Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Gear Shoot-Outs / Sound File Comparisons / Audio Tests (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/)
-   -   Pultec HW vs SW - Pulse vs Plugins (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/1249153-pultec-hw-vs-sw-pulse-vs-plugins.html)

b0se 6th February 2019 06:42 PM

Pultec HW vs SW - Pulse vs Plugins
 
7 Attachment(s)
Update 24/04/19: Added AA Titanium 3 and reset play counters. Shuffled numbers again bar 1 and 3 since they have been commented on.

Update 24/04/19: Added NoiseAsh Rule Tec. Tried to add SteDal's PureTeq but the trial kept removing settings on export. Enough to put me off buying it.

*** Counters have been reset to hide the latest addition. Numbering shuffled ***

Lynn from Sweetwater shared a great Pultec HW shootout recently. I put my best ITB options up against my favourite HW unit from the test, the Pulse.
  • New: NoiseAsh Rule Tec
  • New: Acustica Titanium 3
  • Acustica Purple
  • Nebula Dual Tech (TimP)
  • Acustica Ruby2 (plus CraveEQ to match the EQ closer as they're different units)
  • Black Rooster VEQ-1P

https://cl.ly/18554d5abd5f/pultec.png

Softube's Tube Tech was included in the original test with the exact dial values listed for the 30Hz and 12Khz boosts, so I used Q-Clone to capture the resulting curve and matched the above plugins to the same levels.

Included Ruby2 as it's a favourite of mine. Not a direct clone but along the same lines.

Random numbering with the original Pulse file included. Processed at 48K and exported as MP3 @ max bitrate. Closer than I was expecting!

b0se 24th March 2019 11:52 AM

Updated with NoiseAsh Rule Tec.

alibling 24th March 2019 12:03 PM

Thx alot.. Titanium 3 eq is not good enough?

wow very close. I like Nr1 and Nr3.

b0se 24th March 2019 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alibling (Post 13883910)
Thx alot.. Titanium 3 eq is not good enough?

wow very close. I like Nr1 and Nr3.

Added kfhkh

Tod Slaughter 24th March 2019 01:52 PM

Would love to know which one is no.6?
No.3 Has the whumpiest whump

b0se 24th March 2019 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tod Slaughter (Post 13883992)
Would love to know which one is no.6?
No.3 Has the whumpiest whump

Incoming PM...

Tod Slaughter 24th March 2019 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0se (Post 13883994)
Incoming PM...

Thanks for the pm. I recently bought it and had an inkling.... kfhkh

Taurean 24th March 2019 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0se (Post 13794425)
Update 24/04/19: Added AA Titanium 3 and reset play counters. Shuffled numbers again bar 1 and 3 since they have been commented on.

Update 24/04/19: Added NoiseAsh Rule Tec. Tried to add SteDal's PureTeq but the trial kept removing settings on export. Enough to put me off buying it.

*** Counters have been reset to hide the latest addition. Numbering shuffled ***

Lynn from Sweetwater shared a great Pultec HW shootout recently. I put my best ITB options up against my favourite HW unit from the test, the Pulse.
  • New: NoiseAsh Rule Tec
  • New: Acustica Titanium 3
  • Acustica Purple
  • Nebula Dual Tech (TimP)
  • Acustica Ruby2 (plus CraveEQ to match the EQ closer as they're different units)
  • Black Rooster VEQ-1P

https://cl.ly/18554d5abd5f/pultec.png

Softube's Tube Tech was included in the original test with the exact dial values listed for the 30Hz and 12Khz boosts, so I used Q-Clone to capture the resulting curve and matched the above plugins to the same levels.

Included Ruby2 as it's a favourite of mine. Not a direct clone but along the same lines.

Random numbering with the original Pulse file included. Processed at 48K and exported as MP3 @ max bitrate. Closer than I was expecting!

hey b0se, not sure if you could add in another. The Ignite PTEq-X is a very good contender, would love to hear it in this shootout before I listen.

Taurean 24th March 2019 06:01 PM

Oh and if you can it, please use ECC83 tube setting. kfhkh

RPH 24th March 2019 11:16 PM

Am curious how overtone ptc-2a compares to the current listing, could you add it as well?

PTC-2A Vintage Program EQ for Windows, Mac and Linux - OverTone DSP

Cheers.

RS AudioEngineer 25th March 2019 03:25 AM

Please pm me what is what ..i like 1 and 6 the most

blayz2002 25th March 2019 01:55 PM

Thanks for the test. 3,7 and 5 jumps out to me with nice transient details and 3-Dness. Can you pm me the results?

Regards

method1 25th March 2019 07:09 PM

No.6 - no idea whats what though, haven't tried any of these.

swartzfeger 26th March 2019 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurean (Post 13884267)
hey b0se, not sure if you could add in another. The Ignite PTEq-X is a very good contender, would love to hear it in this shootout before I listen.

Not speaking for @ b0se and don't mean to hijack/derail his fine work here, but I also thought the Ignite was a good contender, but when I compared Pultec flavors a few months back, the PTEq-x wasn't quite as good on my material (non-scientific, non-A/B testing) against Apogee Pulse and AA Purple. It was my favorite outside of those two however, and for the price... kfhkh

TheMagician 26th March 2019 12:41 AM

3 sounds the best to my ears...

Kodakell 26th March 2019 06:07 AM

can you pm me whats what?

SteDal 26th March 2019 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0se (Post 13794425)

Update 24/04/19: Added NoiseAsh Rule Tec. Tried to add SteDal's PureTeq but the trial kept removing settings on export. Enough to put me off buying it.

* * *


Hey b0se, have you read the message I've PM'ed you?

Asher Bay 26th March 2019 06:19 PM

Tried the NoiseAsh Rule Tec last night. While it is a good eq for sure, I found it to be kind of stiff sounding. The curves sound good but almost linear.

b0se 26th March 2019 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteDal (Post 13887616)
Hey b0se, have you read the message I've PM'ed you?

Must have missed it - will check!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asher Bay (Post 13888058)
Tried the NoiseAsh Rule Tec last night. While it is a good eq for sure, I found it to be kind of stiff sounding. The curves sound good but almost linear.

Not up to Dual Tech standards, but it's the best algo imo (including saturation). Quite a few have picked it out as their fave (via PM). Sounds big!

muratengin 26th March 2019 11:05 PM

Can you pm me please?

Asher Bay 27th March 2019 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0se (Post 13888559)
Must have missed it - will check!



Not up to Dual Tech standards, but it's the best algo imo (including saturation). Quite a few have picked it out as their fave (via PM). Sounds big!

NoiseAsh seems to be making some noise with this releasekfhkh I'll have my eye on future releases.

ime24seven 27th March 2019 03:11 AM

PM please

WheelieR 29th March 2019 10:20 PM

Coming after a long session.

I prefered 1 and 6 based on low-end. I really don't like 7 at all, I think it's horrible compare to the others (especially the high-end). 3 has the biggest low-end to me (which can sounds cool if it is what you want). 3 also has a very good low-end punch/dynamic, which could make it my favorite too...

1 is the brightest to me (in a good way). 6 is not bad in terms of high-end IMO. 3 hasn't the best high-end IMO.

In terms of transient 1 is interesting. Although 3 has a very good punch too.

All in all I like 1 and 3, with 6 being close to them and 4 being interesting !
3 having the biggest punch but having kind of fuzzy high-end compares to 1 which is a bit more "mild", has a bit more "breath" and a reasonable high-end. A good all-arounder which may fits most situations IMHO.

I am entitled to have the results in PM now ? heppyheppyfreshflowe

SameOh 29th March 2019 10:41 PM

Hi Bose, can you send me again the PM, with the new ones added?

Thanks.

Taurean 29th March 2019 11:08 PM

I'll take the silence on my add request as a "no"

So here's my take on these files:

1 seems more dynamic and bit more clarity than 2 and 3.
3 has a "compressed" quality to it.
4 was similar to 1 in dynamics and openess but also has better weight.
5 and 6 are more like 1 with 5 having slightly more upper mid range.
5, 6, and 7 actually all seem to have more upper mid range with 7
sounding the most different of them all. It's startling how different 7 is really.

4 is my favorite here.

Please PM me results.

Kodakell 29th March 2019 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurean (Post 13894588)
I'll take the silence on my add request as a "no"

So here's my take on these files:

1 seems more dynamic and bit more clarity than 2 and 3.
3 has a "compressed" quality to it.
4 was similar to 1 in dynamics and openess but also has better weight.
5 and 6 are more like 1 with 5 having slightly more upper mid range.
5, 6, and 7 actually all seem to have more upper mid range with 7
sounding the most different of them all. It's startling how different 7 is really.

4 is my favorite here.

Please PM me results.

PM me results as well please

tacertotambem 30th March 2019 05:08 AM

Using a DT770 Id say Pultec 6 is hitting best to me.

b0se 30th March 2019 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WheelieR (Post 13894507)
Coming after a long session.

I prefered 1 and 6 based on low-end. I really don't like 7 at all, I think it's horrible compare to the others (especially the high-end). 3 has the biggest low-end to me (which can sounds cool if it is what you want). 3 also has a very good low-end punch/dynamic, which could make it my favorite too...

1 is the brightest to me (in a good way). 6 is not bad in terms of high-end IMO. 3 hasn't the best high-end IMO.

In terms of transient 1 is interesting. Although 3 has a very good punch too.

All in all I like 1 and 3, with 6 being close to them and 4 being interesting !
3 having the biggest punch but having kind of fuzzy high-end compares to 1 which is a bit more "mild", has a bit more "breath" and a reasonable high-end. A good all-arounder which may fits most situations IMHO.

I am entitled to have the results in PM now ? heppyheppyfreshflowe

Thanks for participating! Incoming PM :¬)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SameOh (Post 13894534)
Hi Bose, can you send me again the PM, with the new ones added?

Thanks.

Indeed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurean (Post 13894588)
I'll take the silence on my add request as a "no"

So here's my take on these files:

1 seems more dynamic and bit more clarity than 2 and 3.
3 has a "compressed" quality to it.
4 was similar to 1 in dynamics and openess but also has better weight.
5 and 6 are more like 1 with 5 having slightly more upper mid range.
5, 6, and 7 actually all seem to have more upper mid range with 7
sounding the most different of them all. It's startling how different 7 is really.

4 is my favorite here.

Please PM me results.

Hey T.

It's not intended to be a comprehensive list with requests - just thought the results from my own tests would be interesting/helpful to others.

PMs incoming...

alexishere 30th March 2019 03:20 PM

I liked the 2,5 and 6 - good balance

3 has a very bloomy low end..

1 has the least low end and I think it could probably be tweaked to have some more.

PM me please!

the_mixer 30th March 2019 05:05 PM

I like 1 and 6. PM the results?