It makes sense that the 2 bass mics would be out-of-phase because one is a condenser (which records sound pressure), while the other is a dynamic (which records sound velocity). The upper peak in the waveform of a condenser recording shows the point at which its diaphragm is closest to the backplate - while the peak in a dynamic recording shows the point at which its diaphragm is moving the fastest (usually when it's at the mid-way point), and the zero-cross will be when the velocity of its diaphragm isn't moving (e.g. when the diaphragm stops to change direction while it's closest to the mic body). In other words, the same relative position of the diaphragm at the same point in space will produce a different waveform in a condenser mic versus a dynamic. Fun fact: This is why old school engineers used to call condensers "pressure mics" (or "pressure gradients" for directional mics), and ribbons were referred to as "velocity mics".
Wow! That is cool. I new the basic difference between the mic technologies but this detail is good to know. I think the other contributing factor to the phase difference is in the amps. The Magnatone has a switch on the input labelled "Bright, Normal, Mellow". They sound like different LP filter settings. I had the magnatone in the "Mellow" setting. That could also contribute to the phase difference in the mid.
@@mrwev You'd know a lot more about that than me! But absolutely, there's going to be phase mumbo-jumbo happening in the amps themselves. Any time you do eq or filtering in the analogue domain, there's gonna be phase shift (right?) The physics behind condensers measuring sound pressure and dynamics measuring velocity is fascinating in its own right. If you think about the way a condenser works - there's a backplate with a big charge applied to it (usually 60 - 100V), and a diaphragm that's connected to an amplifier. The huge build-up of electrons in the backplate generates a big enough electric field to displace electrons in the nearby diaphragm. In electrical jargon, it changes the diaphragm's capacitance (capacity to hold charge). When they are close together the effect is strong, and when they're far apart the effect is weak - and so as the diaphragm is pushed in and out, it's pushing and pulling electrons from the amplifier. Which is why the position of the diaphragm relative to the backplate is what's captured in the signal. Another fun fact: "Condenser" is just the German for capacitor. Dynamics are a bit more complicated to explain. Bear with me. They work on something called electromagnetic inductance. This is the tendency of a moving electric charge to generate a magnetic field, and for a moving magnetic field to induce an electric charge. This means if you get current flowing in a wire (moving electrons), the wire will become slightly magnetic - and if you coil a whole bunch of wire and shoot electricity through it (causing a lot of moving electrons in a small space), you create an electromagnet. It's the same in reverse. If you get a coil of wire and wiggle a magnet beside it, it'll cause the electrons inside to move back-and-forth (generating an electric current). Importantly, it's the movement that causes this interaction. And the faster it moves, the stronger the interaction. If your magnet ain't moving, neither are those electrons - and if your electrons ain't flowing, they're not generating a magnetic field. Now, back to dynamic mics. They work by having a magnet attached to the (stationary) mic body, and a coil of wire attached to the diaphragm (which are free to move in response to sound). As the coil moves relative to the magnet, it experiences a changing magnetic field and so the electrons inside start moving - which generates an electrical signal. And the faster the diaphragm/coil moves, the stronger the signal. Which is why the velocity of the diaphragm is what's captured in the signal. Ribbon mics are constructed differently, but use the same principle of electromagnetic inductance to the movement of the ribbon into an electrical signal - so they also measure velocity. (apologies to Mr. Valentine if I dumbed this down too much - but I was hoping more than just you would be interested, and not all of us are top-tier gear designers)
@@Md2802 Thank you for typing all of this out. This is really well explained. It helps me understand better why I have gravitated to certain mics for certain applications. Very interesting and cool :)
@@mrwev you can find detailed info about microphone pickup topologies and more over at my blog about tuned miking (I am not sure I can type the URL here...). I also had my contribution published on TapeOp online magazine years ago. There's been some debate lately over at a popular DIY group where matter was discussed and significant contributions were added.
Every time a new episode of making records pops up I get so excited. You're the best, and the world is better because you give your time to make content like this.
Those who appreciate Eric and his long form, exquisitely articulated finite details… I feel are truly my people. If you are reading this, Happy Holidays!
That clip of Sagan working through the word "fre quen cies" was too freaking heart-warming. 😂 I love that you want to show the struggles of making music. I think one of the most useful skills to have is knowing when something is good enough or when something needs more work, so it will be cool to see how you make decisions.
Hi Eric, great video as always. With regards to what you're saying towards the end about how the shape of the EQ curve is what really makes a difference, and transformers/tubes/etc. matter way less than any of us want to think: I've become more and more convinced of this truth over time, and I think you should take it one step further and include a curve-matched version with FF Pro-Q3 (or similar plugin EQ) in the blind listening tests, in addition to the vintage & UTA EQs. I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong, but I strongly suspect that none of us would really be able to reliably pick out the difference between the plugin and the hardware, if the curves are matched meticulously. Hardware EQs might offer legitimate benefits in workflow (or not, based on any given person's preferences), but I don't believe there's any actually meaningful or rigorously discernible sense in which they're capable of sounding 'better,' or even different, than a well-designed plugin EQ; and for the vast majority of people, it's hard to imagine that it makes sense to pursue a modest improvement in workflow at a cost of hundreds or thousands of dollars for a single channel of EQ, when you can get unlimited channels worth of digital EQ essentially for free. Plus, if we're talking about matching curves, a powerful plugin like Pro-Q3 will blow any hardware (even the brilliantly designed UTA units) clear out of the water in its capacity to meticulously match any curve you could ever dream up, or create new curves that the most complex hardware in the world could only dream of.
What an amazing fun short video about your eq, really enjoyed it ❤ And yeah you make me happy to loop a short section while A/B comparison. Most youtubers loop too long sections to clearly hear the difference 👍🏼
I love this! Please keep them coming, Entertaining and educational! Would love The TOTAL experience of deep dives and writing recording mixing would be amazing! Eric you should do a week or two clinic or seminar up there in the new place. Recording mixing etc! would be really cool.
To the EQ comparison, could you also add a version of each curve done with Pro-Q3? I’ve done extensive analog vs. digital EQ blind testing, and I think it’s important this is also part of the conversation.
Hi Eric, great content. I love watching your episodes and am digging the ‘put in the work and show the process’ approach. 👍🏼Instagram 90 seconds cutoff tip: you can bypass this restriction by uploading your movie as a regular post instead of a Reel. After having uploaded the video, Instagram converts your post to a Reel, a full size one without length restriction. Yay!👌🏼
Showing the 'realness' is an authentic thing & mostly lacking in social media. I completely relate to what you're saying around the 36min mark Eric. I can think of one other person who openly shared about their recording process, and that was Billie Eilish with Letterman on the vocal comping that happens for her. Editing is a major process of this craft. Thank you Eric.
So, if the sound of the transformers ...etc. don't really matter ...why not just use a good sounding digital EQ only and not ever have to worry about recall? Can you hear the difference recreating them perfectly in the box?
Hi Eric. In Auto-align 2, if you push the right button of the mouse over a track, you can change the timing, and the plugin will offer you with different options of timing and phase alignment in respect to the main track (that you can also select).
I came here for this comment. It almost felt like I threw away money till I realized AA2 had this feature. I think they veered a little too far into “auto”
56:41 it seems to my ears like it loses some of that hollowness too, brings it up front more, lovely. The plug in definitely sounds more out, the hardware is awesome.
This may be a random question…but I’ve been mixing and doing overdubs for a long time now. Recently got into doing more drums and rented a studio room. Issue is I have only 2 money pres for drums…API and a Great River on an Apogee Rosetta 200. The only other 4 preamps I have are on a Digi 002 I can slave to the Apogee Rosetta. Been debating to use the 2 good pres for one overhead, one snare/HH, and use the not so great ones on the rest of the kit. Figured the close mic toms and kicks could easily be sampled replaced…I’ve had to do it before. But the most important to capture on the best if you have it I thought, would be on overhead condenser above the Floor Tom side or middle kit, a dynamic between the snare and high hat. The rest just run of the mill AD/Stock pres. It’s that or run a tascam 8 channel mixer out to a converter. Been looking at many ways to do this. Whether it’s better to buy nice condensers, or bite the bullet and dump loads of money into a 4 channel API or Warm Audio mic pre 4 strip…or if the old Digi002 plus Rosetta 200 and API/Great River would do the trick…6 drum tracks total and 2 good ones, 4 sub par ok mic/preamps. I know that’s a very long question. But figure I shoot my shot! I worked in mixing and self projects with drum machines for a decade. So now it’s biting me in the ass, for not taking into account getting a good live drum sound…I have a great dead room and the treatment is good. Equipment is mixed, but early 2000s I saw so many bands doing the Digi002/003 slaved to a Mytek or Apogee with a lunchbox of 2-3 pres. I may be stuck in the past, but that’s what a LOT of guys in smaller studios I saw running, given Protools wasn’t native yet. If Protools was native at the time, I may have gone a different route. I just feel those Apogee Rosetta’s are still great converters, and sleepers on the used market. If you’re willing to stay on Mojave to run the direct mixing software. I see no need to really trash it. And have considered buying an old ADx16 given how cheap they are now to add more inputs. But good pres for drums, and the amount you need aren’t cheap. But we’re also at a point of good sampling software these days. I think I’ve racked my brain trying to figure out the best way to get a good drum recording.
Thank you for A/B’ing the same part of the song, and not different parts of the song, when doing the A/B sections > I’d love it if all the UA-cam mixing videos did the same!
I'm sure it would be next to impossible to do but since the UTEQ500 can "mimic" all these other EQ's it would be really cool if there was some way to "recall" the different manufacturers settings on the UTEQ500 with markings or something. Without an actual 550a/pultec/etc next to the UTEQ500 shooting a test tone you don't really know the right curves to set the UTEQ500 if your goal was to recreate a 10K shelf on xxx. I'm sure it would just get way too complicated though if there are different Q's/shapes at each and every freq point on the originals. Fantastic EQ Eric. Congrats on it's release!
I would LOVE to be able to offer that capability with these EQs and I wish there was a way to do it. We do show different preset settings in the manual that are good guidelines for emulating the various EQs.
I just put three tubes in my studio after them being out and it massivly reduced the RT60, the place i had them made uses them in churches, because they have a big effect on the speech intelligibility STI of a room, which I think, might be more useful than SPL
Your statement about how maybe, just maybe, all these transformers and inductors and tubes really don't amount to much spoke to me. I say that as a person who, like you, is surrounded by a mountain of gear like that. I've slowly come to realize that there are certain times you can get "the thing," but that at the end of the day, things like microphones, acoustics, etc. is where 80% of the impact is.
Hey there, Eric. Just occurred to me the bass amp phase situation might be related to the differing tone stacks in the respective amps. TMB style tone stacks from what I understand, especially classic Fender style ones, introduce a phase shift in the midrange/treble region whereas a Baxandall tonestack as I’m sure would be in the Ampeg does not. Purely speculative, I’m certainly no expert but just something that stuck out to me pondering that. Always had such a hard time blending amps, they typically don’t add up in a pleasant way to me even with pushing things around a sample or two. Anyhow, thanks for all that you do!
Hi Eric, question for the next wtf video. You mentioned in the lady vagabond mix about your experience with Pro tools Hardware insert and delay comp issues and how to remedy the phase issues. Do you notice the problem only with inserts, or with sending buss outputs to analog summing aswell? What are some general things to look out for to ensure phase coherance? Would Pro tools time adjuster suffice enough or would you recommend that eventide time adjuster? Also, with the pyrasum, what would the workflow look like if I had to go back ITB to process the Drum bus? Would I have to send the music bus + vocal bus seperately ITB as a pass thru track to ensure time alignment?
Interesting stuff. If this is the case, and the curve that is all that matters (as opposed to time-based and distortion effects), then curve-cloning and shape-tracing plugins should equally be indistinguishable from the original vintage gear, right ?
Would be really cool if you also tried to match the curves with pure digital eq plugin without any added coloration and added those files into the package!
Great video as always! Have you tried matching these eq curves with the ProQ 3? Throwing in a plug-in with the hardware A/B test could be interesting to hear that difference if any?
Well you can basically do the same shapes and curves in the digital domain with ProQ3 as you can with the UTA, it probably sounds veryvery close, if matched exactly the same with fuzzmeasure. BUT the big thing with all the analog EQ’s is that I see them the same way as guitar/bass amplifiers. In my head I know exactly (well I think I do 😅) how they sound, so when I hear something my intuition directly knows where to go. Like with the Siemens EQ, if you want that 60ties one mic drumbreak vibe of a sound, it will deliver it pretty quickly because it forces you to go that way. While with ProQ3 you might get the same result, the possibility happens that you go too far off your idea ounce you start fiddling around. That being said, the UTA looks like a fantastic and versatile tool. Hope to get a pair one day.
awesome video again of course. would be super cool to get some legit mastering engineers to do the blind test exercise. i think they would be the only people that could potentially hear any difference through their 50k speakers in their perfect acoustic rooms with their 30 years of experience and trained ears. Thanks for sharing all this work so we dont have to do it you rock!
@@mrwev@PresentDayProduction and @AudioAnimalsStudio are a couple that are already on UA-cam. would be good content for their channels too hopefully they see the great collab opportunity before them!
Wow! What did you use to create the top part of the gray and white "drum fort" things that I see at the 21:47 point? I need to make something like that, too!
The biggest difference is when you sum them together and play the full mixes, the low end especially is way different. Would be curious to hear you do 8, 16 or even 24 channels of your Neve or vintage Pultec against the UTA, as all of those subtle saturation and transient differences start to add up.
You mention loving recording without a click and I agree, you get a really organic feel like that. Where you do have to record to a click, do you map out tempo changes or set a static click and push and pull against that? (absolutely love the idea of showing the start to finish from song idea to completed with all the honesty - I'm a 100% believer that anyone can do anything with enough time and effort)
Have you checked out Melda’s Free Form Phase for frequency specific phase adjustments? Also curious what you think of Jim Lill’s video about the tonal differences in mics, a brief part of it goes over tubes and transformers and touches on some of the differences you mentioned (spoiler alert the tube vs fet comparison he did made zero difference in the frequency response)
Hey Eric, Have you tried recreating some of these EQ shapes with something like Pro Q? I’d be interested to know if a plugin EQ would be noticeably different sounding to the UTA and the vintage ones.
It would be cool if you release the tracks without saying which ones are which. Just randomly labeled A or B. Let people comment which they think is which. Then release the real answers and results in a later video. Thanks for continuing to release great content.
Hi Eric. When posting the testfiles could you do it without labeling the files? Just label them A and B. And then after a certain amount of time announce which file was the UTEQ and which were the vintage EQs. That would make it even more difficult for people to be biased towards the vintage EQs
this is an unrelated fairly random question that’s been on my mind but you don’t seem to mention SSL much whether talking about your history/console journey or when modeling gear. i think i can deduce a bit but just wondering what your overall view or vibe is with their designs in general
Yes! It is 3 of the 4 parametric bands and doesn't have the filters. We are going to do a second unit that completes it. It will be 1 parametric mid band and the HP/LP filters.
I agree. Ted did a wondderful job mastering that record. It was interesting. He actually ended up warming up the record a bit. I have a copy of a few of the unmastered mixes. I could make them available t hear at some point :)
baffle the bass amps and that will also help that bass phase a little too. lot of spill at that volume. Sounds you're getting there are beautiful. Have fun!!
The UTEQ500 could replicate the frequency response curve of the UnFairchild (it does roll off the extreme lows and highs a little bit) but it could not replicate the harmonic distortion that the UnFairchild adds. I am guessing that is the sound your thinking of. So the answer is no :)
I agree with the comment above. I think it is more of a workflow thing at this point. In my process, I like being able to EQ with hardware EQs on the way to the tape machine. I think I make different choices with hardware EQs. Harware EQs also force me to EQ more with my ears than my eyes and I think sometimes there is a benefit to that.
When you showed the bass rig setup, is the 67 on the magnatone the modded one you mentioned in the voiceover video? Sounded insanely cool for bass but wondering if that’s not typically the u67 sound.
Yes that is the same one or one of the pair of U67s I have that are both mod'd the same way. An unmod'd 67 would not capture as much of the sub frequencies.
After a quick search, it does look like that is it. Larry Jasper (UTA circuit designer) made the change to my mics. I'll have to ask him if there was any more to it than that@@amphlett7
The casual listen while watching the video, the Neve seemed to be the only one that was pretty clearly different. My brain was saying “ oh, that’s the gooey Neve thing going on.” All the others were pretty dead on and I could not tell any difference. Looking forward to trying the AB with the files. Why the sandbag on the Magnatone?
the Neve felt like it slowed the drum transient - ever so slightly - compared to the UTEQ500 to me, but I'm looking forward to trying blind tests using the Hofa 4U+ blind test plug-in. I know I want a pair of the 500s already
@@mrwev Surely the capsule don't move / reacts the same way. I'd be curious to try both amps on the same model of speakers wth the same mics (let's say the U67 on both amps) and chase that spectrum shift. After 30 years of recording i'm now chassing specific issues and not fix things in post edit or mix. Cheers from Qc, Canada. Keep up the good work.
that is a cool idea! There are limits to what I can do with a 3 band EQ no matter how flexible it might be. Within certain bunderies I think I could beat the Q3 with the UTEQ500. I know if I am replicating the difference of another 3 band EQ and I can graph what the other EQ is doing, I bet I could get a closer match :)
@@mrwev Im just interested in why you would use an analog eq at all when pro-q 3 exists! If Id hear proof that anything in the analog realm sounds better than pro-q 3, Id buy it.
Fuzz Measure is pretty easy to use. You select an output for it to send a sine wave sweep out of and an input for the software to hear it coming back. I patch the signal through an external device (like an EQ) and It will show you the frequency response curve of whatever the signal goes through.
Really cool. First time around I really thought I could hear a big difference in the pultec and your eq. After your statement about it I gave it some further lisening and now the difference was gone. What is the expectation bias? Tubes are great or Eric Valentine is right? Iam confuced😂. Looking forward to a real blind test. Could it be that the pultec tubes, transformers and all was designed to be clean, would explain what you are hearing and why you like the older RCA stuff. I build guitar tube amps and there you can really hear the difference when you push the tubes but even there the tone stack is more important than the tube contribution I think. Good stuff
You make a good point and it is something I plan to address in the next video. The differences in these devices will become more audible as you push more signal through them just as you experience with different tubes. All of these were done at normal operating level, keeping things around 0VU and that probably contributes to the difficulty in hearing any difference.
Hey Eric, thanks for all the incredible videos! I was wondering how you manage ear fatigue when tracking with an artist in the control room? Particularly with electric guitars, I have found guitarists always want the speakers quite loud to feel the music but I am positioned right in the sweet spot of the speakers and so cop the full volume Even after 15 minutes I feel like I can’t trust my ears anymore
Good question! Distorted guitars are tough to listen to all day. It was a big issue when working with Slash. He liked having the speakers ear splittingly loud in the control room. He is used to standing in front of a 4x12 cab with a 100W marshall at full volume. i would have the speakers at a reasonable level while getting the sound and then put on ear protection when we were tracking the performance. It was the only way I could do it :)
@EricValentine do the blindtest video thingy but dont tell wich is wich ! wait for a month or so and then do the reveal ! Put people like me on the spot ... maybe later you can switch out the files to proper named ones.
I like the sound of your voice! Nice recording, good mixing! : D your groove reminded me of that french musicien Alain Souchon from the 70's ua-cam.com/video/WjkVzYLAhEg/v-deo.html but i guess that if you do a blind test, well... you might recognise which one is your loop and which one is Alain Souchon... huhuhu cheers from Geneva in Europe, and thanks a lot for your super interesting journey!
Totally! fortunately that piece was just raw pine but it is a constant battle with Max. That dog LOVES to chew on wood. Maybe he is actually just a giant beaver :)
It makes sense that the 2 bass mics would be out-of-phase because one is a condenser (which records sound pressure), while the other is a dynamic (which records sound velocity). The upper peak in the waveform of a condenser recording shows the point at which its diaphragm is closest to the backplate - while the peak in a dynamic recording shows the point at which its diaphragm is moving the fastest (usually when it's at the mid-way point), and the zero-cross will be when the velocity of its diaphragm isn't moving (e.g. when the diaphragm stops to change direction while it's closest to the mic body). In other words, the same relative position of the diaphragm at the same point in space will produce a different waveform in a condenser mic versus a dynamic.
Fun fact: This is why old school engineers used to call condensers "pressure mics" (or "pressure gradients" for directional mics), and ribbons were referred to as "velocity mics".
Wow! That is cool. I new the basic difference between the mic technologies but this detail is good to know. I think the other contributing factor to the phase difference is in the amps. The Magnatone has a switch on the input labelled "Bright, Normal, Mellow". They sound like different LP filter settings. I had the magnatone in the "Mellow" setting. That could also contribute to the phase difference in the mid.
@@mrwev You'd know a lot more about that than me! But absolutely, there's going to be phase mumbo-jumbo happening in the amps themselves. Any time you do eq or filtering in the analogue domain, there's gonna be phase shift (right?)
The physics behind condensers measuring sound pressure and dynamics measuring velocity is fascinating in its own right.
If you think about the way a condenser works - there's a backplate with a big charge applied to it (usually 60 - 100V), and a diaphragm that's connected to an amplifier. The huge build-up of electrons in the backplate generates a big enough electric field to displace electrons in the nearby diaphragm. In electrical jargon, it changes the diaphragm's capacitance (capacity to hold charge). When they are close together the effect is strong, and when they're far apart the effect is weak - and so as the diaphragm is pushed in and out, it's pushing and pulling electrons from the amplifier. Which is why the position of the diaphragm relative to the backplate is what's captured in the signal.
Another fun fact: "Condenser" is just the German for capacitor.
Dynamics are a bit more complicated to explain. Bear with me. They work on something called electromagnetic inductance. This is the tendency of a moving electric charge to generate a magnetic field, and for a moving magnetic field to induce an electric charge. This means if you get current flowing in a wire (moving electrons), the wire will become slightly magnetic - and if you coil a whole bunch of wire and shoot electricity through it (causing a lot of moving electrons in a small space), you create an electromagnet. It's the same in reverse. If you get a coil of wire and wiggle a magnet beside it, it'll cause the electrons inside to move back-and-forth (generating an electric current). Importantly, it's the movement that causes this interaction. And the faster it moves, the stronger the interaction. If your magnet ain't moving, neither are those electrons - and if your electrons ain't flowing, they're not generating a magnetic field.
Now, back to dynamic mics. They work by having a magnet attached to the (stationary) mic body, and a coil of wire attached to the diaphragm (which are free to move in response to sound). As the coil moves relative to the magnet, it experiences a changing magnetic field and so the electrons inside start moving - which generates an electrical signal. And the faster the diaphragm/coil moves, the stronger the signal. Which is why the velocity of the diaphragm is what's captured in the signal.
Ribbon mics are constructed differently, but use the same principle of electromagnetic inductance to the movement of the ribbon into an electrical signal - so they also measure velocity.
(apologies to Mr. Valentine if I dumbed this down too much - but I was hoping more than just you would be interested, and not all of us are top-tier gear designers)
@@Md2802 Thank you for typing all of this out. This is really well explained. It helps me understand better why I have gravitated to certain mics for certain applications. Very interesting and cool :)
@@mrwev you can find detailed info about microphone pickup topologies and more over at my blog about tuned miking (I am not sure I can type the URL here...). I also had my contribution published on TapeOp online magazine years ago. There's been some debate lately over at a popular DIY group where matter was discussed and significant contributions were added.
Every time a new episode of making records pops up I get so excited. You're the best, and the world is better because you give your time to make content like this.
Those who appreciate Eric and his long form, exquisitely articulated finite details… I feel are truly my people.
If you are reading this, Happy Holidays!
That clip of Sagan working through the word "fre quen cies" was too freaking heart-warming. 😂
I love that you want to show the struggles of making music. I think one of the most useful skills to have is knowing when something is good enough or when something needs more work, so it will be cool to see how you make decisions.
having sagan get the “frequencies” line down is all the proof i need that you’re a great producer 🎉
Thank you for sharing all you do with us so freely. It is greatly appreciated and fun to watch!
Hi Eric, great video as always. With regards to what you're saying towards the end about how the shape of the EQ curve is what really makes a difference, and transformers/tubes/etc. matter way less than any of us want to think: I've become more and more convinced of this truth over time, and I think you should take it one step further and include a curve-matched version with FF Pro-Q3 (or similar plugin EQ) in the blind listening tests, in addition to the vintage & UTA EQs. I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong, but I strongly suspect that none of us would really be able to reliably pick out the difference between the plugin and the hardware, if the curves are matched meticulously.
Hardware EQs might offer legitimate benefits in workflow (or not, based on any given person's preferences), but I don't believe there's any actually meaningful or rigorously discernible sense in which they're capable of sounding 'better,' or even different, than a well-designed plugin EQ; and for the vast majority of people, it's hard to imagine that it makes sense to pursue a modest improvement in workflow at a cost of hundreds or thousands of dollars for a single channel of EQ, when you can get unlimited channels worth of digital EQ essentially for free. Plus, if we're talking about matching curves, a powerful plugin like Pro-Q3 will blow any hardware (even the brilliantly designed UTA units) clear out of the water in its capacity to meticulously match any curve you could ever dream up, or create new curves that the most complex hardware in the world could only dream of.
another fab video ! Thankyou Eric for this exploration & perhaps mythbusting ?? onward & upward.
Dude you rock happy holidays
What an amazing fun short video
about your eq, really enjoyed it ❤
And yeah you make me happy to loop a short section while A/B comparison. Most youtubers loop too long sections to clearly hear the difference 👍🏼
I love this! Please keep them coming, Entertaining and educational! Would love The TOTAL experience of deep dives and writing recording mixing would be amazing! Eric you should do a week or two clinic or seminar up there in the new place. Recording mixing etc! would be really cool.
I just spat my cup of tea all over the studio the moment your fast talking video come up took me a little by surprise, big love from London England
To the EQ comparison, could you also add a version of each curve done with Pro-Q3?
I’ve done extensive analog vs. digital EQ blind testing, and I think it’s important this is also part of the conversation.
Hi Eric, great content. I love watching your episodes and am digging the ‘put in the work and show the process’ approach. 👍🏼Instagram 90 seconds cutoff tip: you can bypass this restriction by uploading your movie as a regular post instead of a Reel. After having uploaded the video, Instagram converts your post to a Reel, a full size one without length restriction. Yay!👌🏼
This ep was amazing... also very excited to hear and see some of your creative process!!
Showing the 'realness' is an authentic thing & mostly lacking in social media. I completely relate to what you're saying around the 36min mark Eric. I can think of one other person who openly shared about their recording process, and that was Billie Eilish with Letterman on the vocal comping that happens for her. Editing is a major process of this craft. Thank you Eric.
So, if the sound of the transformers ...etc. don't really matter ...why not just use a good sounding digital EQ only and not ever have to worry about recall? Can you hear the difference recreating them perfectly in the box?
I think that is the big question that all of us are faced with at this point. I'll talk about this in the blind listening episode :)
Thanks for the reply. I'll definitely watch out for the blinding listening episode! Love what you do! :)@@mrwev
Your videos make me feel good. And so does Grace’s latest record. Thank you and Happy Holidays!
Fantastic video Eric! Love the EQ, will have to pick up a couple when I get a chance!
inspiration absorbed! Thanks man, I get so much out of your videos Peace! and Merry Christmas!
Love your channel man I’ve watched all your mixing videos several times!
Great as always Eric! Glad you are back 🤘
Very inspiring video thanks Eric!
more family style UTA infomercials!!! Im hooked already!!
Place looks great Eric! Congratulations!
Hi Eric. In Auto-align 2, if you push the right button of the mouse over a track, you can change the timing, and the plugin will offer you with different options of timing and phase alignment in respect to the main track (that you can also select).
Ahhhh!!! thank you! I will experiment with that :)
I came here for this comment. It almost felt like I threw away money till I realized AA2 had this feature. I think they veered a little too far into “auto”
Glad to help! Love your mixing works@@wcalebparker
Sagan asking about the variable phase mode almost killed me 😭 impossibly adorable
It would be interesting to see the same test done with proQ3 and if there's any audible differences.
Thanks for the video.
56:41 it seems to my ears like it loses some of that hollowness too, brings it up front more, lovely. The plug in definitely sounds more out, the hardware is awesome.
This may be a random question…but I’ve been mixing and doing overdubs for a long time now. Recently got into doing more drums and rented a studio room.
Issue is I have only 2 money pres for drums…API and a Great River on an Apogee Rosetta 200. The only other 4 preamps I have are on a Digi 002 I can slave to the Apogee Rosetta.
Been debating to use the 2 good pres for one overhead, one snare/HH, and use the not so great ones on the rest of the kit. Figured the close mic toms and kicks could easily be sampled replaced…I’ve had to do it before. But the most important to capture on the best if you have it I thought, would be on overhead condenser above the Floor Tom side or middle kit, a dynamic between the snare and high hat. The rest just run of the mill AD/Stock pres.
It’s that or run a tascam 8 channel mixer out to a converter. Been looking at many ways to do this. Whether it’s better to buy nice condensers, or bite the bullet and dump loads of money into a 4 channel API or Warm Audio mic pre 4 strip…or if the old Digi002 plus Rosetta 200 and API/Great River would do the trick…6 drum tracks total and 2 good ones, 4 sub par ok mic/preamps.
I know that’s a very long question. But figure I shoot my shot! I worked in mixing and self projects with drum machines for a decade. So now it’s biting me in the ass, for not taking into account getting a good live drum sound…I have a great dead room and the treatment is good. Equipment is mixed, but early 2000s I saw so many bands doing the Digi002/003 slaved to a Mytek or Apogee with a lunchbox of 2-3 pres. I may be stuck in the past, but that’s what a LOT of guys in smaller studios I saw running, given Protools wasn’t native yet. If Protools was native at the time, I may have gone a different route.
I just feel those Apogee Rosetta’s are still great converters, and sleepers on the used market. If you’re willing to stay on Mojave to run the direct mixing software. I see no need to really trash it. And have considered buying an old ADx16 given how cheap they are now to add more inputs. But good pres for drums, and the amount you need aren’t cheap. But we’re also at a point of good sampling software these days. I think I’ve racked my brain trying to figure out the best way to get a good drum recording.
Best UA-cam channel on the internet
Thank you for A/B’ing the same part of the song, and not different parts of the song, when doing the A/B sections > I’d love it if all the UA-cam mixing videos did the same!
I'm sure it would be next to impossible to do but since the UTEQ500 can "mimic" all these other EQ's it would be really cool if there was some way to "recall" the different manufacturers settings on the UTEQ500 with markings or something. Without an actual 550a/pultec/etc next to the UTEQ500 shooting a test tone you don't really know the right curves to set the UTEQ500 if your goal was to recreate a 10K shelf on xxx. I'm sure it would just get way too complicated though if there are different Q's/shapes at each and every freq point on the originals.
Fantastic EQ Eric. Congrats on it's release!
I would LOVE to be able to offer that capability with these EQs and I wish there was a way to do it. We do show different preset settings in the manual that are good guidelines for emulating the various EQs.
@@mrwev Simple solution just print each brands markings in a different color and sell UTA tinted glasses that only see one color at a time ;)
I just put three tubes in my studio after them being out and it massivly reduced the RT60, the place i had them made uses them in churches, because they have a big effect on the speech intelligibility STI of a room, which I think, might be more useful than SPL
Love your vids Eric! The a/b at the end...the difference I hear is in the transient information. Your eq sounded a little faster here.
Awesome to see you struggling with the acoustic riff- EV is human! It happens to the best of us. MUSIC IS FN HARD!
Your statement about how maybe, just maybe, all these transformers and inductors and tubes really don't amount to much spoke to me. I say that as a person who, like you, is surrounded by a mountain of gear like that. I've slowly come to realize that there are certain times you can get "the thing," but that at the end of the day, things like microphones, acoustics, etc. is where 80% of the impact is.
Sounding good man. Real good!
Thank you, for being real...and honest.
Hey there, Eric. Just occurred to me the bass amp phase situation might be related to the differing tone stacks in the respective amps. TMB style tone stacks from what I understand, especially classic Fender style ones, introduce a phase shift in the midrange/treble region whereas a Baxandall tonestack as I’m sure would be in the Ampeg does not. Purely speculative, I’m certainly no expert but just something that stuck out to me pondering that. Always had such a hard time blending amps, they typically don’t add up in a pleasant way to me even with pushing things around a sample or two. Anyhow, thanks for all that you do!
Hi Eric, question for the next wtf video. You mentioned in the lady vagabond mix about your experience with Pro tools Hardware insert and delay comp issues and how to remedy the phase issues. Do you notice the problem only with inserts, or with sending buss outputs to analog summing aswell? What are some general things to look out for to ensure phase coherance? Would Pro tools time adjuster suffice enough or would you recommend that eventide time adjuster?
Also, with the pyrasum, what would the workflow look like if I had to go back ITB to process the Drum bus? Would I have to send the music bus + vocal bus seperately ITB as a pass thru track to ensure time alignment?
Interesting stuff. If this is the case, and the curve that is all that matters (as opposed to time-based and distortion effects), then curve-cloning and shape-tracing plugins should equally be indistinguishable from the original vintage gear, right ?
Would be really cool if you also tried to match the curves with pure digital eq plugin without any added coloration and added those files into the package!
Great video as always! Have you tried matching these eq curves with the ProQ 3? Throwing in a plug-in with the hardware A/B test could be interesting to hear that difference if any?
The promo video is hilarious! “What the heck is an airband?” 😅
Well you can basically do the same shapes and curves in the digital domain with ProQ3 as you can with the UTA, it probably sounds veryvery close, if matched exactly the same with fuzzmeasure. BUT the big thing with all the analog EQ’s is that I see them the same way as guitar/bass amplifiers. In my head I know exactly (well I think I do 😅) how they sound, so when I hear something my intuition directly knows where to go. Like with the Siemens EQ, if you want that 60ties one mic drumbreak vibe of a sound, it will deliver it pretty quickly because it forces you to go that way. While with ProQ3 you might get the same result, the possibility happens that you go too far off your idea ounce you start fiddling around.
That being said, the UTA looks like a fantastic and versatile tool. Hope to get a pair one day.
awesome video again of course. would be super cool to get some legit mastering engineers to do the blind test exercise. i think they would be the only people that could potentially hear any difference through their 50k speakers in their perfect acoustic rooms with their 30 years of experience and trained ears. Thanks for sharing all this work so we dont have to do it you rock!
Well, they will have their opportunity soon enough :)
@@mrwev@PresentDayProduction and @AudioAnimalsStudio are a couple that are already on UA-cam. would be good content for their channels too hopefully they see the great collab opportunity before them!
Man the Sagan part was the best. What a jolly little guy.
Wow! What did you use to create the top part of the gray and white "drum fort" things that I see at the 21:47 point? I need to make something like that, too!
The biggest difference is when you sum them together and play the full mixes, the low end especially is way different. Would be curious to hear you do 8, 16 or even 24 channels of your Neve or vintage Pultec against the UTA, as all of those subtle saturation and transient differences start to add up.
You mention loving recording without a click and I agree, you get a really organic feel like that. Where you do have to record to a click, do you map out tempo changes or set a static click and push and pull against that? (absolutely love the idea of showing the start to finish from song idea to completed with all the honesty - I'm a 100% believer that anyone can do anything with enough time and effort)
Have you checked out Melda’s Free Form Phase for frequency specific phase adjustments? Also curious what you think of Jim Lill’s video about the tonal differences in mics, a brief part of it goes over tubes and transformers and touches on some of the differences you mentioned (spoiler alert the tube vs fet comparison he did made zero difference in the frequency response)
Hey Eric,
Have you tried recreating some of these EQ shapes with something like Pro Q? I’d be interested to know if a plugin EQ would be noticeably different sounding to the UTA and the vintage ones.
Oh my, that bass tone.... Do you remember the brand of those nylon strings?
It would be cool if you release the tracks without saying which ones are which. Just randomly labeled A or B. Let people comment which they think is which. Then release the real answers and results in a later video. Thanks for continuing to release great content.
Amazing !!!
Hi Eric. When posting the testfiles could you do it without labeling the files? Just label them A and B. And then after a certain amount of time announce which file was the UTEQ and which were the vintage EQs. That would make it even more difficult for people to be biased towards the vintage EQs
this is an unrelated fairly random question that’s been on my mind but you don’t seem to
mention SSL much whether talking about your history/console journey or when modeling gear. i think i can deduce a bit but just wondering what your overall view or vibe is with their designs in general
So is the UTEQ500 basically the EQ section from the MPEQ-1? ✌🏼
Yes! It is 3 of the 4 parametric bands and doesn't have the filters. We are going to do a second unit that completes it. It will be 1 parametric mid band and the HP/LP filters.
Third Eye Blind's first album sounds so great. Glad it wasn't smashed to death in mastering. Ted Jensen did a good job.
I agree. Ted did a wondderful job mastering that record. It was interesting. He actually ended up warming up the record a bit. I have a copy of a few of the unmastered mixes. I could make them available t hear at some point :)
That would be wonderful
I could hear this song being the intro to Whole Lotta Love done in the style of JJ Cale
baffle the bass amps and that will also help that bass phase a little too. lot of spill at that volume. Sounds you're getting there are beautiful. Have fun!!
Wow!! Do you think the UTEQ500 could come close to the Unfairchild in terms what the Unfairchild does to the lower frequencies?
The UTEQ500 could replicate the frequency response curve of the UnFairchild (it does roll off the extreme lows and highs a little bit) but it could not replicate the harmonic distortion that the UnFairchild adds. I am guessing that is the sound your thinking of. So the answer is no :)
❤@@mrwev
Do you think there are any GOOD plugins which can (at least to some degree) mimic the 3D/bloom effect which the Unfairchild is known for?
I'm working on it ;) @@taktaktak41
😯😍@@mrwev
whats the benefit of the utaq500 over matching those shapes with pro q 3?
tracking, reamping, or people who mix with hardware, want to play with real knobs and use their other hardware gear.
I agree with the comment above. I think it is more of a workflow thing at this point. In my process, I like being able to EQ with hardware EQs on the way to the tape machine. I think I make different choices with hardware EQs. Harware EQs also force me to EQ more with my ears than my eyes and I think sometimes there is a benefit to that.
@@mrwev Agree with that. Working with tape machines, having one or two really surgical eqs is really handy!
When you showed the bass rig setup, is the 67 on the magnatone the modded one you mentioned in the voiceover video?
Sounded insanely cool for bass but wondering if that’s not typically the u67 sound.
Yes that is the same one or one of the pair of U67s I have that are both mod'd the same way. An unmod'd 67 would not capture as much of the sub frequencies.
@@mrwev very cool! Thanks for the reply.
Is it the S2 jumper mod that improves the low frequency response?
After a quick search, it does look like that is it. Larry Jasper (UTA circuit designer) made the change to my mics. I'll have to ask him if there was any more to it than that@@amphlett7
@@mrwev thanks again, Eric!
The casual listen while watching the video, the Neve seemed to be the only one that was pretty clearly different. My brain was saying “ oh, that’s the gooey Neve thing going on.” All the others were pretty dead on and I could not tell any difference. Looking forward to trying the AB with the files. Why the sandbag on the Magnatone?
possibly to add mass and stop some kind of cabinet resonance..
Good question! The cabinet was rattling on the low A. The sandbag helped stop the rattle :)
my guess the cab had a slight rattle on some of the low notes. the weight of the sand holding it down
the Neve felt like it slowed the drum transient - ever so slightly - compared to the UTEQ500 to me, but I'm looking forward to trying blind tests using the Hofa 4U+ blind test plug-in. I know I want a pair of the 500s already
Could the bass amps phasing issues be created by using 2 different mics on the amps?
I think you’re right. It could be the 2 different mics, it could be the 2 different amps or a combination of both :)
@@mrwev Surely the capsule don't move / reacts the same way. I'd be curious to try both amps on the same model of speakers wth the same mics (let's say the U67 on both amps) and chase that spectrum shift. After 30 years of recording i'm now chassing specific issues and not fix things in post edit or mix. Cheers from Qc, Canada. Keep up the good work.
its the different mojo in the amps from their life experience
am i a bad person when i think the best Basssound was the DI ? xD I just am a sucker for Flatsoundshortscale DI sounds
💕💕💕
Would you do your 500-series eq vs a Pro-q 3 tonematch?
that is a cool idea! There are limits to what I can do with a 3 band EQ no matter how flexible it might be. Within certain bunderies I think I could beat the Q3 with the UTEQ500. I know if I am replicating the difference of another 3 band EQ and I can graph what the other EQ is doing, I bet I could get a closer match :)
@@mrwev Im just interested in why you would use an analog eq at all when pro-q 3 exists! If Id hear proof that anything in the analog realm sounds better than pro-q 3, Id buy it.
How did you measure the eq curves in Fuzz measure?
Fuzz Measure is pretty easy to use. You select an output for it to send a sine wave sweep out of and an input for the software to hear it coming back. I patch the signal through an external device (like an EQ) and It will show you the frequency response curve of whatever the signal goes through.
Really cool. First time around I really thought I could hear a big difference in the pultec and your eq. After your statement about it I gave it some further lisening and now the difference was gone. What is the expectation bias? Tubes are great or Eric Valentine is right? Iam confuced😂. Looking forward to a real blind test. Could it be that the pultec tubes, transformers and all was designed to be clean, would explain what you are hearing and why you like the older RCA stuff. I build guitar tube amps and there you can really hear the difference when you push the tubes but even there the tone stack is more important than the tube contribution I think. Good stuff
You make a good point and it is something I plan to address in the next video. The differences in these devices will become more audible as you push more signal through them just as you experience with different tubes. All of these were done at normal operating level, keeping things around 0VU and that probably contributes to the difficulty in hearing any difference.
Plugin doctor!!! ❤❤❤
Hey Eric, thanks for all the incredible videos!
I was wondering how you manage ear fatigue when tracking with an artist in the control room?
Particularly with electric guitars, I have found guitarists always want the speakers quite loud to feel the music but I am positioned right in the sweet spot of the speakers and so cop the full volume
Even after 15 minutes I feel like I can’t trust my ears anymore
Good question! Distorted guitars are tough to listen to all day. It was a big issue when working with Slash. He liked having the speakers ear splittingly loud in the control room. He is used to standing in front of a 4x12 cab with a 100W marshall at full volume. i would have the speakers at a reasonable level while getting the sound and then put on ear protection when we were tracking the performance. It was the only way I could do it :)
Looked like you had a realtime bode plot going at one point of the video. What software did you use for that?
DDMF Plugin Doctor. Great for hardware calibration and real-time analysis of hardware and plugins.
that place is gonna be "really probably done-ish" hahaha
❤
Being ah Dad...priceless.
@EricValentine do the blindtest video thingy but dont tell wich is wich ! wait for a month or so and then do the reveal ! Put people like me on the spot ... maybe later you can switch out the files to proper named ones.
Cool stuff! Ever think of making a plug-in for us cheaper producers? 😂
I'm working on it ;)
@@mrwevHell yeah!
Do you still play drums?
I do! Occasionally. Hopefully ill get to do more of that this coming year :)
Hey Eric, can I come to your studio and do a blind listening test? haha I'll buy you lunch.
I like the sound of your voice! Nice recording, good mixing!
: D
your groove reminded me of that french musicien Alain Souchon from the 70's
ua-cam.com/video/WjkVzYLAhEg/v-deo.html
but i guess that if you do a blind test, well... you might recognise which one is your loop and which one is Alain Souchon...
huhuhu
cheers from Geneva in Europe, and thanks a lot for your super interesting journey!
Idea: don’t label which is which, and have a poll for people to guess.
Not so sure I would let my dog chew on treated lumber? If, indeed your deck was built with treated lumber.
Totally! fortunately that piece was just raw pine but it is a constant battle with Max. That dog LOVES to chew on wood. Maybe he is actually just a giant beaver :)
@@mrwev Ha ha! I had a German Shepherd like that once. She would chew up anything! Love the videos and, love your new studio!