Pultec Pro vs Cambridge....my dilema

[MsM]

Right... I make all types of music myself but people who bring songs to my studio for recording...tend to be \"urban\" music of some sort. I use UAD plugs on vocals..they are my go to plugins. Iv jst started using my demos to see what plugins i want to buy....

For some odd reason i dont like the fairchild. It sounds like the compression is being heard....i cannot make it sublte and sweet. Il keep trying tho....

Tried the precision stuff.....very good imo but i KNOW my L3 if used right can sound just as good.

The multiband isnt available to demo so thats being put on hold......

I ended up liking the cambridge and pultec pro the most.

Which 1 will i benefit from?

The pultec uses a lot of the uad1s power compared to the camrbidge...
and if i get the pultec pro....the original pultec is useless to me. But on the otherhand the pultec pro sounds so lovely on the master bus....IMO better than the precision eq.

The cambridge doesnt use a lot of processing power so i could use a lot of them and still use my La2a's etc....

Theres so many things to consider....and being 18 im not in a position to start spendin fortunes....so i can only get 1.

share your thoughts people....

cheers

 

[Big Harpe]

Hi,

For a sweet sound your existing Pultec should dial it up very well. The Cambridge, I find, is very 'surgical', simply meaning that it can find and cut out garbage frequencies from the track. The Pultec adds some 'color' to the sound and is not as transparent. Since you already have a Pultec I would choose the Cambridge. You may also want to look at the URS EQ plugins. I hear they add quite a bit of character to tracks and work very smoothly.

Hope that helps,

 

[Ashermusic]

Right... I make all types of music myself but people who bring songs to my studio for recording...tend to be "urban" music of some sort. I use UAD plugs on vocals..they are my go to plugins. Iv jst started using my demos to see what plugins i want to buy....

For some odd reason i dont like the fairchild. It sounds like the compression is being heard....i cannot make it sublte and sweet. Il keep trying tho....

Tried the precision stuff.....very good imo but i KNOW my L3 if used right can sound just as good.

The multiband isnt available to demo so thats being put on hold......

I ended up liking the cambridge and pultec pro the most.

Which 1 will i benefit from?

The pultec uses a lot of the uad1s power compared to the camrbidge...
and if i get the pultec pro....the original pultec is useless to me. But on the otherhand the pultec pro sounds so lovely on the master bus....IMO better than the precision eq.

The cambridge doesnt use a lot of processing power so i could use a lot of them and still use my La2a's etc....

Theres so many things to consider....and being 18 im not in a position to start spendin fortunes....so i can only get 1.

share your thoughts people....

cheers

The Pultec Pro is indeed a lovely colored eq while the Cambridge is surgical. But I just flat out do not like the way the Cambridge sounds particularly the highs,, very harsh IMHO. I much prefer the PEQ. This however is still my "go to" eq:

http://www.sonalksis.com/index.php?section_id=517

 

[Arys Chien]

IMHO,

1. Boost with Pultec Pro and cut with Cambridge.

2. If the \"source\" consists mostly of sampled sound, software synth or line-in instruments, you might want to use the Pultec to breath some life into it.

 

[Eurocide]

IMHO,

1. Boost with Pultec Pro and cut with Cambridge.

2. If the "source" consists mostly of sampled sound, software synth or line-in instruments, you might want to use the Pultec to breath some life into it.

I can only subscribe to this!

 

[MsM]

You can run a lot more cambridges tho cant you? Its a very good eq aswell....i love the zoom feature.

And also with the pultec pro i wonder if its actually doing as much GOOD stuff as we think it is? I mean... i agree it does make my vocals sound lovely with ease but i tend to over do it and im not sure if the vocal is pleasant soundin to others too? Maybe its just cos i got a new toy (the pultec pro) and im fiddling with it in LOL

But yeah im going to use my demo periods as well as i can then decide...its out of those 2.

thanks for the help so far guys...

 

[Dan Duskin]

IMHO,

1. Boost with Pultec Pro and cut with Cambridge.

excellent advice!

Personally... I never use the PultecPro, I don't find that the mid-bands do anything good at all. But I love using the high frequency to boost highs on the original UA Pultec plugin. I also never find the low frequencies to do anything good on the Pultec.

So... for me it's like this...

Need to boost high-mids or highs? Use the Pultec!

Need to boost air? Use the Precision EQ!

Need to do anything else? Use Cambridge!

 

[Arys Chien]

The mid bands can be useful in certain situations.

For example, I was doing a rock ballad earlier. I chose the Ivory C7 piano. The only EQ plug-in that could make it sound like an authentic rock piano is the Pultec Pro's mid bands. I could've boosted the same freq with Cambridge or Sony Oxford, but they were just \"not there\".

------

To MsM,

If you're afraid of over-eqing your vocal with the Pultec (Pro), just play a reference CD when you mix. That could pull you back from the hype. :wink:

 

[boody]

My 2cts, if you need more life and depth in your recordings, take a pultec. If you have frequency problems that need to be fixed, take a cambridge.

regards
Budy

 

[Mark Edmonds]

Personally... I never use the PultecPro, I don't find that the mid-bands do anything good at all. But I love using the high frequency to boost highs on the original UA Pultec plugin. I also never find the low frequencies to do anything good on the Pultec.

Yes, generally this fits in with my feelings, especially the low end characteristics. There is definitely a time and place for the Pultec but I am not one who will go on about it "warming up" or putting "life" into a track. The main problem I have with it is the fixed gain feature so as soon as you drop it in, you change your mix and it becomes much more difficult to be objective when comparing the effect of the plugin against bypassed or other EQs.

In the future, ideally, I would like to see UA do a hidden panel like on the Plate140 where you can switch in compensation for the fixed gain.

Mark

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

I'd recommend getting Cambridge over the Pultec Pro. Cambridge really fits an extremely important niche with its filters, the quality & variety is amazing, & it's definitely not something you're going to gain from the Pultec Pro. Personally, the Pultec is one of my favorite plug-ins but Cambridge is easily the most used plug-in I have.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

btw, have you considered the URS Neve EQ? That would give you both a sweet sounding EQ as well as good filters.

 

[Dan Duskin]

I did some blind A/B wave-file tests between Cambridge, PEQ, and the Pultec last night. I was interested to find that they all gave similar sounds in the low and mid frequencies... but for high shelving, Cambridge introduced a lot of digital fizz and tizz, while PEQ and the Pultec sounded very smooth and silky.

In theory I always knew this to be true... but now with a blind test I know it to be true!

So, I would say...
- Get Cambridge
- But make sure you have \"EITHER\" PEQ or the Pultec for High-Shelving

 

[Arys Chien]

Hi Eric,

I find the URS EQs not as smooth as the UAD-1 Pultec when boosting the highs. What do you think?

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

The Pultec & Oxford EQ's are the only ones I trust for boosting high frequencies, & even then I don't push too hard. Others may be good, too, it's just something I'm squeemish about. These days, I usually boost highs with the 9098 or 273 shelves going in & then tame them back down again (if necessary) with the Cambridge filter. My current main vocal mic, a version of the original Soundelux U95 I got specially-made, usually has more than enough air, as well.

 

[Arys Chien]

It's Pultec & Sony Oxford for me too. The URS series are not good enough for me when it's about boosting the high freqency.

My Manley Reference Gold + Neve 1272 has not been open enough. Recently a friend of mine bought a 1081, and we tested it against my 1272. It was then I understood where had all the air gone.... I got about \"3 to 5 cm\" more air from the 1081 than 1272.

 

[Dan Duskin]

The Oxford is linear phase, which helps reduce some of the alias artifacts that would be otherwise much harsher sounding.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

Arys, were you using the 1081's EQ to get there? I always add air with the 9098 whenever the Reference Gold gets used, even when a different preamp section is used.

 

[MsM]

having used the demos for the past few days i came to the conclusion......i prefer the pultec pro for mastering than the precision eq.
The pultec adds colour, warmth and makes the song come alive.

Normaly i just used the L3 on my master bus but since trying the Pultec pro and L2 combination my final mix has so much more punch. It feels better.

I think this is the deciding factor.....Im getting the pultec pro.

Unless i discover something new about the cambridge tomoro lol

 

[Arys Chien]

Dan, since we're talking about the Oxford EQ, I got a question about the PEQ.

I once made a demo that lacks very much air, due to the mediocre sampled piano and the badly recorded vocal. When I tried to \"add the air back\" with the PEQ, I couldn't. I boost the high in many different way, but just couldn't get it as high as above 16khz.

Then I tried the Oxford EQ. The air just showed up above the top line of my monitors.

Why does it seem/sound that the PEQ can't get above 16~18khz?

------

Eric, I didn't touch any EQ knob of the 1081. It just got me more air than my 1272 with its preamp section. I was so frustrated until I know the price of the 1081....