• Welcome to the General Discussion forum for UAD users!

    Please note that this forum is user-run, although we're thrilled to have so much contribution from Drew, Will, and other UA folks!

    Feel free to discuss both UAD and non-UAD related subjects!

    1) Please do not post technical issues here. Please use our UAD Support Forums instead.

    2) Please do not post complaints here. Use the Unrest Forum instead. They have no place in the the General Discussion forum.

    Threads posted in the wrong forum will be moved, so if you don't see your thread here anymore, please look in the correct forum.

    Lastly, please be respectful.

cambridge eq, is it necessary?

daleks

New Member
Hi all.. just got a UAD-2 card the other day, and must say indeed it rocks.
so, of course I have been demoing plugins and deciding what to get with my voucher, and would like your advice regarding the Cambridge.
I make mostly in the box electronic music, and have alloted myself one strategic EQ, and am thinking to go with the Precision EQ for its nice treatment of highs. still though, I have heard alot of good things about the Cambridge, and am wondering with all of the native EQ options like Waves REQ, Sonalksis, etc, is it a necessary tool, or do the natives hold up against it? similarly how does a mix sound using the Cambridge as a track EQ as opposed to the other options?
 

cheerful hamster

Hamsterdamus
I like the Cambridge high and low pass filters. I seldom use the EQ itself. The Neve 88RS EQ section is everything I wanted the Cambridge to be.

IMHO the UAD platform shines on EQs and compressors. Each one is different, and some serve different purposes (e.g. the Precision EQ is good for mastering). If you need a jack-of-all-trades, I'd recommend the 88RS. It can do surgical and broadband EQ with minimum color. For colors, go for the Pultecs, the Helios, the Neve 10XXs. For silky highs, Pultec and Helios. For classic richness, Neves all the way.

If you are not an EQ fanatic, some native stuff is pretty good...Oxford EQ, Waves API, Voxengo GlissEQ. Just don't anything too extreme and they can sound good.
 

djsynchro

Hall of Fame Member
I think the Cambridge is really good. Yoiu should really read the manual the shelves for example have options for overshoot/undershoot which make the effect of EQing more pronounced. Then start the demo tweak away and see if it's for you.
 

jumper24

New Member
the cambridge eq section is the same as the standard EQ in cubase (i can phase it out with more than 80dB)
- so if you on cubase you can save some bucks
 

lqbe

Venerated Member
i think the cambridge is one must-buy. low dsp usage, lots of instances, versatile, butterknifey-steep filters.

@cubase: you didn't mention the version...
 

Eric Dahlberg

Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
Cambridge's filters are more versatile and in many ways better sounding than anything else out there. As much as I've tried to stop using Cambridge in favor of the Precision EQ, 88RS, PLPar, or Oxford, I've found that none of these have the same character.
 

Fairlight

Venerated Member
I love the Cambridge filters... Even moreso that the Sonnox Oxford filters. Doing exactly the same thing on either provides better results with the UA one, IMO.
 

daleks

New Member
right, the filters are what really makes it interesting... especially cutting those low-level low frequency signals. but can a native eq do that? i found with some, like the Sonalksis i had to compensate but cutting a little higher, while the Canbridge has that steep cut with the E6. but since it does introduce some phasing, is it worth it? how do mixes sound with E6s all over the place? cleaner, or phasy?
 

Eric Dahlberg

Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
daleks said:
right, the filters are what really makes it interesting... especially cutting those low-level low frequency signals. but can a native eq do that? i found with some, like the Sonalksis i had to compensate but cutting a little higher, while the Canbridge has that steep cut with the E6. but since it does introduce some phasing, is it worth it? how do mixes sound with E6s all over the place? cleaner, or phasy?
I personally only ever use the gentler curves and thus do not have phase issues. The Sonalksis actually has more phase issues than most, that actually seems to be part of its character (and it's cool for it!) but you'll want to avoid using it if that's a concern.

As far as other EQ's go, Precision EQ's filter will probably be too gentle for you (not to mention that it cuts a lot higher than its stated frequency) and 88RS is nice but only has one curve. Linear phase EQ's like Voxengo CurveEQ and PSP Neon could even be better choices if phase is your primary concern.
 

steff3

Active Member
yes, for steep cuts I normally also use LP EQs - Neon HR or the one in Ozone .... make sure that you select the highest buffer sizes within the EQs especially for high cuts at low frequencies.

best
 

mpayne0

Venerated Member
jumper24 said:
the cambridge eq section is the same as the standard EQ in cubase (i can phase it out with more than 80dB)
- so if you on cubase you can save some bucks
Lots of times I start with Cubase EQ, then eyeball the settings into the Cambridge. I have never come across a situation where Cubase did a better job.

Cubase EQ is good when you use a hi-pass, and some low freq still sneak thru, then you activate a shelf on top of Cambridges hi-pass filter.
 

Eric Dahlberg

Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
steff3 said:
yes, for steep cuts I normally also use LP EQs - Neon HR or the one in Ozone
Is there any benefit in using Neon HR over the normal Neon in this case?
 

Suntower

Established Member
lqbe said:
i think the cambridge is one must-buy. low dsp usage, lots of instances, versatile, butterknifey-steep filters.
Best surgical EQ. Don't leave home without it.

---JC
 

TomW

Member
Best EQ interface of all time.

Great filters, great bottom end, highly flexibe. Not a fan of the top end too much though.

-T
 

fader8

Member
Eric Dahlberg said:
I personally only ever use the gentler curves and thus do not have phase issues. The Sonalksis actually has more phase issues than most, that actually seems to be part of its character (and it's cool for it!) but you'll want to avoid using it if that's a concern.
Interesting that this discussion should come up as I was just doing some comparisons and measurements on these two EQ's.

In truth, the Sonalksis SV517mk2 and the UAD Cambridge are both high quality minimum phase EQ's. Their phase response is identical given any particular filter shape. For the bell and shelf shapes, Types 1, 2 and 3 are very different in use between them, but you can accomplish nearly the same curve with both.

There are two notable differences, the Cambridge provides far more low and high pass selections, whereas the SV517mk2 has only 4 fixed selections, and the Cambridge has shelving available on all 5 bands. The latter is a big one for me.

They do ring a little different when using steep slopes and heavy boosts though, the Cambridge being a little better in this regard. The Cambridge does exhibit a bit more harmonic distortion under heavy boosting, which could account for many peoples impression of it being a bit brittle sounding. Not a problem if you don't abuse it though. Or a plus, if that's what you want!

Both great EQ's.

FYI, here are the exact LP/HP equivalents if anyone wants them:
SV517------->Cambridge settings
6 dB-------->6 db/Oct
12 dB------->Butterworth 2
18 dB------->Butterworth 3
24dB-------->Butterworth 4
 

Loki

Member
Well, I've been trying to find a native replacement for it, and I haven't found anything that has better HP and LP filters.

Especially doing bass heavy music, the different slopes available to remove sub bass without losing too much are indispensible for me.

A must buy for electronic/dance stuff.
 

fader8

Member
jimmymio said:
Any reason to have them both?
Personal taste, really. As I mentioned, they are a bit different in sound despite their similarities. There's no way to fully characterize all aspects of a filter set under dynamic music conditions with measurement techniques. Your ears should be the judge of this.
 

Awesom-o

Active Member
fader8 said:
Types 1, 2 and 3 are very different in use between them, but you can accomplish nearly the same curve with both.
Type 1 2 or 3 just determines how the controls are linked together. The sound is identical, for any given settings of freq, Q and gain.
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top