[SWAN808]

Hi Folks,

I generally do all of my audio work "in the box" using plug-ins, although I have a small collection of outboard gear that I use mainly for recording. The main mic preamp that I use is a Warm Audio WA-273 EQ which is basically a copy of a Neve 1073.

I've recently been experimenting with using hardware on my mixbus and I've found that the WA-273's EQ sounds far better than any plug-in EQ. Without going all "audiophile",  the difference is quite noticeable, adding a sort of "3D" depth to the sound. I suspect that this is due to the EQ's inductors doing things to the signal's phase, as well as slight differences in the EQ settings between the L/R channels. Whatever it is, it definitely sounds better than software (e.g. a Sonimus Burnley 73).

So my question is, is this difference specific to inductor EQs or is it something that all analog EQs have (more or less)?

The reason I'm curious about this is because I'm planning to build a W492 EQ but I'm thinking if this effect is specific to inductor EQs then maybe I should look at some other design.

Cheers,

Chris

I know what you mean, although I'm not sure many people really no why. Majority tend to say its placebo but I've passed blind tests in the past (I believe I passed some on the 1073 from a certain developer who claimed their model was indistinguishable)...so I can't help with the suggestion why except say I've noticed differences in software and hardware processing that I put down to the very subtle differences between signal processing in the analogue and digital domain...it's quite rare that I prefer the digital processing from a sound perspective but also rare that I prefer the convenience and impact of my wallet in the analogue processing...

[rock soderstrom]

I don’t know why, but digital works, analog rocks.

+1

[abbey road d enfer]

I don’t know why, but digital works, analog rocks.

I don't want to be rude, but to me it's similar to saying "Bud sucks, Coors rule".
It does not really help others making an opinion.
Perhaps I'm too much a quibbler nitpicker engineer and not enough a salesman politician TV expert artist, but this kind of assertion should be backed by comparative audio abstracts. Or a demonstration of the superior workflow.

[JohnRoberts]

I don't want to be rude, but to me it's similar to saying "Bud sucks, Coors rule".
It does not really help others making an opinion.
Perhaps I'm too much a quibbler nitpicker engineer and not enough a salesman politician TV expert artist, but this kind of assertion should be backed by comparative audio abstracts. Or a demonstration of the superior workflow.

I find myself often not posting my opinions about opinions, it is pointless to argue about what other people say they hear.

For some circuit design is an objective, linear exercise, for others more subjective.

The drawing board sub forum is nominally for "analog theory and design".

carry on, Abbey you are not alone...

JR   

[ruffrecords]

A wise man once said "An opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it".

Cheers

Ian

[80hinhiding]

I don't want to be rude, but to me it's similar to saying "Bud sucks, Coors rule".
It does not really help others making an opinion.
Perhaps I'm too much a quibbler nitpicker engineer and not enough a salesman politician TV expert artist, but this kind of assertion should be backed by comparative audio abstracts. Or a demonstration of the superior workflow.

It's actually like saying, digital works well, but he prefers analog.  He didn't say digital sucks.
Some people love digital painting, but it lacks something in a lot of people's opinions, including mine.  And you know what, opinions are worth something.

Abbey, you have an inflated sense of your abilities when it comes to engineering and music making.  You are definitely on the rude side, and I don't mind saying it. As is JR and a few others here.  Inflated egos with a sense of your place here as some kind of rulers of the audio design field, at least here on groupdiy.

For some, audio design is both art and science, not one or the other.  Back off with the who's right or wrong, or calling people phools, or claiming everything has to be backed up by a flow chart.  I've tried THAT 1510/1512 chips as mic preamps up against a Neve 1073 and I didn't need a diagram to tell me which one sounded better to my ear.  Does the THAT chip work?  Yeah.  Does it have good specs?  Yeah.  Does it leave me feeling like it lacks something?  Definitely.

Even within digital realms there are some plugins that are good, some notsogood.  It is backed up by the valuable opinions of the people who make the music.  In 3d rendering, there are good rendering engines, and then there are notsogood rendering engines.  Some of this is just the amount of resources, some of it is the people who made the engines to begin with.  They just don't get it.

I have a lot of appreciation for those who made products within tight budgets and made them available to the masses.  They served a good function and allowed a lot of people to get stuff done.  The basic rendering engines are not sports cars.  A Peavey or Soundcraft is no Neve.

You can't compare Chevettes to Corvettes, or to Ferraris.  It just doesn't work.  Some stuff is just better.

Adam

[abbey road d enfer]

It's actually like saying, digital works well, but he prefers analog.  He didn't say digital sucks.

I understand that, and I maintain that he should at least have followed with IMO. That's the only thing I criticized.

Abbey, you have an inflated sense of your abilities when it comes to engineering and music making. 

Thank for reminding me!

You are definitely on the rude side, and I don't mind saying it.

I am strongly opinionated, yes; that's the result of being both a scientist and a music practitioner.

For some, audio design is both art and science, not one or the other.

Absolutely. I won't disagree with that.

Back off with the who's right or wrong, or calling people phools, or claiming everything has to be backed up by a flow chart, 

Not a flow chart, just good old evidence. Would you believe someone that says this mic is better than that, without questioning how he came to this conclusion?

I've tried THAT 1510/1512 chips as mic preamps up against a Neve 1073 and I didn't need a diagram to tell me which one sounded better to my ear.  Does the THAT chip work?  Yeah.  Does it have good specs?  Yeah.  Does it leave me feeling like it lacks something?  Definitely.

You are turning that into an argument clean vs. "coloured". Did you detect something in my posts that suggested that?

Even within digital realms there are some plugins that are good, some notsogood.

Indeed, in every realm there is good and bad.

I have a lot of appreciation for those who made products within tight budgets and made them available to the masses.  They served a good function and allowed a lot of people to get stuff done.  The basic rendering engines are not sports cars.  A Peavey or Soundcraft is no Neve.

You can't compare Chevettes to Corvettes, or to Ferraris.  It just doesn't work.  Some stuff is just better.

I think you're drifting. You don't know me. I don't diss the cheap stuff. My fave kick mic is a $38 Samson Qkick. My fave guitar amp is an Excelsior (Fender-designed, China made). I just said that analog EQ's have their use, as digital ones, it all depends for what. Indeed a Ferrari is a superlative car, but for going to the grocery, you may prefer the Chevette.

[JohnRoberts]

Abbey, you have an inflated sense of your abilities when it comes to engineering and music making.  You are definitely on the rude side, and I don't mind saying it. As is JR and a few others here.  Inflated egos with a sense of your place here as some kind of rulers of the audio design field, at least here on groupdiy.

Rude is apparently in the mind of the reader....

I respect abbey's decades of experience, which may be why I share some of those same viewpoints.

In fact we are both moderators here so in the course of that responsibility have some authority.

Abbey regularly attempts to steer or point people toward helpful solutions, but it can feel like Sisyphus rolling that rock up hill, as the same old phoolish memes go around.

I have a lot of appreciation for those who made products within tight budgets and made them available to the masses.  They served a good function and allowed a lot of people to get stuff done.  The basic rendering engines are not sports cars.  A Peavey or Soundcraft is no Neve.

your appreciation does not show...

You can't compare Chevettes to Corvettes, or to Ferraris.  It just doesn't work.  Some stuff is just better.

Adam

Some suggest you can not compare Corvettes to Ferraris, but as Ferrari attempts to build and sell more they may lose the luster of such low volume, and get downgraded.

 There is a disproportionate perception of higher cost being associated with high quality but try to get a definition of what that " high quality" means?  The higher cost is routinely an unavoidable consequence of small company, low volume production.

=====

Sorry I realize how pointless it is to argue about what people think on the internet, but you called me out by name, so I replied.

Have a good day, wash your hands and don't touch your face.

JR

[BluegrassDan]

All I'm gonna say is that a hardware API 550A does something that no other hardware or plugin does in the same way. I dunno how or why it does it, but you know it when you use it on an upright bass or kick drum.

[Whoops]

the WA-273's EQ sounds far better than any plug-in EQ.

"Any plug-in EQ"
Really? have you tried all the EQ plugins that exist?

Without going all "audiophile",  the difference is quite noticeable, adding a sort of "3D" depth to the sound.

By 3D I suppose it means it makes an Hologram?

I suspect that this is due to the EQ's inductors doing things to the signal's phase

"Things to the signals phase" is what comb-filtering does

as well as slight differences in the EQ settings between the L/R channels.

Don't know if thats a good thing....

So my question is, is this difference specific to inductor EQs or is it something that all analog EQs have (more or less)?

I don't have any problem that you like a specific EQ, and that you like it better than other gear you have tried.
Just the terms you used to describe it are exaggerated and not objective and may lead to other readers into mistake.

Analog EQ's can be good and can be crap, and can be different things for different people or use
Digital EQ's can be good and can be crap, and can be different things for different people or use

On the vintage Analog EQ thing, people seem to like inductor based EQ's more than some other types of EQ's,
but all EQ's, even the cheapest one, Analog or Digital has a Fan!

[cpsmusic]

"Any plug-in EQ"
Really? have you tried all the EQ plugins that exist?

Of course I meant any plug-in EQ that I've tried. I have quite a few and can list them if you wish. My main comparison was done with the Sonimus Burnley 73.

By 3D I suppose it means it makes an Hologram?

I've thought about this some more and the effect it adds is an increased perception of front-to-back depth.

"Things to the signals phase" is what comb-filtering does

Don't know if thats a good thing....

If it makes my recordings sound subjectively "better" to me then I think it is. I think my clients would agree 

I don't have any problem that you like a specific EQ, and that you like it better than other gear you have tried.
Just the terms you used to describe it are exaggerated and not objective and may lead to other readers into mistake.

Could you be more specific - what have I exaggerated?

Analog EQ's can be good and can be crap, and can be different things for different people or use
Digital EQ's can be good and can be crap, and can be different things for different people or use

On the vintage Analog EQ thing, people seem to like inductor based EQ's more than some other types of EQ's,
but all EQ's, even the cheapest one, Analog or Digital has a Fan!

By saying "people seem to like inductor based EQ's more than some other types of EQ's" I think we're in the same ballpark. Several reasons have been offered. I'm interested in whether there is a possible objective or scientific explanation for preference.

Cheers!

[Whoops]

My main comparison was done with the Sonimus Burnley 73.

Not a very good emulation

I've thought about this some more and the effect it adds is an increased perception of front-to-back depth.

"front-to-back depth"
 
 Thats the Ghost Hologram

Could you be more specific - what have I exaggerated?

It's pretty clear

Wish you all good, and great recordings, I'm out

[cpsmusic]

Not a very good emulation

"front-to-back depth"
 
 Thats the Ghost Hologram


It's pretty clear

Wish you all good, and great recordings, I'm out

Up to you, but raising criticisms then not acknowledging the responses is not a very adult way to conduct a discussion. If I've exaggerated something (perhaps unknowingly) then I'd like to know what it is. And if you can suggest a better 73 emulation then I'm interested.

Cheers!

[Whoops]

cpsmusic I already acknowledged and explained what I think are your exaggerations in my first post.

As for 1073 emulations, I like UAD , Slate and Waves Scheps 73.
UAD is my favorite, I'm quite happy with it.

If you're into analog inductor EQ's, check out Ian's EQ projects, really nice Helios inspired EQ and EMI inspired also.
check API EQs projects also , ADM has also some really good inductor EQ modules and sometimes you can get them for a good price.

[cpsmusic]

cpsmusic I already acknowledged and explained what I think are your exaggerations in my first post.

As for 1073 emulations, I like UAD , Slate and Waves Scheps 73.
UAD is my favorite, I'm quite happy with it.

If you're into analog inductor EQ's, check out Ian's EQ projects, really nice Helios inspired EQ and EMI inspired also.
check API EQs projects also , ADM has also some really good inductor EQ modules and sometimes you can get them for a good price.

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I can't see where you've explained my exaggerations? Do you mean that you don't think there's a difference between a "good" 73 emulation and a hardware version? If so, that's fine.

But what started me down this treacherous path was the following:

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2018/12/20/using-the-warm-audio-wa273-eq-to-create-a-stereo-image-from-a-mono-signal-we-show-you-how

Have a listen and see what you think. I surprised UAD haven't questioned this as the software example sounds terrible in comparison with the hardware.

[cpsmusic]

If you're into analog inductor EQ's, check out Ian's EQ projects, really nice Helios inspired EQ and EMI inspired also.
check API EQs projects also , ADM has also some really good inductor EQ modules and sometimes you can get them for a good price.

Yes, I've seen these. One of the reasons I'm interested in this topic is because I intend to build a W492 (I already have the PCBs) but I was a bit reluctant in case the "inductor EQ effect/illusion" wouldn't be present in one of these.

[Whoops]

Abbey, you have an inflated sense of your abilities when it comes to engineering and music making.  You are definitely on the rude side

Just to let you know that I agree with you.
You are totally right.

In 12 years in this forum, I've helped a lot of people and a lot of people helped me also.
Nowadays most of my posts are more towards helping other fellow members than asking myself for help.
In these 12 years I don't think Abbey ever helped in any of my  threads besides being arrogant, and writing what it seems is a practice or need of inflating ego, never admitting also when shown or proved wrong , and provoking side discussions that are completely irrelevant for the subject being discussed.
Some people are not here to share or help, it seems the forum is used as an ego boost they need. fortunately it's just a few.

So you're not alone in your trail of though

[scott2000]

Alrighty then....

How 'bout them Yankees?

Jeez...

artists...lol

[ruairioflaherty]

Just to let you know that I agree with you.
You are totally right.

In 12 years in this forum, I've helped a lot of people and a lot of people helped me also.
Nowadays most of my posts are more towards helping other fellow members than asking myself for help.
In these 12 years I don't think Abbey ever helped in any of my  threads besides being arrogant, and writing what it seems is a practice or need of inflating ego, never admitting also when shown or proved wrong , and provoking side discussions that are completely irrelevant for the subject being discussed.
Some people are not here to share or help, it seems the forum is used as an ego boost they need. fortunately it's just a few.

So you're not alone in your trail of though

Wow.  I wholeheartedly feel the opposite.

Abbey is one of a handful of members here in my hall of fame, PRR, JR, BCarso in his day, Jakob - people who have fundamentally changed how I look at electronics and learning.

I don't come here for warm hugs, I come here to learn.  Just the crumbs falling from the table are enough to satisfy me all these years later.

[scott2000]

+1

The weird thing is that I feel abbey , along with being immensely technical and knowledgeable, has a most undeniable ability to connect with the more subjective side of things and has always been available to lend opinions,advice and direction to a staggering number of things on many experience levels in a way that makes complete sense .  That's not easy for some to do .

Of course I'm assuming the immensely technical and knowledgeable part since I don't understand most of it..
. ...

Neumann eqs: W495B = PEa?

Started by synthi « 1 2 » The Lab

WSW EQS schematic search

Started by lvg_stn The Lab

exchanging rev log for normal log pots in eqs?

Started by Fredrik Drawing Board

MITSUBISHI QUAD EIGHT 4-BAND EQs 82041 and Trident TSM EQs CB9132

Started by Andreas K Filters/Equalizers