Neve 1073 EQ VS Neve 1081 EQ

[The Super Dead]

I have been playing a round a little with the demos of these and I don't really hear much between the two...maybe the 1073 was a little more noticeable in changing the sound...

but i am not really working on a project at the mo which is real tester...

has anyone got any feed back on these two and which is more useful

I like warm rock n roll guitars.... so on...

I was also checking out the Helios Type 69 EQ and thought it was very smooth...

 

[Arys Chien]

My suggestion is that, since you're not working on a project and have no pressure from a deadline, you should do this:

(1) Find some different tracks and use the 1073 plug-in to make them sound like the way you want them to;

(2) Take a two-day's break;

(3) Use the 1081 plug-in on the same tracks (without comparing to your 1073 tracks)

(4) Take a one-hour break or so;

(5) Compare.

This has been the best way for A/Bing tools for me.

By the way, I've owned a Brent Averill 1073 (once) and have a reissued Helios Type 69 Mic Pre/EQ in my rack now. The UAD-1 1073 and H69 plug-in are very close to the hardware.

 

[The Super Dead]

My suggestion is that, since you're not working on a project and have no pressure from a deadline, you should do this:

(1) Find some different tracks and use the 1073 plug-in to make them sound like the way you want them to;

(2) Take a two-day's break;

(3) Use the 1081 plug-in on the same tracks (without comparing to your 1073 tracks)

(4) Take a one-hour break or so;

(5) Compare.

This has been the best way for A/Bing tools for me.

By the way, I've owned a Brent Averill 1073 (once) and have a reissued Helios Type 69 Mic Pre/EQ in my rack now. The UAD-1 1073 and H69 plug-in are very close to the hardware.

thanks

 

[LFranco]

They're very different EQs! I have both and honestly can say I prefer the 1073 on some tracks over the 1081 and vice versa.

The 1081 has more flexibility, just to give you a for instance, the high shelf on the 1073 is fixed at 12k (from what I remember), while the 1081 has stepped frequencies at 15k, 10k, etc. It depends on the tracks you're using these on, using this example, are you going to be okay with one EQ shelving at 12k, or can the material on that track use a higher/lower frequency range than 12k?

 

[Macc]

You need both IMO

Sometimes the sweet simplicity of the 1073 is just what you need, sometimes the particular behaviour of the hi-q or low/high shelf/peak settings on the 1081, as well as the more switchable freqs, are what's required.

Both fantastic eqs in the right places...

 

[The Super Dead]

ok well at least i know they are good

i am creating more rock songs with organ sounds..so on.... with warm mid guitar tones...

I have also noticed that these plugins use up alot more power than the likes of pultec and so on....

with the SE versions that come with them, are these usable or does the lower power take allot of the quality away?

not sure how these SE things work.

thanks for the feed back peeps.

 

[Macc]

You can notice the difference, but it's not massive in a full busy mix. The SE versions are perfectly useable - they are still way better than most plugin eqs. The 1073 SE vs the URS N series is no competition, for example.

In most projects I end up using 1 to 4 full versions in real time, lots of SE versions, and also using the full versions offline/bounced a LOT.

 

[The Super Dead]

cool, i guess i can use them while editing and mixing so on and then when i am finished i can use the full versions and freeze the track with them....

 

[jazzbass12]

I'm trying to decide between the 1081 or the 1073.. I like the 1073 on bass mainly. Can I get the same sound out of the 1081 on bass as the 1073? That will give me more options for my purchase.
Thanks

 

[Guest]

I'm trying to decide between the 1081 or the 1073.. I like the 1073 on bass mainly. Can I get the same sound out of the 1081 on bass as the 1073? That will give me more options for my purchase.
Thanks

No, I can't at least. I use 1073(mostly SE ver) for bass sound but I can't feel good with 1081.
Maybe my bass sound is not spotted with 1081 because of each EQ has different freq range.

I think it depends what your bass sounds. :wink:

 

[jazzbass12]

Bummer..
All I know is the 1073 works great on bass. Allows bass to sit perfect in a mix. I am using either a Fender jazz or P with flats on it. I didnt find much use besides bass with the 1073.

 

[Yiannis]

I end up buying 1081.
I was in the same situation...1073 vs 1081 ..adding 88rs too.

1081 is more usefull for me right now but I will add 1073 soon too.
It does something to the bass that nothing else can compare.
Music that I record/mix has most of the time many ac.guitars violin/viola and many others picked ac.instruments.

As far 88rs (I know its another treat) I didn't find it usefull at all.

 

[Dan Duskin]

IMHO...

1073 is great on snare. The 1081 is best on everything else. But after-all, snare sound is one of the most important things in a mix.

Personally, my favorite snare EQ is the WAVES SSL 4000 channel EQ (or Duende). But, it varies from song to song (more regarding the style of music).

 

[jazzbass12]

I record mainly acoustic guitar folk type. Mayber the 1081 should be my choice. I havnt demod yet. i always struggle eqing acostic. I have a Taylor 314 and it is a bit bright and harsh. i mic it with a rode nt1a. ive been using Waves ssl or pultec pro. Still havnt found the magic eq.

 

[Yiannis]

pultec sounded harsh to me compared to the 1081 on ac.guitar.
Taylor too but I dont know the model.

 

[Arys Chien]

We've recorded a few songs with Taylor recently, a 30th anniversary model. It was a bit too bright, and too \"electric\" for an acoustic guitar.

The guitar player said that he doesn't like modern Taylors because of this.

And the Rode mics deliver more highs too.

Yet we spent a lot of time finding out the right angle and distance, so once we recorded the guitars we don't have to EQ them later in the mix.

If you have to eq the Taylor tracks with a Pultec, I'd suggest that you boost the 12k area instead of 10k.