It's been a long time since I was this excited about a plugin developer and currently Pulsar is killing it with every new release. Maybe it's a sort of hype, but I really like what I'm hearing. The competition is stiff these days though.

 

I was always surprised no one did GML emus
+ announced a month before release?

 

Competition is already quite stiff with AlexB and Acustica creating killer Nebula versions. I have tried a real 8200 and compared it against the AlexB one and they're not quite the same. The hardware was much smoother sounding and more full, but it was definitely a close one. Let's see how this one compares.

 

must have overlooked them
what are the names?

Edit:
the witches where super quick

 

Last edited: May 2, 2023

For AA it's Green, for AlexB probably GM9 Mastering eQ (EDIT: er, on a second thought, GM also made a 9500 EQ, so...).

 

Last edited: May 3, 2023

So what's so special about the 8200? I mean i red the description on the site but it pretty much says the same as every other plugin on the market. The plugin seems to have some nice features, i'm just curious about the thing it's inspired on and what to expect.

 

 

Last edited: May 4, 2023

https://www.massenburg.com/model-8200/

 

Thanks. But i ment something a bit more down to earth, like what's the general user concensus on what the 8200 sounds like, or what makes it special.

 

It was built to not have a sound on its own and be as transparent as possible with lowest distortion level (for that era technology) with some sort of amplitude and phase compensating feed-forward/feed-back Class A filter design discrete circuitry. The filter bands are in parallel so it won't interact much with other bands. Technically it will give a more focused boost or cut (because minimal filters interaction, the shapes maintained) which make it really good for surgical work. So it reacts differently compared to other EQs on its era that mostly wide band serial filters design and used other type of circuitry like tube, diode and opamps and whatnot, that actually have a sound on their own and known to change the tonal structure of a track fed to it and called "magic" by the faithful. 8200 doesn't have that magic, it was all physics though and up until today considered one of the best invention that led to creation of more advanced and cleaner (and of course efficient) parametric style analog EQs. So 8200 isn't really clean after all.

All of this is before the invention of digital EQ that also built to not have a sound on its own as clean as you can imagine. Not long after that, people said digital EQs also have a sound of its own.. it sounds... digital and harsh. Or digititus as Bob Ludwig calls it. but they still pay good dollars for the Weiss EQ

So digital EQ sucks, then people decided they want that 8200 (or 9500 for mastering) sound which is the difference between 8200 and the other EQs because it's the type of transparent sound that "isn't really clean", still analog-y (lol) but doesn't suck and not harsh... whatever that means.

Pulsar Model 8200 then was created an emulated the unit and still want to be faithful and add that two lines of harmonics below -100db that is as good as not there. That's the "isn't really clean" stuff they found with today's technology of measuring I presume. It's down there -100db when the banger you are currently mastering clocking at -4 LUFS most of its duration.

Spoiler: Disclaimer

I like the plugin and was just kidding for the half part of it, don't fight me.

 

Last edited: May 2, 2023

Ah, it's a distortion box then.

I've been reading around and apparently this is as good as a description as i'm gonna get. Thank you Mr.Dude .

 

its a bit like the KUSH Clariphonic in design, but just all bands
Its a Parallel design, so the crossover Freq. "behave" more transparent, as i understand.
Works also well in DSP Design.
Another thing is that Massenburg "made the first comercial" Parametric Mastering EQ

So he got a name as a Analog / DSP Design Wiz

 

Last edited: May 2, 2023

...but it's meant to be a clean box...


on serious note, since we have the access to an extended demo might as well try it. It's not much of a "box-tone" kinda stuff. More of an EQ with unique to its own curves. If you want to compare it and decide for yourself, you can compare it with some other digital EQ with parallel design. Here are some:

1. TDR Nova
2. DMG Equilibrium - choose the "Parallel Shelves & Bells" at the setup and use the 8k2 curves. Or just pick the 8k2 model from the presets. It's under the "Units" category that will automatically sets the parallel filters.
3. Plugin Alliance AMEK 200 - loosely based on the GML 8200 but also has parallel filter design. It doesn't cancel each other perfectly though because of the "tolerance modeling" thingy.
4. MAAT thEQBlue - from Setup pick the Architecture Names "Parallel FF-FB".
5. Pulsar Modular P440 Sweet Spot is a Parallel EQ because they based it from a Sontec that is also Parallel design.

compare them to Pro-Q3 (Serial EQ) on sharp boosts that close to each other under a curve analyzer. Parallel EQ will give different curves than the Serial. It sounds different and you can decide which one you like. Both has their place, I tend to like Parallel EQ style for cutting on busses.

 

Last edited: May 2, 2023

Todd Rundgren mixed through old nasty Soundcraftsmen stereo eqs. Whatever.

 

How does it compare to AMEK EQ 200 (sound-wise, not counting the additional features)?

Has anyone compared it? Any impressions? I haven't had a chance to try it yet.

 

Oh it's parallel. For some reason i missed that.

..::Extended demo™::.. acquired, no sign of harmonics...like...at all. But i think it being parallel is enough for me to get an idea of what to expect from this thing.

 

the harmonics will appear at the very bottom when you move the gain knobs a bit, boost or cut.

I kinda did roughly, not much difference if turn down the noise in the AMEK 200, sound-wise, it's a bit different on the same settings, because the AMEK200 frequency/Q points aren't accurate, 600Hz isn't really 600kHz and they change every time you randomize the channels because of the "Tolerance Modeling" even on the Digital mode, the value of the Q (width) too. But when you matched them with the help of curve analyzer, the difference is almost inaudible, maybe someone can hear it, I didn't at all on a mix. The phase responses also matched 100% even on boosts that close to each other (filter interaction test).

While the Q are slightly different in value but both EQ curves can be matched and canceled out to 97%. The amplitude and phase for both almost cancel each other out 97% too on different bands in same EQ with slight imperfection, it's the "analog behavior" I guess, but they both perfectly represent the Parallel EQ Topology as advertised, like the GML.

Saturation. When you boost a band in AMEK 200, it only add/boost the 3nd order harmonic (THD enabled) of the fundamental that gives the impression of a clean class A solid-state style saturation, a bit different to the Pulsar where the 2nd and 3rd harmonics get boosted (only when you start boosting or cutting) at a very very low amplitude that could reach up to -75db (still low) on 15db boost (nobody does that), that should suggest the result will sound a little thicker but to be honest I can't tell at all on listening test on a matched curves setting, on normal and extreme settings. Could be my lacking of listening skills, I don't know it's identical as much as I can tell.

I didn't do a high end test because I'm not in the mood and that shit is tiring, probably will do it when I got the time this weekend. Will compare it to all my favourite high shelves and AIR EQ.

One more thing, not sure it's important, but I got a "feeling", it's a visceral thing, that the low end is tighter when using the Pulsar 8200. It is the same feel I get with their Pulsar Massive. Pulsar Audio has their own secret stuff. I think there's some sort of under the hood low end compression on it a bit but the Doctor didn't show anything even when tested with 50-100Hz tone. Plugin Doctor can't detect any multiband type of compression that's frequency specific and I can't prove it, so it is what it is. A feeling.

 

Last edited: May 3, 2023

Thanks a lot, really insightful! I will definitely need to do some thorough testing in my spare time.

 

I haven't matched them or anything, but these are my impressions based on just putting them on tracks and doing stuff:
-I felt the AMEK didn't quite do what i wanted in the lows all the way to the high mids, like sometimes the boosts/cuts feel too notiorious, sometimes not enough, sometimes nowhere near where i want them, and the Q is also a bit hard to really tell what it's doing. The 8200 does a way better job at that, you can feel what you're doing.
-The high mids and highs feel smoother in the 8200. Stuff like ride bells and other clicky things in the AMEK seem to stand out more (again, i didn't match them, just tried to "simulate" everyday use with each one), feels more detailed than the 8200 but at times harsh.
-The 8200 wins in the lows, even with the TMT thing on digital in the AMEK, the lows feel a lot tighter in the 8200, and somehow harder to loose in the mix when doing other stuff.

Overall, i'd say the AMEK feels more loose, scooped and clicky (i know, weird, but it's just a general feeling) while the 8200 feels tighter, smoother, and easier to use. And in case you were wondering, i was using the AMEK with TMT in D mode and both channels in 01, A mode felt a bit messy.

Interesting, considering that the AMEK200 is not exactly ment to emulate the GML8200.