which URS eq? opinions on the S-series

[taylor]

anyone have opinions on the URS S series parametric vs. their A + N series Graphic EQs? i already have the A+N parametric, and i use them all the time, but of course, find them a bit limited when i'm searching for a band they don't offer.

the Cambridge is pretty much my go-to EQ, i even often use it for boosting high end to get a purposely more brittle high end... but i am looking for something cover the high end when i want something smooth.

how does the S series sound? is it as good as their A+N? is it colorful? sweet? horrible?

thanks...

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

Dunno if this helps but the Sonalksis EQ (also based on an SSL) is very sweet, I often turn to it when Cambridge is too phasey & Oxford is too transparent. I haven't compared it to the URS version or a real SSL yet.

 

[taylor]

i've just got to download the demos i guess. i've got a lot of EQs @ my disposal.. i guess i have to really analyze all of them to see if i'm missing anything. i mean, the Precision EQ is pretty smooth up top..

i should also look into Hydratone... because, well, ColorTone... man, what a piece of plug in that is...

i just figured the URS stuff is so good.. i love the A + N.. that the S prob. seems like a no-brainer...

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

The Hydratone sounds amazing, too bad it's a cpu hog, buggy, & a bit kludgey to work with.

 

[taylor]

true.. a go-to EQ should be CPU light and have a lightning fast GUI (like Cambridge)...

The Hydratone sounds amazing, too bad it's a cpu hog, buggy, & a bit kludgey to work with.

 

[Ashermusic]

Dunno if this helps but the Sonalksis EQ (also based on an SSL) is very sweet, I often turn to it when Cambridge is too phasey & Oxford is too transparent. I haven't compared it to the URS version or a real SSL yet.

This is also my "go to" eq.

 

[ambrose]

To give you an answer from an experimental music context, here's what i think. I'm currently recording an album which intercuts gritty environmental sounds with very beautiful tiny(low level, textural) synthetic sounds.

On this project i've found:

The S series sounds fantastic on the big, gritty stuff. Good, particularly at 120hz, where you can add a type of 'whollop' to the sound you can't get with other eqs. Good with impulsive sounds.

The S series is less good for me at the tiny, delicate textural stuff. The high end becomes too brittle for my liking, and i'd always prefer to use the URS-N or the pultec for this job instead. It gives short, low level sounds a kind of presence that i wasn't wanting them to have (ie, 'more impressive' if that makes any sense).

I'm not keen on the S-series over the whole mix, in a way say that is possible with the A-series if you need to get a certain colour to the whole thing.

For precise surgery, the S is good, but I find myself going back to the UAD cambridge for anything too serious. I can never seem to come to the right settings with experimental projects on the S - it's much better for acoustic instruments than manipulated, synthetic sound. I think the s does sound like a 1980s ssl which i once had the pleasure of using: i remember people advising me not to use the top end controls much on that particular desk...

I've had the urs-s at my disposal for a while, but i haven't found that many uses for it, whereas the URS-N and A do get used often. Have you tried the 'fulltec'? It's very different to the pultec.

 

[taylor]

ambrose, thanks for the nice response... sounds like our music, or at least our general palettes, are about the same.. also sounds like S-series may not be necessary... or, that Cambridge pretty much takes care of it.

i agree that A + N are really fantastic, and i use them all the time.. i've actually been demoing the A + N graphics, and find them to be quite nice as well...

thanks!

 

[Brando]

Honestly the URS S and A Series are someof the most useless EQ'sI've ever come across.

First they sound nothing like the neve 1073 or the API 550. This is due to a variety of reasons not the least being the fact that much of the tone of those classics was derived from the preamp section.

Second the interface on the 550 1073 1081 and 1084 were necessitated by the physicalconstraints of the hardware. Why carry this limitation over to the PC whre you have the luxury of a graphic display.

Frankly voxengo and Refined Audiometrics and a host of others make more compelling and sweeter sounding EQ's. Go to KVR Audio and Download the free trial of the Kajerhouse Golden EQ. It blows the S series out of the water. that sweet shimmer I wanted on my ride was that eluded mewith the URS S series was easily dialed in with the golden EQ.

I apologize if I come across as acerbic but I have to say that anyone thinking these plugs even remotely soniclly resemble the neve 1073 or api 550 are either hearing compromised or under the placebo effect.

Given the fact that some folks actually purchase these plugs makes me surprised that more hustlers haven't outsourced a mediocre algorthm and skinned it with the faceplate of some well respected vintage gear.

 

[Brando]

Just a note in the above post I am referring to the A and N series basically the neve and api URS rips.

After my dissapointment with the A and N EQ's, I didn't bother with the S series.

 

[ambrose]

it's a good point Brando, i've never had the luxary of being able to a/b the units, although i did use an api 550(?) a while ago a remember that it had something interesting going on at 3k which was great on percussion.

For me, working on my own projects designing crazy sounds, it doesn't matter if an emulation's not too perfect. As i'm not seeking a signature sound if it works on the individual materials, that's good enough for me.

The nearest thing i've heard to 'real neve' without buying a whole desk is the Neve Portico. Very impressed with those babies.

 

[UADlova]

Not sure which units Brando is comparing the URS A and N series to but I own all of the popular EQ plug-ins and the URS are very musical, very DSP efficent.
The N series is great for bottom end and gives me better results than any other plug-in I have used.

The A series top end is wonderful and is amazingly close to the hardware.
To each their own.
I suggest you all try the demo's to decide for yourself.

 

[neil wilkes]

I cannot understand what Brando is talking about either.
I have the entire URS range, and still use the N & A on a regular basis.
The N is a great vocal EQ.
The A is superb on frums & percussive stuff where the Fixed frequency thing is actually very useful.

The S is almost too much like an SSL board for me - but don't use it for boost on top end. And definitely not across a complete mix - there is the MIX series for that, which does a far better job.

The FullTec combines things from 2 hardware units into one comvenient interface.
BLT is great after a Reverb, or where you need to \"Bracket\" an instrument to stop it taking up too much bandwidth & giving the real bass & top end room to breathe in the mix.

The 2 graphics can also be extremely useful - especially the Neve one with it's variable Q.

Okay - moment of truth - Cambridge is still my first \"Go To\" EQ.
But if Cambridge can't cut it, I go straight to URS. (Unless I need a comp, in which case I will try the seriously under rated EX-1 first)

If I need a top end boost, it's still a Pultec for me.
The Cambridge can do the job if set to a Baxandall type filter.

 

[TomW]

IMO Cambridge has a better bottom end than all the URS plugs I have (S, A, N & Mix) but if you go much above 500Hz it suffers from a little harshness compared to the URS, especially during topend boosts.

They are all fine tools, and I really could not careless if they sound like the real counterparts. They are easy to use, CPU light, sound just fine and do not drain my UAD-1.

Plus to point out some issues in Brando's post - there is no 'preamp' section in a 550. The tone comes from the 2520 and the 2503 output transformer which I suspect are too complex to model based on how much DSP the URS use.

In my opinion the only real difference between each of the URS plugs is the shape of their EQ curves. The type of filter and shape affect how we hear things. The N sounds much bigger than the A in the low end, to me it just sounds like a much wider shelf as opposed to some secret modelling mojo.....I have not detected any 'colouration' when all 3 (A,N,S) types are set flat and passing signal.

I've been meaning to freq response test the curves to see how close they are...

Tom

 

[Schaap]

After all 'jubilee' of URS I bought the BLT EQ in a september deal. I think the UAD eq and others can compare or even better than the BLT in the bottom end and the top end I find the Ref.Audio plug better.
Haven't tried the BLT(native) a lot since then. Will try the demo of URS plugs, but is there a sonic difference between the native and the TDM version?

Henk

 

[Akis]

No, according to URS, they are the same.

 

[Paul Woodlock]

Honestly the URS S and A Series are someof the most useless EQ'sI've ever come across.

First they sound nothing like the neve 1073 or the API 550. This is due to a variety of reasons not the least being the fact that much of the tone of those classics was derived from the preamp section.

Second the interface on the 550 1073 1081 and 1084 were necessitated by the physicalconstraints of the hardware. Why carry this limitation over to the PC whre you have the luxury of a graphic display.

I'm actually pleased EQs are beign released WITHOUT Graphic Displays.

Psychoacoustics is very powerful. It's very easy to subconciously go for the better looking curve, rather than the best sound. Even seasoned pro's can be had by this.

I acutally wish the Cambridge would have an option to disable the graphic display. I say an option, becuase a graphic display is useful in some circumstances.

Frankly voxengo and Refined Audiometrics and a host of others make more compelling and sweeter sounding EQ's. Go to KVR Audio and Download the free trial of the Kajerhouse Golden EQ. It blows the S series out of the water. that sweet shimmer I wanted on my ride was that eluded mewith the URS S series was easily dialed in with the golden EQ.

I apologize if I come across as acerbic but I have to say that anyone thinking these plugs even remotely soniclly resemble the neve 1073 or api 550 are either hearing compromised or under the placebo effect.

I've never heard a hardware 1073 or API550, so I can't compare.

However I must say that the initial buzz of trying something new, I do find myself going back to the Cambridge and PEQ for mix channel EQ these days.

Given the fact that some folks actually purchase these plugs makes me surprised that more hustlers haven't outsourced a mediocre algorthm and skinned it with the faceplate of some well respected vintage gear.

To be honest, if someone put the stock Cubase EQ in a plugin with a Neve faceplate, there'd be a lot of people saying how good it was.

I also think the same would happen with hardware. I'd bet if someone put Berhinger Circuitry in a Neve case, similar results would happen. It's the old psycho-acosustics again.

Having said that, I disagree that the URS plugs are useless. I find the S, N and A and Mix EQ very useful. I don't like the Fulltec much at all though. The UAD-1 Pultec for MY ears is a million times better. I find the Fulltec to be rather muddy.

You shouldn't apologise At the end of the day we are ALL different, and we ALL hear differently. I know a lot of people who LOVE teh UAD-1 LA2A comp. While I cannot get on with it at all. I always go for the 1176, which for me is the king of plugin comps


The world would be so musically boring if eveyrone liked exactly the same thing


Paul

 

[Paul Woodlock]

If I need a top end boost, it's still a Pultec for me.
.....

Top end boosts here are exclusively the PEQ. Wicked for brightening up Cymbals and hats.

I normally use the Pultec for vocal midrange adustments, but will do the sparkle with one band of the PEQ.