-
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.
Helios 69 or Neve 1081?
- Thread starter alfadog
- Start date
I'm doing a comparison right now between 1073, 1081 and Helios. After an hour of A/B/Cing, they all have their strengths but if you can only afford one (and that's me) it seems like the 1081 is the best.
I absolutely LOVE the 1073 on some things and the Helios for others, but it seems like one can get awfully close with the 1081. Plus, having an SE version is important to me.
---JC
I absolutely LOVE the 1073 on some things and the Helios for others, but it seems like one can get awfully close with the 1081. Plus, having an SE version is important to me.
---JC
alfadog said:
wishingwell
Active Member
I'd have to third that. The 1081 i love the best. Even tho i'm blown away by the Helios (due to it's newness and ofcourse the fact that it's darn good) i still prefer the 1081 over it and 1073. But how lovely it would be to own all. They do have different sounds and each are special in its own way.
Jeraz
Active Member
I love the Helios. I A/B'd tonight against the 1081. Actually, I A/B'd two Helios stacked against ONE 1081 (so that I could more or less even up the \"nodes\" against the 1081)...on stereo mic'd fingerstyle acoustic guitar (Martin D-35), through API 312 pres, I was, well, stunned by the Helios...I have to have it for that application alone. I will live with what I have for other stuff until I am ready to buy the 1081. 
OK, at the risk of being a wet blanket... I've been seriously A/B/C/Ding the Helios, 1081, 1073 and Cambridge for the past 2 hrs on 4 loops:
1. Bass guitar
2. My baritone voice
3. Classical guitar
4. Snare drum
And here's the thing...
They all sound -fairly- similar (...er... to -me- that is). If that similarity is the 'British' thing, then OK. But it isn't -that- different. (So far, the big difference to me is that the 'Q' on the Neve EQs is wider (less) than on the Helios which makes it sound fatter on the bottom.)
Which leads me to...
I started futzing with the Cambridge to 'clone' these and ya know? You can get -darned- close, simply by matching freq, cut/boost on each plug and then moving the 'Q' on the appropriate Cambridge band to where it best matches.
Now, I'm not saying 'Don't buy, the Emperor has no clothes.' You can't -exactly- match, AND even more significantly---when you open the Neve or Helios you DON'T have to futz. IOW: it's an instant 'sound'---the only reason I got close was because I had the Neve and Helios to match it to!
But it =is= food for thought.
Give it a try... especially if you're on a budget. At the very least, you'll learn something about EQing technique (...well... -I- did) and maybe the Cambridge would be good enough for your needs.
---JC
1. Bass guitar
2. My baritone voice
3. Classical guitar
4. Snare drum
And here's the thing...
They all sound -fairly- similar (...er... to -me- that is). If that similarity is the 'British' thing, then OK. But it isn't -that- different. (So far, the big difference to me is that the 'Q' on the Neve EQs is wider (less) than on the Helios which makes it sound fatter on the bottom.)
Which leads me to...
I started futzing with the Cambridge to 'clone' these and ya know? You can get -darned- close, simply by matching freq, cut/boost on each plug and then moving the 'Q' on the appropriate Cambridge band to where it best matches.
Now, I'm not saying 'Don't buy, the Emperor has no clothes.' You can't -exactly- match, AND even more significantly---when you open the Neve or Helios you DON'T have to futz. IOW: it's an instant 'sound'---the only reason I got close was because I had the Neve and Helios to match it to!
But it =is= food for thought.
Give it a try... especially if you're on a budget. At the very least, you'll learn something about EQing technique (...well... -I- did) and maybe the Cambridge would be good enough for your needs.
---JC
Jeraz
Active Member
Ya know, you make some good points. When it comes down to it, I will decide what *I* like, fully conscious of the fact that you can't really tell the difference half the time unless you ARE A/B-ing...
It's subtle. For example, aside from the Q, the Helios sounds a little \"tighter\" to me than the 1081. I love both sounds...but I on the steel string, what a \"well-behaved\" track you get with the Helios. It's a nice combo with the API...if I have time I will post some clips by week's end.
The reason I was stunned was I wasn't expecting much. This little thing with a couple of knobs and toggles...on sale...LOL...I ought to have known better... :roll:
It's subtle. For example, aside from the Q, the Helios sounds a little \"tighter\" to me than the 1081. I love both sounds...but I on the steel string, what a \"well-behaved\" track you get with the Helios. It's a nice combo with the API...if I have time I will post some clips by week's end.
The reason I was stunned was I wasn't expecting much. This little thing with a couple of knobs and toggles...on sale...LOL...I ought to have known better... :roll:
I can see what you mean by the Helios 'tighter bottom'---I think part of it is because of tighter Q, but I also think it's the 'analogy' modelling that adds a bit of (sorry for being descriptive) 'graininess'. Reminds me of Brit guitar amps where the bass knob isn't as 'tubby' as a Fender amp, but still sounds fat.
BTW: I'm doing all my testing in Cubase using it's non-GUI mode for two reasons:
1. It's amazing how much looking at the graphics affects one's perception of the sound.
2. It's much quicker turning each one on and off or making precise adjustments to match the various contestants.
---JC
BTW: I'm doing all my testing in Cubase using it's non-GUI mode for two reasons:
1. It's amazing how much looking at the graphics affects one's perception of the sound.
2. It's much quicker turning each one on and off or making precise adjustments to match the various contestants.
---JC
Jeraz
Active Member
Yes, you are on to something. I just tried one instance on a Broadway-style vocal (my baritone) with an 1176, and then two on each side of an 1176 on the Martin...nice combo to my ears!Suntower said:
I disagree with those that say another EQ is or comp is boring (BTW, I *Don't* like the Neve compressor at all). I A/B'd Helios on that "Broadway" vocal with the Pultec and the 1081...the character differences are so striking that, if you can't hear it, it might prove worthwhile to upgrade your converters, monitors, cans, or something else in your monitoring chain.
Can you get by with one EQ? Of course! I having 32 flavors more fun? Of course! (At least for me...and provided that I learn their nuances).
PS: I think that the 1081 "Air" region is softer and more of a sheen than a cut-through treble like the Helios...again, a place for both...and perhaps how that certain graininess that you described translates on the high-end.
Eric Dahlberg
Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
Do you already have the 1073?alfadog said:
alfadog
Member
No, I don't have the 1073 yet. I was debating between the 1073 and the 1081 and was going to purchase the 1081 because it's 4 band as opposed the 3 for the 1073. Just as I logged into UAD's site to make the purchase, I suddenly see the Helios. I've already got the Cambridge EQ for surgical applications so I guess I'm looking for a character EQ, sort of like the Fairchild 670 is with compressors. I was hoping to demo the Helios but for whatever reason the demo wasn't available to me, it came up as Expired with no option to demo it. I, like a lot of other people here want to use $75 coupon I have for my three cards. But, when I read the forums, it seems like people are pretty split 50/50 when it comes to the 1073 vs the 1081. Without being able to demo it before the sale ends, can anyone tell me if the Helios is a processor hog? Thanks...AL
As soon as I buy the Helios, I'll have both Neve eq's along with the 69. If I was only to get one, it'd be the 1073. The 1081 definitely is more versatile, but the mid band of the 73 is pure magic. From playing with the Helios tonight for a couple of hours, I'll say that when it works on a source, it's amazing, but when it's not right, it's way off. The 1073, to me, is more apt to sound great on just about everything. The 1081 sounds just *good* on everything (though that's certainly not a bad thing).
A/B ing
Right on everyone.
I have been putting the 1073 and the Helios through tests and have found similar things when trying to copy with the Cambridge and (oh yes...wait for it) the default Logic Pro Channel EQ.
The Cambridge comes the closest but the Logic EQ can get close - sometimes. The big thing about the Logic EQ is that on certain frequencies, the stereo image starts to cloud (which I think, is the amount of phase that the EQ is imparting). The Neve and Helios can really give an open, deep and resonant sound. Very dimensional and rich. Logic can match the EQ frequencies but not the openness. The Cambridge on most frequencies can almost match (like Logic) and only has half the amount of haze that Logic gives.
The interesting thing that I found with the Helois and Neve comparison was that in some of the midrange bands (like 4.5K / 4.8k) the program material I gave it determined the more pleasing sound. For example, at that frequency, Music A sounds better on the 1073, Music B sounds better on the Type69.
I think the Helios and the Neve are very close in 'overall sound' - the Qs and the difference in center and shelf frequencies will naturally impart a change in the details.
BTW - 12kHz Shelf on the Neve 1073 my butt! That thing has the longest reaching low end in the world. To get Logic's shelf to match the 'perceived' shelf frequency, I had to set it at 3800Hz. But is that not an amazing faux-12kHz? What a sound!
Paul
Right on everyone.
I have been putting the 1073 and the Helios through tests and have found similar things when trying to copy with the Cambridge and (oh yes...wait for it) the default Logic Pro Channel EQ.
The Cambridge comes the closest but the Logic EQ can get close - sometimes. The big thing about the Logic EQ is that on certain frequencies, the stereo image starts to cloud (which I think, is the amount of phase that the EQ is imparting). The Neve and Helios can really give an open, deep and resonant sound. Very dimensional and rich. Logic can match the EQ frequencies but not the openness. The Cambridge on most frequencies can almost match (like Logic) and only has half the amount of haze that Logic gives.
The interesting thing that I found with the Helois and Neve comparison was that in some of the midrange bands (like 4.5K / 4.8k) the program material I gave it determined the more pleasing sound. For example, at that frequency, Music A sounds better on the 1073, Music B sounds better on the Type69.
I think the Helios and the Neve are very close in 'overall sound' - the Qs and the difference in center and shelf frequencies will naturally impart a change in the details.
BTW - 12kHz Shelf on the Neve 1073 my butt! That thing has the longest reaching low end in the world. To get Logic's shelf to match the 'perceived' shelf frequency, I had to set it at 3800Hz. But is that not an amazing faux-12kHz? What a sound!
Paul