Some experience to share?
Do you plug in MEQ first then PEQ in 2nd position or vice versa...?

I'm not sure what a PEQ is. But I have experience with an EQP1a3 and a MEQ5.

It generally depends with me. If it's a mid-range sound I'm dealing with then I'll patch in the MEQ5 and I might not ever patch in the EQP1a. If it's a complex sound I'm dealing with then I'll patch both and really the order isn't on my mind. I'll reach for whatever jumps out at me first. In my opinion those two equalizers don't have to step on each other much, so I feel comfortable going with either first. Better said, I reach for the one that tames the sound range that grabs my attention first.

For me it's usually MEQ-5>EQP1a or EQP10s, or a fave PEQ-1- this works great on gtr, bass, and horns.
Here's a tip- try the MEQ-5 before compression and the EQP after it... or vice versa!

EQP>Compression>MEQ let's you change the LF drive to the compressor [think pumping] and the MEQ can bring out the mid range presence.

When it's MEQ> Compression>EQP the compressor can grab any peaks the MEQ creates and the the EQP can add some air or girth back in.

Btw a 1073 with Maranairs into a EQP-a or PEQ1 is a great combo as well...

Have fun!

Best-
Jonathan

I almost never find myself needing both of them on the same source. If I do the order doesn't particularly matter, unless I was trying to drive the midrange in to the front end of the EQP or vice versa, in which case it would be a taste call anyway.

If you have to ask ...

I've tried every possible combination at length, as I'm (disclaimer) developing a commercial prototype for a box with an EQP1A and MEQ5 set of filters on each channel. In short, it really depends on what you end up doing with them, but anything with a high frequency boost should come first, so you don't pull up noise from any previous unit in the chain.

If you wanna have fun, try using an M/S encoder on a stereo source and put the M through the EQP1A and the S through the MEQ5, then decode back to stereo. Just don't tell anyone else

Hey Harry, thank you for the advice, in fact I had the same goal as yours, I wanted to put these two units in the same box :
Pultec combo - MEQ5 + EQP1A

Now that it works fine, I just have to build a 2nd unit to try your trick!!

I have mine come up separately on the patch bay. Can't remember any occasion I've wanted to patch both together.

Why?

Why are they on my patchbay separately? Flexibility.

Why can't I remember? I must be getting old.

Why haven't I used both on the same source? Most stuff goes through my console (filled with API 550b, Avedis e27 and Harrison eq32). I only use an outboard eq where my console doesn't give me what I want. If I haven't got it right by the time I've gone through two EQs I might as well go home.

Seems obvious!

hahaha, great!

Having a console filled with so great Eqs looks like paradise...
There is something particular in Eqs using inductors, a kind of feeling that the sound remains always very natural, some sweetness, maybe because the LC circuits generate very little phase shift.. We have also some eqs from an old schlumberger console (unfortunately the choice of frequencies is a bit limited on them) also using inductors and the feeling is the same... never tried Neve Eqs (1084, etc.) but I guess it is the same feeling (I might be wrong); anyway since I ve built the unit it is always in the position where the 2 Eqs are in the path, but as I said we often make mistake with new gear...

My son Robin decided to design and build a pultecalichios clone of them in the same box with a few other useful bits that could just come in very handy.:-)
It's called the Browning Audio Polymath.

Oops. Almost forgot about my my AML sidecar and its eight 1073s...

1073, ok there are no tubes, but do you feel a kind of analogy with the Pultecs when switching frequencies?

Very different vibe

Different analog line stages sound different with different loads so I'd say it depends entirely on the other gear they are being used with.

You mean that different combinations will produce each time a complete different flavour? Or you mean that pluging a unit in a 600ohm load will produce a result completely different than in a 10K load for instance?

Different combinations or orders will create different flavors.

Rise! Riiiiise from THE DEAD! You are alive again old thread, so very alive....

Hi everyone : )

So I was just wondering about program/mid pultec order and the various tricks that might be the faves of various people here, and I found this one. I was going to start my own thread about this very thing, but I over-watched The Reanimator at an impressionable age, so here we are.

Okay pultec peeps - what have you been up to?!

I would buy a stereo MEQP. That's right, a MEQ + EPQ, stereo, in one unit. Why doesn't it exist?

That would be a big unit! Like 4U high and deep.

This French company makes dual mono solid state EQP's. It's already 4u and pretty big, but has a weird layout for the knobs:
https://general-audio-research.jimdo...tec-eqp-1a3ss/
The price is good and I'm thinking about it.

Tegeler makes a 2u dual mono EQP, so I'm sure this magic "MEQP" would fit in a 4u one.

Analogue Addicts make dual mono pultecs too. I have their awesome PEQ + dual mic pre and it is big. A combined version would be...too big! 8U! It might also just get too hot inside with all of those transformers and tubes.

But it would look awesome : )

Have a couple AML's and use the UAD MEQ together all the time. Mainly the combo on vocals. Many times all 5 positions. boost 100 on low band, maybe 16k on top to open up the vocal, maybe 1k for forwardness and or 1.5k or 5k, dip somewhere like 2 or 3k getting rid of harshness. Another plugin, but the SPL Passeq is also great for dipping frequencies. Boost side is good too but I don't need it. I've thought about trying the AudioScape MEQ. Don't really need it though. The plugs sound great. If I'm using the AML's on the mix bus, I'll gladly use the UAD on the vocal.

Our 2 stereo EQP1A/MEQ5 combos :



Stereo units would be switching a lot of things at once, it would imply more expensive switches..

I design and build predominantly stereo-ganged passive EQs.

I just checked the schematics of the EQP-1A & MEQ-5, just to be sure,
and the frequency switching is straightforward.

for some of the frequency switching you would need (stereo) a 2-deck
switch instead of (mono) two 1-deck switches. depending on the
switch series used, 2-decks can be a little more expensive, or a little
cheaper, than two 1-deck switches.

for some of the frequency switching you would (stereo) only need
a single 1-deck switch. that is certainly half the money compared
to 2x mono.

and always in ganged stereo you are using half the number of knobs

bonus tip: split the frequency switching of the EQP-1A boost & cut
low shelves. these are two separate circuits on the inside anyway.
instead of 4 different ‘Pultec tricks’, you can do 16 different ones
(when sticking with 4 low shelf frequencies).

Yes that makes sense

Something else to consider is : using two expensive inductors & capacitors passive filters and not having the ability to put one on a Kick Drum and another on some Vocals for instance is a pity...

So turning a single knob to adjust a stereo track is a kind of luxury

yes that makes sense

working on tracks vs working on a stereo bus fully reverses which
configuration—stereo ganged / 2 mono channel—is a necessity
and which is a pain to use.