Just wanted to comment that they should add a button to switch between stepped and full range, but great work of Pulsar that they already thought of this 👍
@@vadimmartynyuk The purpose of the video was just to sonicaly compare with the real thing which he owns, so the details of the GUI of the plugin are not so important in my opinion.
The matching of the EQ curves is actually pretty amazing if you consider the real life component tolerances for the hardware units... And even more amazing is how well mached your hardware units are, but maybe they have been sold as a matched pair. If all units that leave the factory are that close to eachother, they probably spend a considerable amount of the manufacturing costs matching components (or buy prematched or otherwise very high tolerance parts).
Low shelf up boost mono, high shelf sides (cut or boost) - work early in the chain so other master eq does the push or pull to compensate for potential harshness or over lows
Amazing! Very Very Very close to the Analog. I felt a touch more punchiness from the analog version but the rest was identical. Thanks for the video and the link!
The only difference is in the harmonics. The analog has a bit more, and as the host said, that could've been attributed to old components in his own units. Plus, if it's harmonics you want, there are so many ways to get that now! So, I did a little test, I compared my API 550A to waves version. The EQ curves were pretty much identical, but the analog had a bit more saturation. On the channel with waves plugin, I ran it through the Elysia Karacter hardware (not that I needed to), and I was able to dial in some of that so-called analog goodness. I was able to get waves 550A and API 550A 100% indistinguishable! And I'm sure I could have achieved that 100% with plugins too! Just thought I'd share.
What makes plugins like this one valid is really when developers take into account how the hardware specifically colourises the signal and don’t simply imitate the EQ curves only.
I'd resume it in a few words... "the same sound but with no cable noise and a bit more sparkling highs" Hardware seems to be fuller in the mid range, but less transparent (obviusly digital). I'm so happy to find this one by mistake since I'm hunting for Massive on a discount. And for a true A/B test would've been fair to try nulling them out! That'd be very interesting to hear/see.
Nulling will never work when comparing an analog unit to digital. Or even another analog unit. The data isn’t useful. Two passes of the same analog unit would never even remotely null
I hate to say it but the free TDR VOS Slick EQ still outperforms the Pulsar W495. I challenge you to test it for yourself and draw your own conclusions! It's slightly more versatile based on additional features and has several harmonic profiles.
Very Nice Video. With every Free plug in that is supposed to replicate an expensive piece of hardware, there's always the need for some form of spectra graph or oscilloscope visual to compare them. You provided that excellently making it worth the price, which is free. There's also a menu that allows you to put the plug in into stepped mode and so it might even be closer but as you stated, the difference that you showed indicates that the audio difference might not be audible to the professional audiophile person.
You should also check Hammerstein to see how harmonic distortion behaves across the whole frequency spectrum. Real analog gear tends to have much more interesting behavior compared to emulations
One other advantage of a plugin is that you can put it on all tracks at the same time if you'd wanted to do so. When with the hardware version you'll need to buy two for just one stereo Chanel.
@florisbackx1744 I end up committing everything to audio anyway and don't need to have a load of plugins running just because we can now. I.E. The same as with hardware.
The analog sounded like it had higher resolution and a little bit more natural or less dead than the plugin. but the difference is negligible sounds like they have matched the curves well though.
After listening to a few A/B’s of hardware vs plug-in it seems like there’s a sort of “plug in sound” that just always sounds a little flat compared to hardware
It’s really audible. When switching to hardware there was less hiF and slightly more lowF. That little amount of hiF make a little difference in the result and possibly a big difference in a chain.
Das ist das große Problem das diese alten kontinentalen Consolen so sauber und gut klingen ohne Sound zu machen….. das ist für viele ohne „legendären Sound „…… 🤔😢
You really like the original "Audio" design aspects of the hardware. If the plugin can accomplish exactly the same thing, then use it on EVERY track, right? You only have 2 of these things right now, right? (Geez ... what should I do?)
Great review and another great plugin. Love Pulsar! By the same settings the hardware sounds fuller,and low end sounds fuller. But it is really enough just to push a bit low frerquencies on the plugin up ,- and the same sound can be easily reached. We live in the real golden era of what the plugins can do!
rofl. nothing that cannot be accounted for. I think we are putting too much stock in it. Each hardware EQ will be slightly different, but this aint anything to write home about here in that department. I think it is fair to give credit where it is due, it probably is a very accurate emulation of their hardware EQ. It sounds close enough, even when compared against a different unit. Phenomenal really.
@@jamescuttsmusicjcm5013This is a comparison of only one software model in mid/side (correct?) vs two hardware units in L/R. The side channel content generated by differing L/R low frequency hardware curves and harmonic responses could account for some difference.
I normally don't like the "hardware sounds better" comments. But the hardware sounded a lot fuller and less bright. I was impressed when I saw that the curves were almost identical.
The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the plugin was that you have the part as a hardware unit. And I was almost sure that there will be a video about it. I was not disappointed.
@@kimseniorbInteresting... maybe the hardware left and right phase are actually less coherent in the low end, which would generate more low frequency side channel harmonics.
@@sparella i doubt it, its very easy to measure and model. it could be distortion which is still very hard to replicate 100% accurately. it’s usually what gives that real compression/glue to everything with the hw.
You should watch some Dan Worall videos. Phase is the same on all EQ’s if you match the curve, because the phase change is what they use to EQ. Linear phase excluded, obviously.
Okay, I may be going insane, but I actually heard quite a noticeable difference (even with my eyes closed). I'm not someone who believes hardware is necessary in mixing at all, but in this example, I preferred the hardware. I perceived it as wider, softer, and more glued, which theoretically could be due to the differences in L/R (width), slightly fewer mids and highs 1k- 10k (softer), and additional harmonics (glue). Btw. - this is coming from someone who doesn't perceive the UA-cam conversion to be a big concern for the overall quality. Conclusion: I'd suggest implementing optional differences between L/R to Pulsar. When it comes to the differences in the curve that could be just the difference between the unit modelled and yours, like the harmonics (less likely though). It's not the kind of plugin I'd need, but maybe someone like you when they are on the road could benefit from it.
The lowend sounds so much better on the hardware. Maybe they update the plugin. nice to have for free but for full price that would be a bit disappointing
Plugin sounds great. Hardware will always have the advantage of warmth, stereo imaging with more precise low mids, transients. Use the plugin for what it is, just as the hardware will be used by professionals or those who really have the budget to indulge themselves. Pulsar is a great French brand, and as "true parisian Boy" I'm proud to say : VIVE LA FRANCE
@@TransistorLSD I think I understand what you are saying, but it's a very easy check. In most of my own exploring, you can say the same for plain EQ-ing. It's tricky sometimes, and easy to overlook levels. It's all about approach?
@@gossipboynyc9625-VN I probably would prefer auto-gain above clippping. Auto-gain in this way, sort of acts like what you want a muliband-compressor to do, without the hassles. It is very easy to set by ear. You can always turn it off.
Is there a reason you are not showing the phase behavior with the plugin doctor? I noticed the transients of the high-hat sounded a bit opener to my ears on the hardware version.
Pulsar plugins are fantastic across the board....We are lucky to live in times where we can "try" hardware in a plugin, then later buy the hardware, finances permitting. We aren't all that flush....
Fuse Audio Labs also does a free version of this that's worth checking out. Maybe a shoot out to how this one, that one, and the Overloud version compare to each other and the hardware would be cool.
It's a great one, and one of my favorite free EQ's. However, the Fuse Audio Lab's plugin is not a direct emulation of the w495, but rather an emulation of an EQ designed by Roger Schult - the W2395. The W2395 hardware is inspired by the Neumann w495, but it's not a clone. You could probably still consider the two plugins pretty equal to each other. The Pulsar plugin has M/S for each band separately, and freely adjustable frequencies for the shelves, so it has some advantages over the Fuse Audio plugin.
@@sparella yes, I did. The most significant differences are that the high filter in RS-W works a bit like a Pultec, meaning when you boost the highs it also cuts a bit in the mids at the same time. If you cut the highs with the high filter, it instead boosts the mids a bit. The mid bell filter in RS-W is not as surgical as in W495. The tightest Q factor in RS-W is about the same as the widest Q factor in W495. RS-W also has higher order saturation, and the saturation is pretty much flat throughout the frequency spectrum, while W495 only saturates the very low frequencies (so a bit more realistic transformer saturation). You can also drive the saturation in RS-W without affecting the output. You can't do this in W495. I would probably choose RS-W for individual instrument tracks since it's a bit easier on CPU, isn't fully parametric and doesn't have M/S capabilities. W495 is probably better for mastering and buss processing since it has M/S functionality, is a bit cleaner, is fully parametric, but is also a bit heavier on CPU. You can definitely use them interchangeably though. Just choose the one that works for the situation. Both are great sounding and are very good for broad tonal adjustments.
I would love to see ur opinions of the apb-8 or -16 because it seems like a really cool concept, but it really seems like a too good to be true type situation.
In mastering the difference might make sense but in mixing, 99.9% is about skills and pro makes boutique mix with the plugins while amateur makes the crap no matter how good hw he uses
In your point of view lets say that your hardware eq burned out and you need to send them to repair and they gonna take a month or two. Well you have the equivalent to continue your work while you wait for your hardware to return. I think the plugin is a most have in your particularly case.
You can have stepped knobs if you want, you can chose that in the settings of the plugin (the 3 dots in the upper right of the window).
Just wanted to comment that they should add a button to switch between stepped and full range, but great work of Pulsar that they already thought of this 👍
That’s what happens when someone does a video about a plug-in but didn’t read the manual on it or learned all about it
@@vadimmartynyuk The purpose of the video was just to sonicaly compare with the real thing which he owns, so the details of the GUI of the plugin are not so important in my opinion.
definitely should do more research before posting a lot of these vids he does@@vadimmartynyuk
1- Throw the egocentric "exclusiveness" away
2- Enjoy the chance to be able to put 30 instances of your favorite EQ for free.
What about that???
😂
The matching of the EQ curves is actually pretty amazing if you consider the real life component tolerances for the hardware units... And even more amazing is how well mached your hardware units are, but maybe they have been sold as a matched pair. If all units that leave the factory are that close to eachother, they probably spend a considerable amount of the manufacturing costs matching components (or buy prematched or otherwise very high tolerance parts).
Low shelf up boost mono, high shelf sides (cut or boost) - work early in the chain so other master eq does the push or pull to compensate for potential harshness or over lows
Amazing! Very Very Very close to the Analog. I felt a touch more punchiness from the analog version but the rest was identical. Thanks for the video and the link!
The only difference is in the harmonics. The analog has a bit more, and as the host said, that could've been attributed to old components in his own units. Plus, if it's harmonics you want, there are so many ways to get that now!
So, I did a little test, I compared my API 550A to waves version. The EQ curves were pretty much identical, but the analog had a bit more saturation. On the channel with waves plugin, I ran it through the Elysia Karacter hardware (not that I needed to), and I was able to dial in some of that so-called analog goodness. I was able to get waves 550A and API 550A 100% indistinguishable! And I'm sure I could have achieved that 100% with plugins too! Just thought I'd share.
@@experiment0003interesting! Thanks for sharing
Analog EQ has more warm Low End. I appreciate this comparison video 🙏
What makes plugins like this one valid is really when developers take into account how the hardware specifically colourises the signal and don’t simply imitate the EQ curves only.
I'd resume it in a few words... "the same sound but with no cable noise and a bit more sparkling highs" Hardware seems to be fuller in the mid range, but less transparent (obviusly digital). I'm so happy to find this one by mistake since I'm hunting for Massive on a discount. And for a true A/B test would've been fair to try nulling them out! That'd be very interesting to hear/see.
Nulling will never work when comparing an analog unit to digital. Or even another analog unit. The data isn’t useful. Two passes of the same analog unit would never even remotely null
@@Rhuggins sure! There's even cable noise involved. But still it'd be interesting to see
As you can see in the PluginDoctor frequency analysis, they will not only never null bc of analog noise, but also bc of different harmonics.
I hate to say it but the free TDR VOS Slick EQ still outperforms the Pulsar W495.
I challenge you to test it for yourself and draw your own conclusions!
It's slightly more versatile based on additional features and has several harmonic profiles.
Very Nice Video.
With every Free plug in that is supposed to replicate an expensive piece of hardware, there's always the need for some form of spectra graph or oscilloscope visual to compare them. You provided that excellently making it worth the price, which is free.
There's also a menu that allows you to put the plug in into stepped mode and so it might even be closer but as you stated, the difference that you showed indicates that the audio difference might not be audible to the professional audiophile person.
what I hear is something more punchy around the 100hz area, more "bumpy" in a pleasing way with the hardware, sort of more woody and organic feeling.
You should also check Hammerstein to see how harmonic distortion behaves across the whole frequency spectrum. Real analog gear tends to have much more interesting behavior compared to emulations
I’m not competent enough in that analysis yet
@@Whiteseastudio me neither but if that approach shows the non-linear behavior it’s definitely something to learn about
One other advantage of a plugin is that you can put it on all tracks at the same time if you'd wanted to do so. When with the hardware version you'll need to buy two for just one stereo Chanel.
Yeah you will have more LESSER quality audio for your song 😂
@florisbackx1744 I end up committing everything to audio anyway and don't need to have a load of plugins running just because we can now. I.E. The same as with hardware.
I thought the hardware sounded a little bit more open, which I suppose could be due to the additional harmonics of the hardware.
Could always test highest over-sampling as well which gives plugin sometimes extra open-ness
Feels quite close to my ears. Got the freebie myself today, let's see if it gets a lot of use.
low end transients on the hardware sound more pronounced, probably cause of the more harmonics.
The analog sounded like it had higher resolution and a little bit more natural or less dead than the plugin. but the difference is negligible sounds like they have matched the curves well though.
Thanks for the great review!
7:05 “Not all Hero’s wear capes.”
Why should anyone use such kind of limited EQ if we have something like fabfilter or even any Stock EQ can do that no?
I have no clue 😂
@@Whiteseastudio is there a difference in sound if you use the same curves ?
@@eliaszerano3510Not really, most EQs are pretty much the same and replaceable
After listening to a few A/B’s of hardware vs plug-in it seems like there’s a sort of “plug in sound” that just always sounds a little flat compared to hardware
i think the magic there is the constant q of the mid band?
Tried installing this on offline pc but it attempted online activation and gave a virus warning when doing so...
Wauw allmost the same only the plugin sounds a little bit thinner and more fluffy., But wauw amazing ill use it now on my master
I did not get the message....???!!!!
the Kick hits better on the real one IMHO
"Unsung heroes" is the expression you were looking for, I think.
In English you could say, "Unsung heroes."
I think that sounds really, really close!
the hardware sounds a touch more alive, impressive tho
It’s not really a true emulation if it has in between frequencies.
Ok, now bring in the one from Fuse Audio.
Hardware sounds a little better
It’s really audible. When switching to hardware there was less hiF and slightly more lowF. That little amount of hiF make a little difference in the result and possibly a big difference in a chain.
It's free for a limited time btw.
But then again, already have more plugs than I'll ever use.
Das ist das große Problem das diese alten kontinentalen Consolen so sauber und gut klingen ohne Sound zu machen….. das ist für viele ohne „legendären Sound „…… 🤔😢
I hear the difference on my iPhone 😅
Hardware had more punch...
$69 now lol, I'll hold on to my cash this time.
🙂👍
You really like the original "Audio" design aspects of the hardware. If the plugin can accomplish exactly the same thing, then use it on EVERY track, right? You only have 2 of these things right now, right? (Geez ... what should I do?)
Don't be a snob. You don't have to tell anyone. No one will ever know. No one can hear above 15K anyway. It's a brave new world.
Well it’s free for a limited time
Comment for da algorithm
Streak count: 187
I don't waste time on emulations. Because the whole world is surrounded by bs claims.
The PlugIn sounds just lifeless, 2D, static and artificial compared to the real one.
Top right corner.. You can access a menu that can allow you to make the knobs stepped..
😂 easy 👍
Yeah, plus superb Oversampling
Great review and another great plugin. Love Pulsar! By the same settings the hardware sounds fuller,and low end sounds fuller. But it is really enough just to push a bit low frerquencies on the plugin up ,- and the same sound can be easily reached. We live in the real golden era of what the plugins can do!
I saw this on another channel and thought "White sea has this for real he should cover it" and he you are 👌
The low end of the hardware was more full. Otherwise the plugin got pretty close
The fuller low mids make the bass sound much better on the hardware. Was able to detect both of them with my eyes closed because of that.
rofl. nothing that cannot be accounted for. I think we are putting too much stock in it. Each hardware EQ will be slightly different, but this aint anything to write home about here in that department. I think it is fair to give credit where it is due, it probably is a very accurate emulation of their hardware EQ. It sounds close enough, even when compared against a different unit. Phenomenal really.
@@jamescuttsmusicjcm5013This is a comparison of only one software model in mid/side (correct?) vs two hardware units in L/R. The side channel content generated by differing L/R low frequency hardware curves and harmonic responses could account for some difference.
I normally don't like the "hardware sounds better" comments. But the hardware sounded a lot fuller and less bright. I was impressed when I saw that the curves were almost identical.
I agree, the snare is somehow more “blurry” with the digital one, like you loose a little bit the micro timing of the snare being behind.
@@henriksalvesen1078I hear it as the fundamental of the snare being accentuated with the hardware.
The hardware felt punchier to me
The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the plugin was that you have the part as a hardware unit. And I was almost sure that there will be a video about it.
I was not disappointed.
More harmonics from hardware eq? How do you know it is not THD from your DA-AD conversions?
That's a sho' nuff funky Eartrh Wind and Fire funky version of "Sand Storm"!!!
I slightly prefer the brighter highs of the plugin but really like the punchier fuller lows of the hardware. Thanks for the A/B Wytse.
yeah analog does feel more solid, as if the phase is more coherent
I wonder if there are some mad folks who combine both like in New York compression.
@@kimseniorbInteresting... maybe the hardware left and right phase are actually less coherent in the low end, which would generate more low frequency side channel harmonics.
@@sparella i doubt it, its very easy to measure and model. it could be distortion which is still very hard to replicate 100% accurately. it’s usually what gives that real compression/glue to everything with the hw.
You should watch some Dan Worall videos. Phase is the same on all EQ’s if you match the curve, because the phase change is what they use to EQ.
Linear phase excluded, obviously.
Okay, I may be going insane, but I actually heard quite a noticeable difference (even with my eyes closed). I'm not someone who believes hardware is necessary in mixing at all, but in this example, I preferred the hardware. I perceived it as wider, softer, and more glued, which theoretically could be due to the differences in L/R (width), slightly fewer mids and highs 1k- 10k (softer), and additional harmonics (glue). Btw. - this is coming from someone who doesn't perceive the UA-cam conversion to be a big concern for the overall quality.
Conclusion: I'd suggest implementing optional differences between L/R to Pulsar. When it comes to the differences in the curve that could be just the difference between the unit modelled and yours, like the harmonics (less likely though). It's not the kind of plugin I'd need, but maybe someone like you when they are on the road could benefit from it.
The lowend sounds so much better on the hardware. Maybe they update the plugin. nice to have for free but for full price that would be a bit disappointing
Plugin sounds great. Hardware will always have the advantage of warmth, stereo imaging with more precise low mids, transients. Use the plugin for what it is, just as the hardware will be used by professionals or those who really have the budget to indulge themselves.
Pulsar is a great French brand, and as "true parisian Boy" I'm proud to say : VIVE LA FRANCE
I downloaded it immediately, because of the auto-gain option .....super handy.
And it sounds really good.
Autogain for EQ can be very distracting, be careful
@@TransistorLSD I think I understand what you are saying, but it's a very easy check. In most of my own exploring, you can say the same for plain EQ-ing. It's tricky sometimes, and easy to overlook levels. It's all about approach?
@@Projacked1 Just pull it back yourself manually is possible practice too, or go into a leveler - soft clip (or hard ceiling) - analog machine
@@gossipboynyc9625-VN I probably would prefer auto-gain above clippping. Auto-gain in this way, sort of acts like what you want a muliband-compressor to do, without the hassles. It is very easy to set by ear.
You can always turn it off.
Overloud made a nice emulation of this, some time ago. Still use it.
5:14 says it all
I absolutely heard no differences between hardware & software! Use that on an MP Controller and there you go, you can have it on your desk :P
Is there a reason you are not showing the phase behavior with the plugin doctor? I noticed the transients of the high-hat sounded a bit opener to my ears on the hardware version.
Am i hearing incorrectly or did he say “ashilliate link” at the end?
Did that on purpose… but this plugin is free, so there is no affiliate or ashilliate for this one
Writing on 7:30 ........... What about three dots in right upper corner ? There's stepped mode there!!!
Pulsar plugins are fantastic across the board....We are lucky to live in times where we can "try" hardware in a plugin, then later buy the hardware, finances permitting. We aren't all that flush....
Fuse Audio Labs also does a free version of this that's worth checking out. Maybe a shoot out to how this one, that one, and the Overloud version compare to each other and the hardware would be cool.
It's a great one, and one of my favorite free EQ's. However, the Fuse Audio Lab's plugin is not a direct emulation of the w495, but rather an emulation of an EQ designed by Roger Schult - the W2395. The W2395 hardware is inspired by the Neumann w495, but it's not a clone. You could probably still consider the two plugins pretty equal to each other. The Pulsar plugin has M/S for each band separately, and freely adjustable frequencies for the shelves, so it has some advantages over the Fuse Audio plugin.
@@nj1255 Did you happen to compare the two plugins? I'm curious if the Fuse has the low end punch that the Pulsar is lacking next to the hardware.
@@devinwright9441 I've never noticed it taking up a lot
@@sparella yes, I did. The most significant differences are that the high filter in RS-W works a bit like a Pultec, meaning when you boost the highs it also cuts a bit in the mids at the same time. If you cut the highs with the high filter, it instead boosts the mids a bit. The mid bell filter in RS-W is not as surgical as in W495. The tightest Q factor in RS-W is about the same as the widest Q factor in W495. RS-W also has higher order saturation, and the saturation is pretty much flat throughout the frequency spectrum, while W495 only saturates the very low frequencies (so a bit more realistic transformer saturation). You can also drive the saturation in RS-W without affecting the output. You can't do this in W495. I would probably choose RS-W for individual instrument tracks since it's a bit easier on CPU, isn't fully parametric and doesn't have M/S capabilities. W495 is probably better for mastering and buss processing since it has M/S functionality, is a bit cleaner, is fully parametric, but is also a bit heavier on CPU. You can definitely use them interchangeably though. Just choose the one that works for the situation. Both are great sounding and are very good for broad tonal adjustments.
@@nj1255 Makes sense,
raiiiight
GREAT NEWS!!! I LOVE German vintage EQs! Have to get it right now!
Thre's is an option to set it to stepped in the menus somewhere.
I'm old, and as hard as I tried I couldn't hear the difference.
Is it just me or do I always hear "aSHILLiate" links in being said in this channel? I always think "dutch", but this sounds so clear 😂
I would love to see ur opinions of the apb-8 or -16 because it seems like a really cool concept, but it really seems like a too good to be true type situation.
The Pulsar sounds harsh and sterile, with slight phse problems, not bad but kind of difficult to listen to.
They still dropping Sandstorm huh.... Remix #4,245???? Not sure...
Impressive! Even more impressive as a freebie.
Thanks for heads-up!
you can also just click the number and it will snap right to it
Thanks for the video✌🏻
Plugins sounds flat for me ... Hardware sounds a kind of 3D ....
In mastering the difference might make sense but in mixing, 99.9% is about skills and pro makes boutique mix with the plugins while amateur makes the crap no matter how good hw he uses
Funny, something is for free,
all the Dutch go downloading it a.s.a.p.
Overloading the server 😂
the two hardware eqs being slightly different is smearing the spectrum and making it a smidge wider sounding and better tbh
Somehow HW has more unobtrusive details in the sound.
In your point of view lets say that your hardware eq burned out and you need to send them to repair and they gonna take a month or two. Well you have the equivalent to continue your work while you wait for your hardware to return. I think the plugin is a most have in your particularly case.
Hardware wins. Obviously.
Thank you :-)
Great sounding track White Sea!!
Whytse! Pronounced Wit-ser. Hence people calling him what you did, and hence the channel name. 😉
Downloaded the freebee. Had to get used to it... but it is great!
Muchas gracias deberías de hacer más comparaciones de plug-ins va análogo sería genial gracias ❤
It is not free. It is $99. There is a 14 day trial.
Hardware was slightly louder.
07:10 - "Unsung heroes" perhaps...?
That sucks. It WAS free.
Wytse forgot to paint those nails
I can hear a good difference on the width of instruments on analog.
What about Slates VSX?
long time fan BTW.
sounded great to me
Have you thought about including more reviews of 500 series on your channel? Thanks a lot
Yes! I’m currently producing a few
TDR Slick Eq.
Null test!