Just tried a Great River Harrison EQ...
Old 5th July 2010
  #1
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Just tried a Great River Harrison EQ...

I tried it on vocal, guitar, and drums and I was pretty underwhelmed. Sounded alot like an old Mackie Board EQ or an Old Studiomaster EQ to me. I didn't like the low end very much and he high end wasn't particularly shimmery. The mids were the best part about it but still seemed clinical. For those who are digging it, what are you comparing it to and what am I missing?
Old 5th July 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Yeah....I'm not sure I get it. I haven't heard the Great River...so it may be fantastic.....but I sure hated the EQ in the old Harrison 3232. I used a couple of those quite a bit in years past.


Kirt Shearer
Old 5th July 2010
  #3
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
I tracked on a Harrison console a couple times, I liked the eq very much.
I can't imagine even a poor imitation of one could be even half as bad as
mackie EQ, that has to be an over exaggeration. Nothing is as bad as a mackie.
It's just not possible for something to be that bad...... twice in our life time.
It would defy all possible odds.
Old 5th July 2010
  #4
Lives for gear
 
rogerbrain's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelterr View Post
I tried it on vocal, guitar, and drums and I was pretty underwhelmed. Sounded alot like an old Mackie Board EQ or an Old Studiomaster EQ to me. I didn't like the low end very much and he high end wasn't particularly shimmery. The mids were the best part about it but still seemed clinical. For those who are digging it, what are you comparing it to and what am I missing?

Ha!! I have owned enough mackie stuff to to know I do not like the sound of the Mackie EQ at all very unnatural and snarly. Half the preceived boost is snarl.

the EQ32's just boost the area I am boosting and they sound the same but louder. I am not hearing a lot of 'Mackie shimmer' or 'bass boom' or snarl .. but that is NOT what I am after. I can bring up the top end or low end of a source and all it does is make it a bit louder.

I think it does a fine job, I don't get the same thing from a Portico or Avalon or Purple or Altec.. not for every job but when the sound is right and I need a little 'equalization' if fills the bill quite well. if I want to change the sound I use something else.

I am glad we are allowed to own more than one EQ

Robert- the EQ in my Yamaha M406 is pretty bad and would give any Mackie a run for its munny IMHO
Old 5th July 2010
  #5
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
I tried it out and thought old studiomaster. My buddy tried it out with no mention of anything by me, stated it was like a better version of his 24-8 mackie console. I had a studiomaster 32-8 console, he had the Mackie24-8 and we both related it to those eqs independent of each other. Is it better than both...sure. But not by enough.
Old 5th July 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 
666666's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelterr View Post
...I was pretty underwhelmed. Sounded alot like an old Mackie Board EQ or an Old Studiomaster EQ... seemed clinical. For those who are digging it, what are you comparing it to and what am I missing?
The question is, what eqs are YOU comparing it to?

And how's your monitoring, etc?

To state that a 32EQ in any way sounds like an old Mackie mixer eq means you're just not hearing correctly. There is a problem somewhere.

Perhaps you simply do not prefer the sound / response of a 32EQ, fine, but a 32EQ is undoubtedly a very high-end unit with very rich fidelity and overall stellar sonic performance... unlike an old Mackie 8-bus mixer eq which is about as bad as it gets. If you are not able to detect a very big difference between the two, you likely need better monitoring and/or need to work with more eqs, do more listening, etc. I say this not to insult your audio abilities etc, but to perhaps help bring you to a heightened state of audio awareness.

On a related note, lately I've been shocked at how many of my audio friends have really bad monitoring... even guys that I respect. I go to their places and I can't hear anything. If your monitoring isn't really good, you may not be able to appreciate the wonderful yet subtle richness of great gear... and if so, think about how this will effect your work. Something to look at.

Once you are able to detect a big difference between a Mackie eq and a 32EQ, then you'll know that your monitoring is good and that you're hearing well.

Old 5th July 2010
  #7
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666666 View Post
The question is, what eqs are YOU comparing it to?

And how's your monitoring, etc?

To state that a 32EQ in any way sounds like an old Mackie mixer eq means you're just not hearing correctly. There is a problem somewhere.

Perhaps you simply do not prefer the sound / response of a 32EQ, fine, but a 32EQ is undoubtedly a very high-end unit with very rich fidelity and overall stellar sonic performance... unlike an old Mackie 8-bus mixer eq which is about as bad as it gets. If you are not able to detect a very big difference between the two, you likely need better monitoring and/or need to work with more eqs, do more listening, etc. I say this not to insult your audio abilities etc, but to perhaps help bring you to a heightened state of audio awareness.

On a related note, lately I've been shocked at how many of my audio friends have really bad monitoring... even guys that I respect. I go to their places and I can't hear anything. If your monitoring isn't really good, you may not be able to appreciate the wonderful yet subtle richness of great gear... and if so, think about how this will effect your work. Something to look at.

Once you are able to detect a big difference between a Mackie eq and a 32EQ, then you'll know that your monitoring is good and that you're hearing well.

These responses crack me up. I listened to the EQ in the same room where i do all of my mixing and on speakers i am familiar with. This sentence "I go to their places and I can't hear anything" is hilarious to me because you are somehow claiming that you hear music in the correct way and all of your buddies have messed up systems. I tried the EQ in the place where i craft mixes and was underwhelmed. Im not comparing it to anything else, just judging it on its own merit. Truth be told, i am still searching for an outboard EQ that really gets me going, cuz the Harrison wasn't it.
Old 5th July 2010
  #8
Lives for gear
I don't know about the eq but the pre is a bad ass mofo to track vocals on! I would think it was better than a mackie but it would also depend on your listening enviroment, monitors and a lot of other factors. Maybe you don't like it and another eq would be suited for what you do... I see no problem with that. Myself I'm a big API fan when it comes to tracking instruments and compression and given the choice i like my whole instrument chains to be API 512c with a API 2500 especially on my drum buss and my vocals to be great river or neve with a la2a.

I don't see a problem with him not liking it maybe it just doesn't work for what he wants. oh well
Old 5th July 2010
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666666 View Post
The question is, what eqs are YOU comparing it to?

And how's your monitoring, etc?

To state that a 32EQ in any way sounds like an old Mackie mixer eq means you're just not hearing correctly. There is a problem somewhere.
I thought this thread was about the Great River NVEQ which i might agree can be perceived on the clean/underwhelming side, but then i saw it was about the Great River Harrison type EQ which i have not tried.

But everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Old 5th July 2010
  #10
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelterr View Post
Im not comparing it to anything else, just judging it on its own merit. Truth be told, i am still searching for an outboard EQ that really gets me going, cuz the Harrison wasn't it.
It's interesting to know what you're references are, from all I know you could be a guy that have tried two eq's, a mackie and the Harrison.
Old 5th July 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 

I got a pair of the Harrison EQ's about a month ago, and at first I was somewhat underwhelmed. But, after a bit of time, I realized that it seemed their strength lies in their diversity. These are not really mojo EQ's, but they have great HP/LP filters and 4 bands with overlapping frequencies and both bell and shelving on the high/low bands. There tone is on the clean side but has a richness to it. It kind of depends on what your needs are. You won't find me absolutley raving about these EQ's, but I've developed some good respect for them because they are just so tweakable and their sound is solid. Well worth their money in my opinion, and a good EQ to have in your arsenal. If you want to change the sound, these are not your EQ's, but if you want to accentuate or cut certain parts of the source and keep the original tone intact while subtley enhancing, these are for you. My 2 cents. - paul

p.s. - I think these are a wonderful addition to the 500 series. It seems the only other eq that has similar controls is the Speck EQ. Anyone compared the two?
Old 5th July 2010
  #12
Gear addict
 

I was about to buy a pair but I'm trying not to be fooled by the hype, everything seem to be GREAT!!!! the first two months at this place
Old 5th July 2010
  #13
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Re: Just tried a Great River Harrison EQ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by steffo
I was about to buy a pair but I'm trying not to be fooled by the hype, everything seem to be GREAT!!!! the first two months at this place
This was what I noticed. A bunch of people raving about them so I assumed they had to be good. I'm not saying it's terrible or unusable. But $1500 for a pair seems steep for the sound quality. I just couldn't see myself wanting to use it very often. I'm probably looking for more of a mojo eq but I was disappointed nonetheless. If someone is using them to create quality mixes, more power to them. It just didn't speak to me.
Old 5th July 2010
  #14
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by steffo View Post
It's interesting to know what you're references are, from all I know you could be a guy that have tried two eq's, a mackie and the Harrison.
I have heard/used many eq's over the years and I never personally owned a Mackie board. I've used Neve, Avalon, Manley, API, SSL, CraneSong, Inward Connections, Focusrite, and many other EQ's over the years. I favor every one of them over the Harrison. The Harrison was so well regarded on these boards that I thought i would give it a try, with the intention of buying them. My buddy was in the same boat and had the exact same reaction when he tried them out.
Old 5th July 2010
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Surbitone's Avatar
There's quite a few EQ's that may sound a bit 'meh' on their own, but when you start using them within a mix, you really start to appreciate their qualities.
Old 5th July 2010
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
I tracked on a Harrison console a couple times, I liked the eq very much.
I can't imagine even a poor imitation of one could be even half as bad as
mackie EQ, that has to be an over exaggeration. Nothing is as bad as a mackie.
It's just not possible for something to be that bad...... twice in our life time.
It would defy all possible odds.
Ever hear of Behringer?! I'd wager the Eurodesk is as bad as mackie...

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelterr View Post
This sentence "I go to their places and I can't hear anything" is hilarious to me because you are somehow claiming that you hear music in the correct way and all of your buddies have messed up systems.
why is this hilarious? what's it got to do with "hearing" music in the "correct" way?

Some people prefer certain monitors over others, and that's fine. But bad acoustics are bad acoustics, and that's not subjective. Someone might be able to make decent mixes in a poor sounding room, but that doesn't change the fact that the room is poor and the same person would most likely be able to do better (or at least, find it easier) in a well designed, neutral room.

It's very possible that 666666's friends have poor monitoring - how would YOU know that's not the case? heck, some professional studios have poor monitoring - there's rooms I'd use for tracking that I'd never use for mixing!
Quote
1
Old 5th July 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
666666's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelterr View Post

....This sentence "I go to their places and I can't hear anything" is hilarious to me because you are somehow claiming that you hear music in the correct way and all of your buddies have messed up systems...
Several of my buddies DO have messed up systems... a lot of places I go to have very poor monitoring. It's not just a question of what one is used to, but a question of the ability of the monitoring system (speakers, room, etc) to communicate sound accurately.

One friend of mine (who is a brilliant musician) has a pair of cheap monitor speakers, placed in a very poor position, in a horrible untreated, asymmetrical room... stereo imagining is horrible, there is a tremendous mud issue, overall terrible frequency response and representation etc... very warped and inaccurate... but he loves it and feels it's excellent. Fine, you could say it works for him because that's what he's used to, but the bottom line is that his monitoring system likely doesn't reveal even half of what is going on with the audio. It's like he's watching a movie with very dirty sunglasses on. I don't think it would be at all possible to assess fine subtleties of high-end gear on his system.

Even myself, I remember back some years ago when I had less experience and a lesser quality monitoring situation, there are some assessments I had made that I would not at all agree with today. And most often what I was incorrect about was feeling that certain colored gear was "clean" and "clinical"... and that's because I just wasn't hearing on an accurate enough level. I remember working with an Avalon pre, Amek 9098 pre/eq, etc, and feeling these were ultra clean... but of course they are not... sure, put one up against a 1073 or 550A even on a not so great monitoring system and they will seem "clean" by comparison, but then put them up on a great monitoring system, and maybe throw a GML in there for comparison, and then you realize just how very colored they are. The same would hold true for the 32EQ. Compared to something that is truly "clean", the 32EQ is a color monster.

This is all subjective and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but my main issue here is the comparison of the 32EQ to a Mackie eq. The QUALITY of the 32EQ is extremely HIGH... undoubtedly. VERY rich fidelity. Whether you prefer it or not is another story. The quality of an old Mackie eq is extremely poor, it is pretty much void of any level of fidelity. One has nothing to do with the other. Just because a unit may seem clean or even a bit clinical does not mean it's poor. How do you feel about GML gear? I personally feel it may be some of the best stuff on the planet, but some folks would consider it too clean, clinical, etc.

So what I'm saying here, there is a difference between "quality" and "character". A 32EQ offers VERY high "quality" sound, but it may have a "character" that some do not prefer. An old Mackie eq is of very poor "quality", regardless of character.

Anyway, I personally happen to really love the 32EQ, it's quite unique in that it offers excellent transient response while having an overall "sweet", colored character to it. Many / most units that have a pleasant color usually lack good transient response. I happen to enjoy / desire good transient response, at least with the majority of the gear I'm using for an average mix. Others may prefer the opposite and that's totally cool.

Quote
1
Old 5th July 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 
666666's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post

...But bad acoustics are bad acoustics, and that's not subjective. Someone might be able to make decent mixes in a poor sounding room, but that doesn't change the fact that the room is poor and the same person would most likely be able to do better (or at least, find it easier) in a well designed, neutral room... heck, some professional studios have poor monitoring - there's rooms I'd use for tracking that I'd never use for mixing!
Just saw this now... well put... spot on... thanks for clarifying.
Old 5th July 2010
  #19
Lives for gear
 

That's funny because when Mackie mixers came out I thought the EQ sounded sort of SSL like. SSL eq always reminded me of a boombox EQ. In fact that's what makes it useful for poking sounds into the mix. It's not lush and forgiving like a Pultec or the shelf of a neve. Maybe the Harrison is a console eq made in the same regard?
Old 5th July 2010
  #20
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Re: Just tried a Great River Harrison EQ...

Every piece of gear I buy, I buy because of what I hear in my own environment and how I see it helping me create mixes. And lots of gear seems like a must have when I test it out. I have been wowed by many a subtlety and have made lots of smart purchases as a result. And given all the hype, I expected quite a bit more from the Harrison. Maybe it's one of those units that grows on you but I generally find that if I don't have a "wow" moment while trying out gear, then I should go find something that gives me that moment.
Old 5th July 2010
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelterr View Post
but I generally find that if I don't have a "wow" moment while trying out gear, then I should go find something that gives me that moment.
Same here.thumbsup
Old 5th July 2010
  #22
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Ever hear of Behringer?! I'd wager the Eurodesk is as bad as mackie...
maybe worse
Old 5th July 2010
  #23
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winey View Post
That's funny because when Mackie mixers came out I thought the EQ sounded sort of SSL like. SSL eq always reminded me of a boombox EQ. In fact that's what makes it useful for poking sounds into the mix. It's not lush and forgiving like a Pultec or the shelf of a neve. Maybe the Harrison is a console eq made in the same regard?
I remember Harrison eq being sort of colorful and some slight fatness to it. Mackie has none of those qualities

As far as ssl eq goes, its not the pinnacle of analog eq, but sonically it never took anything off the table and it is very functional. Mackie eq makes things sound worse and is just overall weird sounding.
Old 5th July 2010
  #24
Gear addict
 
Fabi's Avatar
 

I can only speak for the EQs of the series 12 but i assume they are somewhat not too far away ???

These EQs are quite clean sounding and might be uniteresting at first, but they are incredibly exellent workhorse EQs.

The sound good (=not bad) on everything you feed them with.
There might be other EQs that will be better for particular sources, but I have yet to find something so useful and forgiving for ALL kinds of things.

It gets the job done. It never sounds like you have to change it for a different EQ even at extreme settings.


If they sound very different than the series12 EQs just forget everything I just posted and finally convince me not save money for one.
Old 8th July 2010
  #25
500 series nutjob
 
pan60's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelterr View Post
I tried it on vocal, guitar, and drums and I was pretty underwhelmed. Sounded alot like an old Mackie Board EQ or an Old Studiomaster EQ to me. I didn't like the low end very much and he high end wasn't particularly shimmery. The mids were the best part about it but still seemed clinical. For those who are digging it, what are you comparing it to and what am I missing?
WHAT?
i say check you monitors or room.
their is no way in hell anyone could compare the Harrison 32EQ to a mackie and get taken serious, JMHO.
yes it is more on the not so colored side, and i love it!
and i have enough EQs here: )
Old 8th July 2010
  #26
Jai guru deva om
 
warhead's Avatar
 

The Clip-A-Lator happens to have the Harrison 32EQ as well as channel 3 in a Mackie Onyx mixer with full audio and video files.

The Harrison is a smooth performer for the most part and does hard filtering well (like extremely hard!) and doesn't seem to have a huge amount of cut or boost in the parametric bands (compared to many others). It's pretty "safe" but I don't mean that in a boring way. It delivers a nice tone and sculpts without bringing in too many artifacts.

Very cool 500 offering in my opinion.

War
Old 11th July 2010
  #27
Lives for gear
 
rogerbrain's Avatar
I have a mackie 1202 with 4 mono channels and 4 stereo channels .. thats 8 channels with EQ!!!

.. anyone that wants to trade for a pair of the EQ32's let me know
Old 11th July 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Just tried a Great River Harrison EQ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan60

WHAT?
i say check you monitors or room.
their is no way in hell anyone could compare the Harrison 32EQ to a mackie and get taken serious, JMHO.
yes it is more on the not so colored side, and i love it!
and i have enough EQs here: )
Let me clarify this again. I used it on my own and it reminded me of an old 32-8 Studiomaster board I had. I kept that thought to myself and had my buddy in the studio across the hall try it out and HE said it reminded him of his old Mackie 24-8 eqs. Neither of us thought it was identical to either eq, but we both went from being really envious that a friend had one, to definitely not feeling the need to buy it. I figured this reaction that we both had might be useful to those who have heard the hype and not the actual eq.
Old 11th July 2010
  #29
Lives for gear
 
666666's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelterr View Post

...but we both went from being really envious that a friend had one, to definitely not feeling the need to buy it...
Interesting, because when I first heard a 32EQ, I went from not having much interest in it at all (because I never fall for hype) to buying a bunch. I had never heard or used any Great River products before (just circumstance) and I'd been 100% happy with all my other gear, I didn't feel a need to explore any new stuff, but once I heard the 32EQ, I was so glad I did... and I'm now a fan of Great River just based on this one product alone. Any manufacturer that has the vision and skill to put out a product like this ranks up there with the very best. What I love so much about the 32EQ is the incredible versatility, not only in terms of eq / filter control, but in terms of sound. It's colored just enough to remind one of old school analog goodness, but yet is still fast and clear enough to retain the presence and richness of your pristine audio tracks.... they ARE pristine, right?

Well, that's my 2 cents anyway. I am in no way affiliated with GR, nor do I sell gear, etc... I do not gain anything by promoting GR... but I feel credit should be given when credit is due.

"Gimmick of the month" products, by comparison, do not impress me at all, what impresses me are good, solid, versatile, usable products that allow good work to get done regardless of the situation. Gimmick gear comes and goes, people hear it and get overly excited at first listen, then sell it off a few months later once they realize how limited the use is or how the actual fidelity isn't really that good, etc. And there's a lot of gimmick gear always floating around. So when when a piece like the 32EQ come along, it's a time for rejoice... a manufacturer that had the vision and "balls" to put out a truly excellent usable piece, and not just a flashy gimmick.

But yes, it's all subjective, just stating my own personal opinions.
Quote
1
Old 11th July 2010
  #30
Lives for gear
 
rogerbrain's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666666 View Post
Interesting, because when I first heard a 32EQ, I went from not having much interest in it at all (because I never fall for hype) to buying a bunch. I had never heard or used any Great River products before (just circumstance) and I'd been 100% happy with all my other gear, I didn't feel a need to explore any new stuff, but once I heard the 32EQ, I was so glad I did... and I'm now a fan of Great River just based on this one product alone. Any manufacturer that has the vision and skill to put out a product like this ranks up there with the very best. What I love so much about the 32EQ is the incredible versatility, not only in terms of eq / filter control, but in terms of sound. It's colored just enough to remind one of old school analog goodness, but yet is still fast and clear enough to retain the presence and richness of your pristine audio tracks.... they ARE pristine, right?

Well, that's my 2 cents anyway. I am in no way affiliated with GR, nor do I sell gear, etc... I do not gain anything by promoting GR... but I feel credit should be given when credit is due.

"Gimmick of the month" products, by comparison, do not impress me at all, what impresses me are good, solid, versatile, usable products that allow good work to get done regardless of the situation.

But yes, it's all subjective, just stating my own personal opinions.
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
andychamp / So much gear, so little time!
236
Jake Holland / High end
137
herecomesyourman / So much gear, so little time!
6

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

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.