Neve 1073...Why ???

[mark4man]

Yo...

What's the 1073 gonna' do for me that the PEQ, Cambridge & EX-1 (EQ section) can't?

[or some other well known EQ plugs like GEQ-7 or HarmoniEQ]?

I'm running UAD-1 v4 in SONAR5 as DirectX...if I go to v5 I'll have to save all my custom presets as Vst...& that'll take hours (piss...moan.) But if I don't, I won’t be able to demo the 1073.

Is this thing all it's cracked up to be ???

Thanks,

mark4man

 

[ed_mcg]

Is this thing all it's cracked up to be ???

A lot of people think so. Review this \"blind test\" thread:
http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/vie ... php?t=4999

I got it and really like it. I also use it with Sonar 5PE, I had to get the new beta VST adapter to get it to run the 4.3 (I was getting the err=21 hangs). No doubt, you'll have some work to do to cut over.

It's the first plugin eq that I've found that can be used to boost highs and still sound pleasing instead of harsh and digital.

 

[Horse]

It does what it says on the tin.....

...how much time do you spend deliberating over EQ for a particular track?

 

[dt]

It's a matter of preference. The real question to ask is if the EQs you have are missing anything you want to hear (clearer top end, phase linearity, etc). If so, look for something that fits that need. I wouldn't say the 1073 will do anything amazingly different than what you have. It does what it does, nothing more.

I might be speaking heresy but it didn't do anything for me, and I've never been fond of the layout of that EQ. I have graphic EQs that are way more flexible and sound just as good or better (for what I want). I have more flexibility to find what I need much faster with these, ymmv. Some like it - that's great. It isn't worth it to me. But I use clean EQs even more than tonal EQs anyway, so take that as my preference.

I have good enough ears to hear the subtleties in EQs, compressors, converters, etc, so I can hear what it does over other options, but I also spent years trying to find something cleaner and clearer than analog offered me when I first started in recording many years ago. And I guess I'm also rebelling against the notion that well known vintage gear is good because it's been on a million hit records - and it is good or it wouldn't have been used - but now it's just one of many options. That also doesn't mean it's the best option out there for any given task.

We've advanced a lot in audio over the last 30 years and in my opinion, we should have been able to improve on a console EQ in that time, and we have, but the \"vintage\" craze has obscured progress in exchange for reprints of once predominant artworks in a limited gallery. We just can't let go of the past since it worked for xyz producer or engineer in xyz famous studio. (No offense to UA - I still love my UAD-1s and use them on most every mix - some things don't need improving - they are what they are - nice options for the user to make decisions about, and with).

Ears are a better ally than reputation.

 

[demonsp]

Agree totally with you, I do. 8)

That's why it's nice to have a wonderful recreation of such a classic EQ.
Trying to get one in the second hand market will cost an arm and a leg and it won't function on lots of tracks at a time.

This is a definite buy for me!

For those who want that Neve sound this is THE plug.

 

[Dan Duskin]

totally different sound. not as round, silky, and airy as the preEQ... and not as grainy as the pultec. More of a BOLD sound.

for me... it's the perfect \"BOOST\" eq for snares and toms. it's also excellent on kick drums.

 

[mark4man]

Well...

I'm more cornfused now than ever (although...I really do appreciate all the info...it actually does help somewhat.)

I'll tell you what (I think) I need it for:

I have a problematic jazz lead guitar track that has a bit too much percussive presence. When we originally recorded it...the guitarist used a lot of fret snap. It sounded great when tracked, but when I brightened it up in the mix to give it more clarity, the percussive snaps became a bit too much...they came off as too harsh...too gritty. I lessened the effect a little with gain envelopes, cutting at the spikes...

...but I thought maybe an \"analog\" brightness might be more in order...thinking that's what the 1073 sounded like.

I also have an older problematic vocal track, which also needed some sheen to make it stand out a little more prominently in the mix. When I do that...it begins to buzz...like it was recorded using a cheap tube mic (although it wasn't.)

I thought maybe the top end I would get out of the 1073 wouldn't exacerbate the buzz so much...maybe giving me a warmer sheen (if there is such a thing.)

I just got my tracks back from the ME...& these are the only problem areas. If I could fix 'em, I could have him run the tracks again; & be done with the CD...that's all.

mark4man

 

[dt]

Transmodder from Voxengo might be a better choice for the jazz guitar. It may or may not be the sound you are looking for in general, but for grabbing the fret snaps, it is one option. Precision Multiband could also work. I don't think the 1073 will do what you need for that track at least - it's just an EQ and it sounds like you need to address the EQ dynamically.

Also watch what you are using to brighten up the guitar - maybe a different range would work better without emphasizing the snaps as much.

For the vocal, the 1073 could work but I would probably resort to a linear phase EQ first to be sure the top end is clean in the original track, or at least one with a smooth top end. It sounds like whatever EQ you are using isn't as clean on top as you need, or you are boosting an unflattering frequency range.

Sorry about the long diatribe on vintage plugins. Not really relevant here. Hopefully this helps a bit more - I owed you one for that.

 

[mark4man]

dt...

You don't owe me anything. As a matter of fact...I appreciate the information. & it's all relevant...ALL of it. There isn't a topic that goes by that isn't aided by overview or related info. I learned something from your self-labeled diatribe...don't sweat it.

Having said that...I think I fixed the guitar without going dynamic. And I fixed it with a regular ol' SONAR bundled linear phase EQ plug-in...Sonic Timeworks Equaliser. All I did was duplicate settings from PEQ (which exacerbated the problem) to the STE; & the guitar sounds 100% better...lost the harsh grit but retained the sheen. Don't know why a native bundled EQ (with esentially the same settings) fixed it...but it did. Guess I got lucky.

Thanks again,

mark4man

 

[Animix]

It's a matter of preference. The real question to ask is if the EQs you have are missing anything you want to hear (clearer top end, phase linearity, etc). If so, look for something that fits that need. I wouldn't say the 1073 will do anything amazingly different than what you have. It does what it does, nothing more.

I might be speaking heresy but it didn't do anything for me, and I've never been fond of the layout of that EQ. I have graphic EQs that are way more flexible and sound just as good or better (for what I want). I have more flexibility to find what I need much faster with these, ymmv. Some like it - that's great. It isn't worth it to me. But I use clean EQs even more than tonal EQs anyway, so take that as my preference.

I have good enough ears to hear the subtleties in EQs, compressors, converters, etc, so I can hear what it does over other options, but I also spent years trying to find something cleaner and clearer than analog offered me when I first started in recording many years ago. And I guess I'm also rebelling against the notion that well known vintage gear is good because it's been on a million hit records - and it is good or it wouldn't have been used - but now it's just one of many options. That also doesn't mean it's the best option out there for any given task.

We've advanced a lot in audio over the last 30 years and in my opinion, we should have been able to improve on a console EQ in that time, and we have, but the "vintage" craze has obscured progress in exchange for reprints of once predominant artworks in a limited gallery. We just can't let go of the past since it worked for xyz producer or engineer in xyz famous studio. (No offense to UA - I still love my UAD-1s and use them on most every mix - some things don't need improving - they are what they are - nice options for the user to make decisions about, and with).

Ears are a better ally than reputation.

I bought it because it is DSP based, it's good and I can use it. Yeah, there are other EQ's out there yeah, it's a little pricier than some of the other plugins they have made in the past and yeah, I have lots of EQ's. It was mentioned in one post that the Neve is good for top boost and he hadn't found another one that was as good. I have been using the Paris EQ for years (although it's DSP based, there is a VST version too) and it's great for sweet top boost without harshness. I buy UA plugins because I can use them without worrying about which of the 10,000 other plugin offerings out there might work too because, they are making the best plugins I've heard and I want them to keep making plugins. I DL other offerings and compare them from time-to-time just to keep my perspective but I want to keep as much load off my host CPU as possible so as long as they keep the prices reasonable, and the plugin performs as advertized, I will support their efforts because I like the DSP based concept and I think they are doing a good job and want this platform to continue.

 

[RWIL]

I bought it because it is DSP based, it's good and I can use it. Yeah, there are other EQ's out there yeah, it's a little pricier than some of the other plugins they have made in the past and yeah, I have lots of EQ's. It was mentioned in one post that the Neve is good for top boost and he hadn't found another one that was as good. I have been using the Paris EQ for years (although it's DSP based, there is a VST version too) and it's great for sweet top boost without harshness. I buy UA plugins because I can use them without worrying about which of the 10,000 other plugin offerings out there might work too because, they are making the best plugins I've heard and I want them to keep making plugins. I DL other offerings and compare them from time-to-time just to keep my perspective but I want to keep as much load off my host CPU as possible so as long as they keep the prices reasonable, and the plugin performs as advertized, I will support their efforts because I like the DSP based concept and I think they are doing a good job and want this platform to continue.

Well, with a statement like that, you will be featured on the upcoming webzine!
What you said is mostly what I feel too! 8)

Cheers,
RW

 

[Animix]

I bought it because it is DSP based, it's good and I can use it. Yeah, there are other EQ's out there yeah, it's a little pricier than some of the other plugins they have made in the past and yeah, I have lots of EQ's. It was mentioned in one post that the Neve is good for top boost and he hadn't found another one that was as good. I have been using the Paris EQ for years (although it's DSP based, there is a VST version too) and it's great for sweet top boost without harshness. I buy UA plugins because I can use them without worrying about which of the 10,000 other plugin offerings out there might work too because, they are making the best plugins I've heard and I want them to keep making plugins. I DL other offerings and compare them from time-to-time just to keep my perspective but I want to keep as much load off my host CPU as possible so as long as they keep the prices reasonable, and the plugin performs as advertized, I will support their efforts because I like the DSP based concept and I think they are doing a good job and want this platform to continue.

Well, with a statement like that, you will be featured on the upcoming webzine!
What you said is mostly what I feel too! 8)

Cheers,
RW

Well, actually, I think I left out the most important part which is that I get a product that is easy to use and that I know is going to provide the tool that I need. I don't have to second guess........soooo.........the fewer decisions I have to worry with, the faster my work goes, the better the product sounds, the happier my clients are and the more money my studio makes. UA makes me money, I give some of it back so they can keep making me money. It all makes perfect sense. If it didn't work this way, I'd be using something else. The only other processing I use these days are external hardware, that cool little PSP Lexicon 42, Dave Brown plugs and the Antares AVox (I use an SPL hardeware de-esser most of the time, but the AVox has, by far, the bests software de-esser I've ever used). If UA made a tap delay, I'd be all over it. The DM1 is nice though and gets a lot of use around here.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

Having said that...I think I fixed the guitar without going dynamic. And I fixed it with a regular ol' SONAR bundled linear phase EQ plug-in...Sonic Timeworks Equaliser. All I did was duplicate settings from PEQ (which exacerbated the problem) to the STE; & the guitar sounds 100% better...lost the harsh grit but retained the sheen. Don't know why a native bundled EQ (with esentially the same settings) fixed it...but it did. Guess I got lucky.

Good to hear you've gotten that working. The Timeworks EQ was always great, even when I paid $500 for a 4-plug-in bundle to get it. Still, I can't help but think both issues would be better served by a dynamic EQ.

 

[dt]

Having said that...I think I fixed the guitar without going dynamic. And I fixed it with a regular ol' SONAR bundled linear phase EQ plug-in...Sonic Timeworks Equaliser. All I did was duplicate settings from PEQ (which exacerbated the problem) to the STE; & the guitar sounds 100% better...lost the harsh grit but retained the sheen. Don't know why a native bundled EQ (with esentially the same settings) fixed it...but it did. Guess I got lucky.

Thanks again,

mark4man

Glad you found a solution. That's the cool thing about having so many affordable options in the software world (compared to hardware). Timeworks EQ is a good EQ.

Nothing wrong with 1073 - cool plugin even if not the solution for everything. Just another option.

 

[neil wilkes]

The only other processing I use these days are external hardware, that cool little PSP Lexicon 42, Dave Brown plugs and the Antares AVox (I use an SPL hardeware de-esser most of the time, but the AVox has, by far, the bests software de-esser I've ever used). If UA made a tap delay, I'd be all over it. The DM1 is nice though and gets a lot of use around here.

I really must grab that PSP lexicon at one point - what is it about it that makes it worth grabbing compared to the hugely under rated DM-1 plugs though?
I agree completely about the AVOX de-esser. That thing is superb, and the Punch works well in some vocals too. Still trying to get he best from the Throat though.

 

[Suntower]

1. I've been trying the demo for the past 3-4 days and I must admit, UAD has got me again---it -does- sound great. Every time I think 'I must be out of my mind thinking about -another- EQ!', but I've come to realise that this is silly.

As a guitar player, I don't expect a Marshall to sound like a Fender or a Rectifier, so I've got a shitload of amps taking up space in the garage. Thus so, I hate to say it, but the 1073 sounds -really- (I mean -really- different) from the PEQ or the Cambridge.

In fact, to -me-, I don't think of it as an 'EQ' but more of a 'tone control'. An EQ being to 'fix' things, but a 'tone control' is more an -effect- in it's own right.

I've tried to substitute various Cambridge settings for the 1073 treble boost and it's a no go. The 1073 treble is almost like the tone boost on a guitar amp---gobs of character.

I like the bass too, but I wish it had MORE of a boost.

Note how I keep saying 'boost'. Most times, with EQs I -cut- as they don't really seem to boost all the well. But it seems like the Neve was made to -boost-. The bass and treble add instant pizzazz to a lot of things.

I dunno if I will buy it---the price is steep, but the fact that I'm even -thinking- about it considering how sceptical I am at this point, is telling.

But the truth is that: it has made a difference on several tracks I'm working on and I will be loath to replace it in the signal chain after the 14 days.

2. I -love- the PSP Lexicon stuff. I don't know why more people don't rave about 'em. I had the real units (people always had to have 2 for the really cool FX) and they were a -staple- for most of the touring guitar players I knew. These really do capture 'The Sounds of the 80's.' :mrgreen:

---JC

The only other processing I use these days are external hardware, that cool little PSP Lexicon 42, Dave Brown plugs and the Antares AVox

 

[mark4man]

Uncle E...

Without sounding like an idiot...what the hell is a dynamic EQ?

mark4man

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

A dynamic EQ is basically a multiband compressor that allows a finer level of control. You could get rid of the fret snaps you mentioned without affecting the overall sound when the snaps aren't happening.

 

[mark4man]

Now...

...that's a novel concept !!!

So, I could indentify the offending fr. via sweeping the spectrum with a Cambridge or a Timeworks (a parametric w/ a decent graphic interface)...& then...

...compress that band, in as narrow a Q as possible?

Thanks,

mark4man


BTW - is the Precision Multiband a good tool for this (whatever the method)?

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

It's really done with an EQ that's internally side-chained, AFAIK, so you wouldn't be able to do it with the Cambridge or Timeworks EQ's unless you have a compressor that will accept sidechains. There was a free dynamic EQ called Posipophet (or something like that), I don't know how good it is but it developed a big fanbase a short while back. The Precision Multiband should also be able to do it if its frequencies can sweep over such a large range.