Clariphonic EQ

[dhiltonlittle]

Has anbody tried one of these in a mastering situation?

I've been hearing really good things about it. Especially opening up the top end.

Kush Audio UBK Clariphonic Parallel Equalizer | VintageKing.com

[Suade]

...watching with interest....

[Silver Sonya]

Used with a deft touch, it's fantastic.

- c

[Herbeck]

It seems to be the harware version of Sonoris new Parallel Equalizer, or vice versa.


All the best

Herbeck

[Shy]

Originally Posted by Herbeck

It seems to be the harware version of Sonoris new Parallel Equalizer, or vice versa.

No...

[PBM]

Originally Posted by Shy

No...

+1 - the Sonoris parallel (as I understand it) there is not a standardly split wet/dry signal and so no recombination - with the potential phase problems that have been raised as an issue on this board before ...

From a conversation with Pieter: "In my design there is a dry signal path, BUT, it is needed to construct the bell or shelf filter with the processed channel. This is done with feedforward or feedback. The filters in the SPEQ are not regular bell or shelves but they are when combined with a dry signal. So you have 1 dry signal in parallel with 5 filters that combine to shelves and bells. The low and high cut are in series."



Cheers,
Eric

[wado1942]

Funny, I thought I came up with that idea 15 years ago, except I used a variable low-shelf and a mono-summing mixer. So I could enhance the low end in parallel but the more I boosted, the more "mono" the low end would be.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Used with a deft touch, it's fantastic.

- c

anyone else wanna chime in?

[PBM]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

anyone else wanna chime in?

Good timing: I'm just writing up my review for SOS this week.

It's great - an unsurpassable mud-clearer, for example. I sent a before/after sample of a simple rescue to a number of ME's who post here and the reactions were unanimously amazed.

It was also good that Gregory was happy to discuss design etc with me. It's not a box you need to `understand' to use though.

And a little goes a very long way.

I loved it.

Cheers,

Eric

[DannyDCB]

amazing piece of gear from the samples ive heard so far:

do want!!!

Clariphonic: The Ultimate Mix Buss EQ on Vimeo

[LunchboxHo]

We used one last weekend -- very interesting bit of gear. I agree it requires a deft touch, as it easily induces unwanted extra energy in problem zones (ie. Sibilance etc). But we *really* liked it for ease of use. May sound dumb, but felt like a new take on a tilt EQ/exciter than anything else. Perhaps a more capable & experienced hand could make better use of it and describe it better. Ultimate verdict is: liked it, but also scared me!

[t_d]

my next eq is going to be this or the bax....

thoughts on kush vs dangerous?

maybe app,es and oranges since kush has no low end..

and maybe my massove passive high shelf does (sort of) what these boxes do up high (?)

hmmm.

video samples of the kush were highly impressive tho.

[priko]

Originally Posted by t_d

my next eq is going to be this or the bax....

thoughts on kush vs dangerous?

maybe app,es and oranges since kush has no low end..

and maybe my massove passive high shelf does (sort of) what these boxes do up high (?)

hmmm.

video samples of the kush were highly impressive tho.

No, you can't compare Massive Passive high shelf to the BAX. The BAX is a completly different sound, more clean, luminous and soft

[t_d]

thanks for the info.. my buddy dietrich has a bax.. so we'll compare it to the MP one of the days..

i know they're quite different.. but i'm a big fan of the MP high shelf.. it sounds really open.

Originally Posted by priko

No, you can't compare Massive Passive high shelf to the BAX. The BAX is a completly different sound, more clean, luminous and soft

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by t_d

my next eq is going to be this or the bax....

thoughts on kush vs dangerous?

maybe app,es and oranges since kush has no low end..

and maybe my massove passive high shelf does (sort of) what these boxes do up high (?)

.

I have all 3 of these at my place right now. I own the MP and am demoing the others. All 3 sound different. Clariphonic is a cool idea and sounds very nice, but I'm buying the BAX because it has cut as well as boost, great HP and LP filters, and low frequency goodness. Functionally BAX has much better repeatability/recall with it's stepped controls. Better design for mastering IMO. Also, due to it's summing design, the Clariphonic boosts the entire frequency range when even just the highest band is turned up, which can be unwanted. If I buy a Clariphonic one day it will be for tracking and mixing. Great for that.

.

[t_d]

awesome info.. thanks... sounds like you made the right choice.. and helped me make up my own mind as well..

Originally Posted by Trakworx

I have all 3 of these at my place right now. I own the MP and am demoing the others. All 3 sound different. Clariphonic is a cool idea and sounds very nice, but I'm buying the BAX because it has cut as well as boost, great HP and LP filters, and low frequency goodness. Functionally BAX has much better repeatability/recall with it's stepped controls. Better design for mastering IMO. Also, due to it's summing design, the Clariphonic boosts the entire frequency range when even just the highest band is turned up, which can be unwanted. If I buy a Clariphonic one day it will be for tracking and mixing. Great for that.

.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

Also, due to it's summing design, the Clariphonic boosts the entire frequency range when even just the highest band is turned up, which can be unwanted.

I can definitely see how that would seem to be what's happening, but it's actually simpler than that.

On any band, including the highest, the Clariphonic does what any other shelving eq does: it adds whatever energy is in the shelf. The thing about the Clariphonic's shelves is that most of them are so gentle they reach all the way down into the low mids, and some reach all the way down into the bass.

So it's not boosting the entire frequency range equally because it's parallel, it's boosting the entire frequency range in a slope-like way because the entire frequency range is often within the shelf's band, albeit with proportionally less energy as you go down the octaves.

In that sense the Clariphonic is like a tilt of sorts, except that unlike a tilt (which continues climbing forever) the Clariphonic does have a corner at which the shelves plateau. I experimented with tilts, but to my ears they became overly aggressive at moderate boosts (2-3db) and got worse from there, so I ditched the concept.

BTW, the reason the highest band seems like it raises overall rms more than the others is because the corner of that shelf is around 38k, which is extraordinarily high. So you need to turn it up quite a bit more than the others to even hear it on most material, hence everything else coming up with it.

Not that any of this changes your experience of it or matters from a practical perspective; it's a completely different tool than the bax and even though people often compare them in the abstract, generally one tool is clearly a better choice for a given situation or workflow. If you need cut as well as boost, and you need bass control as well, bax is a no-brainer. If you need to re-focus a sound towards the top and want a bunch of unique ways to shape and sculpt all the different bands above 800hz, I don't know of anything that can compare to the Clariphonic.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[Trakworx]

Thanks for clearing that up Greg!

.

[mixerguy]

anyone else wanna chime in?

[Silver Sonya]

This is an unhelpful response, I suppose, but I love both the BAX and the Clariphonic.

The BAX was a more recent purchase, along with a Lisson Grove R-124 (and a second Lisson Grove for stereo when I can afford it).

All just stunning stuff, truly. I really do feel like we're in some kind of golden age of gear these days. On both the low and high end of audio development, fantastic stuff is happening. I feel really fortunate to be alive.

RE: Clariphonic specifically: Greg's stuff has a great feel. You can sense the personality behind it. It was a very happy purchase and I'd get another one if I had the dough.

- c

[William Bowden]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

Thanks for clearing that up Greg!

.

Don't you mean 'for clarifying that Greg'?

The King

[12ax7]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

Thanks for clearing that up Greg!

Yeah.

...Its almost like he KNOWS stuff, or something!

.

[Riccardo]

Just curious, do you use the R-124 mainly as a tracking/mixing comp?

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

This is an unhelpful response, I suppose, but I love both the BAX and the Clariphonic.

The BAX was a more recent purchase, along with a Lisson Grove R-124 (and a second Lisson Grove for stereo when I can afford it).

All just stunning stuff, truly. I really do feel like we're in some kind of golden age of gear these days. On both the low and high end of audio development, fantastic stuff is happening. I feel really fortunate to be alive.

RE: Clariphonic specifically: Greg's stuff has a great feel. You can sense the personality behind it. It was a very happy purchase and I'd get another one if I had the dough.

- c

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by u b k

If you need to re-focus a sound towards the top and want a bunch of unique ways to shape and sculpt all the different bands above 800hz, I don't know of anything that can compare to the Clariphonic.

Definitely sounds like a spiffy way to turn up the treble.

I'm not sure I'd want the treble turned up anything like what I heard happening in that video though. Those were completely different mixes when it was bypassed.

Mychal

[StephenMarsh]

I demo'd one last month (Thank you Dave Bryce!).

It sounds good however, the interface doesn't lend itself to mastering. More of a vibe piece for your stereo mix buss.

YMMV

--Steph

[12ax7]

.

Anybody out there ever tried this thing on the reverb send to a REAL EMT plate?

.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Peakly

I'm not sure I'd want the treble turned up anything like what I heard happening in that video though. Those were completely different mixes when it was bypassed.

Agreed. For what it's worth, I don't do what I do in demo's as any kind of example of what anyone should do with my gear; my goal is just to show what's possible, to show how the stuff performs all the way out to the edges.

So you may not want to crank it like that, but I think it's pretty remarkable that you can and it still sounds sweet. And if you mix with it in from the beginning, it won't change your mix, but rather you'll be tailoring your mix to the different response. In that regard it's no different than compression.

Personally, I use it on vox and drums, and if I use any on the mix it's just the tiniest kiss of the 38k shelf; if I'm lifting 1db I'd be surprised.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[api2500]

Originally Posted by u b k

Agreed. For what it's worth, I don't do what I do in demo's as any kind of example of what anyone should do with my gear; my goal is just to show what's possible, to show how the stuff performs all the way out to the edges.

So you may not want to crank it like that, but I think it's pretty remarkable that you can and it still sounds sweet. And if you mix with it in from the beginning, it won't change your mix, but rather you'll be tailoring your mix to the different response. In that regard it's no different than compression.

Personally, I use it on vox and drums, and if I use any on the mix it's just the tiniest kiss of the 38k shelf; if I'm lifting 1db I'd be surprised.


Gregory Scott - ubk

I think even the demos sound pretty sweet. Aching to my hands on one.

[acorneau]

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question...

So how about a "Mastering Edition" with detented/log-able knobs and a reduced range with finer resolution?

[12ax7]

Originally Posted by u b k

[...]and if I use any on the mix it's just the tiniest kiss of the 38k shelf; if I'm lifting 1db I'd be surprised.

...So ya think the mojo is more about with what's happening with phase and whatnot (rather than the actual freq. response)?

.