The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Pulse Techniques Pultec EQH-2 - Anyone?
Old 3rd June 2020
Pulse Techniques Pultec EQH-2 - Anyone?

Was almost set on a pair of pulse EQP1A3's, then a dealer told me he actually prefers the EQH-2 especially on the mixbus. After looking into it further, I'm ok with not having the 16k freq and the fixed attenuation.

However, am a little confused and finding it difficult to get reliable feedback on the following:

1) The high boost is also fixed, but does anyone know how broad or sharp the Q is? I've heard some say its the same as when set to sharp on the EQP1A. Conversely, I've heard others saying its like the broad setting. Is it still capable of the smooth high boosts pultecs are renowned for at the available frequencies?

2) The EQH is also tube but the circuit is different from the EQP models, missing the interstage transformer etc. Some say its cleaner (hopefully not as clean as the solid state versions) while others have said its actually a bit thicker in sound. This is entirely subjective of course, but I always felt that the SS versions lost a little bit of the fairy dust of their tube counterparts. Does the EQH also lose a bit of that magic due to the missing transformers and circuit differences or lay somewhere in between?

The dealer is overseas so arranging a demo is very difficult.

Thanks in advance for any help!
Old 4 weeks ago
Gear Maniac
Hey there!

Yes I have both here.

My understanding is that the EQP1a is a push/pull circuit (usually more polite) and the EQH2 is Class A (more punchy and direct). I think that's an accurate description of their sonic differences at least. They don't sound very different, but I think of the EQH2 as being clearer and punchier and the EQP as being smoother and more balanced.

People often think of EQH2's with drums and bass and EQP1a's with vocals or mixes. However, I do really like the sound of my EQH2's on the mix. (I only have one EQP1a so I can't compare) There is no lack of "fairy dust" with the EQH2.

I believe (and I have tested a little bit) that the bandwidth of the high freq is in the middle of the knob of the EQP. If it's not in the middle then it tends toward the narrower side. But looking at frequency analyzers it appears to be more in the middle. Either way, it's not annoyingly narrow.

I don't care about losing the 16k option on anything but vocals, where I do like it. However, I tend to use other tools for vocal top end rather than the Pultec 16k.

The nice thing about EQH2's are the price (vintage at least). They're often half what the EQP1a is on the used market. ...though they shouldn't be.

I like the options of the EQP1a, but I might even like the sound of the EQH2 better. It's hard to tell. It sometimes depends on the source. I don't find myself getting too picky about it.

That's my take! I hope it helps.

Thanks for the message. I'll post this on the forum as well.

πŸ“ Reply
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 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…
πŸ–¨οΈ Show Printable Version
βœ‰οΈ Email this Page
πŸ” Search thread
♾️ Similar Threads
πŸŽ™οΈ View mentioned gear