For everyone pointing out that the settings are different, the video below provides a graphic comparison of the EQ curves of UAD vs. AO. The plugin designs sometimes require different settings to achieve the same curve. ua-cam.com/video/mlGicZrNHQA/v-deo.html
the thing with AO plugins is that we all know they're more than adequate for profesional use. and they're free, so you can't go wrong with them, use them, get used to their sound, they'll never hinder you skills
I love RareSE and Tunca's plugins in general. A while back I did a comparison of his LALA with Universal Audio's LA-2A. I found using Plugin Doctor that to get close to matching the curves the settings on the two were very different. To my surprise matching them in plugin doctor as close as I could the UA LA-2A sounded really harsh and over the top while LALA was beautifully warm and gentle, much more to my liking and my idea of what opto is supposed to sound like. I have never used the real hardware and only heard it in the context of countless records but I somehow doubt it sounds like the UA LA-2A. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Universal Audio, just not sure about their LA-2A.
These plugins may sound different from one another but we have to consider the hardware unit it was modeled after. Those old hardware units were different from each other. Even 2 of them one serial number apart can sound completely different. Tolerance specs have become tighter in later years but in the past I’m not so sure they even cared about tolerance measurements.
The IK one sounds like the odd man out, imo... the AO, UAD, and Waves all seem to be different flavors of the same characteristics, but the IK is, I don't know... watered down? But maybe it's like you say where each needs to be dialed in to taste rather than all the same settings, but the IK seemed like it was missing something. Hard to really know w/o having it, though. And for matching the EQ with pro q3, that was a cool experiment... really interesting, it felt like it was making similar freq changes, but the low end seemed muddier in a way on the pro q3... really cool comparison
Yeah I have it and didn’t like it at all compared to UAD. I was disappointed too because I’ve been slowly trying to get out of UAD’s ecosystem, but IK is not the best Pultec alternative to switch to.
Different settings on both Pultec Comparison videos. Should do a recap video minding the settings. "You had one job" 😅This is bad press for pñugins that are actually great.
Yeah the UAD plugin is a little softer while the analog obsession has a little more punch again you can use either I like both Analog Obsessions and UAD I find that UAD maybe has a little more beta testing for bugs than AO however both make great plugins. Nothing is stopping you from using both, a lot of it comes down to processing power how much it consumes.. and with UAD if you run SHARC DSP plugins rather than native to offload processor imo. Also Antelope runs quite a few DSP plugs if I am remembering correctly also some pultec clones. ProQ is way brighter, are the DB levels the same?
I don't know if it's been fixed but apparently Logic's Pultec emulation plugin had serious latency issues. I use Logic and haven't tried its Pultec plugin mostly because I love RareSE and it does everything I need very well.
Wonderful comparision! Thank you. May I suggest that there is a nasty hum noise (around 50HZ?) starting with 1:40 ish. And it's get worse around 3:20, 5:40. I thought that my headphones are broken.
What is this thing about Pultec EQ? Is it a decade-old studio stable and very common? - It's hard for me to wrap my mind around EQs having "a sound". 🤔 Shouldn't they alter the sound and not "make" it?
the pultec had a signature body to the low end , it gave kicks and bass some character while remaining as tight as the original transients. this is not a parametric EQ. This is like the dressing for a salad. all the ingredients should already be in the bowl when you use this
it's a glue and/or sheen that works wonders on some material, and less-so for others it's horses for courses, and some horses have a lineage that commands a price due to its 'legendary status' or some perceived connection however valid or not
great informative demonstration BUTTT!...when you compared the RareSe with the UAD pultec eqp-1a you missed one nob that in fact was not set the same which was the "ATTEN SEL" the RareSe was set to "20" as apposed to the UAD which was set to "10". I wonder how much of a difference it would of made? Thanks for the great comparison .
Maybe I have OCD, but I can't stand when two plugins claiming to model the same hardware behave completely different with the same settings. What's the purpose of modeling hardware than? I could just use any standard digital parametric / visual EQ like stock or Pro-Q.
Well, there are several reasons why they sound different. First - the hardware units could be different (other components etc). Second - we human beings focuses on different things. If you and I tried to copy the same unit they would probably not sound the same because we hear thing differently and also have different opinions of what is important. I don't really care if the modelling is exact, I care about how it sounds, behaves and how fast and easy I can shape the sound to my liking with it
@@Rogerthatmusic If I wouldn't care about the accuracy of an emulation, I wouldn't use an emulation in the first place. If they claim plugin A models hatdware X, I would expect them to measure the curves of the hardware and implement similar parameter ranges, not just a subjective interpretation of what they hear the hardware doing. By the way: the reason why that one pseudo-Pultec plugin sounds different from Pro-Q3 is because there is additional saturation going on under the hood in the plugin.
There always will be some subjective interpretation. That's human nature. Which is a good thing. Of course it is saturation and other harmonic/phase things going on under the hood, that's part of the hardware and the main reason to use hardware emulations.
Both. We human beings hear things differently and we use different methods etc etc. It could be such a simple thing that the input signal into the unit have differed, or that they didn't had the exact same voltage. Also, I am pretty sure that the people that make the emulations use their ears, at least I hope so, because music (and sound) is not an exact science. It is always subjective. And hardware units can be vary in sound and behaviour from each other even the same brand from the same year.
I have been wondering what this puitech noise is all about. I guess someone may achieve the same result with stock plugins. Everything I guess based on experience.
Stock plugins? Only if you use Logic’s tube EQ. Pultec is a specific sound of EQ based on a specific analog circuit, which has harmonic distortion along with the EQ. Using just a regular flat digital EQ is going to sound completely different.
You had different settings in the two eqs when comparing in plugin doctor. UAD was at 100 Hz and Analog Obsession was at 60 Hz;-)
yep. he lost me at that point.
Smells like conspiracy.
Lol yeah. Man had one job.
All I need to know. Thanks for saving me the time of watching
For everyone pointing out that the settings are different, the video below provides a graphic comparison of the EQ curves of UAD vs. AO. The plugin designs sometimes require different settings to achieve the same curve.
ua-cam.com/video/mlGicZrNHQA/v-deo.html
the thing with AO plugins is that we all know they're more than adequate for profesional use. and they're free, so you can't go wrong with them, use them, get used to their sound, they'll never hinder you skills
damn ik multimedia has definitely been slept on, thanks brother.
I love RareSE and Tunca's plugins in general. A while back I did a comparison of his LALA with Universal Audio's LA-2A. I found using Plugin Doctor that to get close to matching the curves the settings on the two were very different. To my surprise matching them in plugin doctor as close as I could the UA LA-2A sounded really harsh and over the top while LALA was beautifully warm and gentle, much more to my liking and my idea of what opto is supposed to sound like. I have never used the real hardware and only heard it in the context of countless records but I somehow doubt it sounds like the UA LA-2A. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Universal Audio, just not sure about their LA-2A.
I was also surprised this plugin being the best sounding 2a compressor plugin ive ever used
"Nyquist", härligt! Håll våra uttal vid liv! 😂
These plugins may sound different from one another but we have to consider the hardware unit it was modeled after. Those old hardware units were different from each other. Even 2 of them one serial number apart can sound completely different. Tolerance specs have become tighter in later years but in the past I’m not so sure they even cared about tolerance measurements.
AO sounds so amazing I love this eq
The IK one sounds like the odd man out, imo... the AO, UAD, and Waves all seem to be different flavors of the same characteristics, but the IK is, I don't know... watered down? But maybe it's like you say where each needs to be dialed in to taste rather than all the same settings, but the IK seemed like it was missing something. Hard to really know w/o having it, though. And for matching the EQ with pro q3, that was a cool experiment... really interesting, it felt like it was making similar freq changes, but the low end seemed muddier in a way on the pro q3... really cool comparison
Yeah I have it and didn’t like it at all compared to UAD. I was disappointed too because I’ve been slowly trying to get out of UAD’s ecosystem, but IK is not the best Pultec alternative to switch to.
Different settings on both Pultec Comparison videos. Should do a recap video minding the settings. "You had one job" 😅This is bad press for pñugins that are actually great.
ua-cam.com/video/mlGicZrNHQA/v-deo.html
4:07 but.... the settings aren't the same... ?
it is UAD for me in the second comparison. TREX added the most clarity tho
I want to hear full Roger that song, sounds so cool :)
Yeah the UAD plugin is a little softer while the analog obsession has a little more punch again you can use either I like both Analog Obsessions and UAD I find that UAD maybe has a little more beta testing for bugs than AO however both make great plugins. Nothing is stopping you from using both, a lot of it comes down to processing power how much it consumes.. and with UAD if you run SHARC DSP plugins rather than native to offload processor imo. Also Antelope runs quite a few DSP plugs if I am remembering correctly also some pultec clones. ProQ is way brighter, are the DB levels the same?
Being in Logic already how come the Logic Pultec emulation wasn’t included?
That's what I'd be interested in too.
How good are the stock Logic analog emulations actually, compared to 3rd party ones.
I don't know if it's been fixed but apparently Logic's Pultec emulation plugin had serious latency issues. I use Logic and haven't tried its Pultec plugin mostly because I love RareSE and it does everything I need very well.
Wonderful comparision! Thank you. May I suggest that there is a nasty hum noise (around 50HZ?) starting with 1:40 ish. And it's get worse around 3:20, 5:40. I thought that my headphones are broken.
Just some settings different... Maybe double check the settings in the next video... 😁
Hey if someone can find a free Pultec that sounds as good as my UA Pultec EQP-1A and MEQ-5 then hey that’s love!
The UA Pultecs sound aMazing!
the free one sounds very different, the other three sound very similar
What is this thing about Pultec EQ? Is it a decade-old studio stable and very common? - It's hard for me to wrap my mind around EQs having "a sound". 🤔 Shouldn't they alter the sound and not "make" it?
Digital EQ, yes. Analog EQ, No.
the pultec had a signature body to the low end , it gave kicks and bass some character while remaining as tight as the original transients. this is not a parametric EQ. This is like the dressing for a salad. all the ingredients should already be in the bowl when you use this
If emulating analog gear then shouldn’t the digital version be emulating the analog sound?
@raf
it's a glue and/or sheen that works wonders on some material, and less-so for others
it's horses for courses, and some horses have a lineage that commands a price due to its 'legendary status' or some perceived connection however valid or not
Settings weren’t the same.
great informative demonstration BUTTT!...when you compared the RareSe with the UAD pultec eqp-1a you missed one nob that in fact was not set the same which was the "ATTEN SEL" the RareSe was set to "20" as apposed to the UAD which was set to "10". I wonder how much of a difference it would of made? Thanks for the great comparison .
UAD for me...has some nice mids and hights...others sound a bit harsh...
UAD is the one is bit harsh
those aren't the same settings
Check your settings before posting. 60hz VS 100hz . Obviously they're not going to look the same. SMH
waves win
Maybe I have OCD, but I can't stand when two plugins claiming to model the same hardware behave completely different with the same settings.
What's the purpose of modeling hardware than? I could just use any standard digital parametric / visual EQ like stock or Pro-Q.
Well, there are several reasons why they sound different.
First - the hardware units could be different (other components etc).
Second - we human beings focuses on different things. If you and I tried to copy the same unit they would probably not sound the same because we hear thing differently and also have different opinions of what is important.
I don't really care if the modelling is exact, I care about how it sounds, behaves and how fast and easy I can shape the sound to my liking with it
@@Rogerthatmusic If I wouldn't care about the accuracy of an emulation, I wouldn't use an emulation in the first place.
If they claim plugin A models hatdware X, I would expect them to measure the curves of the hardware and implement similar parameter ranges, not just a subjective interpretation of what they hear the hardware doing.
By the way: the reason why that one pseudo-Pultec plugin sounds different from Pro-Q3 is because there is additional saturation going on under the hood in the plugin.
There always will be some subjective interpretation. That's human nature. Which is a good thing.
Of course it is saturation and other harmonic/phase things going on under the hood, that's part of the hardware and the main reason to use hardware emulations.
@@Rogerthatmusic Hardware emulations that behave subjectively or accurately?
Both.
We human beings hear things differently and we use different methods etc etc.
It could be such a simple thing that the input signal into the unit have differed, or that they didn't had the exact same voltage.
Also, I am pretty sure that the people that make the emulations use their ears, at least I hope so, because music (and sound) is not an exact science. It is always subjective.
And hardware units can be vary in sound and behaviour from each other even the same brand from the same year.
I have been wondering what this puitech noise is all about. I guess someone may achieve the same result with stock plugins. Everything I guess based on experience.
Stock plugins? Only if you use Logic’s tube EQ. Pultec is a specific sound of EQ based on a specific analog circuit, which has harmonic distortion along with the EQ. Using just a regular flat digital EQ is going to sound completely different.
AO is so muddy. UAD wins as per usual...
UAD suck its harsh