If you've ever wondered how the new batch of Pultec clones compare to the ones that have been around for 25 years, now you can listen and decide for yourself. We put eight hardware Pultec-style EQs in the same room and compared them all.



Then we tossed in seven plug-ins for good measure. How do they compare? Are they worse? Are they better? How close did Apogee get to really nailing the Pultec sound? See for yourself.

Pultec Shootout – with Sound Samples | Sweetwater

Plus there are lots of cool photos, like this:

Fantastic, thanks Lynn! Listening...

yes!!!

where is the A-Designs and why did you not include any of the 500 format clones?

was it because they use op-amps in. place of tube?

I was surprised how bad some of the software ones were in the high end on the "gradboost" files.

Thanks!

Also adding the plugins was a great idea.

Yeah, and the Klark Teknik for the hardware was lacking a lot of weight in comparison to the other hardware units.

Thanks. I knew if we didn't do that, everyone (including me) would say "So close...and yet so far."

yeah it's leaner sounding for sure.

While the KT was certainly leaner then the other HW units it didn’t bother me that much knowing that getting weight is all about twisting knobs until it feels right and not necessarily about matching settings.

The freq graphs show the KT low end boost is leaner then the others at relative boost and cut levels so it may need to be “pushed” a little more then the others.

The eye opener for me in this shootout is the sense of depth and 3D’ness the Pultec and Tubetech units impart consistently. I didn’t necessarily hear that from any of the other units.

Very cool test Mr. Fuston!

Note that all the knobs were already set to 10 in those frequency plots. There's no 11. Not on these.

Thank you. It was my pleasure. I enjoy sharing the opportunities I get with others.

Well done Lynn!

More scientific than Trev and my tests last year at his studio.

I still think after extensive listening that the Pulse is that extra bit of special after using nine for the last few years. Most are pretty close in terms of ballpark sound and It was interesting to get reacquainted to the SS variant. I think the faster and tighter sound is what I’d prefer more on the kick.

Damn you!!
Wiggy

Yeah and one thing this test "fails" to do (and I hate using that word in this context, because this test is fantastic) is show what stacking can/could do.

For instance, if you employed Pultecs during the tracking phase on kick, snare, overs, etc., and employed again during the mixing stage, that's going to sound completely different than across a pre-mixed drum stem.

OK, I'll take this question.

The original concept was to compare just rack-mounted hardware. That started off as five units and grew to seven, and I personally wanted to hear the Pulse solid-state next to the tube version because I've used vintage Pultec SS 1A3 units but had never heard Steve's new one. So that was one more, so we're up to eight boxes. Not counting 500-series, which would have been five more.

Pultec 500 | Sweetwater

Then I thought "Hey, we should include a plug-in because, well, because everybody's going to want to know how it compares, especially those who have only used the plug-ins." So which plug-in? Or two plug-ins? Or...

And so it goes. We ended up with five plug-ins. Then I noticed the Ozone 8 Vintage EQ, which *no one* even knows is supposed to be a Pultec because it doesn't have bakelite knobs. ;-)

And then Apogee released their FX Rack version just days before we were recording the samples. How could we NOT include it, right? They got us an advance copy before AES. (Yes, we started this months ago.)

As with all of these comparisons that I undertake, the scope and number of units just grows and grows and eventually you have to draw the line. I drew the line at rack units and software plug-ins. So I'll take the blame for not including the 500s.

I did however include the original files so you can compare any of the 500-series Pultecs for yourself.

My thoughts too.

Which fly's in the face of so much written on GS about them including from some "heavyweights".

Just goes to show when listening in context.


Great thread and shootout. Thanks @ Lyn Fuston

i know very well how difficult it can be just to try and keep up with new gear much less review whats out there i know it is a undertaking. and i can see sticking just to what sweetwater sales?


i was just curious.

as always: Well done Lynn!

Thx for pointing that out! I guess I glossed over that somehow. Anyway, the test was certainly enlightening. That Pultec really has a 3D thing going on. Sounds fantastic!

Yea, just reviewing what we sell is a given. And for pretty obvious reasons, not the least of which is that’s what we have.

The Pulse gets my vote - extra tight definition in the lows. Decided to test my ITB pultec options against it and thought it may be of interest to others.

• Acustica Purple
• Nebula Dual Tech (TimP)
• Ruby2 (plus CraveEQ to match the EQ closer as they're different units)
• Black Rooster VEQ-1P

Softube's Tube Tech was included in the test with the exact dial values listed for the 30Hz and 12Khz boosts, so I used Q-Clone to capture the resulting curve and matched the above plugins to the same levels. I would have liked to have matched the full mix and vocal loops also but no specific values were listed.

Included Ruby2 as it's a favourite of mine. Not a direct clone but along the same lines.

Random numbering with the original Pulse file included. Processed at 48K and exported as MP3 @ max bitrate. Closer than I was expecting!

Most likely automation artifacts...

edit: on another note, it would be nice to have the processed sine sweep files (...that way THD can be measured +/-)

I guess I'm not surprised the expensive stuff sounded really good compared to the cheaper stuff. That's my general impression. I've got the KT so I don't need the Warm, they're not that different in the shootout in terms of being better or worse.

I feel like since I have the UAD plugins I'm covered as far as plugins go, it was one of the better ones. The hardware seems to have more weight in the low end than the software in general. The Ozone EQ has a pretty nice low end, I might look into that. Maybe the Ozone is the sleeper. Waves PuigTec doesn't hold up too well these days in this shootout. It just sounds too different from the other ones, not close enough to the normal pultec sound.

I couldn't listen to the "ROCKMIX" unfortunately, I had to pull the plug on that one in the first couple of seconds. FEMALE was a good listen, I like the backing instruments. DRUMS also fine.

I was actually pretty shocked by how much I disliked the UAD one. And I'm a UAD owner/user.

I’m wondering if upgrading the tubes in the KT would improve its performance?

It's pretty well documented in the other thread that the answer to this is, "Yes"

there are even posted clips you can hear yourself

Sorry I must have missed this Which thread is that?

I'm pretty sure it's this one... you'll have to do a little digging

Klark Teknik Pultec Clone - EQP-KT

Great, thanks . I’m also wondering if changing the tubes in the KT-2a will make any noticeable improvement but am in no hurry to do this as it already sounds good!

On the other hand, notwithstanding the superiority of the pricier units over the cheaper ones and the plugins, if you step back and look at the big picture, you could produce a good mix with any of these.

Yeah but that's sort of like saying, why not just use your stock DAW EQ, why not just use anything at all.