|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 28, 2016 2:31:26 GMT -6
I know they're no secret but I just picked one up and it is everything I hoped it would be. I've always loved the UAD plugin version and I've done a lot of comparisons of plugins vs the equivalent hardware in general so I was expecting a certain improvement over the plug. It's there in spades. The filters on this thing are incredible and you can just push the frequencies around all over the place and it kind of refuses to sound bad. I love the mids, I love the highs, I love the lows. And the filters are borderline black magic.
I bought the dang 500 series chassis just to get this EQ. I've never really wanted to delve into 500 land but I really wanted this Great River Harrison.
Anyway, just a hearty thumbsup from me on this EQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 28, 2016 5:22:31 GMT -6
I have been curious too: glad you are pleased: is it true an unfilled 500 chassis is dangerous  |
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Feb 28, 2016 5:27:26 GMT -6
Nice. Imagine a whole rack of these, used in conjunction with Harrison Mixbus.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Feb 28, 2016 5:55:06 GMT -6
I have been curious too: glad you are pleased: is it true an unfilled 500 chassis is dangerous Hah - I have resolved never to buy one unless I can pretty much fill it. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Feb 28, 2016 16:15:00 GMT -6
I am tracking two acoustic players with a vocal on the rhythm acoustic all tracking live right now. RTZ preamps and 1549 eq's followed by Great River 501's on the Lead vocal/gtr 1 and the fills guitar is RTZ preamps into the Harrison 32's and the X-pressor. Beautiful tone all the way around. I really need to buy another Harrison 32, so I can have them on all three toms when I track drums. It never ends!  |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 28, 2016 16:36:40 GMT -6
Dan Kennedy is a badass! I'm planning on puting 32 channels of "Harrison Ford Filters" in my console, the Harrison's are indeed a great filter, they have a way of puzzle piecing instruments together all by themselves, dandeurloo at collective cases has 8 channel clone kits that are killer, they are famous for a reason. cc.fourfourmedia.com/?product=harrison-ford-filters |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 28, 2016 17:27:31 GMT -6
So - I really haven't used outboard EQ all that much...I've had it - but just found myself choosing ITB EQ in higher quality modes. True, it would be awesome to have a pair of these, but what are the differences you find in HW vs. SW EQ?
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 28, 2016 17:33:45 GMT -6
So - I really haven't used outboard EQ all that much...I've had it - but just found myself choosing ITB EQ in higher quality modes. True, it would be awesome to have a pair of these, but what are the differences you find in HW vs. SW EQ? In this case, the plug just sounds flatter and more one dimensional. Doing the same filtering, cutting, boosting with the HW sounds more dimensional and more sort of 'at the front' of the speaker to me where the plug sounds, I don't know, I just keep thinking "flatter". It's not that subtle a difference in this case. Some comparisons I've done were pretty close. This thing just sounds (to me) like a very good console EQ. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 28, 2016 18:14:36 GMT -6
The one difference I could say I might have heard is that hardware sounds more "passive" so to speak...like, it works but it's less noticeable...Maybe if I really had a stereo pair of HW EQ (which I've never had) I could really discern more of a difference. I've done projects with console EQ, but I've not had the day-in day-out mixing with hardware EQ in comparison to SW.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 28, 2016 18:18:00 GMT -6
The one difference I could say I might have heard is that hardware sounds more "passive" so to speak...like, it works but it's less noticeable...Maybe if I really had a stereo pair of HW EQ (which I've never had) I could really discern more of a difference. I've done projects with console EQ, but I've not had the day-in day-out mixing with hardware EQ in comparison to SW. I haven't really either. Anytime I'm in big studios I'm just playing guitar or singing, not mixing. But I'm pretty religious about comparisons in my own studio. I do a lot of blind testing of myself, usually hoping to justify selling something so I can get something else. Printing mixes through my pair of EQP-Wa's is a good example. I just can't replicate the space and depth with the UAD Pultecs. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 28, 2016 18:20:33 GMT -6
You know, we could be talking about the same thing - you're using the terms space and depth and I'm saying that HW EQ seems to be less noticeable. Maybe I'm saying that SW EQ can be kind of 2D...
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 28, 2016 18:39:53 GMT -6
You know, we could be talking about the same thing - you're using the terms space and depth and I'm saying that HW EQ seems to be less noticeable. Maybe I'm saying that SW EQ can be kind of 2D... Sure. It's all a little hard to describe. Dancing about architecture and all that. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Feb 28, 2016 18:42:02 GMT -6
@ JK I find that true of any plugin. And thats it in a nutshell. People ask why use hardware when software is so good these days? Well, there's my answer. 2d or 3d. We choose.
Of coarse I can't afford 50 channels of outboard gear, most can't. So we compromise out of necessity. But, for money channels? Go hardware every time.
Congrats Ragan!! You deserve it. A true artist in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 28, 2016 18:51:22 GMT -6
@ JK I find that true of any plugin. And thats it in a nutshell. People ask why use hardware when software is so good these days? Well, there's my answer. 2d or 3d. We choose. Of coarse I can't afford 50 channels of outboard gear, most can't. So we compromise out of necessity. But, for money channels? Go hardware every time. Congrats Ragan!! You deserve it. A true artist in my book. Thanks, Cowboy. I'm under no deadlines so I'm straight up printing every track through my hardware. Takes a bit but I like it. |
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Feb 28, 2016 19:46:15 GMT -6
I had a pair of the GR 32s for a couple years. Perfect on toms. Dial the hi pass up, cut a little mid and toms done. The bump on those filters is just sweet on toms. I found the bump too big on most other things. Like on guitars I want to filter up to 100-150 but I don't want a big old bump there. After a few weeks I parked them on toms and they never went anywhere else.
To address the HW vs SW question, I really start to hear a difference with HW when tracking through a bunch of hardware and mixing through them too. I know that's an unsatisfying answer and you want to hear massive differences in a simple A/B comparison but I've found the difference becomes apparent when a few hardware EQs are used in stages.
Bob Ohlsson (sp?) says you really start to hear the deficiency of A to D conversion when you use plug in Eq. I find this to be true.
Worth repeating what so many people say...hardware Eq encourages a more intuitive work flow and sounds seem to come together quickly. I Generally tweak less with hardware...I'm less inclined to destroy my sounds.
Not that I don't ruin stuff with hardware...I'm just more apt not to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 28, 2016 20:13:45 GMT -6
Dan Kennedy is a badass! I'm planning on puting 32 channels of "Harrison Ford Filters" in my console, the Harrison's are indeed a great filter, they have a way of puzzle piecing instruments together all by themselves, dandeurloo at collective cases has 8 channel clone kits that are killer, they are famous for a reason. cc.fourfourmedia.com/?product=harrison-ford-filtersI've been interested in this kit myself. My dream console would probably have these on every channel. By the way, since this thread has discussed the difference between the UAD Harrison and the hardware version, I'm curious if any of you have tried the Acustica Acqua Honey? I have yet to dip my toes in Acqua land but I keep hearing rave reviews about Honey, which is supposed to be a direct sampling of the classic Harrison eq and is supposed to sound more like the original hardware than algorithmic eqs or "algo" as Nebula guys like to refer to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Feb 28, 2016 23:02:07 GMT -6
The one difference I could say I might have heard is that hardware sounds more "passive" so to speak...like, it works but it's less noticeable...Maybe if I really had a stereo pair of HW EQ (which I've never had) I could really discern more of a difference. I've done projects with console EQ, but I've not had the day-in day-out mixing with hardware EQ in comparison to SW. Come and borrow these RTZ 1549's and the GR Harrison 32's, John. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 28, 2016 23:06:27 GMT -6
Cool, Randy! I'm gonna be recording later next week...I'll take you up on that!
|
|
