The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Pultec clone for mix buss
Old 22nd January 2020
  #31
WA Eqpa.. Thought they where ok. A bit dark and lowend a bit wooly. Also added a grainy texture which could be nice for acoustic music or more indie rock/pop. Not for me though. Felt sturdy and looked great. Sold mine..

I have a Hammer eq and it sounds very nice. Probably the most expensive highend I've heard. Very clean for a tube eq but also being on the cleanside it works great on the master bus. Boost 2-4dbs on 5khz and you know what I'm talking about! Could be had for 1-1200€ used.
Old 23rd January 2020
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fromthepuggle View Post
I have and love the AML Pultec for tracking, seriously considering a second one for mixbus. Is it difficult to match settings for stereo imaging on mixbus? This is a real concern of mine, and why I'm wondering about the Goly.

I'd also like to complement the AML with something else for mixbus on mids. I tried Thermionic pullet, as much as I love the pultec approach to highs and lows, passive mids left me feeling a bit like I want more crunchy character in my mids, felt similarly when I had Thermionic Swift (great eq, but liked the AML pultec highs/lows sooo much).

In the past I owned quite a few eqs that I tried and sold or liquidated what remained to make a large synth purchase: Hammer Mk1 (loved the mids and proportional q on mixes!), Stam Neve EQ (glorious crunchy mids but limited), Chandler CB 500 module and Germanium TC (more crunch mids and crazy highs, but worry that highs could get a little shrill on a mix, didn't compare one to one with neve style eq, not sure how they'd differ in tone), Phoenix DRS gyrator eq (really deep cuts/boosts, lot of fun for tonal sculpting while tracking, still have this). From what I can tell, I like inductor based color for mids. Have considered various vintage racked console EQs for this as well. I could see rebuying Hammer (mk2 this time), a neve style eq, or germanium tc, but maybe something else fits the bill better.

Any recommendations on what sort of crunchy inductor type eq use to complement a pultec style-pair on mids for mixbus? Prob should start a thread on just that.
You're review of The Swift EQ is spot on, asbsoultey the best tube stereo EQ I've ever had the pleasure of hearing.

Talk about being able to get "inside" the music, so much depth and so 3D and that Air band and presence knob .... for me it just has that large format console sound in a stereo box.

I'll have to save up and get one some day!

The Mastering engineer used the Swift paired with a Thermionic Phoenix Master Plus, the two together sounded beyond glorious .... talk about feeling like you can fall into a mix .... not cheap though!

I could quite happily put this pair on my mix bus and never take them off again.
Old 23rd January 2020
  #33
Gear Head
 
peter sikking's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fromthepuggle View Post
I have and love the AML Pultec for tracking, seriously considering a second one for mixbus.

Any recommendations on what sort of crunchy inductor type eq use to complement a pultec style-pair on mids for mixbus?
on-topic plug: I designed the peqex 5+ to exactly complement Pultecs;
add the missing bands (lower-mid bells, a glorious air band, high-mid bell attenuation
and a low cut filter), with complementary frequencies and sonically cut from
the same cloth.

all the mid bells are inductor eq. for your crunch quest I recommend using
Neve/Chandler-style preamps for make-up gain, running them in between the
peqex and Pultec so they can get their ya-ya’s out driving the Pultec input.
AMK offer some nice options for that IIRC.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #34
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stixstudios View Post
There are discrepancies with the output levels in the Sweetwater tests: https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/pu...sound-samples/ (which puts the KTN-EQPT in a very unfavourable light). I stumbled across it by accident (also others on this forum have pointed it out). I just happened to be looking at my meters on my mixer and suddenly noticed a difference in output levels.

This was in the test, Drum Mix (I didn't bother to check the other tests for obvious reasons). It looked like the KT was about 2db lower than others. I didn't bother to download the files, I simply adjusted the slider until it looked like they matched on my mixer meters.

Then I played the samples again and "voila"!!!... What a huge f*cking difference it made . The KT now sounds noticeably better than any of the plugins to me and not too far off some of the more expensive HW. And in my opinion the KT sounds more to my liking than the WA.

I can't believe that professionals like Sweetwater would not have noticed the glaring problem and also that it hasn't been rectified. What a joke!!! Unless of course it was done on purpose .

Klark Teknik should get onto Sweetwater's arse and demand it be taken down or fixed. I would if it was my product!!
I disagree with this...

The only thing that Sweetwater can calibrate with 100% accuracy is input level into each unit.

An audio circuit - especially a tube circuit with lower end components - is subject to a phenomena called overshoot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(signal)

Practically speaking, with something like a tube circuit, limits in the power supply can cause an exaggeration in the peaks of a waveform. To generalize, this is pretty common with crappier PSU designs.

There is also some interplay between the output of the unit and the impedance it is loaded with, and whether or not it results in any reflected load.

All of this leads to the amount of overshoot varying with frequency.

So, if you take an arbitrary peak or set of peaks, and level adjust based on only that, you are arguably basing it on a series of incorrect assumptions. It isn’t just minor level difference in the output driver circuits that can be adjusted for simply, it is more fine grained and nuanced.

You could try some sort of level average like LUFS, but at that point I bet it leads to “well, lets keep input the same, and print what happens without manipulating levels after the fact”. That is probably the most useful data to have.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #35
Lives for gear
 
stixstudios's Avatar
Well, I wasn't the only one that saw and heard the issue. Did you actually have a listen and look at the output levels in the Sweetwater tests?

Like I said, I used my meters on my Mixer and leveled the outputs that way - I tried to make sure the test files peaked at the same point. Why not? How could this be wrong?

Also to "my ears" the KT-EPQT sounded lower in volume, it also looked lower in volume on the meters. Apart from that, what else do you think is important?

It sounds lower, it looks lower, it sounds lower, it looks lower...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #36
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stixstudios View Post
Well, I wasn't the only one that saw and heard the issue. Did you actually have a listen and look at the output levels in the Sweetwater tests?
Yes. Read through what I wrote again. If you don’t understand or disagree, that’s fine by me. You can’t really accurately adjust levels in that way by just peak because of the points I raise in my post.

Or let me rephrase...

Do you think that if any of the units had limitations which caused an exaggeration of the peak of a given waveform, making it spike past where it did in the unprocessed file, that it is still useful to adjust to that peak? Or if a given unit “lops off” some peaks (slew rate differences)...is the peak of the waveform still useful for adjustment?

What if the amount of each of these behaviors varies over frequency range?

What if the overshoot at 10k is greater than the overshoot at 1k with one given unit? What if yet another unit exhibits overshoot at peaks up around 10k, but none at 1k? How do you use just the peak of a waveform to level volumes when it is not necessarily indicative of matched level in cases where there is overshoot? And with these units, especially the lower end ones, there definitely is.

The only thing Sweetwater could really keep consistent is the input volume.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #37
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

I “get” if you think an approximation would have been more useful, I just think from a purely scientific, really solid textbook audio engineering perspective, that there are some pretty valid reasons not to get into that in a case like this.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #38
Lives for gear
 
stixstudios's Avatar
Maybe I shouldn't have said "peak". I guess what I'm looking at on my meters is "average" level. So that's what I went by. Although I still did look at the peaks and adjusted the gain accordingly.

Have you actually checked it out yourself? If you did, then you would understand what I'm getting at.

Quote:
..there are some pretty valid reasons not to get into that in a case like this...
I completely disagree. There is EVERY valid reason to get into a case like this. I think the KT-EPQT was mis-represented.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #39
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Yes, I definitely read it and listened! I agree with their methods because of the reasons I laid out. No offense meant, people can disagree...or maybe place greater value on some data.

I think if they had done that it would only be approximate and would have taken away what the non adjusted samples actually tell you about what the circuit really did to the audio. As of now, you can discern how much gain each added from its output/“line driver” stage. Level adjusting via somewhat arbitrary criteria, without pink noise or at some specific frequency, not taking into account transient response/slew rate, not taking into account the high likelihood of varying amounts of overshoot...I think it is probably an exercise best left to the reader.

Of course relative volume has an impact on perception, and I don’t mean to take away from that point. Just saying it is a can of worms to truly level match these, and one person’s idea about what that means may be different than another’s.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #40
Lives for gear
 
stixstudios's Avatar
It's simple to match the levels. You only need to look at the meters.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Yeah ok.

Read up boys.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #42
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Looks like it is a futile effort on my part to try to lead a horse to water, but again:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(signal)

and further:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_rate

*Adjusting to peaks in program audio is based on flawed understanding of audio engineering science*.

Good luck guys, just was leaving this reasoning here for anyone who wants to take time to comprehend it.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #43
Lives for gear
 
stixstudios's Avatar
Yep. You're correct toledo3, it is futile.

I'm simply using my ears and my eyes. My brain doesn't have to think about over-shoot, slew rates or other scientific realities. I'll stand by what I said. The Sweetwater test is flawed for those "listening" to it. Afterall, it is a "LISTENING" test. Is it Not???
Old 2 weeks ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

I’m not really trying to engage in an argument here. I’m just adding some information for perspective, for those who find it useful. If you don’t find it useful now, you may on some future occasion.

If you understood what I am saying, it wouldn’t warrant much more than an “oh yeah”.

Just to try to make it as simple as possible one more time. Think of a quick transient, like a snare hit or snappy guitar note. A piece of gear with “slow” transient response might knock it down by a dB...or two or three. It might leave a slower transient preserved at the same output level. In the case of overshoot, it might even *add* a peak somewhere in the frequency response.

If you have used a lot of tube gear over the years, it is something you have probably encountered enough to be able to recall times you have encountered this in some form.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 
mu6gr8's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmago Šmon View Post
Hi guys, I am moving from itb to a hybrid setup. Hope someone would chime in. For stereo eq on mix bus I ... have an option on a Manley stereo Pultec clone..what do you guys think...looking for rich harmonics an smooth top end, good midrange and tight bass....

Many thanks
Zed Smon
Hi Zed. I highly recommend the Manley Pultec on the mix bus. It is not a precise clone--it is a hi-fi hot-rodded "enhanced" version with high quality parts, low noise and a sweet sound. I've used it on every mix I've done for many years. Love it!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #46
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrible.dee View Post
Well, my opinion is you are a paid Astroturfer, who makes his living trying to misinform people and steer them towards whatever inferior (And in this case it's already KNOWN that these units were bad, so don't even bother lying about it) a company has paid you to shill for.

My crystal ball says you are about to start gaslighting, strawmaning, insulting and using any and all dirty "internetz" means at your disposal to defend and distract from your true intent, or the truth about the product you are sleazing for.

Anything you do is going to reflect BADLY on WARM audio, as anything you say will be charged to them directly. So why not do them a favor and GO AWAY.

You'll thank me later.
I could care less about your "OPINION" which sounds pretty much stupid to me if you think I make money by saying I like the warm audio EQ... The only one "sleazing" would be you.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump