I am looking to get budget (under $500) hardware parametric eq to use when tracking (Vocals, Bass, other instruments as needed) and have been considering these two products.

I have good room treatment
Main microphone is an SeElectronics SeX1s
Preamps are Useful Arts Hornet (x2)
Golden Age Project Comp-3A
Also have a dbx 1066 for where appropriate
MOTU M4 interface

I have other equipment as well.

What I am looking for is something to add a little musical sweetness and light tonal compensation when tracking mostly vocals and bass guitar. I do love the sounds I am getting already but would like to have a little character sculpting on the way in, especially to add a little warmth where needed.

After doing a lot of research these two products (EQP-KT and GAP EQ-73 MKIII) seem to fit the bill quite well but I am a bit torn on which one to get. I like that both of them are musical and can do the broad strokes kind of parametric equalizing for a little flavor.

My guess is that the GAP EQ-73 might be a little more versatile with the midrange knobs (although I appreciate that the high boost and high cut with selectable frequencies on the KT do make it more of a three band, and that the lows cut and boost can be used for dipping curves) and the boosts/cuts can go more extreme on the GAP than the relatively subtle EQP-KT.

From what I have heard online from YouTube demos is that they both sound really good. The GAP is almost twice as much as the KT but the KT is about four times the size. The most important thing is the sound quality and usefulness.

I had also considered the GAP EQ-81 MKIII as it has low shelf, high shelf and two bells with low mid and high mid and seems to be more of a surgical type of eq with a bit less "mojo" than the EQ-73. But I think I am looking for just a little bit of tonal correction and sweetening when tracing, nothing too extreme.

Does anyone here have experience with both the EQP-KT and the GAP EQ-73 that can shed some light on their differences and which you prefer for which applications?

Thanks

I guess I am now leaning towards the Klark Teknik even just because the price is so low right now. They seem to have good reviews and the YouTube demos I have listened to sound great. I have some good quality tubes on hand already so I could do a tube swap right away too.

The KT76 has a high freq sheen that it adds to the signal that I actually like sometimes. It doesn't dull things out the same way my Gap 2A does. When I use the KT EQP though, I swear I hear that same thing happening in the highs, and it is the opposite of what I want. Crank the highs and they get trashy. The lows are fine. I sold both KT EQPs and got an Audioscape version. The difference was huge.

On the cheap route, I picked up a Realistic 31-1987 stereo eq for $40, and then sent it to my tech for a cap job and balanced in/out (dump the RCA). That little shit has inductors in it, and the sound can get downright fat and fabulous. Push it and smile. So much fun on the right source. Total cost: $125. It has style and character, and I'd take it every day over the KT EQP.

Don't know the GAP you were looking at, but I do remember the early ones had to be linked to the GAP 73 pre in order to work right. Maybe the MKIII is different.

Thanks for the input.

I appreciate your experience with the Klark Teknik EQP. I definitely do not want trashy highs by default. That Audioscape version looks nice but it is also way out of my price range right now.

I know what you are saying about the GAP 2A and that is one of the main reasons I got the GAP 3A instead because it does not dull out the highs and actually adds a nice high end character, also it is slightly faster than the 2A (although still quite slow overall).

Part of why I am looking at one of these colorful parametric equalizers is for the times when I do want a softer rounder tone. Also just to do a little tonal adjustments on the way in to print with the intended vibe whatever that may be depending on the situation of course.

That modded Realistic seems really nice. Unfortunately I do not have a handy tech who can do cool mods like that.

Yes, the newest version of the GAP EQ, the MKIII can be used as a stand alone and is not required to be used as an insert like the previous versions.

Also there is the new Premiere version of the GAP EQ-73, which is basically the same as the MKIII but has Carnhill inductors (at an extra $100) and I have been curious to know how different the two are.

By the way, it is MKII and not MKIII that they are on now and the MKII does have the ability to use as a stand alone.

Man at this level grab a UAD Solo or Twin with Luna. It will likely be better on many levels than either option you mention. Workflow, Automaton, Sonics, Efficiency, Scale, Flexibility, Variety. Just my two cents.

Thanks for the suggestion. I know that is one way to go. I am happy with my interface and am very happy with the Hornet Preamps, all the gear in my simple set up really but just want an inexpensive coloring hardware parametric eq to shape the recordings. There is plenty that will be done in the box for sure but I am wanting to get better captures on the way in before it gets into the computer.

I have been reading as much as I can find online about both of these units and I have found several people say that the GAP can be finicky with regards to interference and result in noise due to physical placement but I am not sure if that is the earlier version or the MKII (or both).

Well I just pulled the trigger on a Klark Teknik EQP-KT
Will be upgrading the tubes before I rack it up as I already have some good tubes on hand.

I was working on a song all day today and could have really used a parametric eq on a couple of sources, namely a Bass guitar and a Snare Drum.

Looking forward to this one.

I am still considering the Golden Age Project EQ-81 as a second more surgical type eq for down the road if I feel I need it.

I just installed some matched 60's-era GE long grey plates in my pair of EQP's.
Not much difference in the low end, but I may have gained a few more usable numbers on the hi-boost knob. They seem to remove an "edge", of sorts. Still falls well into the subjective, TBH, but I can say that I like them better than the stock Bugera's.

Curious as to what tubes you tried and perceived results.

Good Luck,
Frank

Well I just ordered the EQP-KT two days ago and it is set to arrive on Friday this week. I have a bunch of tubes I can try but not sure how much insane tube rolling I want to do. I do have a couple of NOS. I have an RCA 12AX7A that I will probably try and I think I have a short getter RCA 7025. I have some new modern production Tung Sol, TAD, EHX. I guess I should put a loop of some music on and record some tests when I roll the tubes and then compare to discover which I really like the best. That will be a project but worth it I suppose. I will report back here once I have done that. Probably Saturday.

Well it arrived yesterday and I got to try it out and do some tube rolling. Right out of the box I am really impressed with the EQP-KT. As I have read many people say online, "It just makes everything sound better" and that is true for me too. Glad I got this.

The unit sounds fine with the stock tubes but I was curious and did some rolling. I too a short clip of music from my last album (a pre mastered mix that I bounced to mono for this test) and I sent it through the Klark Teknik EQP-KT with the same settings for each tube so that I could have all the variables the same.

My settings:
Low boost = 8.
Low cut = 2.
LF Boost/Cut - 400hz.
HF Boost = 12khz.
High Boost = 8
Bandwidth = 7
High Cut = 2
HF Cut = 20

The first thing I was curious about was if changing the 12AU7 would make any difference and luckily I had a TungSol 12AU7 on hand. Changing that tube made the bass response tighter right away, less bloated and muddy. So that stayed in there.

As for the 12AX7 I tried the following tubes:

Stock Bugera 12AX7A - Loud, bass a bit muddy and bloated, highs a tough strident.

NOS RCA 12AX7A - Tightest bass with sweetest open airy highs (this is the one I settled on keeping in there)

NOS RCA 7025 - Very close to the above but slightly less so on both fronts

TungSol 12AX7 - Tight strong bass with creamy highs, powerful but not too bloated.

TAD 5751 - Strong bass with creamy highs, not as tight as the Tungsol.

JJ ecc83s - Similar to the bugera but slightly tighter bass and slightly nicer highs.

I listened back and forth to all the recordings many many times to judge for the bass and the treble separately. The NOS RCA 12AX7A was the winner for what I like. It had the tightest bass that was not boomy, muddy or bloated, and the open ariy highs were just really sweet with character.

I am stoked on this unit and really impressed so far.
I can see why people get a pair of these for busses.

One thing to note is that the milled aluminum front panel on mine was razor sharp on all edges and corners. I was scared that I might accidentally cut myself while handling it.

Grats! This is good news, indeed!

Thanks for sharing your settings. Going to try them as soon as the lava is bubbling. Excellent tube info, as well. I may need to try RCA's X7A, as I can't seem to push my HF Boost as far as you can get away with.

Current settings:

Low Boost~5
Low cut~2
LFBoost/cut 60Hz

HF Boost 8k
Boost~4
Cut~3
BW Fully CW
HF Cut 20K

Typical Genres_Rock, Motown, Classic Country, Soul, R&B.

Of course, it's an EQ, so these aren't set and forget, by any means. These are just my Steely Dan starting points, heh.
You may find my settings dark to muddy, in comparison. I can rarely get past noon on my HF Boost.

I bought mine as a used pair. (I know....even my friends accuse me of squeeking when I walk><)
I don't think you can get matched pairs, but I got pretty lucky on mine @ 0.5 dB difference (Bugera's). Now that I have matched tube sets installed, they are pretty darned close.

I've had to brave those sharp edges twice, now.

Nothing quite like the real thing, of course, but I'm enjoying mine. My wife has already caught me eye-skroggin' the Audioscapes, though...

Best,
Frank