indeed

 

Last edited: Aug 6, 2019

@Lieglein What's funny, please?

Cut at 25Hz, 30Hz untouched, 20somethingHz already lowered by 24dB:

 

Last edited: Aug 6, 2019

BTW
i like the dry sample the most
no kidding i dunno yet...heard it on laptop,on cheap headphones.. but dt770 offenbarung is coming soon..

first i thought avanger is best but then a switched back...

i getting my dt7700 wait..

 

What you mean, you switched back???

 

we had a guy here he bought some old vinyl...he had lot of clue whats best vinyl and so...he has 25.000 money vinyl player + tubes ,amps what ever..
and he said only on his system he can hear the diffrence between eg deutsche gramophon vinyls and cheap vinyls which were majority in the end...and its big difference then
what i wanna say i think i need such system to see sense here...
guys youre ears must be really great...
wtf
no its out i squashed my ears in the 90ies

back to kungpao wet..then dry...then confussion set in..slowly
but first i thought you did rock the boat...and you did but with further comparing
----
dt770 say go with the dry sample...and use https://www.stereotool.com :rofl:
im sorry mates
the only thing which disturb me a bit on the sample is some low end resonanz from the piano body when i say this right..cant call it mud yet...just to describe

 

Last edited: Aug 6, 2019

Err, I didn't mean to make it better than him, I tried to reproduce the Pultec's sound...

 

my fault...

 

Last edited: Aug 6, 2019

No Avenger
can i have the dry sample you recorded from kungpao...?
------------
can someone with real hardware pultec do the compare too pls...?

 

I downloaded the file with JDownloader from the SC page...

 

Yes, this is correct.

But can you tell me how this sounds if you have broad low frequencies like a bass at 50Hz and you cut this way somewhere around 25-30Hz? I do not think (hope) you will use a filter this steep besides deleting noise which is clearly separated from the "usable" frequencies.
And I do not know how usable this is in the sheer process of "shaping a sound" to say it this way maybe.

We can see this if we go back in time. There is a reason why there was no use of eq's with an extreme high "Q" or cutting steepness in those times. Not because those eq's weren't there but because there is (usually) absolutely no reason to use them besides in making a signal usable at all. Recording was a big thing back then and every signal had to be absolutely clean for this reason and they were of course. So therefore the only reason for the use of those parametric eq's was (and is) to clean up a signal which wasn't really necessary anymore.

I think people are overusing those graphical eq's way too much and they just make their life hard by setting up those eq's in very often pretty complex ways.

 

Last edited: Aug 6, 2019

Do you realize that you are starting to make a fool of yourself?

Now tell me when the above shown low cut is on and when not:

 

Last edited: Aug 6, 2019

i forget that option...yeah you right i should start using it

EDIT wtf that was easy.....

 

Last edited: Aug 6, 2019

nothing to do with pultec anymore...
but here is my approach on that sample...
a clipper,pusher gate,silk eq,directional eq,stereotool auto eq/dynamics tool,tilt eq,proq2 mid/site - low end shizzle



maybe bit to harsh....

 

But I think at the end of the day, the result that Fab filter is showing is correct. Its another full analysis that plugin Doctor lacks!
Plugin doctor just ignores the harmonic content in the linear analysis of EQ, while Fab filter shows the result of both.
I think this is what linear analysis does:
it uses linear least squares. A linear time-invariant system is fully determined by its response to delta impulse, which is its kernel. Then it solves the equation for finding the parameters of the lienar filter.

 

Last edited: Aug 9, 2019

An meinen lieben Nicht Rächer, den ich sehr ehre und schätze,

als du mir schriebst, dass du nicht wüsstest wovon ich sprach und du nach meiner obligatorischen Art "Auf Wiedersehen" zu sagen, die du natürlich sofort korrekt identifiziert hast, mir sofort das Gegenteil beweisen wolltest, musste ich schon ein wenig schmunzeln. Und in der Tat. Normalerweise hätte ich jedem anderen Quatschkopf mit seinen hübschen Bildern und lustigen Klangbeispielen längst ein weiteres "funny rating" verpasst und sich selbst überlassen. Da ich mich dir aber so verbunden fühle, wollte ich nach dem letzten Post von dir schon böse in die Tasten hacken, was denn dies für eine Irrelevanz in Nullen und Einsen sei.

Aber dann entschied ich mich, die leider immernoch relevantere Frage einfach ganz nüchtern zu beantworten und es dann bleiben sein zu lassen.

Keine Ahnung. Ich kann es nicht hören, meine Monitore haben einen Frequenzbereich von 43 Hz - 23 kHz. Jedoch, bei meinem Mastering engineer könnte ich es hören. Da darf und sollte man sich natürlich fragen warum und ich denke das sollte die Relevanz dieser Vergleichsfrage verdeutlichen.
Ich hätte den Kram jetzt natürlich durch einen Analyzer laufen lassen können und mich dann als großen Häuptling hinstellen. Aber das ist ja auch garnicht nötig.

Nichtsdestotrotz. Da du mich mit deiner Frage so übel in verlegenheit gebracht und so elegant überlistet hast, möchte ich dir einen Gewinner-Orden schenken.

 

Last edited: Aug 7, 2019

The "official" explanation is that broad EQ curves don't mess up the phase. A lot of other EQs do the same thing, if you boost a 12khz high-shelf it goes all the way down to 900hz. You should judge processors by their sound and not by how their curves look to you on a graph. The Pultec interface is pretty nonutalitarian, but that hardly matters in the software world.
Anyway, I don't think Pultecs are that special myself and pretty much never use them, if I want really broad curves I just use a digital EQ.

They aren't the same thing, Voice of God does a high-pass while boosting the crossover point, so you get more low-end without the barely audible bass frequencies. When you boost and cut bass on the Pultec at the same time, they actually boost and cut different frequencies, or use different curves, so the result is that you boost the lows but cut the low-mids, and you don't get more "mud" from boosting low end. See pic.

 

Yes,I agree with you.It's the same with all EQ,when you boost a shelf at a frequency,others frequency are boosted too.I don't care how its curves
look,I like it or not with my ears.
That doesn't mean I don't like pure digital and clean EQ,all off them are useful for something.For bass or kicks or strings or piano I like a lot Pultec emulations.

 

If you can't hear it, you need to spend your money on your monitoring chain.

And it's the legacy Pultec he uses.

 

Nice tune, but too much reverb/delay makes the results of EQ blurred(IMHO),
the test on a dry sound could give it a justice

 

In the end, it's all just a matter of taste