Thinking of Neve - should I skip the Cambridge?

[bulls hit]

All the coupons & promotions & discounts available at the moment have me eyeing the Neve bundle.

I've just demo'd the Cambridge, and I like it. I like being able to drag the little dooburys around the graph.

I already have the Pultec Pro which I really like, and the Precision EQ which I never use. If I was to get the Neves, do I need the Cambridge, or would it just gather plugin dust alongside the Precision in the bottom drawer?

 

[secretworld]

I use the cambridge a lot, the PEQ sometimes during DIY mastering. I don´t own any neve´s yet. The music I do most is vsti´samples and vocals based. I did one spanisch guitar/female vocal project and demoed the neve, but it didn´t realy work with that (to my taste). So I would guess it´s realy upto what you do and what you need. The cambridge is light on the dsp by the way.

 

[Spacey]

I use the Cambridge for lowpass and high pass. THe only time I ever use it for other things is for creative filtering like swept analog type filtering.

Pleas can we have an option to sweep across the whole rang?

 

[marQs]

@bullshit: to my ears the Cambridge is a real essential mixing tool while the Neves are coloring very nice. The more versatile thing is Cambridge for sure and you can use a lot of them.

Anyway it's best to have them all!
And be good to yourself and try the PrecEQ more often... it's really sweet on top and low end, i.e. drumgroup: set the low cut to 30 Hz, set a low band to shelf an 19 Hz and now boost it > wow, really big boom, similar to the Neve's low bands and different from what Cambridge does.

 

[electro77]

@bullshit: to my ears the Cambridge is a real essential mixing tool while the Neves are coloring very nice.

The name's bulls hit.

 

[marQs]

@bullshit: to my ears the Cambridge is a real essential mixing tool while the Neves are coloring very nice.

The name's bulls hit.

lol, I'm sorry, I had "bulls hit" in mind, when I typed it

 

[baronluigi]

I never use the Cambridge - just sounds grainy to me.......


I love the Neve comp and EQ's too. Like most I own all the plugs and use most of them a lot, the Cambridge never gets used........

 

[Spacey]

Cambridge at 88/96khz sounds a lot better than at 44khz though.

 

[marQs]

I never use the Cambridge - just sounds grainy to me.......

Cambridge is my standard channel EQ - I like it a lot! Or am I completely deaf already?!?

 

[Fundy]

Cambridge doesn't seem to be as \"musical\" as the Neve plug-ins or indeed any of the others in the UAD collection. However it does serve a second purpose although I admit too, not using it this way myself; it can be used as multiband filter with some clever automation.

Personally I use Type II Mode for overall changes and Type I for precise changes in the frequencies. The low and high pass filters are decent enough. It would be good to have a smaller VST version using just the filter sections to have you loading a whole EQ plug-in.

It's funny I never mix at 88/96Khz, however I may do that again at some point. It's just my E-MU sound-card doesnt dynamically resample, so I have to change it manually.

Food for thought anyway.....

 

[JamesR]

hey guys,

i'm a *really* big UA / UAD fan with 2 cards and all the plugs.

that said, personally i'd skip the cambridge and get the new *Native* Sony Oxford EQ.

it's amazing, clean and can do \"surgical\" (type I curves) and \"musical\" (type III curves.)

it's my go-to eq when i want top quality eq without any additional colour. If i'm making a change of tone that i want to notice and maybe some character (like a large HF boost) then i'd go for a UA vinatge eq...

J.

 

[baronluigi]

I guess in all honest the Cambridge has a cool GUI, but it is hard to set. The other Vintage EQ emulations with knobs are more of listen as you turn them. And with the Neve and Helios because they are small and harder for me to see, it forces me to listen more and maybe set them for better sounds.


I use UA LA-610's and Vintech 1073 clones that over the years I've learned to \"predict set\" and get the tube eq going in on a few tracks.


I really like the 610's eq section and wish UA would model that.....

 

[bulls hit]

Guys thanks for all the thoughts and suggestions. I appreciate them.

I'm going to stick with UAD so I'm not looking at Oxford & Waves.

I'll probably go for the Neve bundle and the 1176, then either the Cambridge or the Helios. I like the surgical capability of the Cambridge, but I'm going to demo the Helios now & compare. Can the Helios possibly sound any better than the 1073?

 

[baronluigi]

Can the Helios possibly sound any better than the 1073?

Yeah, the Helios has really phat mids and great bass! 1073 is creamy mids and silky high-end, they work well together!

 

[Paul Woodlock]

I rarely use the Cambridge now except for the LP and HP filters and for some Low shelf cutting.

The Neves and Helios make more musical sense, plus they sound much better.

Where the cambridge excels is for surgical stuff, for tightly notching out stuff etc.

The downside of the Cambridge is the graphic display. You cannot turn it off. I get better results from EQs that don't have a graph as I my senses can concentrate solely on the sound.

Having said all of that the Cambridge is definitely worth having, and I hope one day when DSP allows ( UAD-2 anyone? ) a Cambridge MKII is released with an algorithmix level of sound quality and a graphic that's capable of being hidden . )

 

[NuSkoolTone]

I've always liked the sound of the Cambridge Filters. I'm still in the honeymoon phase with the Neves, so hard to say. They serve VERY different roles IMO. When I want to take the muck out of the OH's the Cambridge is my Goto. The PEQ gets use too. I'll use that on a buss if things need a touch of tweaking.

That Neve Comp is the Shiznit though..I think it's going to be on my drumbus permanently from now on....