What's special about DMG Equilibrium FIR Filter? i'm really curious to know. & Why it's different or better than Pro-Q4 or something

I only know FIRCOMP which uses some kind of FIR Technology.

 

It has very detailed options about the FIR algorithm used. They have a significant influence on the amount of preringing in certain areas and the latency that is needed to get a reasonable filter picture. It is just extremely customizable to someones needs to the very detail - also in general.

 

Awesome! What's the use of it? Like how & where do you use it? genuinely asking

 

Waves - Sheps 73 ----> www.waves.com/plugins/scheps-73 $34.99

UAD Neve 1073 vs Slate Digital FG-73 vs Waves Scheps 73 vs Arturia 1973 plugin shootout

 

Everything.
Not while creating the structure of the tonal balance because of the latency that I introduce there. But before rendering I definetely switch all my eq's to it. So it's just a workflow thing.

There is by the way a schematics of the filter curves of the 1073. Simply adjust, save as preset - done.


https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/neve-1073n

 

Last edited: May 28, 2025

Awesome! I'll give it a try.
Woah!! Thank you so much for this neve 1073 filter preset.

 

@hardware romantics: Yes, hardware is better. The original Neve 1073 — with its discrete Class A circuitry, custom-wound transformers, and nonlinear saturation characteristics — has a sound that no plugin has fully captured. Nobody's arguing that.

But the OP didn’t ask, “Is hardware better?” They asked: “Which plugin emulation of the 1073 is best?”

Let’s stipulate the obvious: software isn’t a perfect replication of hardware. The analog domain introduces complex interactions — harmonic content shaped by transformer loading, subtle clipping on transients, and behavior that changes depending on the input level and impedance. Plugins approximate that with varying degrees of success, usually via convolution, circuit modeling, or some hybrid.

None of that answers the actual question.

A $3,000 hardware preamp is a great investment if you’re already running high-end monitors, quality AD/DA, have a treated space, and regularly track high-quality sources. Otherwise, it’s just an expensive bottleneck in a weak signal chain.

No plugin user is under the illusion that a UAD, Softube, or Acustica model is a carbon copy of a vintage unit. What they want is usable character in a mix — not a dissertation on analog mojo. And let’s be honest: in a finished track, 99% of people couldn’t tell whether the vocal went through a BAE, Neve, or the UAD 1073 plugin. Even among engineers, guessing blind is still only educated guessing.

Tl,dr: Hardware wins, sure. But that’s not very helpful when someone is asking for a plugin. A Neve emulation from UAD, Softube, or Acustica can get you very close; especially if you can reference match it.

If I was going to spend any money over this, I'd get Spark. Otherwise I would make a chain as close as possible and call it a day.

 

Never tried this piece of software but if what you're saying is accurate then may have to give it a whirl, sounds good. Always just stuck to Fabfilter ProQ because of the reptuation.

 

Agree'd on this. Not sure if my posts may have came off like some hardware fanatic but I'm definitely not. I tried to stay ITB for years because it's way more convenient, but based off of my own (limited) experiences with hardware it just does the thing you want it to.

That being said, and sticking to the original question, it's sort of impossible to answer for the reasons you've given. There are so many variables in all of our chains that a plug-in that works for one person may not sound good for another. Hardware has this same issue as you've highlighted, but it's also impossible to say which is the "best" Neve emulation when one person might be testing on a pro-recorded sample and another might be testing on a poorly sung vocal through an NT1a going into a 2i2, there's only so much even the best software can do at that point to improve the sound.

I've seen numerous posts with people saying [insert plugin name here] sucks and is awful because it didn't get them good results, but we don't know if they were even using it on good source material or even really understand the function of the emulation. The best advice is just the most obvious, which is to go try them all out as much as you can and use the one you like most.

I'm with you on the Spark thing though, I'd probably want to get a UAD Apollo and do the whole DSP tracking with the Unison preamps thing so I could get the sounds as close to finished as possible going in. I do think UAD has a lot of issues and make a lot of questionable decisions with their plug-ins, but I still think there is a lot of mileage in DSP zero latency tracking with plug-ins, but that's an entirely different discussion :P

 

What a weird thing to say, tying your ability to the price of gear. "It can only get you so far", except that doesn't seem to be a real problem for most professionals. I thought there were no audiophile delusions in the mixing world, but it seems to exist, the same spiel even.

I don't like being this negative, but fueling gear delusions is the worst advice someone can take away from this thread, alongside giving up reliability and workflow ITB for marginal sound difference. I guess it's the reason why I love plugins like Kelvin, instead of the same marketing-driven analog emulation of the week that this time is finally the most accurate, so you can keep chasing the unicorn of accuracy.

For the OP, maybe try Tone Projects Kelvin, unless what you want is to have something that has 73 in the title for a morale boost.

 

I hope mine do. I like using hardware a lot. But first off, I am not a vocalist. I do not think the difference between a vocalist using a 1073 at home vs a UAD plugin is going to be the difference between them getting booked, signed to a label, or whatever measure of "success" they are after. It's not going to be the difference maker between their music earning them $3000 more by using a 1073 hw instead of what they will earn using a plugin.

A plugin will only get a vocalist so far, is true. But that "only so far" is still going to top out at getting to record a record at a real studio. 3K worth of preamp is a drop in the bucket by then. It also means as a recording engineer, mixer, producer; you are not going to be getting a lot of vocal tracking work at your house with a 3k preamp. So for me, both scenarios are a waste of money that could be better spent. It's not an instrument or some kind of sound generator. It's only improving something, to the tune of 3k.

It's not about how great a 1073 is not. It's about money. Someone asking for a plugin emulation of one does not get anything out of someone else saying they should have a lot more money to spend. There are hundreds of threads to go tell people how great a hardware version is. So someone saying to buy hardware are wasting their time, hoping to confirm the validity of their own purchases. If they even have one.

 

I'm no expert in the neve 1073 preamp saturation behavior, but what I know is that 90-95% of the tone is a spectral curve.
This is where I totally join @Lieglein, most of the time, the tone is simply the product of a frequency profile more than ever, because this is how our hear is the most sensible (versus the dynamic perception for example); we tend to underestimate the frequency origin of a tone and overestimate exterior speculative factors we imagine in order to find new reasons to dig sound design or match tonalities we like.

Extensive test signals and wavelet analysis could lead you to find how a 1073 works (what it produces in terms of linearity and non-linearity), if you're ever interested in how to build your own "matching custom mojo chains". Good luck for that if you ever have the time or opportunity to do so.

I always work with 96khz audio, I do that since a very long time now, because at the time, when I switched from 44.1/48, I've just been shocked on how all the transients processing were changed. Maybe this hint could help. Working frequency rate > oversampling when it's about processing with least degradation to the signal.

For frequency tone, digital eqs are just plain superior to any analog in 2025 and that could ever exist.
For complex mojo and behavior, it's another debate.

It all depends on your definition of quality : staying true to the source or bringing additional complex, defined, textured character.

I like the Lindell 80 quite well as well as Analog Obsession's PreBox.

 

Goto Access Analog and use the real deal... I'm using the 1064's there and they sound FANFUKINTASTIC!

Too many here have NEVER even touched a vintage Neve console or strip yet offering their advise, talking out their azz lol.

I've personally owned vintage 1272's and worked on several 80 series Neve consoles, used many real 1073's, 1084's, 33102's in person at Zac's, Universal Malibu Interscope Boiler Room, Boom Boom Room LA, Stankonia, DARP, and Chapman Audio.

Stop supporting half ass developers with average tools selling you compromised software.

When you want the real deal, use Access Analog for cheap and accept no substitute, your audio will thank you later.

 

Last edited: May 28, 2025

So what you are saying though, is that you do not own one either. Right?

 

No need to own one today at inflated prices, just use any of the 6 vintage Neve strips at Access Analog for cheap.

I prefer my API Box sitting in front of me today, but I do mimic a full tracking session at Access Analog for every song.

There's zero reason to spend on compromised plugins that NEVER deliver when we have modern services today that allow remote hardware use for cheap prices.

To each their own.

 

Last edited: May 29, 2025

...

 

Last edited: May 29, 2025

That's cool, I print through my friend's gear at times with a similar workflow, but of course there's an annoyance/logistics factor lol.

How much is that costing you per song roughly?

 

that's not true at all...someone that definitely knows how to mix can get depth with plugins, you just get it with hardware without having to try to get it

 

Unfortunately not a single plugin can simulate even Warm Audio WA73-EQ preamp sauration, all you can do ITB is copying a hardware eq curve and you will lose nonlinear harmonics and saturation that changes with input signal and boosted band (the randomness and 3D effect)

 

Last edited: May 29, 2025

At this point I think it's best OP provide an audio file and everyone just have a go at it with whatever they have, it will be more educational for everyone.