  #60
Lives for gear
 
nomatic's Avatar
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...
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Tim Farrant / Product Alerts older than 2 months
80
inthere / High end
2
ed littman / Mastering forum
5
thethrillfactor / High end
12
Ski spiggy / So much gear, so little time!
5

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.