I don't know which is the plugin and which is the hardware, but I strongly preferred the low mid weight and punch of the ruletec on everything. Do I win???
A hint to those having trouble hearing the differences. Mostly it's in the transients. Listen to any sound with a percussive attack of any kind and the hardware is very very clearly different (and better). What a lot of hobbyists don't realize is their mixes sound muddy not because of not EQ'ing right or whatnot but rather their transients are blunted or else not treated very carefully. A mix with nice transient character in aggregation will sound a lot clearer and will subjectively sound like it has a lot more high end even though it actually doesn't (which is why you can't fix this with EQ, and especially not at the mastering stage). This probably makes sense naturally to bassists because how you handle the transient of attack has a huge effect on the perceived clarity of the instrument even though it represents only a few milliseconds of the entire performance. Start thinking carefully about your transients and you'll go much further. The Pultec just makes it easier because you don't have to actively think about it like you would with compressors and saturation. It just does it for you.
Both the Rule Tec and the UAD sound great. The Rule Tec sounds more modern and the UAD more vintage (imo) I think that is what will determine which one you chose over the other one.
It's interesting how everybody's perception varies. To me, AA Purple sounds better than any of the other emulations of the Pultec. Including the UAD version, but I admit, it's still splitting hairs. Also, I've been impressed by the Apogee version of the Pultec from their FX rack, at least in demos, but I don't own it. All the plugins are quite good, and I'm not sure I'd notice any difference in a double blind test. That being said, I have yet to hear a plugin that pulls off the magic that certain vintage Pultecs are capable of. I've always preached a gospel of "there is no magic box," but a vintage Pultec in good condition is the closest thing there is to that. In my opinion.
I agree …I liked Purple right off more….but I never used a real one….I just went off sound preference . And I know that doesn’t mean it’s closer to a pultec than the other…I just liked the sound
kudos to you as a Scottish man taking on a video where you have to say "particular" "pultec" and "purple" a lot. can't be easy thanks for your hard work Paul! 😂
I tested the curves from Rare up against UAD and Waves using Waves Q-Clone. The Rare curves on all controld are way more dramatic and different from both UAD and Waves. This ‘moreness’ can suggest that it Sounds better in the ‘louder means better’ kind of way. I also felt overly impressed, which made me perform the test to find out What’s really going on. Imo Rare is a very good EQ with a lovely flavour. But not a Pultec. Just my two cents. ;)
The proof in the pudding is when they are all matched by ear. If it turns out that the rare can't match it due to it being over powered then I just won't include it. I'll let you all know but I won't know until I stick it in that pultec session
That's interesting, I sometimes use Rule-Tec which sounds nice and adds color but actually most of the time I prefer Bettermaker eq plugin that is absolutely clean, no distortion, thus no aliasing and to me has the most amount of raw power to bring sounds to life. And I think you would probably too since you preferred it in shootout agains Rule-Tec in your video in the past too! Would be interesting to hear Bettermaker against UAD pultec. Thanks for comparison!
I use a combination of bettermaker and AA titanium (tube tech) on my mixbus. The UAD is completely aliasing free. Clean harmonics as well . Just very well coded. 2 very different pultecs. Different curves and obviously the bettermaker is completely clean which means a fixed setting can be completely matched with any digital eq but the alogorithm of the curves is second to none for what it does.
I love the EQP1A. I use it in some form or another on every mix. I primarily use the UAD version; even more so now with the low latency UADx version. But with all these tests, the hardware version just gave more sound overall. And more importantly, the hardware version sounded more like a record (and I don't mean vinyl. I mean "record" as in its default definition relating to music). All the plugins, at some point in the sound, sounded more subdued. The plugins are great, though. And they are certainly capable of helping to make records. The differences are not that great and will likely be missed on the average person or even by some above average people. In these tests, I preferred the Purple and UAD versions of the plugins.
There is a bit more roundness and low energy uplift with real pultec. found the same with individual and mix examples. That little bit when added at the mix level of say 50 tracks together, in a complex composition, probably makes diff.
Tbh I'd say at least 95% would fail a triple blind test. Having measured the hardware it's that clean there isn't any real mojo or any reason that it would add more roundness or low energy uplift compared to the plugins. That's why the UAD sounds near identical. The pultec is pretty simple when you match the curves in reality. Just a clean eq at the end of the day. Nothing special
My engineer friends: there's a massive difference in those two plugins... Can you hear? My girlfriend: why you keep playing the exactly same audio back to back? 😐 Moral of the story the only one who cares it's the person behind the mix.
It’s about mixing. Multiple contrasting tracks in audio. Light and shadow in visual. An expert will know exactly how to balance these, and the observer will hear the difference in the final result even though they can’t appreciate the subtlety in isolation. Everyone cares because everyone appreciates beautiful art being as beautiful as possible. And there is no paradox if you think about it.
The UAD and Pultec are super close indeed but I find the hardware vs plugin difference is still apparent on the full mix. The pultec has that 3D separation.
Very interesting! I would have thought that the Acustica would sound closer to the hardware! But UAD nails it! There must be a reason why I have two UAD Satellites ;-)
Nice test. I had the same feeling about the UAD Pultec emulations, they just sound so much better than any other analogue emu EQ plugins I've heard. That said, almost all hardware vs plugin version of hardware tests, to my ears, it's the transients that suffer with plugins and extreme ends of spectrum get cut-off or disappear. I wrote 'almost' because of the few exceptions which are some UAD plugins, not all of them, but some of them seem to be sooo close. The new Neve 1084 pre (Which I sadly don't own), Pultecs obvs, Oxide tape, LA-2A and AMS-Neve DFC (Same code). I think the future is in using AI (Machine learning), like we see in amazing plugs such as Gullfoss. An AI that can generate multiple tones and play samples into the hardware that they control with robot controllers (Like Access Analogue) to change settings, sample with Avid Carbon (32bit - 192khz!) of the IRs (Acoustica Audio style) and compare the sources find the best replication response. Then downsample with another AI to retain the most detail and keep those higher sampler rate versions with those with the DSP power. It will happen, hopefully soon! Until then, it's UAD and Access Analogue for bedroom producers. Maybe Acoustica could team up with Access Analogue and an audio AI engineer?
I was gonna include it. Was very close to including it over purple but I knew that I wouldve got a harder time if I didn't do purple. Could've included both but I try not to fuel the 3rd party war if possible 🤓
Hardware has a slight more natural open 3 dimension sound/vibe with a more slight controlled sound. Now that only if i have to nit pick it, UAD sound great still it gets you 90-95% there!
I have noticed that. Also they lack depth especially the lower regions and smoothness and finesse in the mids and the top end when pushed compared to the hardware. They may seem similiar but overall they dont capture the hardware mojo to my ears.
Great comparison! I have Purple and I've used UAD pultec in the past and it always call my atencion that the acustica version has a totally different vibe. Really spot on about the darkness of the real hardware (and the UAD version). Another thing about Purple is that I checked it in plugin doctor because I feel like the low band it's doing nothing, and I discover that in the 60 hz boost band, the eq it really does nothing until you are above 2. The others bands are ok, is just the 60 Hz that has this "problem" (I guess that the real hardware is like that and they decided to leave it like this). And of course, my favourite is the UAD version. it's basically great on anything!
Yeah Ive never gravitated to the purple and I did a low end end test with the waves when I used to Use that and noticed the same with the low end in the purple. Was the main reason I never considered purple as the low end thing really put me off. Even in this I had to crank it hard in the bass to get it closer to the hardware
Probably will as I think purple is in its 3rd upgrade now so will most likely adapt. They added in another mid band m5 I seen so they might sample another eqp1a and do the same. That would make a lot of sense to give you 2 sampled pultecs
the differences I hear are not thousands upon thousands of dollars worth. its crazy how close weve gotten.seems like just yesterday I was tracking on a tascam 4 track cassette, dreaming of sitting on a Neve. Got into animating and needed a 40 thousand dollar SGI and power animator software at 19 thousand dollars. kids these days dont know how good they have it. complaining about needing to spend 200 bucks on a plugin..
Melda EQs can bounce out impulse responses allowing you create a curve and export it so you don't even need need to use multiple plugins, just an impulse loader. For the sake of speed and processing power you can get things going quickly and probably 80% of the work done in no time using that. I'm exploring it today its pretty sweet. Oh and you could create many variations and just breeze between them. Don't know yet how to copy the curves exactly though but autodynamic and listen to a signal so if you find the ideal sounds just save as IRs
@@PaulThird Chandler guitar has a few. I’ve figured out how to make use of these IRs with Mconvolution but not did it with EQ yet - must explore :-) ruclips.net/video/xoEbc6rC43o/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Tsx8j5ZZP7g/видео.html
After listening very well I’m ok with you the UAD sounds really the same as the pultec BUT as most plugins you loose all the headroom and so the 3D in your mix ... unfortunately Great job man !
My favourite us the Apogee pultec, it is so good 💖 if you look at plugin doctor, it doesn't have tons of harmonic distortion like some others have, so it's cleaner, but sounds so great
Debatable. Nowadays it's clear that most plugins miss that richness and wideness of sound. Although some already sound as good as analog. Not same, but same as good. And they doesn't necessarily have to be identical. They should sound identically good. Because there is a problem when people compare plugin to analog and say "I like it but it doesn't sound the same, so is a bad plugin.". No, if it sounds good, is good. But as I said, most plugins are lacking that richness. And "to surpass" means to sound even wider, even punchier, even richer. But is wider that wide, or punchier than punchy, or fatter than fat better? Usually is not. Because too wide, too crisp, too smooth, too fat usually is also too much. Gold is in the middle. So when plugins will be as good (some already are), it will be just perfect.
. . . I Hear and Feel the Rule Tec as the most Open of the three . . . Then the Hardware . . . The the UAD . . . ! . . . 🙂 (-; . . . I really do hear the UAD as the most "Compressed" and mid focused . . . ! . . . Followed by the Hardware Pultec right in the middle . . . ! . . . And the Rule Tec is on Top . . . ! . . . Just like how You had them arranged . . . ! . . . 🙂 (-; . . . I Do use the UAD Pultecs to tighten up some mids and smoothen them out . . . ! . . . Yet the Rule Tec really knows how to Give the Bass a Big Open Embrace . . . ! . . . 🙂 (-;
The only problem I can hear with the RuleTec is the mids and High end. The mid range sounds almost the same but slightly more flat, and the high end sounds a bit more hyped. Maybe I'm hearing it wrong, but If they fix that it, would be even closer.
Ive been listening to these on my samsung hi Fi system in the living room to get it from the consumer perspective. It’s the q900t with sub. And honestly the examples all sound the same in every video. So if anyone thinks it matters at this point they’re just silly. It would be nice to see how the plugins perform when pushed to the gain limits.. sometimes that’s what hardware is good for. I have some fet and tube compressors in my rack that I use to destroy signals, and it seems like the software counterparts kinda shit the bed when you push them to the max.
Very close between hardware and UAD, but I would say even in the mix the difference is noticeable enough. The hardware has a solidity across the spectrum that doesn’t have voids or any pinching of the body of the source, where it seems to be present on the emulations (and often masked by a more congested and inflated upper bass/low mids). I love UAD and use plenty of their emulations, but I’ve never once opted for the emulation over the hardware when I’ve had the choice. I would say the tones of the emulations are often very close, but it’s the feel and the way they react to dynamics that are different, and often those voids in the body of the source are apparent on something with wide dynamics and range, where the density doesn’t stay consistent across the midrange. On good hardware, rarely do I feel similarly.
I had the legacy Pultec eqp-1a and when the new version came out and was on sale I had to pop on it. Only cost me like 50 bucks and the newer version sounds WAAY better than the legacy version. Seriously one of the strongest and best sounding plug ins I've ever used and I have a bunch of them...UAD and the rest. No regrets!
I definitely heard a difference. The hardware gives you the most direct connection to your ear. The others have slight veil over it with the Purple being closest to the hardware in terms of detail and less veil over the sound and still sounds pretty good. Perhaps the tone of the UAD is closer to the hardware but it sounds more like an mp3 version of it. So pick your poison do you want closer tone but less resolution or slightly different tone and better resolution. For me Purple hands down. It sounds more real and alive like hardware.
Come on now... We all know there's none of this "direct connection to your ear" going on. Put 100 people in a room and triple blind test the hardware and UAD, no ones passing that
@@PaulThird Perhaps not on a solo bass drum with minimal eq but I am playing around with both plugins on a single overhead track recorded with a ribbon mic which needs a 10db boost in the high end and I can honestly say there is a massive difference in realism. The UAD sounds flat and sterile where the Purple it sounds detailed and real like the musician is in the room with me and it's not even subtle. And when I say "direct connection to your ears" I am talking about detail like how a wav file has more detail than an mp3. Compare a file recorded at 192khz to a file recorded at 44.1khz and then down sampled to 128 kbps mp3. Perhaps the difference between UAD and the hardware is not quite as massive but it does not have the resolution of the hardware. If you stop concentrating on tone and listen for resolution you will notice the difference and I can hear them even on Imac built in speaker.
All example tracks I hear on RUclips including this one do NOT sound like the classic recordings from 60‘s and 70‘s. Tube/broadcast gear with many transformers can do astonishing in combination with each other. The example tracks sound reasonably similar/identical and the plugins are clearly making it sound more interesting. But it’s only „in the style of“ and to my ear cannot compete with the sound many are actually after. That’s why many musicians and producers struggle, it sounds clean and transparent or distorted and dirty but it’s just not there. No one remembers more than 3 songs from the last ten years but you will remember all top songs from the 60s and 70s after hearing them once. Guess why. From a lucky owner of authentic Pultec clones where no „Warm“ corners were cut 😊. By the way I never worry if my plug-in sounds like the real deal - if it’s doesn’t get me where I want I just use the original and print it. If this sounds pretentious, think about it: Given that people buy 4000 dollar Mac Books every 3 years or so I do not think it is a luxury to buy tube gear that will last for ages when a used computer for 100 bucks will sound just the same like a new one.
I don't know why, perhaps cause I'm mainly a guitarist, but I often hear the most differences on the electric guitar in your shootouts. For instance in this one I thought the UAD and the Analog Access one sounded basically identical until I heard the guitar, the analog Pultec having a "rounder" and more defined low end, as well as generally deeper low mids. (Very minor difference)
Ed you are bang on. Those subtle differences are there in the hardware in guitars compared to uad but I think they become more lost when in the mix. I possibly could have maybe tweaked the UAD slightly better on guitars but tweaking 3 different plugins to sound the same on one source slowly loses your perception haha
@@PaulThird I recon you matched them pretty bang on, I think the differences are as small as they can be, i agree though, extremely subtle, basically identical in a mix.
@@PaulThird Ahhaha, btw I just got myself TimP's dualTECH and it sounds brilliant as well, as you can imagine. Plugins have gone a long way... You can also get hardware copies of Pultecs for decent prices nowdays, those vintage units' prices are so high mainly for scarsity.
And as dave pensado said.. "why would you want an old noisy inconsistent passive tube eq?" as you said, originals are scarce and have turned more into collector items these days. Modern cleaner pultecs like bettermaker and Tube tech are the way forward in my opinion
I bet the darkness in the upper-mids on the real Pultec (present mostly on the snare and the bass frets) could be recreated using the Kirchhoff dynamic EQ filters.
I like treating my plugins somewhat like analog equipment in that if the piece would have been expensive IRL, I only use it 2-3 times. So if I have 3 Pultec style plugins, I'll only use each one on 2-3 tracks for a total of 9. In this way, there's not so much a concept of "favorite" because each one is a different flavor. So maybe I use my UAD on vocals, Ignite PTEQx on guitars, and Analog Obsession Rare on drums (this is a made-up example).
@@PaulThird Thanks, I got it from Sormena Project YT channel. It simplifies thinking about mixing by putting on constraints. So I tend to use 1 channel strip for the whole mix as well (so PA TMT is quite nice there). The constraints really make it easier to think about rather than constant option overload. Also gives me an excuse to have multiple different plugin versions of the same hardware :)
Hello Paul, this was of particular interest to me because I used the Access Analog Pultec on some acoustic and vocal to replace my UAD Pultec emulations and the result was extremely noticable. I wasn't there to try and match the Pultec perhaps in the way you have, but that wouldn't be the aim anyway for most mixers, you are more likely to just grab the real Pultec and make it sound great. Moreover, the biggest difference was that the real Pultec made the audio sound romantic, authentic - the UAD Pultec was rather less interesting. I am very interested in what the differences really are, and I believe it goes beyond sonic similarities. A row of U47 clones with a real U47 as well, can sound extremely close, but if you stop listening to the sonic differences and instead listen to the performance - the U47 seems to elevate the material, probably to do with the way it is reacting dynamically and consistently across the audio spectrum. In your tests, that I was extremely keen to hear - since, you would be recreating my experience pretty much. Again, I noticed how impressively close all of them were actually, but if you step back and take in the performance the Pultec wins. Now, I know you might be thinking, I bet this guy couldn't pick the Pultec out of a blind test - and I'd agree with you, I find it very difficult listening to short bursts of units switching every few seconds, but in practice, working with gear in the room seeing how it impacts the performer, pushing the unit and tailoring it to your purpose is much more a real world example. Unfortunately, the massive advantage this gives you - is well known, hence enormous price tags, but enormous for a good reason in my opinion.
We'll always differ here as the blind test for me always wins out. If you can't pick it out blind then the differences aren't as big as many believe. Because I sit for that long with them I know that regardless of how you set it up I'd be able to get that UAD to get you stuck in a blind test. In reality terms like romantic and authentic are purely subjective and immeasurable. I think very scientifically so to me I see a pultec for what it is. A very clean eq with a certain curve interaction. The more you step back from the romance you start seeing things for what they are. When we look at gear it's just science and engineering at the end of the day. They were built to result in a specific end result. Magic doesn't exist, It's all measurable and can be recreated. The issue I see with audio is human psychology. Perceptual listening is genuinely a thing. If you believe before touching a dial that it's special then guess what.. Most likely you'll perceive it as special as soon as you move the dial. If I can set the hardware up the way I would use it and then match that sound with a plugin where I can't really hear any difference then there's hardly any difference. There just isn't. 'real world' has too many variables due to perceptual listening. I remember seeing a study somewhere where somebody got engineers to level match a plugin and their own gear. When they knew which was which nearly all of them set their gear louder in level. But blind they were way closer. You need to remenber how much humans create variables in 'real world' tests. That's why I take a more scientific approach and curve match and level match everything to within an inch of its life. Mentioning U47 clones has no relevance to this specific test as its a completely different product. It kind of adds context to a believed perception. Again just my opinion We can talk about performances but I personally see it is BS as again it can't be measured and the performance has already been captured. There no logical reason why the hardware would result in a better performance if both sound near identical. It's really a subjective opinion on how a performance is interpreted. I do the blind tests as it removes preconceptional bias and subjectivity. If I can get the pultecs near identical then there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't pull up the UAD and get that awesome sound you desire quickly. Doesn't make sense why you couldn't cause it can sound like that. To me the variable comes from the user and not the product. I can't argue with subjectivity as its immeasurable. I can't disprove anything you've said in what you hear. But I can prove if you can hear all those big differences in a level matched blind test. I can prove which you prefer in a blind test and at the end of the day and that's where the truth lies.. For me I'm genuinely not meaning any disrespect, I'm just giving you insight into how I see these things. I do see the argument of ease of use which is really dependent on the curve interaction of that specific pultec and how you need to set it to get that desired sound BUT when you are talking 5 grand of a difference.. Taking an extra minute to set it right is nothing. Again I am not meaning offense but there's no point discussing in detail subjective stuff that we can't prove or disprove. It's just a subjective opinon at the end of the day and you are completely in your right to share it but I hope you can understand why I struggle to take that in when you say you'd struggle in the science part which is what we can prove. Yes.. I am that autistic 🤣
@@PaulThird Hi Paul, I appreciate the detailed response, and am not offended with what you are saying, I'm not about to question your approach, its very thorough. I can agree that magic doesn't exist, but romance does - an irrational emotional reaction to, y'know things. Perhaps it is burned into us in our younger years just as many non-engineers and end consumers who don't know what an SSL is, might associate their favourite recordings with that desk, and not even know it. In a vaccum we can test frequencies, but we don't operate in a vaccum, we are affected continually by experiences and associations. I'm not the analog purist who wants to preach to the world that if your ears are good enough you can hear it, rather someone who is getting better results adding analog into my workflow. I'm happy not to understand this, in fact the more I try to the less sense it makes! For someone with autism, you seem extremely sane and grounded, I rather suspect Paul, its not you that has the problem, but the rest of the world thats gone fecking senile, don't you think? Best Regards, Jon
i think the analog Pultec sounds a bit brighter because of the overdrive factor. These plugins have the EQ curve down pack, but skimp on writing computer code for the over-driven component(s); maybe it's over-driven on the input, maybe internally, and or the output. complete the code developers.
Could be. Or it could be that it's possibly just this pultec unit. If the UAD didn't nail it I would a bit more skeptical but I think you may be right. I actually prefer the plugins top end to the hardware which is maybe why the rest sound brighter. It's a preferred choice to me but with pultecs being so well known for being very inconsistent it's a bit of a guessing game for me haha
Maybe the UAD is sounding identical to this unit. But I actually think the Rule Tec sounds better than the other two. More punch and bottom end weight to my ears.
First off, great video! Here’s the caveat. Reading the comments reveals just how many people are looking for this 5% sonic difference. And yet they’ll market their music on servers with a reduced bandwidth, to people who listen on ear buds or through their phone speakers, with little or no real attention span anyway. It’s like looking for the freshest ingredients for your recipe only to freeze it, defrost it, heat it in a microwave and then serve it to your pet monkey. Just an observation.
nah its true man. spending thousands on 24 bit converters and bouncing down to 16 bit 44.1 haha the 5% is probably whats lost in the long run. Annoying as you'll never really be able to measure it but I try and focus on differences that I dont need to think twice about. I could go blind and pick it out any time. Thats where my head is at.
I recognize the issue with the darkness of the hardware. I have a hardware Pultec and it's collecting dust as I prefer the UAD over my hardware. I imagined it might be worn out tubes and did not want to spend a ton on servicing, especially not while having access to both the DSP and native version of the UAD Pultec.
Very interesting, Paul! The Pultec is my choice but every hardware sounds different. In this case the best software version is the UAD. I guess I have to check UAD vs the Logic stock "Pultec".
Hi Paul. :) Another great video! ALL of these are so close (for me), I would intuitively compensate (in an artistic sense, not 'technical') for any differences on the fly. More simply put, if I were using ANY one of these EQ's... I wouldn't stop to switch to another. That being said, I can hear differences... but to my ears, those are so slight that it wouldn't matter to me artistically (overall). Stay safe/well!!
Yeah the only real difference is in the high end. If your mostly using pultecs for lows and mids you shouldn't really notice much of a difference mixing on the fly
This is a brilliant comparison and very well put together. It's important to note that one reason why the plugins sound different to each other, is because the developers probably used different original hardware units for reference. Those units were all slightly different to begin with, and components may have matured or degraded at different rates over the years, further exaggerating any sonic differences. I'm not convinced there is a single, de facto Pultec sound, so perhaps the best advice is to pick the one you like most. In my case I am actually quite content to use the Vintage EQ in the Fat Channel of Studio One, because it's free (OK, it's included in the price), it sounds great to me, and as long as I use Studio One it should always be available to me. It might not be on the list of best Pultec emulations, but it makes my mixes sound better and that's what I care about. From a mastering standpoint, though, I try not to add anything to the main bus that colours the mix, as we are lucky enough to use a third party mastering engineer (Jon Astley) who uses real analogue hardware. He politely asked me not to try and do his job in advance! All that said, I agree with IP's comment below about it being important mainly to the person working the mix and that the listening masses won't perceive (or care about) any difference in a mix! Looking forward to discovering some of your other videos.
Loved this video you had me laughing a few times as well. Guess I’m gonna have to try out that UAD. Maybe do a test with the Logic Pro stock version too and let me know. I’m gonna put my you know what on the guillotine and say the logic stock plug-in beats them all!
Oh, hell, I can't commit. Maybe after additional coffee. I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the Pultec sounds like that Pultec and I like it. I'm not being too pushy, I hope.
Great comparison Paul thanks! I think although UAD might be closer in frequencies and snap, I thought the Noiseash was closer at getting that juicy analog texture in the distortion that the hardware has.
The noiseash is still my favourite overall, even over the hardware. I think that the richness and texture of the harmonics is better in the noiseAsh overall
To be expected with analog vs digital but extremely subtle in my opinion overall. I would go as far to say these slight differences wouldn't add any real benefit to a mix but thats just my opinion though. If you were to sit an average listener down, or an artist and ask which they prefer.. Could go either way. It's maybe because Ive sat for hours tweaking all these plugs that I know how close UAD is haha 😅 Not 100% like for like. Nothing will be but has all of the things missing in the other 2 plugs 🤓 that snap of the snare was the tell for me. As soon as I heard the UAD I knew it was modelled correctly. I genuinely didn't expect it after listening to the ruletec and purple. Dunno what it is and how UAD managed to do it. I've been thinking about it a lot haha
I feel bad on Tim for not including it but I may do a quick seperate shootout just to shoot it out vs UAD. I try not to compare 3rd party and aquas if possible
Acustica distribute and update nebula so my aim is to keep the peace where possible. Last thing I want is to advertise that certain 3rd party plugs which are competition to aquas using AA's own software are better than aquas as it may cause nebula to cease altogether. I don't want that responsibility haha 😅
That reaction video done the trick though. Over 10k views in 5 days and over 400 new subs in the past week! .. But that was only because I reacted to a video the algorithm had already chosen as it was so Controversial and terribly done haha.. Absolutely backwords 🙃
Who would have thought uad would win! I think the problem with purple is the preamp that gives that extra shine which Sometimes is a bit too much...have you thought about uploading the shootout files here?
First of all - there is a loss in AA. It might be little, but it's there. Anybody that compared high end analog mastering equipment like a real pultec in a stepped mastering version for example will know that and also how open, fast and silky-rich such a pultec sounds. Second, yes uad is very close but as always analog, even more so when not from AA - sounds different than digital. It can be marginal in some cases, it can be very obvious and some of it most likely is psychoacoustically influenced - but even more so by design. That's why a Fairchild is still untouchable in analog. The transients behave different, is the so called air(current) that you hear around the transient and the way we hear the sound. Its not happening on a canvas but in free space. And Third - yes the noiseash pultec is great, especially if you want the low mid bumb feel - but as i told you 4 years ago already Paul - and I'll say this here again, although it's more from my comparison memory tjan from recent use: the Apogee Pultec still rules them all in Software
To me, the bass and guitar are the most obvious - there's a very noticeable "mudiness" maybe around 200hz'ish on all digital plugins except the UAD which sounds very much like the real pultec.
Hello Paul! Without a doubt, UA sounds almost identical to the Hardware version. It is the best of the shooting plugins without a doubt! Were you able to try the Audified 1A Equalizer? What do you think about it? Greetings
i promise , i looked away and heard it every time. (besides in Guitatrs i rated purple and Pultec the best). Pultec sounded best. However, funnyerwise in your Fairchildcomparison i rated the UAD-Emulation best.. And also always heard it.Just listening on laptop. What i hear here is like an Earfatique, that i often hear in plugins. You could call it Grainy, Grey Sound, if you understand what i mean. Or ust Earfatique
It was enough work just getting these 3 to match the hardware haha 😅 I can't see it to be fair. All these plugs are internally oversampled so I don't think the stock stuff would get anywhere near as close. Plus the waves isn't anywhere near these 3 so I just can't see it to be honest.
UAD sound lifeless, you can hear that there isn't small dynamic volume changes in the sound like in Acustica plugins, and phase is also better, Purple sounds more live.
I did a blind test years ago with over 20 engineer , pro musician friends using the UAD, the Logic (Vintage EQ) , Softube, & Waves Pultech emulation with as identical settings as Possible , the voting was pretty universal across the board with Softube & Logic fighting it out at the top & UAD by far at the bottom, 1 guy even went to say he wondered if UAD modelled theirs on a broken unit as it was nothing like his real hardware. I have no idea how you got UAD to sound the same, either it’s a different UAD pultech plug-in or it’s been updated.
Hi! I've watched some of your videos already and it's really informative. I am wondering if there any reason you don't put waves plugins on the list such as "puig tec"? You think their plugins are often inferior than those plugins you comment??
Already did a pultec shootout with Puigtec before this and didn't come off great to me compared to ruletec and Lindell so was no point including it vs the hardware for me. If I've included the waves in other shootouts and they didn't do well then I normally don't include it. However I did include waves puigchild in the fairchild hardware comparison as I felt it did alright in the first fairchild shootout
@@PaulThird Thanks again for the information! I asked because I usually check big well known company. The way I judge if they're big or not is based on how frequently they put ads (because maybe they might have a lot of money?)/how well designed their website/how many plugins they've sold in the past etc. and from those condition above,waves to me is one of the biggest companies in the industry. Would you say the way I research and purchase is not so practical? To be hones,the level of satisfaction from owning their products are "alright". best regards
The best plugins I own are plugins that not many know about haha TimP comps via nebula. Acustica audio, noiseash ruletec, wavesfactory trackspacer etc. I use a lot of plugin alliance as well but what you've got to keep in mind is that marketing doesn't always mean quality. Waves built the brand over decades and thus have the money to have the best brand awareness. Marketing is a lot of money but what to remember is that many times the plugins are made by 1 or 2 guys. If they go on their own and make plugins like many have then they don't have a big brand to market it but are still producing the best plugins out there. That's why I started creating plugin shootouts many years ago 🤓
damn, I have to say I prefered the analogue one in the full mix. And yes over the UAD too. I'm not saying it's better by any means, but it's different. As was each plugin. It will really depend on the track which one I prefer. In this case the snare sounded really weak on the analogue Pultec and I loved that. I don't like overly poky snares on "real instrumentals". On the single scources I was all over the place. Sometimes I prefered acustica, sometimes the ruletec, sometimes the analogue. But not a single time did I prefer the UAD. But that's just a quick listen on my 30 dollar speakers. Who knows what my headphones would tell me, or what would happen in a blind test. But if anything my mind is rather conditioned to be sceptical of analogue- hype.. so I kind of trust my judgement on this one.
Hardware easily the best of the three but to be honest, the Ruletech carried slightly less punch but stayed tight, the UAD had the punch but was less focused. I'd honestly go Ruletec and it is a no brainer considering it's price vs. UAD.
The Pultec sounds like a room with depth. The U.A.D. has three-fourths of that room and the Rule Tec has about half of it (although not bad at all--especially on the guitar). Purple had a about a fourth of the room, but I wanted to hear it on the mix at the end.
Being honest I'd very much doubt anybody would be able to pick the pultec out in a triple blind test. When it's that close not many get it right consistently. A hardware pultec is actually extremely clean so I don't really see where it could be adding any more depth than the UAD as its essentially all about the curves in a pultec which most likely the UAD is closest to compared to the others. Ruletec is way more coloured than the hardware so it's always going to sit back a little more and 'smear' sources so in regards to depth it can be argued that the ruletec has depth but a different kind of depth as it sits sources back in a mix. Hardware should sound more forward and clearer than ruletec due to it being so clean. UAD models the curves and lack of harmonics closely to the point where I just can't see anybody picking out the hardware consistently blind. In other shootouts I've done where I've included blind tests that's as close as this the differences people heard with everything labeled almost disappears blind
Paul I do like the UAD Pultec...I haven't bought my DAW yet...I'm still trying to learn mixing right now...but it is the first eq that made it to my list of eq's that I have looked at...of digital eq's...and I'm having problems finding digital eq's that I like. Unfortunately I looked at analog eq's first and found analog eq's I loved and then looked at digital afterwards and don't hear them sounding as good to my ears. I do hear a difference in the one that is stated as the real Pultec. The one that's claimed to be the real Pultec has more depth of field and has a wider sound. It probably is a real Pultec because depth of field is usually a finger print of analog equipment. Width is also a characteristic of analog mixes over digital...what I didn't realize was how each track would be wider as opposed to the entire stereo mix. The drum tracks and entire mix both sounded wider...and specifically each instrument. That surprised me. I don't have the budget or the soldering skills to work with vintage analog gear...so I will have to work with mostly digital gear...but for my ears I prefer the depth and width that analog brings to the sound field. I will always attempt to create a vinyl record sound with digital gear...but there will most likely be limitation on how close I can really get. Thanks for the video.
Theres a video going live at 3pm today talking all about 'flat' ITB mixes and reasons why plugins can sound flat and how it's actually more down to the user rather than the tools. Discussing all the work you should really be puting into the rough before thinking about sticking a compressor or additive eq on a source. Hopefully it can help you out 🤓
Hmm always love Mr 3rd.stuff...but would visit marc daniel nelsen test on modern pultec analog buss out to help broaden the info...just wow!!! Unless he is tricking it up? Its seeeriously different in that example.
Give me the plugin equivalents I'll always bridge the gap if it's night and day 😜 there's no reason why a pultec hardware would be seriously different if the plugins are properly level and curve matched but I dunno which pultec he used
@@PaulThird Last time I linked on yt it deleted the link? That would be the easiest but would love you to check it out...with all that time you have ;-) The unfortunate aspect of today...time impoverished :-( It seemed...3d dimensional...well a lot more front to back depth anyway
Ok ok so my nice headphones broke this morning so i was listen airpod pros. While doing some chores. I wasnt looking at the phone just blind listening and everytime the most exciting mix popped up i would look and see and it was purple. It was a bit wider maybe. But it was stand out for me. Tried it again and same deal. But i guess different from the hardware unit. But uad was identical. But for me on these buds it was purple.
And just gave my busted cans a shot and it they are working for some reason and same stood for me. Love the videos! Fun to see the progression of what ur doin
To be honest I'll still use the ruletec for vintage pultec purposes to add overall low end weight and colour. You go with whatever sound you know will work for you 🤓
I did but it just sounded like the rest of the clean pultecs. If you have bertom you can match the curves with most plugins bang on. Thats what I would do differently if I had my time again instead of hours by ear and referencing span. I think on reflection UAD was just the closest to the curves of the hardware in my setup
Paul hi! Thanks for all your comparisons. But it's the first time I strongly disagree! Before the UAD: drums sound almost identical to me, while between guitars and bass there are major differences. Now, UAD vs real thing: drums, again, same - guitars: real thing sssliiightly better. The UAD sounds a bit flatter. I don't know, maybe cause I'm a guitar player.
This one's the hardest and most subjective I've ever done. It's all about how you listen to it and what you look for. Ive purposely chose to listen a particular way cause my head getting minced with so many haha When it comes to the studer vs UAD I'm 60/40..more towards the studer. I'm very inconsistent in these blind tests haha I just focus on feel and an overall picture but I think the opinions on this will be pretty wide spread as it is very subjective
May I also suggest something? It it's not too much trouble can you also include the raw file in the shootouts? It is important for us to know the starting point and to be able to tell what those fx do each time!
I hate to say it but on each example I preferred the real pultec. It’s not even a matter of this high end vs that, etc. The real pultec just imparts a recordyness to the source and the plugins all impart an ever so slight thinness and digital ness. Is it subtle? Absolutely, but it is there. Does the real pultec sound 4 grand better? Of course not, but as we all know, in audio that last %5-10 is maddeningly difficult to get, and that’s what drives some to pay the big bucks. The UAD pultec is still great and I use it somewhere in every mix, but this is why I still always run the entire mix through an analog mastering chain with a high-end stereo EQ. My clients absolutely hear the difference
I actually prefer the noiseAsh to the real deal but tbh I'm not a big fan of eqp1a's any more. I much prefer cleaner pultecs like tube tech and bettermaker for mixbus duties.
It's crazy how close they nailed it. Even in the back end of the Plugin it's superb. Completely aliasing free, clean harmonics and just very well coded
@@PaulThird Interestingly enough I have just done some tests having purchased it. I have found aliasing, even at 96k. It seems to internally oversample twice, and it doesn't correspond to DAW sample rate.
I'm using Neumann (NDH30) headphones through a Clarett+ and if someone played me the last three audios I wouldn't be able to tell which one is the real gear.
I’ve been using Waves for a long time and couldn’t stand the Analog Obsession version. To me a Pultec clone should almost always have that “oh, it sounds better now” factor. Often wanted to just bypass the AO.
@@PaulThird I think maybe as they do run on DSP as well, so maybe they got confused. Anyway you can't be expected to test every single Pultec plugin, especially in the amount of detail you are going into. Must take you a lot of time and effort with these videos!
Yeah a good few hours spent critically listening with this one.. Actually what am I saying I spend ages on all Eq shootouts haha 😅 it's worth it though as I can't deal with shitty shootouts. I'm too anal with stuff like that 😂
Hey, Paul, in your later video, you mentioned that the UAD' pultec would increase the gain by 1db. So, do you still hold the same opinion as in this video, that UAD is indentical emulation. because UAD seems to offering discounts recently, I'm not sure if it still worth buying nowadays.
Whilst it does increase the gain, my shootouts are accurately level matched however id say just go with whatever pultec is cheapest cause they all relatively do the same thing if I'm being honest. A hardware pultec is super clean. The ruletec is modelled from a rare vintage modded/broken one if I recall so that has audible non linearities
@@PaulThird Wow, that's a really quick reply. Thank you for your explanation, it was very direct and helpful. So, I think I'll choose between UAD and Ruletec, if UAD could give me that $45 coupon lol.
Wow I’m actually surprised they sound so close. But I always say there’s always some slight sense of more depth and body when you run something through hardware. But I will say the plugins don’t sound bad at all.
Probably be about the same tbh. They are all roughly the same unless they alias like a bitch i.e. Waves. IF you own the black rooster i'd say just stick with the black rooster unless your not too happy with it then possibly demo the ruletec as it's only $30 just now which is a steal
I don't know which is the plugin and which is the hardware, but I strongly preferred the low mid weight and punch of the ruletec on everything. Do I win???
If it's.. Which one does Paul prefer then yeah.. Coconut for that man! 😂
Same here:) Very good emulation, same quality as Kush products.
OMG Kush was here! (The only plugins I have on subscription!)
Hardware easy pick. UAD gets hit job done no question, but with multiple tracks using the real Pultec, No competition
@@realtalkroscoeg and you still wouldn’t be able too tell which unit was used
Plot twist: Access Analog is putting audio through UAD Pultec.
LOL
FINALLY some level matched comparisons. Commenting for the Algorithm and the sharpness of the video maker.
🤓🤓
A hint to those having trouble hearing the differences. Mostly it's in the transients. Listen to any sound with a percussive attack of any kind and the hardware is very very clearly different (and better). What a lot of hobbyists don't realize is their mixes sound muddy not because of not EQ'ing right or whatnot but rather their transients are blunted or else not treated very carefully. A mix with nice transient character in aggregation will sound a lot clearer and will subjectively sound like it has a lot more high end even though it actually doesn't (which is why you can't fix this with EQ, and especially not at the mastering stage).
This probably makes sense naturally to bassists because how you handle the transient of attack has a huge effect on the perceived clarity of the instrument even though it represents only a few milliseconds of the entire performance. Start thinking carefully about your transients and you'll go much further. The Pultec just makes it easier because you don't have to actively think about it like you would with compressors and saturation. It just does it for you.
Very well said. Agreed and thank you!
Both the Rule Tec and the UAD sound great. The Rule Tec sounds more modern and the UAD more vintage (imo) I think that is what will determine which one you chose over the other one.
🤓🤓
It's interesting how everybody's perception varies. To me, AA Purple sounds better than any of the other emulations of the Pultec. Including the UAD version, but I admit, it's still splitting hairs. Also, I've been impressed by the Apogee version of the Pultec from their FX rack, at least in demos, but I don't own it. All the plugins are quite good, and I'm not sure I'd notice any difference in a double blind test.
That being said, I have yet to hear a plugin that pulls off the magic that certain vintage Pultecs are capable of. I've always preached a gospel of "there is no magic box," but a vintage Pultec in good condition is the closest thing there is to that. In my opinion.
I agree …I liked Purple right off more….but I never used a real one….I just went off sound preference . And I know that doesn’t mean it’s closer to a pultec than the other…I just liked the sound
kudos to you as a Scottish man taking on a video where you have to say "particular" "pultec" and "purple" a lot. can't be easy thanks for your hard work Paul! 😂
If it's got "rrr's" in it then I'm fine as I can prrroooowl like I tiger (Irish accent) haha
i'm really enjoying the free Analog Obsession Rare
You use a lot of Tuncas stuff eh? 🤓
@@PaulThird ay it's cheap and good quality. No messing with convoluted protection schemes
I tested the curves from Rare up against UAD and Waves using Waves Q-Clone. The Rare curves on all controld are way more dramatic and different from both UAD and Waves. This ‘moreness’ can suggest that it Sounds better in the ‘louder means better’ kind of way. I also felt overly impressed, which made me perform the test to find out What’s really going on. Imo Rare is a very good EQ with a lovely flavour. But not a Pultec. Just my two cents. ;)
The proof in the pudding is when they are all matched by ear. If it turns out that the rare can't match it due to it being over powered then I just won't include it. I'll let you all know but I won't know until I stick it in that pultec session
That's interesting, I sometimes use Rule-Tec which sounds nice and adds color but actually most of the time I prefer Bettermaker eq plugin that is absolutely clean, no distortion, thus no aliasing and to me has the most amount of raw power to bring sounds to life.
And I think you would probably too since you preferred it in shootout agains Rule-Tec in your video in the past too!
Would be interesting to hear Bettermaker against UAD pultec.
Thanks for comparison!
I use a combination of bettermaker and AA titanium (tube tech) on my mixbus. The UAD is completely aliasing free. Clean harmonics as well . Just very well coded. 2 very different pultecs. Different curves and obviously the bettermaker is completely clean which means a fixed setting can be completely matched with any digital eq but the alogorithm of the curves is second to none for what it does.
I love the EQP1A. I use it in some form or another on every mix. I primarily use the UAD version; even more so now with the low latency UADx version. But with all these tests, the hardware version just gave more sound overall. And more importantly, the hardware version sounded more like a record (and I don't mean vinyl. I mean "record" as in its default definition relating to music). All the plugins, at some point in the sound, sounded more subdued. The plugins are great, though. And they are certainly capable of helping to make records. The differences are not that great and will likely be missed on the average person or even by some above average people. In these tests, I preferred the Purple and UAD versions of the plugins.
🤓
There is a bit more roundness and low energy uplift with real pultec. found the same with individual and mix examples. That little bit when added at the mix level of say 50 tracks together, in a complex composition, probably makes diff.
Tbh I'd say at least 95% would fail a triple blind test.
Having measured the hardware it's that clean there isn't any real mojo or any reason that it would add more roundness or low energy uplift compared to the plugins.
That's why the UAD sounds near identical. The pultec is pretty simple when you match the curves in reality. Just a clean eq at the end of the day. Nothing special
Glad you get to try uad stuff Paul.
I know. #likeforstefan 🤓 haha
My engineer friends: there's a massive difference in those two plugins... Can you hear?
My girlfriend: why you keep playing the exactly same audio back to back? 😐
Moral of the story the only one who cares it's the person behind the mix.
It’s about mixing. Multiple contrasting tracks in audio. Light and shadow in visual. An expert will know exactly how to balance these, and the observer will hear the difference in the final result even though they can’t appreciate the subtlety in isolation. Everyone cares because everyone appreciates beautiful art being as beautiful as possible. And there is no paradox if you think about it.
The UAD and Pultec are super close indeed but I find the hardware vs plugin difference is still apparent on the full mix. The pultec has that 3D separation.
Titanium 3 too
A handy video on the very day I'm debating whether to invest in the Rule Tec! Many thanks.
Very good investment!! 🤓
Very interesting! I would have thought that the Acustica would sound closer to the hardware! But UAD nails it! There must be a reason why I have two UAD Satellites ;-)
I can see now why everyone was pushing me to include UAD in the shootouts haha
Nice test. I had the same feeling about the UAD Pultec emulations, they just sound so much better than any other analogue emu EQ plugins I've heard. That said, almost all hardware vs plugin version of hardware tests, to my ears, it's the transients that suffer with plugins and extreme ends of spectrum get cut-off or disappear. I wrote 'almost' because of the few exceptions which are some UAD plugins, not all of them, but some of them seem to be sooo close. The new Neve 1084 pre (Which I sadly don't own), Pultecs obvs, Oxide tape, LA-2A and AMS-Neve DFC (Same code).
I think the future is in using AI (Machine learning), like we see in amazing plugs such as Gullfoss. An AI that can generate multiple tones and play samples into the hardware that they control with robot controllers (Like Access Analogue) to change settings, sample with Avid Carbon (32bit - 192khz!) of the IRs (Acoustica Audio style) and compare the sources find the best replication response. Then downsample with another AI to retain the most detail and keep those higher sampler rate versions with those with the DSP power. It will happen, hopefully soon! Until then, it's UAD and Access Analogue for bedroom producers. Maybe Acoustica could team up with Access Analogue and an audio AI engineer?
TimP Dual Tech Tube Passive EQ v2
I was gonna include it. Was very close to including it over purple but I knew that I wouldve got a harder time if I didn't do purple. Could've included both but I try not to fuel the 3rd party war if possible 🤓
Hardware has a slight more natural open 3 dimension sound/vibe with a more slight controlled sound. Now that only if i have to nit pick it, UAD sound great still it gets you 90-95% there!
🤓🤓
I have noticed that. Also they lack depth especially the lower regions and smoothness and finesse in the mids and the top end when pushed compared to the hardware. They may seem similiar but overall they dont capture the hardware mojo to my ears.
Great comparison! I have Purple and I've used UAD pultec in the past and it always call my atencion that the acustica version has a totally different vibe. Really spot on about the darkness of the real hardware (and the UAD version).
Another thing about Purple is that I checked it in plugin doctor because I feel like the low band it's doing nothing, and I discover that in the 60 hz boost band, the eq it really does nothing until you are above 2. The others bands are ok, is just the 60 Hz that has this "problem" (I guess that the real hardware is like that and they decided to leave it like this).
And of course, my favourite is the UAD version. it's basically great on anything!
Yeah Ive never gravitated to the purple and I did a low end end test with the waves when I used to Use that and noticed the same with the low end in the purple. Was the main reason I never considered purple as the low end thing really put me off. Even in this I had to crank it hard in the bass to get it closer to the hardware
@@PaulThird yeah, let's hope that acustica audio will fix this in the future. Certainly they have the expertise and talent to do it!
Probably will as I think purple is in its 3rd upgrade now so will most likely adapt. They added in another mid band m5 I seen so they might sample another eqp1a and do the same. That would make a lot of sense to give you 2 sampled pultecs
I noticed that Purple have some phase problems at low end or something. UAD sounds better in low end. I have both.
the differences I hear are not thousands upon thousands of dollars worth. its crazy how close weve gotten.seems like just yesterday I was tracking on a tascam 4 track cassette, dreaming of sitting on a Neve. Got into animating and needed a 40 thousand dollar SGI and power animator software at 19 thousand dollars. kids these days dont know how good they have it. complaining about needing to spend 200 bucks on a plugin..
🤓🤓
Wow. I think this is the first video I see of yours where you don't prefer AA. Another good video review Paulie!
🤓🤓
Melda EQs can bounce out impulse responses allowing you create a curve and export it so you don't even need need to use multiple plugins, just an impulse loader. For the sake of speed and processing power you can get things going quickly and probably 80% of the work done in no time using that. I'm exploring it today its pretty sweet. Oh and you could create many variations and just breeze between them. Don't know yet how to copy the curves exactly though but autodynamic and listen to a signal so if you find the ideal sounds just save as IRs
Is there a video on that?
@@PaulThird Chandler guitar has a few. I’ve figured out how to make use of these IRs with Mconvolution but not did it with EQ yet - must explore :-)
ruclips.net/video/xoEbc6rC43o/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Tsx8j5ZZP7g/видео.html
After listening very well I’m ok with you the UAD sounds really the same as the pultec BUT as most plugins you loose all the headroom and so the 3D in your mix ... unfortunately
Great job man !
🤓🤓
My favourite us the Apogee pultec, it is so good 💖 if you look at plugin doctor, it doesn't have tons of harmonic distortion like some others have, so it's cleaner, but sounds so great
I demo'd it last year and was just like most cleanish pultecs. Not worse or better than the others. Just an eqp1a really
The time will come when plugins will not only equal analog gear, it will surpass it. It's inevitable and it's just a matter of time.
That's how I feel. Inevitable eventually
You mean emulations? Because soothe (digital) has surpassed analog.
will not happen in our life time
Debatable. Nowadays it's clear that most plugins miss that richness and wideness of sound. Although some already sound as good as analog. Not same, but same as good. And they doesn't necessarily have to be identical. They should sound identically good. Because there is a problem when people compare plugin to analog and say "I like it but it doesn't sound the same, so is a bad plugin.". No, if it sounds good, is good. But as I said, most plugins are lacking that richness.
And "to surpass" means to sound even wider, even punchier, even richer. But is wider that wide, or punchier than punchy, or fatter than fat better? Usually is not. Because too wide, too crisp, too smooth, too fat usually is also too much. Gold is in the middle. So when plugins will be as good (some already are), it will be just perfect.
Once the converters can 100% mimic
The UAD sounds identical on my computer speakers. To me, the hardware sounds more "open" than the other two.
. . . I Hear and Feel the Rule Tec as the most Open of the three . . . Then the Hardware . . . The the UAD . . . ! . . . 🙂
(-;
. . . I really do hear the UAD as the most "Compressed" and mid focused . . . ! . . . Followed by the Hardware Pultec right in the middle . . . ! . . . And the Rule Tec is on Top . . . ! . . . Just like how You had them arranged . . . ! . . . 🙂
(-;
. . . I Do use the UAD Pultecs to tighten up some mids and smoothen them out . . . ! . . . Yet the Rule Tec really knows how to Give the Bass a Big Open Embrace . . . ! . . . 🙂
(-;
The only problem I can hear with the RuleTec is the mids and High end. The mid range sounds almost the same but slightly more flat, and the high end sounds a bit more hyped. Maybe I'm hearing it wrong, but If they fix that it, would be even closer.
Ive been listening to these on my samsung hi Fi system in the living room to get it from the consumer perspective. It’s the q900t with sub. And honestly the examples all sound the same in every video. So if anyone thinks it matters at this point they’re just silly. It would be nice to see how the plugins perform when pushed to the gain limits.. sometimes that’s what hardware is good for. I have some fet and tube compressors in my rack that I use to destroy signals, and it seems like the software counterparts kinda shit the bed when you push them to the max.
The fairchild shootout is good for that. I cranked the hardware input for maximum colour in the examples and did the same with the plugins to match 🤓
Very close between hardware and UAD, but I would say even in the mix the difference is noticeable enough. The hardware has a solidity across the spectrum that doesn’t have voids or any pinching of the body of the source, where it seems to be present on the emulations (and often masked by a more congested and inflated upper bass/low mids). I love UAD and use plenty of their emulations, but I’ve never once opted for the emulation over the hardware when I’ve had the choice. I would say the tones of the emulations are often very close, but it’s the feel and the way they react to dynamics that are different, and often those voids in the body of the source are apparent on something with wide dynamics and range, where the density doesn’t stay consistent across the midrange. On good hardware, rarely do I feel similarly.
🤓🤓
You all really can't get pass the money you spent can you. 🤡
I had the legacy Pultec eqp-1a and when the new version came out and was on sale I had to pop on it. Only cost me like 50 bucks and the newer version sounds WAAY better than the legacy version. Seriously one of the strongest and best sounding plug ins I've ever used and I have a bunch of them...UAD and the rest. No regrets!
I definitely heard a difference. The hardware gives you the most direct connection to your ear. The others have slight veil over it with the Purple being closest to the hardware in terms of detail and less veil over the sound and still sounds pretty good. Perhaps the tone of the UAD is closer to the hardware but it sounds more like an mp3 version of it. So pick your poison do you want closer tone but less resolution or slightly different tone and better resolution. For me Purple hands down. It sounds more real and alive like hardware.
Come on now... We all know there's none of this "direct connection to your ear" going on. Put 100 people in a room and triple blind test the hardware and UAD, no ones passing that
@@PaulThird Perhaps not on a solo bass drum with minimal eq but I am playing around with both plugins on a single overhead track recorded with a ribbon mic which needs a 10db boost in the high end and I can honestly say there is a massive difference in realism. The UAD sounds flat and sterile where the Purple it sounds detailed and real like the musician is in the room with me and it's not even subtle. And when I say "direct connection to your ears" I am talking about detail like how a wav file has more detail than an mp3. Compare a file recorded at 192khz to a file recorded at 44.1khz and then down sampled to 128 kbps mp3. Perhaps the difference between UAD and the hardware is not quite as massive but it does not have the resolution of the hardware. If you stop concentrating on tone and listen for resolution you will notice the difference and I can hear them even on Imac built in speaker.
All example tracks I hear on RUclips including this one do NOT sound like the classic recordings from 60‘s and 70‘s. Tube/broadcast gear with many transformers can do astonishing in combination with each other. The example tracks sound reasonably similar/identical and the plugins are clearly making it sound more interesting. But it’s only „in the style of“ and to my ear cannot compete with the sound many are actually after. That’s why many musicians and producers struggle, it sounds clean and transparent or distorted and dirty but it’s just not there. No one remembers more than 3 songs from the last ten years but you will remember all top songs from the 60s and 70s after hearing them once. Guess why. From a lucky owner of authentic Pultec clones where no „Warm“ corners were cut 😊. By the way I never worry if my plug-in sounds like the real deal - if it’s doesn’t get me where I want I just use the original and print it. If this sounds pretentious, think about it: Given that people buy 4000 dollar Mac Books every 3 years or so I do not think it is a luxury to buy tube gear that will last for ages when a used computer for 100 bucks will sound just the same like a new one.
I don't know why, perhaps cause I'm mainly a guitarist, but I often hear the most differences on the electric guitar in your shootouts. For instance in this one I thought the UAD and the Analog Access one sounded basically identical until I heard the guitar, the analog Pultec having a "rounder" and more defined low end, as well as generally deeper low mids. (Very minor difference)
Ed you are bang on. Those subtle differences are there in the hardware in guitars compared to uad but I think they become more lost when in the mix. I possibly could have maybe tweaked the UAD slightly better on guitars but tweaking 3 different plugins to sound the same on one source slowly loses your perception haha
@@PaulThird I recon you matched them pretty bang on, I think the differences are as small as they can be, i agree though, extremely subtle, basically identical in a mix.
Certainly not a 3 and a half grand difference 😅😅
@@PaulThird Ahhaha, btw I just got myself TimP's dualTECH and it sounds brilliant as well, as you can imagine. Plugins have gone a long way... You can also get hardware copies of Pultecs for decent prices nowdays, those vintage units' prices are so high mainly for scarsity.
And as dave pensado said.. "why would you want an old noisy inconsistent passive tube eq?" as you said, originals are scarce and have turned more into collector items these days. Modern cleaner pultecs like bettermaker and Tube tech are the way forward in my opinion
I bet the darkness in the upper-mids on the real Pultec (present mostly on the snare and the bass frets) could be recreated using the Kirchhoff dynamic EQ filters.
I could no doubt get it closer with kirchoff if I tried now
I closed my eye... surprisedly , the UAD is the best to my ears!
🤓🤓
I like treating my plugins somewhat like analog equipment in that if the piece would have been expensive IRL, I only use it 2-3 times. So if I have 3 Pultec style plugins, I'll only use each one on 2-3 tracks for a total of 9. In this way, there's not so much a concept of "favorite" because each one is a different flavor. So maybe I use my UAD on vocals, Ignite PTEQx on guitars, and Analog Obsession Rare on drums (this is a made-up example).
Quite interesting ideology though 🤓
@@PaulThird Thanks, I got it from Sormena Project YT channel.
It simplifies thinking about mixing by putting on constraints. So I tend to use 1 channel strip for the whole mix as well (so PA TMT is quite nice there). The constraints really make it easier to think about rather than constant option overload.
Also gives me an excuse to have multiple different plugin versions of the same hardware :)
Hello Paul, this was of particular interest to me because I used the Access Analog Pultec on some acoustic and vocal to replace my UAD Pultec emulations and the result was extremely noticable. I wasn't there to try and match the Pultec perhaps in the way you have, but that wouldn't be the aim anyway for most mixers, you are more likely to just grab the real Pultec and make it sound great.
Moreover, the biggest difference was that the real Pultec made the audio sound romantic, authentic - the UAD Pultec was rather less interesting.
I am very interested in what the differences really are, and I believe it goes beyond sonic similarities. A row of U47 clones with a real U47 as well, can sound extremely close, but if you stop listening to the sonic differences and instead listen to the performance - the U47 seems to elevate the material, probably to do with the way it is reacting dynamically and consistently across the audio spectrum.
In your tests, that I was extremely keen to hear - since, you would be recreating my experience pretty much. Again, I noticed how impressively close all of them were actually, but if you step back and take in the performance the Pultec wins.
Now, I know you might be thinking, I bet this guy couldn't pick the Pultec out of a blind test - and I'd agree with you, I find it very difficult listening to short bursts of units switching every few seconds, but in practice, working with gear in the room seeing how it impacts the performer, pushing the unit and tailoring it to your purpose is much more a real world example. Unfortunately, the massive advantage this gives you - is well known, hence enormous price tags, but enormous for a good reason in my opinion.
We'll always differ here as the blind test for me always wins out. If you can't pick it out blind then the differences aren't as big as many believe. Because I sit for that long with them I know that regardless of how you set it up I'd be able to get that UAD to get you stuck in a blind test.
In reality terms like romantic and authentic are purely subjective and immeasurable. I think very scientifically so to me I see a pultec for what it is. A very clean eq with a certain curve interaction. The more you step back from the romance you start seeing things for what they are.
When we look at gear it's just science and engineering at the end of the day. They were built to result in a specific end result. Magic doesn't exist, It's all measurable and can be recreated. The issue I see with audio is human psychology. Perceptual listening is genuinely a thing. If you believe before touching a dial that it's special then guess what.. Most likely you'll perceive it as special as soon as you move the dial.
If I can set the hardware up the way I would use it and then match that sound with a plugin where I can't really hear any difference then there's hardly any difference. There just isn't.
'real world' has too many variables due to perceptual listening. I remember seeing a study somewhere where somebody got engineers to level match a plugin and their own gear. When they knew which was which nearly all of them set their gear louder in level. But blind they were way closer. You need to remenber how much humans create variables in 'real world' tests.
That's why I take a more scientific approach and curve match and level match everything to within an inch of its life. Mentioning U47 clones has no relevance to this specific test as its a completely different product. It kind of adds context to a believed perception. Again just my opinion
We can talk about performances but I personally see it is BS as again it can't be measured and the performance has already been captured. There no logical reason why the hardware would result in a better performance if both sound near identical. It's really a subjective opinion on how a performance is interpreted. I do the blind tests as it removes preconceptional bias and subjectivity. If I can get the pultecs near identical then there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't pull up the UAD and get that awesome sound you desire quickly. Doesn't make sense why you couldn't cause it can sound like that. To me the variable comes from the user and not the product.
I can't argue with subjectivity as its immeasurable. I can't disprove anything you've said in what you hear. But I can prove if you can hear all those big differences in a level matched blind test. I can prove which you prefer in a blind test and at the end of the day and that's where the truth lies.. For me
I'm genuinely not meaning any disrespect, I'm just giving you insight into how I see these things.
I do see the argument of ease of use which is really dependent on the curve interaction of that specific pultec and how you need to set it to get that desired sound BUT when you are talking 5 grand of a difference.. Taking an extra minute to set it right is nothing.
Again I am not meaning offense but there's no point discussing in detail subjective stuff that we can't prove or disprove. It's just a subjective opinon at the end of the day and you are completely in your right to share it but I hope you can understand why I struggle to take that in when you say you'd struggle in the science part which is what we can prove.
Yes.. I am that autistic 🤣
@@PaulThird Hi Paul, I appreciate the detailed response, and am not offended with what you are saying, I'm not about to question your approach, its very thorough. I can agree that magic doesn't exist, but romance does - an irrational emotional reaction to, y'know things. Perhaps it is burned into us in our younger years just as many non-engineers and end consumers who don't know what an SSL is, might associate their favourite recordings with that desk, and not even know it.
In a vaccum we can test frequencies, but we don't operate in a vaccum, we are affected continually by experiences and associations. I'm not the analog purist who wants to preach to the world that if your ears are good enough you can hear it, rather someone who is getting better results adding analog into my workflow. I'm happy not to understand this, in fact the more I try to the less sense it makes!
For someone with autism, you seem extremely sane and grounded, I rather suspect Paul, its not you that has the problem, but the rest of the world thats gone fecking senile, don't you think?
Best Regards, Jon
I'm just too literal for my own good a lot of the time.. the downsides of autism. Think too black and white haha
i think the analog Pultec sounds a bit brighter because of the overdrive factor. These plugins have the EQ curve down pack, but skimp on writing computer code for the over-driven component(s); maybe it's over-driven on the input, maybe internally, and or the output. complete the code developers.
Could be. Or it could be that it's possibly just this pultec unit. If the UAD didn't nail it I would a bit more skeptical but I think you may be right. I actually prefer the plugins top end to the hardware which is maybe why the rest sound brighter. It's a preferred choice to me but with pultecs being so well known for being very inconsistent it's a bit of a guessing game for me haha
Maybe the UAD is sounding identical to this unit. But I actually think the Rule Tec sounds better than the other two. More punch and bottom end weight to my ears.
First off, great video!
Here’s the caveat.
Reading the comments reveals just how many people are looking for this 5% sonic difference. And yet they’ll market their music on servers with a reduced bandwidth, to people who listen on ear buds or through their phone speakers, with little or no real attention span anyway.
It’s like looking for the freshest ingredients for your recipe only to freeze it, defrost it, heat it in a microwave and then serve it to your pet monkey.
Just an observation.
nah its true man. spending thousands on 24 bit converters and bouncing down to 16 bit 44.1 haha the 5% is probably whats lost in the long run. Annoying as you'll never really be able to measure it but I try and focus on differences that I dont need to think twice about. I could go blind and pick it out any time. Thats where my head is at.
I recognize the issue with the darkness of the hardware. I have a hardware Pultec and it's collecting dust as I prefer the UAD over my hardware. I imagined it might be worn out tubes and did not want to spend a ton on servicing, especially not while having access to both the DSP and native version of the UAD Pultec.
Yeeessssss!! I have the UAD Pultec and it’s amazeballs 💪🏼
🤓🤓
Very interesting, Paul! The Pultec is my choice but every hardware sounds different. In this case the best software version is the UAD. I guess I have to check UAD vs the Logic stock "Pultec".
🤓🤓
Hi Paul. :)
Another great video!
ALL of these are so close (for me), I would intuitively compensate (in an artistic sense, not 'technical') for any differences on the fly. More simply put, if I were using ANY one of these EQ's... I wouldn't stop to switch to another.
That being said, I can hear differences... but to my ears, those are so slight that it wouldn't matter to me artistically (overall).
Stay safe/well!!
Yeah the only real difference is in the high end. If your mostly using pultecs for lows and mids you shouldn't really notice much of a difference mixing on the fly
This is a brilliant comparison and very well put together. It's important to note that one reason why the plugins sound different to each other, is because the developers probably used different original hardware units for reference. Those units were all slightly different to begin with, and components may have matured or degraded at different rates over the years, further exaggerating any sonic differences. I'm not convinced there is a single, de facto Pultec sound, so perhaps the best advice is to pick the one you like most. In my case I am actually quite content to use the Vintage EQ in the Fat Channel of Studio One, because it's free (OK, it's included in the price), it sounds great to me, and as long as I use Studio One it should always be available to me. It might not be on the list of best Pultec emulations, but it makes my mixes sound better and that's what I care about. From a mastering standpoint, though, I try not to add anything to the main bus that colours the mix, as we are lucky enough to use a third party mastering engineer (Jon Astley) who uses real analogue hardware. He politely asked me not to try and do his job in advance! All that said, I agree with IP's comment below about it being important mainly to the person working the mix and that the listening masses won't perceive (or care about) any difference in a mix! Looking forward to discovering some of your other videos.
I've been using the fat channel pultec since I moved to studio one 🤓
@@PaulThird ah cool! I guess that means you're happy with it? Really enjoyed listening to some of your songs by the way, especially Unnaturally True.
It's extremely low cpu, curves match to other pultecs, what's not to like haha
The Logic Vintage Tube EQ might be one of the best pultec plugins. However it’s only in logic
🤓
Loved this video you had me laughing a few times as well. Guess I’m gonna have to try out that UAD. Maybe do a test with the Logic Pro stock version too and let me know. I’m gonna put my you know what on the guillotine and say the logic stock plug-in beats them all!
Oh, hell, I can't commit. Maybe after additional coffee. I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the Pultec sounds like that Pultec and I like it. I'm not being too pushy, I hope.
Which pultec are we talking about haha
Great comparison Paul thanks! I think although UAD might be closer in frequencies and snap, I thought the Noiseash was closer at getting that juicy analog texture in the distortion that the hardware has.
The noiseash is still my favourite overall, even over the hardware. I think that the richness and texture of the harmonics is better in the noiseAsh overall
5:07 on the mix purple came out the best and more live the most
UAD color/eq curve is pretty spot on but transients are still different than the analog.
To be expected with analog vs digital but extremely subtle in my opinion overall. I would go as far to say these slight differences wouldn't add any real benefit to a mix but thats just my opinion though.
If you were to sit an average listener down, or an artist and ask which they prefer.. Could go either way. It's maybe because Ive sat for hours tweaking all these plugs that I know how close UAD is haha 😅 Not 100% like for like. Nothing will be but has all of the things missing in the other 2 plugs 🤓 that snap of the snare was the tell for me. As soon as I heard the UAD I knew it was modelled correctly. I genuinely didn't expect it after listening to the ruletec and purple. Dunno what it is and how UAD managed to do it. I've been thinking about it a lot haha
Honestly I love using Purple, but now I been getting into using TimP's Dual Tech
I feel bad on Tim for not including it but I may do a quick seperate shootout just to shoot it out vs UAD. I try not to compare 3rd party and aquas if possible
@@PaulThird Why not? :(
Acustica distribute and update nebula so my aim is to keep the peace where possible. Last thing I want is to advertise that certain 3rd party plugs which are competition to aquas using AA's own software are better than aquas as it may cause nebula to cease altogether. I don't want that responsibility haha 😅
@@PaulThird i look forward to seeing you compare the UAD and Dual Tech
Should he interesting. Also going to throw in the analog obsession pultec as well as its free
this channel needs more press. you are a shootout king!
I have tried a lot to push the channel out more but the RUclips algorithm is still holding me back 😔
@@PaulThird RUclips screwing over content creators in favour of lamestream media.
That reaction video done the trick though. Over 10k views in 5 days and over 400 new subs in the past week! .. But that was only because I reacted to a video the algorithm had already chosen as it was so Controversial and terribly done haha.. Absolutely backwords 🙃
@@PaulThird people love drama. Gig at people's buttons and watch the thousands of replies in the comments section. Lol
I couldn't constantly create drama for views. I'd start thinking I was away to get anthrax through the door one day 😂
Would love to see what you think of the Overloud EQP, they do very very good emulations of hardware.
Overloud plugins are good
Who would have thought uad would win! I think the problem with purple is the preamp that gives that extra shine which Sometimes is a bit too much...have you thought about uploading the shootout files here?
First of all - there is a loss in AA. It might be little, but it's there. Anybody that compared high end analog mastering equipment like a real pultec in a stepped mastering version for example will know that and also how open, fast and silky-rich such a pultec sounds.
Second, yes uad is very close but as always analog, even more so when not from AA - sounds different than digital. It can be marginal in some cases, it can be very obvious and some of it most likely is psychoacoustically influenced - but even more so by design. That's why a Fairchild is still untouchable in analog. The transients behave different, is the so called air(current) that you hear around the transient and the way we hear the sound. Its not happening on a canvas but in free space.
And Third - yes the noiseash pultec is great, especially if you want the low mid bumb feel - but as i told you 4 years ago already Paul - and I'll say this here again, although it's more from my comparison memory tjan from recent use: the Apogee Pultec still rules them all in Software
To me, the bass and guitar are the most obvious - there's a very noticeable "mudiness" maybe around 200hz'ish on all digital plugins except the UAD which sounds very much like the real pultec.
Very very nice! That's the sound but I prefer dual tech... If you know what I mean 😂
Wouldn't be that nebula sound by any chance??? 🤣
@@PaulThird got it! 😂🙌🏻
Hello Paul! Without a doubt, UA sounds almost identical to the Hardware version. It is the best of the shooting plugins without a doubt! Were you able to try the Audified 1A Equalizer? What do you think about it? Greetings
Nah after the 4th or 5th pultec you stop caring. They all sound like pultecs. A pultec is all about the curves
I have the Apogee EQP-1a endorsed by Pulse Techniques. 😁
🤓
Omg ruletec is so good.
Still my vintage pultec of choice 😜
Dude! Where is the freshest intro music on YT? Where’s my Jeep beats??
OK, I’m watching the video now...
It's on my laptop which is now officially dead. I need to go through my emails to find the intro but hopefully I find it 😅😅
i promise , i looked away and heard it every time. (besides in Guitatrs i rated purple and Pultec the best).
Pultec sounded best.
However, funnyerwise in your Fairchildcomparison i rated the UAD-Emulation best.. And also always heard it.Just listening on laptop.
What i hear here is like an Earfatique, that i often hear in plugins. You could call it Grainy, Grey Sound, if you understand what i mean. Or ust Earfatique
So are you listening to the comparisons only on the laptop?
@@PaulThird yessa! as entertainment. But i know already what to look for, and its this earfatigue sound . so im trained on a better soundsyst
Could‘ve included the Bombfactory/Avid Pultec. Really curious how close the „stock“ plug-in gets you.
It was enough work just getting these 3 to match the hardware haha 😅 I can't see it to be fair. All these plugs are internally oversampled so I don't think the stock stuff would get anywhere near as close. Plus the waves isn't anywhere near these 3 so I just can't see it to be honest.
UAD sound lifeless, you can hear that there isn't small dynamic volume changes in the sound like in Acustica plugins, and phase is also better, Purple sounds more live.
When you say UAD I take it you also mean hardware as well?
I did a blind test years ago with over 20 engineer , pro musician friends using the UAD, the Logic (Vintage EQ) , Softube, & Waves Pultech emulation with as identical settings as Possible , the voting was pretty universal across the board with Softube & Logic fighting it out at the top & UAD by far at the bottom, 1 guy even went to say he wondered if UAD modelled theirs on a broken unit as it was nothing like his real hardware. I have no idea how you got UAD to sound the same, either it’s a different UAD pultech plug-in or it’s been updated.
This is the updated UAD pultec
@@PaulThird When was it updated?
🤷♂️ I just know that there is a legacy pultec and this pultec.
nah, logic‘s pultec ain‘t good enough.
UAD have always been fine.
Ay! Leaving DMG Equilibrium with Pultec curves out? 😢
Tbh this is the first I've heard somebody using the equilibrium for a pultec haha
Hi! I've watched some of your videos already and it's really informative. I am wondering if there any reason you don't put waves plugins on the list such as "puig tec"? You think their plugins are often inferior than those plugins you comment??
Already did a pultec shootout with Puigtec before this and didn't come off great to me compared to ruletec and Lindell so was no point including it vs the hardware for me.
If I've included the waves in other shootouts and they didn't do well then I normally don't include it.
However I did include waves puigchild in the fairchild hardware comparison as I felt it did alright in the first fairchild shootout
@@PaulThird Thanks again for the information! I asked because I usually check big well known company. The way I judge if they're big or not is based on how frequently they put ads (because maybe they might have a lot of money?)/how well designed their website/how many plugins they've sold in the past etc.
and from those condition above,waves to me is one of the biggest companies in the industry.
Would you say the way I research and purchase is not so practical?
To be hones,the level of satisfaction from owning their products are "alright".
best regards
The best plugins I own are plugins that not many know about haha TimP comps via nebula. Acustica audio, noiseash ruletec, wavesfactory trackspacer etc.
I use a lot of plugin alliance as well but what you've got to keep in mind is that marketing doesn't always mean quality. Waves built the brand over decades and thus have the money to have the best brand awareness. Marketing is a lot of money but what to remember is that many times the plugins are made by 1 or 2 guys. If they go on their own and make plugins like many have then they don't have a big brand to market it but are still producing the best plugins out there.
That's why I started creating plugin shootouts many years ago 🤓
@@PaulThird Wow.. I must change the way I do research lol
Thank you so much again. I'll check those plugins out for sure!
Best regards
u look great in that pink chair
Just need some pink accessories and it will be extra fabulous darling 👌 haha 😅😅
your bass and guitar sound nice. can you do a video on how you got this guitar sound? the stereo is nice
are you talking about the recording?
i preffered purple on every instance except solo drums, where hardware and uad sounded identical.
🤓🤓
Bro spent all his money money on a guitar the rest was an afterthought 😂
damn, I have to say I prefered the analogue one in the full mix. And yes over the UAD too. I'm not saying it's better by any means, but it's different. As was each plugin. It will really depend on the track which one I prefer. In this case the snare sounded really weak on the analogue Pultec and I loved that. I don't like overly poky snares on "real instrumentals". On the single scources I was all over the place. Sometimes I prefered acustica, sometimes the ruletec, sometimes the analogue. But not a single time did I prefer the UAD.
But that's just a quick listen on my 30 dollar speakers. Who knows what my headphones would tell me, or what would happen in a blind test. But if anything my mind is rather conditioned to be sceptical of analogue- hype.. so I kind of trust my judgement on this one.
🤓
Hardware easily the best of the three but to be honest, the Ruletech carried slightly less punch but stayed tight, the UAD had the punch but was less focused. I'd honestly go Ruletec and it is a no brainer considering it's price vs. UAD.
That Ruletec....is incredible...sounds richer than the rest of them
The ruletec is more open....
The Pultec sounds like a room with depth. The U.A.D. has three-fourths of that room and the Rule Tec has about half of it (although not bad at all--especially on the guitar). Purple had a about a fourth of the room, but I wanted to hear it on the mix at the end.
Being honest I'd very much doubt anybody would be able to pick the pultec out in a triple blind test. When it's that close not many get it right consistently. A hardware pultec is actually extremely clean so I don't really see where it could be adding any more depth than the UAD as its essentially all about the curves in a pultec which most likely the UAD is closest to compared to the others.
Ruletec is way more coloured than the hardware so it's always going to sit back a little more and 'smear' sources so in regards to depth it can be argued that the ruletec has depth but a different kind of depth as it sits sources back in a mix.
Hardware should sound more forward and clearer than ruletec due to it being so clean.
UAD models the curves and lack of harmonics closely to the point where I just can't see anybody picking out the hardware consistently blind.
In other shootouts I've done where I've included blind tests that's as close as this the differences people heard with everything labeled almost disappears blind
Paul I do like the UAD Pultec...I haven't bought my DAW yet...I'm still trying to learn mixing right now...but it is the first eq that made it to my list of eq's that I have looked at...of digital eq's...and I'm having problems finding digital eq's that I like. Unfortunately I looked at analog eq's first and found analog eq's I loved and then looked at digital afterwards and don't hear them sounding as good to my ears.
I do hear a difference in the one that is stated as the real Pultec. The one that's claimed to be the real Pultec has more depth of field and has a wider sound. It probably is a real Pultec because depth of field is usually a finger print of analog equipment. Width is also a characteristic of analog mixes over digital...what I didn't realize was how each track would be wider as opposed to the entire stereo mix. The drum tracks and entire mix both sounded wider...and specifically each instrument. That surprised me.
I don't have the budget or the soldering skills to work with vintage analog gear...so I will have to work with mostly digital gear...but for my ears I prefer the depth and width that analog brings to the sound field. I will always attempt to create a vinyl record sound with digital gear...but there will most likely be limitation on how close I can really get.
Thanks for the video.
Theres a video going live at 3pm today talking all about 'flat' ITB mixes and reasons why plugins can sound flat and how it's actually more down to the user rather than the tools.
Discussing all the work you should really be puting into the rough before thinking about sticking a compressor or additive eq on a source.
Hopefully it can help you out 🤓
Thanks, Paul!
🤓🤓🤓
Hmm always love Mr 3rd.stuff...but would visit marc daniel nelsen test on modern pultec analog buss out to help broaden the info...just wow!!! Unless he is tricking it up? Its seeeriously different in that example.
Give me the plugin equivalents I'll always bridge the gap if it's night and day 😜 there's no reason why a pultec hardware would be seriously different if the plugins are properly level and curve matched but I dunno which pultec he used
@@PaulThird Last time I linked on yt it deleted the link? That would be the easiest but would love you to check it out...with all that time you have ;-) The unfortunate aspect of today...time impoverished :-(
It seemed...3d dimensional...well a lot more front to back depth anyway
Pultec = Uad? in the treble can be, but not in the low-mid, uad have a less body in comparison, thanks for the review
Ok ok so my nice headphones broke this morning so i was listen airpod pros. While doing some chores. I wasnt looking at the phone just blind listening and everytime the most exciting mix popped up i would look and see and it was purple. It was a bit wider maybe. But it was stand out for me. Tried it again and same deal. But i guess different from the hardware unit. But uad was identical. But for me on these buds it was purple.
And just gave my busted cans a shot and it they are working for some reason and same stood for me. Love the videos! Fun to see the progression of what ur doin
To be honest I'll still use the ruletec for vintage pultec purposes to add overall low end weight and colour. You go with whatever sound you know will work for you 🤓
My Logic prox has the pultec eq too. I like it
Paul had you tried the Apogee Pultec? It sounds VERY close to the Access Analog Pultecs!
I did but it just sounded like the rest of the clean pultecs. If you have bertom you can match the curves with most plugins bang on. Thats what I would do differently if I had my time again instead of hours by ear and referencing span. I think on reflection UAD was just the closest to the curves of the hardware in my setup
@@PaulThird interesting! What is Bertom?
Thanks for the reply as always, Paul.
ruclips.net/video/eaMD2XkEm8I/видео.html
purple sounds to me like it has a kind of Pinched Feeling, that sounds a bit unnatural IMO =)
🤓
Won't be buying into the UAD.... Love the hardware but I'm happy with the NoiseAsh. Great native option.
I'll still be using the noiseAsh 🤓 I actually prefer the colour of it. Is much richer in harmonics
@@PaulThird yeah. It really just feels right to me. Sweet. Glad you like it too.
@@PaulThird nice. This might be good for my vocals.
I use it on backing vocals. Adds that nice smeary colour and overall weight. Glues them in the mix perfect for me
Yeah. I could see it basically living there, for that. Nice!
Paul, if you need a Rule Tec Heritage Pro license, I have one extra for sale!!
Keep up the good work!
Paul hi! Thanks for all your comparisons. But it's the first time I strongly disagree! Before the UAD: drums sound almost identical to me, while between guitars and bass there are major differences. Now, UAD vs real thing: drums, again, same - guitars: real thing sssliiightly better. The UAD sounds a bit flatter. I don't know, maybe cause I'm a guitar player.
This one's the hardest and most subjective I've ever done. It's all about how you listen to it and what you look for. Ive purposely chose to listen a particular way cause my head getting minced with so many haha
When it comes to the studer vs UAD I'm 60/40..more towards the studer. I'm very inconsistent in these blind tests haha I just focus on feel and an overall picture but I think the opinions on this will be pretty wide spread as it is very subjective
May I also suggest something? It it's not too much trouble can you also include the raw file in the shootouts? It is important for us to know the starting point and to be able to tell what those fx do each time!
I hate to say it but on each example I preferred the real pultec. It’s not even a matter of this high end vs that, etc. The real pultec just imparts a recordyness to the source and the plugins all impart an ever so slight thinness and digital ness. Is it subtle? Absolutely, but it is there. Does the real pultec sound 4 grand better? Of course not, but as we all know, in audio that last %5-10 is maddeningly difficult to get, and that’s what drives some to pay the big bucks. The UAD pultec is still great and I use it somewhere in every mix, but this is why I still always run the entire mix through an analog mastering chain with a high-end stereo EQ. My clients absolutely hear the difference
I actually prefer the noiseAsh to the real deal but tbh I'm not a big fan of eqp1a's any more. I much prefer cleaner pultecs like tube tech and bettermaker for mixbus duties.
Shame about the Acustica, but it's good UAD has it spot on.
It's crazy how close they nailed it. Even in the back end of the Plugin it's superb. Completely aliasing free, clean harmonics and just very well coded
@@PaulThird Interestingly enough I have just done some tests having purchased it. I have found aliasing, even at 96k. It seems to internally oversample twice, and it doesn't correspond to DAW sample rate.
Audible aliasing though?
@@PaulThird having tested that out there isn't audible aliasing, nothing that my ears can pick up anyway, so fair enough
I think we share the same ears. LOL
👂👂👂👂👂👂👂👂
Nothing compares to the original Pultec. Period!
lack of argument :)
I'm using Neumann (NDH30) headphones through a Clarett+ and if someone played me the last three audios I wouldn't be able to tell which one is the real gear.
🤓🤓
Hello ! but in other videos you show that uad plugins ads aliasing
Not all UAD plugins
Curious how the Analog Obsession does too for a free plugin, sounds good to my ears
Measured very differently from the rest if I recall
@@PaulThird Much worse you mean? I must check out that Kirchoff thingy, you were pretty stoked on it as I recall
Dunno if id say worse, was just different from the rest of the emus
@@PaulThird Ah, ok. Good to know. 🙂
I’ve been using Waves for a long time and couldn’t stand the Analog Obsession version. To me a Pultec clone should almost always have that “oh, it sounds better now” factor. Often wanted to just bypass the AO.
Apogee’s pultec emulation is officially endorsed by pulse. It’s great!
I keep on getting told you need apogee hardware to run the plugins though.. Like UAD?
@@PaulThird Hey Paul, great video again! Nice one. You can run Apogee natively without Apogee hardware. Think they do a trial period too.
Why did loads of people tell me I needed the hardware haha I'm doing a quick part 2 of plugs vs UAD so can include this if I don't need hardware 🤓
@@PaulThird I think maybe as they do run on DSP as well, so maybe they got confused. Anyway you can't be expected to test every single Pultec plugin, especially in the amount of detail you are going into. Must take you a lot of time and effort with these videos!
Yeah a good few hours spent critically listening with this one.. Actually what am I saying I spend ages on all Eq shootouts haha 😅 it's worth it though as I can't deal with shitty shootouts. I'm too anal with stuff like that 😂
Hey, Paul, in your later video, you mentioned that the UAD' pultec would increase the gain by 1db. So, do you still hold the same opinion as in this video, that UAD is indentical emulation. because UAD seems to offering discounts recently, I'm not sure if it still worth buying nowadays.
Whilst it does increase the gain, my shootouts are accurately level matched however id say just go with whatever pultec is cheapest cause they all relatively do the same thing if I'm being honest. A hardware pultec is super clean.
The ruletec is modelled from a rare vintage modded/broken one if I recall so that has audible non linearities
@@PaulThird Wow, that's a really quick reply. Thank you for your explanation, it was very direct and helpful. So, I think I'll choose between UAD and Ruletec, if UAD could give me that $45 coupon lol.
its possible I missed you covering this but what converters are you using for the Pultec send and return?
Access analog use lynx converters
Wow I’m actually surprised they sound so close. But I always say there’s always some slight sense of more depth and body when you run something through hardware. But I will say the plugins don’t sound bad at all.
🤓🤓
Could also say there is a juju bub up the tree, but does that make it so?
@@GingerDrums if there is actually 1 up there then yes…….
What about Black Rooster Audio Pultec?
Probably be about the same tbh. They are all roughly the same unless they alias like a bitch i.e. Waves.
IF you own the black rooster i'd say just stick with the black rooster unless your not too happy with it then possibly demo the ruletec as it's only $30 just now which is a steal