KuSh Audio Clariphonic for mastering [Review]

[T. Gundersen]

Thank you for taking the time out to do this write-up Holger. I've been kind of interested in the unit for some time, so it's nice to see what you think about it. I'd be using it mostly for mixing though, but it just has some of the functions that I found myself looking for within my current setup!

[Red Mastering]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

..... It's definitely a right-brain machine, but not the color box I originally expected. I mean that in a good way, i.e. it can be used in moderation and in subtle ways for smooth enhancements...

great review!
it's indeed very intriguing tool
and I like your right-part brain comparison,
thanks for making an effort

[Beatworld]

Originally Posted by Red Mastering

great review!
it's indeed very intriguing tool
and I like your right-part brain comparison,
thanks for making an effort

Thanks for taking the time.

[dangerousben]

Thumbs up, helped me for picking new gear to demo.

[grandmasters]

I have one in my rack. I spent about $600 modifying it for lower RF noise and a 10db quietier noise floor. Had to disable the power switch but in the end, I think it was totally worth it.

Here was some of the work that was done:

Re-do grounding on XLR's and TRS connection. Attempt to reduce RF susceptibility in unit in general. Some improvements gained by improving mechanical ground connections between pots, switches, jacks and lid to chassis. Removed wiring to power switch after hearing from UBK, re-dressed other wiring. NF now -88.85dbu, both channels.

[duke89061]

Any pictures of the insides?

Is it physically possible to replace the pots with rotary switches, if someone's willing to do the work?

[DominicWyeth]

Nice one.

[inlinenl]

nice .. I has some guys over who worked with it ( mix ) , and they really liked it, even after the first aha weeks ... I'm curious :-)

[ionian]

Originally Posted by duke89061

Is it physically possible to replace the pots with rotary switches, if someone's willing to do the work?

I don't think so - well, I'm sure you can get switches put in, but I had reached out to Gregory asking him this and he had said more or less that the Clariphonic uses very specific pots because of the logarithmic taper and that it was near impossible to find what he wanted in a pot and that a switch would be impossible to find.

I had one for a while and really loved the sound and what it did but in the end, I ended up selling it because the annoyance of matching the pots. I tried other methods such as using Waves Q-Clone, which worked great for using one channel to make a stereo channel for a track but in the end, I was using the Clariphonic more with Waves Q-Clone then I was just as hardware just to avoid the stereo matching, so I figured I should sell it since buying a Clariphonic just to use in conjunction with a plug-in defeated the purpose of paying for the hardware.

I still do miss it and from time to time think about picking it up again, but in the end, even using tones, I felt was a PITA and an unnecessary break in my workflow, just to stereo match. Especially since I've gone through pains demoing and selecting equipment with stepped pots and switches so that all of my setup is stepped for easy recall and stereo matching so the Clariphonic was the only speed bump.

I'd be lying if I didn't say that from time to time when I'm using 3 or 4 bands on an EQ to adjust a sound that I don't think to myself, "Damn, if I still had my Clariphonic, I could do this in 10 seconds with one or two bands!"

I wish it were available with switches.

Regards,
Frank

[Miles Flint]

great review!

I use mine in M/S mode, very useful there too..! and no problem for stereo matching

first, I missed stepped controls... but since I'm familiar with the different modes and how they work it's very easy to setup and recall settings from pictures, if needed, great results in just a few seconds!

mf

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by ionian

I don't think so - well, I'm sure you can get switches put in, but I had reached out to Gregory asking him this and he had said more or less that the Clariphonic uses very specific pots because of the logarithmic taper and that it was near impossible to find what he wanted in a pot and that a switch would be impossible to find.

That shouldn't pose a problem when making a stepped switch, as any curve is possible depending on the resistor value of each step.

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by grandmasters

Re-do grounding on XLR's and TRS connection. Attempt to reduce RF susceptibility in unit in general. Some improvements gained by improving mechanical ground connections between pots, switches, jacks and lid to chassis. Removed wiring to power switch after hearing from UBK, re-dressed other wiring. NF now -88.85dbu, both channels.

My base noise floor is -104.57 dBFS through the Lynx Hilo DA>Dangerous Liaison>Lynx Hilo AD. The Clariphonic raises that to -95.30 dBFS (peak). That's with the Clariphonic inserted and Focus on both channels being active, but turned down. I think that's a quiet unit all things considered, or at least mine is.

EDIT: numbers updated after updating my chain with new gear.

[ionian]

Originally Posted by Ben F

That shouldn't pose a problem when making a stepped switch, as any curve is possible depending on the resistor value of each step.

If Greg offered a mastering edition with switches or stepped pots I'd be all over that.

Regards,
Frank

[grandmasters]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

My base noise floor is -90.91 dBFS (peak) through my DA>Liaison>AD. The Clariphonic only raises that marginally to -88.96 dBFS (peak). That's with the Clariphonic inserted and Focus on both channels being active, but turned down. I think that's a very quiet unit, or at least mine is.

Have you listened to the noise floor? I found it was very susceptible to RF and the noise floor was a hum rather than noise.

[Lagerfeldt]

Yes of course, no hum whatsoever and no RF interference problems here. I can't say if your unit had some problems from the factory, but it sounds like it to me. Anyway, you got it fixed.

[grandmasters]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Yes of course, no hum whatsoever and no RF interference problems here. I can't say if your unit had some problems from the factory, but it sounds like it to me. Anyway, you got it fixed.

I doubt it was a factory problem. More likely there is more RF interference in my area than yours. For a recording studio it wouldn't be a problem at all but most of my equipment is 'over-built' and the Clariphonic is not but at it's price point, you wouldn't expect it to be. It's by far the cheapest thing in my rack.

Considering most of my gear is modified to some point, I was happy to do it to the Clariphonic to make it more 'mastering quality'. I wouldn't have done it if I didn't think it was a good box.

[Jules]

Dont suppose you could copy your review and put it in the reviews section?
Please?

Thanks

[Storyville]

Nice review.

I'm a mix guy, not a masterer, but I use my Clari on mixbus on just about every mix. Interestingly enough I've found my favorite settings to usually be "Lift, Tight", and "Sheen." And a quarter turn of each knob seems to do the trick (occasionally less on the Lift one). It just moves everything forward in a subtle but nice way.

I don't really use Silk much on the 2-buss. I use it more inside the mix. It's sort of a first aid EQ for a source that's so dull it's on the verge of suicide. Something that you can't really make brighter in conventional ways because it thins out or gets harsh. Or if I just want to add a little tiny somethin' somethin' but I want it super subtle. So it's not getting used a lot - but when I do use it I find it pretty irreplaceable. If the Silk channel was separate from Presence/Sheen/Shimmer, I'd probably use a little of it on my 2-buss as well.

[Liam Judah]

Great review, and as well solid feedback from others. Thank you everyone for sharing!

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by Jules

Dont suppose you could copy your review and put it in the reviews section?
Please?

Thanks

Since you're asking so nicely, with please and all.

[drbob1970]

Thanks for this review! I just bought a Clariphonic (very recent batch, QC is dated from August).
I noticed a shift in the stereo when it's put across a bus, and the knob are in the same position.
The focus engine is fine, and in clarity engine, presence is also fine. I tried to quantify the shift so I've put a signal generator in mono on a stereo bus, sawtooth wave, followed by clariphonic. All knobs are at 12 o'clock.
- no engine engaged, both channels measure -15 dB
- lift diffuse: -13.2 / -12.9, OK
- sheen: -13.9 / -13.1
- silk: -14.5 / -12.9
The differences in sheen and silk mode are even clearer with FF out.
Presence and shimmer are OK.
The shift is much less noticeable on the monitors than on headphones.

Have you noticed something similar during your review?

I actually sent this to the UBK site and the answer was the following:

"Thanks for clarifying your approach. To answer your question:

> Is it an expected bevaviour, based on the tolerance of the components used or whatever? - YES.

The Clariphonic is not a stereo unit; stereo units have one set of controls for both channels. This is the dual-channel, or dual-mono, unit; each channel is independent, and needs to be treated as its own entity.

This is actually normal, as the manufacturing of potentiometers today can only achieve a +/-20% tolerance from one to the next. That means it is conceivable that two channels could have as much as a 40% disparity between them (!). More often, channels fall within the bell curve and are +-12% of each other.

In any case, for precise stereo matching, you have to do the same with this unit as with any other dual-mono unit: align with test tones. A 1k is standard; get it in the ballpark by ear, then kill the FF switches and align levels so that the boost is the same for each band on each channel. That's 4 alignments total.

---------------
So it looks acceptable, but I was still wondering if units from other production batches are maybe better matched.
Cheers

[ionian]

Originally Posted by drbob1970

Have you noticed something similar during your review?

When I had my Clariphonic both channels were actually off from each other by a significant amount. The best I could assume was that they don't put the knobs on by calibration as it probably would take too much time. They probably just turn the pots all the way to one side and put the knobs on and tighten them when they look the same without regard to the differences between the pots.

What I did basically was take the knobs off the second channel, using test tones I matched the channels as close to perfect as I could and then I put the knobs back on and tightened them. After that, matching the knobs visually meant they were pretty close. I could always use a test tone to tighten it up but they were never that far off from each other even by visually aligning them.

It took a few times, though as putting the knobs on might shift the pot a bit and throw it off so I had to do it a few times before I managed to tighten the knobs without shifting the pot!

Regards,
Frank

[grandmasters]

For mastering purposes, I would only use it in M/S as I would any device not specifically designed for dual-matched mastering specs.

Originally Posted by drbob1970

Thanks for this review! I just bought a Clariphonic (very recent batch, QC is dated from August).
I noticed a shift in the stereo when it's put across a bus, and the knob are in the same position.
The focus engine is fine, and in clarity engine, presence is also fine. I tried to quantify the shift so I've put a signal generator in mono on a stereo bus, sawtooth wave, followed by clariphonic. All knobs are at 12 o'clock.
- no engine engaged, both channels measure -15 dB
- lift diffuse: -13.2 / -12.9, OK
- sheen: -13.9 / -13.1
- silk: -14.5 / -12.9
The differences in sheen and silk mode are even clearer with FF out.
Presence and shimmer are OK.
The shift is much less noticeable on the monitors than on headphones.

Have you noticed something similar during your review?

I actually sent this to the UBK site and the answer was the following:

"Thanks for clarifying your approach. To answer your question:

> Is it an expected bevaviour, based on the tolerance of the components used or whatever? - YES.

The Clariphonic is not a stereo unit; stereo units have one set of controls for both channels. This is the dual-channel, or dual-mono, unit; each channel is independent, and needs to be treated as its own entity.

This is actually normal, as the manufacturing of potentiometers today can only achieve a +/-20% tolerance from one to the next. That means it is conceivable that two channels could have as much as a 40% disparity between them (!). More often, channels fall within the bell curve and are +-12% of each other.

In any case, for precise stereo matching, you have to do the same with this unit as with any other dual-mono unit: align with test tones. A 1k is standard; get it in the ballpark by ear, then kill the FF switches and align levels so that the boost is the same for each band on each channel. That's 4 alignments total.

---------------
So it looks acceptable, but I was still wondering if units from other production batches are maybe better matched.
Cheers

[drbob1970]

Originally Posted by ionian

When I had my Clariphonic both channels were actually off from each other by a significant amount. The best I could assume was that they don't put the knobs on by calibration as it probably would take too much time. They probably just turn the pots all the way to one side and put the knobs on and tighten them when they look the same without regard to the differences between the pots.

So, the offset was the same whatever the filter you selected?
In my case, only 2 of the 6 "bands" present a significant offset.

[bassfuzz]

[QUOTE=Storyville;8239168And a quarter turn of each knob seems to do the trick l.[/QUOTE]

My main gripes with it are for mastering even with the controls at zero it still seems to be boosting the band(at least on the unit I use), rarely need to go past a quarter turn of the knob. Also as its not relay bypassed, and in my chain seems to slightly color the sound even in bypass. YMMV...
A mastering version w relay bypass and stereo stepped controls (with a more precise limited range) would be cool.

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by drbob1970

All knobs are at 12 o'clock.
- no engine engaged, both channels measure -15 dB
- lift diffuse: -13.2 / -12.9, OK
- sheen: -13.9 / -13.1
- silk: -14.5 / -12.9
The differences in sheen and silk mode are even clearer with FF out.
Presence and shimmer are OK.
The shift is much less noticeable on the monitors than on headphones.

Have you noticed something similar during your review?

Yes, you'll need to use at least a 1kHz test tone for matching. Using a non-detented dual mono unit for mastering isn't optimum, as mentioned in the review, but it's a workflow thing that some can live with, and some can't.

I'll be adding a Dangerous Bax to my setup at some point, but the Clariphonic has something special that's nice to have once in a while.

Originally Posted by ionian

I had reached out to Gregory asking him this and he had said more or less that the Clariphonic uses very specific pots because of the logarithmic taper and that it was near impossible to find what he wanted in a pot and that a switch would be impossible to find.

If you were to accept not having the exact original logarithmic curve in order to get steps wouldn't that be an option? However, since it's still dual mono it might be difficult getting the sides to match completely, i.e. the overall visual precision would be better, but you'll never get it as precise as when using a test tone and stepless pots?

[Lagerfeldt]

After some discussion with my tech guy I've decided to mod the Clariphonic with Elma switches and 0.1% resistors. That should translate to more than 0.03 dB precision. I'll post more info and some pics later. The price will be about $750 for the complete mod.

[ionian]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

After some discussion with my tech guy I've decided to mod the Clariphonic with Elma switches and 0.1% resistors. That should translate to more than 0.03 dB precision. I'll post more info and some pics later. The price will be about $750 for the complete mod.

Fantastic! Let us know how it turns out. I sold my Clariphonic because of this, so if you get a good result I'd love to be able to do this to this as well. I'd buy another one just to mod it.

Keep us informed.

Thanks!
Frank

[scruffydog]

Anyone know why my clariphonic looks different to the pictures?
i don't have a switch on the back for balanced /unbalanced and the IEC mains is not in the middle but to one side at the back?
is this a revision?