|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 6, 2015 17:33:12 GMT -6
what did i miss? I would say they are VERY similar other than some point choices, the capi's have better filter shape choices(specifically shelving option) that make them a more forgiving tracking eq imo(harder to screw up) proportional q? www.avedisaudio.com/API_eqs.htmlstill not sure what you're saying, the lc53a has proportional Q (aka swinging inputs), and so does the 550a, so they are indeed similar no? |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 6, 2015 19:42:15 GMT -6
My understanding is obviously wrong then. I'll take your word for it. Do you have 550A's to compare with? Interchangeable?
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 6, 2015 21:21:38 GMT -6
In 500 world I have LC53A's, TB550A's, Analog Allstars EPQ1S5's, and ioaudio MEQ500's.
The two Pultec circuits would not get picked first for tracking use. The dB range is very ill-defined, with not much happening over most of the pot throw, and a lot happening at the end. This is fine when you are DAMN CERTAIN, but this is generally not true while tracking, especially MULTITRACKING. They do sound cool though.
I like the LC53A and TB550A for tracking. You probably can't get a TB550A kit anymore, so we might as well dismiss that one, though I do like it more with low frequency instruments and program than I do the LC53A. If you feel the same way, then maybe you should just buy a proper 550A or 550B. The LC53A has the advantage over all the other 550 type units in that the filter is split up, you can use HPF or LPF or both. It sounds really sweet on voices and instruments from the low midrange and up. I like the wide shapes in that you can't really mess up with them, and 2dB steps mean you definitively like it or you don't, which is a great self-limiting aspect that lets you move on quickly rather than dicking around in angst over nitpicky fractions of dB's.
Basically, tracking I don't want to use any EQ with continuously variable anything. I want steps large enough to cause a yes/no reaction so I can get on with it. This may not be true for those single tracking everything, but when you frequently look at 16+ live inputs the fine details will get lost in the shuffle, to bite you later.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 6, 2015 21:25:57 GMT -6
F'ing hell this god dA#*#U# site code is screwing up everything I try to type.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 6, 2015 21:30:29 GMT -6
still not sure what you're saying, the lc53a has proportional Q (aka swinging inputs), and so does the 550a, so they are indeed similar no? Over at GroupDIY you will find my LC53A/TB550A frequency plots, they are damn near identical for the settings which are apples to apples. The LC53A has the advantage of sticking with 2dB steps, where the TB550A/550A move to 6/9/12 after the 2/4/6. Brian did a lot of work to get the TB550A to match the original 550A shapes. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 6, 2015 21:39:10 GMT -6
My understanding is obviously wrong then. I'll take your word for it. Do you have 550A's to compare with? Interchangeable? a studio i've worked at for around 25 years has an old 40 channel API with around 30 of the original 550A's, they are nice, i've never had them and the capi side by side, but i really dig the capi. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 6, 2015 22:03:02 GMT -6
If I could get the bass and lower mids of the TB550A with the upper mids and top of the LC53A I'd feel best of both worlds. But nothing is like that! Quit dreaming! Just buy them both!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jul 7, 2015 7:25:08 GMT -6
Just an aside, but I would like to see Vintech put their X73, X81 and X73i EQ sections into 500 series modules.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 7, 2015 10:46:45 GMT -6
still not sure what you're saying, the lc53a has proportional Q (aka swinging inputs), and so does the 550a, so they are indeed similar no? Over at GroupDIY you will find my LC53A/TB550A frequency plots, they are damn near identical for the settings which are apples to apples. The LC53A has the advantage of sticking with 2dB steps, where the TB550A/550A move to 6/9/12 after the 2/4/6. Brian did a lot of work to get the TB550A to match the original 550A shapes. I can match "shapes" in my DAW. But they don't sound the same as analog EQ's.... |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 7, 2015 10:47:47 GMT -6
If I could get the bass and lower mids of the TB550A with the upper mids and top of the LC53A I'd feel best of both worlds. But nothing is like that! Quit dreaming! Just buy them both! Funny, I like the HF of the 550A's way more than I like the low mids and LF's. I have no experience with the TB clones though. I agree with you about detented options though. |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jul 7, 2015 11:44:56 GMT -6
Why not make Mono busses in your daw that are set to your input, add an EQ plugin to that bus, and then set up a channel to record that buss' output.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 7, 2015 16:44:42 GMT -6
Over at GroupDIY you will find my LC53A/TB550A frequency plots, they are damn near identical for the settings which are apples to apples. The LC53A has the advantage of sticking with 2dB steps, where the TB550A/550A move to 6/9/12 after the 2/4/6. Brian did a lot of work to get the TB550A to match the original 550A shapes. I can match "shapes" in my DAW. But they don't sound the same as analog EQ's.... Interesting point. Something that I also reckon is an issue.. is the amount of control in DAW plug ins... vs the actual control you have on a console or outboard EQ. If you actually look at the curves a pultec generates, its a curve you wouldnt naturally get using a DAW EQ. I was just talking bout this with tonycamphd yesterday. If anyone is bored one day, go look at the frequency plots of EQs and then look at how you usually use your DAW plug in EQ... This a huge sidetrack.. but I reckon the DAW interface is entirely to blame for practically all the woes we hear, and lament about. That and no interning. cheers Wiz |
|
