how good is the UAD cambridge?

[sheltersoton]

i have the pulteq and neve eq's but think i need some thing more surgical, i have the waves reneq is the cambridge much better?

Cheers!

neil

[Mr. Green]

Yes. By a lot.

IMHO

It's my goto eq, and I'm struggling to find a software replacement since I'm about to go all native and those cards are so severely underpowered - by todays standards.

Not to mention I'm switching to PCIe.

Yep... got my eye on that Mac Pro...

But I digress.

Great eq.

[AlphaDingo]

Heck of a lot better than Waves but still not all that great. I'd look at the refined audiometrics plpareq plugin. Linear phase and super awesome. Doesn't take up too much processor and is super awesome. Beats the shit out of the other two. www.refinedaudiometrics.com

[Ashermusic]

One of the few UA plugs I do not like. Very harsh in the highs.

[max cooper]

It's so so.

[living sounds]

I haven't used it in a long, long time. No punch, harshness, smeared transients. My favourite mixing EQ plugin is freeware and uses very little CPU. Get it here (PC only):

http://www.ddmf.eu/IIEQ.htm

[Brad McGowan]

I use it a lot for the high and low pass filters. There are certainly better sounding plugin EQ's out there, but it does sound better than Waves. And for non-critical tracks it works just fine.

Brad

[asagaai]

Living sounds - a big for Freeware-always sceptical with freebies, but I just downloaded and tried it and am getting some nice tight sounds outa it.

Good on yah for the reco.

Gavin Jensen
Newcastle OZ

[AB3]

I am afraid I will like it and it is $1000. even $500 would be more tempting. But for that kind of money, I have to question whether I should get more hardware.
Unless you are telling me that this knocks out good eq hardware.

Originally Posted by AlphaDingo

Heck of a lot better than Waves but still not all that great. I'd look at the refined audiometrics plpareq plugin. Linear phase and super awesome. Doesn't take up too much processor and is super awesome. Beats the shit out of the other two. www.refinedaudiometrics.com

[Onan]

I don't share the opinion that UAD Cambridge is harsh. I like it a lot, and find it very musical. I don't do massive boosting with it, just gentle tweaks.

I use the UAD pultec on my output bus, with the highs cranked for "air." So I don't do a lot of track eq'ing, just little tweaks. Since the UAD is underpowered, I use waves ren eq for hi-pass on a lot of things that don't need any further eq, and save UAD horsepower for Cambridge only where I have to eq.

I'm dying for UAD to release a more powerful card.
Lee

[insomnio]

For me, is nice for HP and LP filtering. But I don't find it a lot better than Waves.
For non surgical Pultec-Pro is beautifull sounding. URS are very nice too.

________________
Insomnio

[carlsaff]

The HP and LP are the best I've seen in the software realm.

But I've stopped using it for anything else.

[u b k]

don't agree that it's harsh, that's a moniker i'd reserve for renEQ.

'clinical', perhaps, or 'sterile'. it's possible to open the top on cymbals or loops and not get crunchy, with a wide push and a narrow pull. but i use analog for this, beats the software hands down every time.

hpf filters are great, try the elliptical on kick or bass, and tune that resonant peak to a note... niiiice.

a very useful tool.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[monobeat]

it is my goto for hi-lo cuts and anything remotely surgical. obviously not as soft as the putec, but i find it uterly usefull

cheers, monobeat

[Bob Yordan]

I think the Cambridge is a nice eq, even though it add a digital
touch to a mix. I mostly use it to remove harsh elements.

[Matt Smith]

As others have said, I use it all the time for surgery and (especially) the filters.

Matt