Specifications

SOME THOUGHTS
FROM OUR LAB
GEAR SEQUENCE
Another interesting quality of much analog gear is the optimum sequence of gear. While there is
some validity to ideas of “EQ before compression” or “EQ after compression”, the practical reality
is trickier. For example, Box #1 may seem to sound best only if it drives into another box that does
not have a transformer input – it likes to see a relatively simple load and maybe really shines driving
into just one particular box for unknown reasons. Box #2 may be quite the opposite, and it just loves
to drive a transformer input. So the optimum order may just take a day or two of experimentation and
listening, rather than thinking about the function of the box. This is the biggest single reason for not
including the option which allows one to arbitrarily change the order of processors – there is almost
alwaysanoptimumordersound-wiseandwewanttoencourageyoutondthatandgettheelusiveand
maybe mysterious optimum path, rather than promote mastering as “simple fun with expensive toys”.
While we are on that topic, there are some other interesting and not very obvious potential sequenc-
es of processors. For example, engineers might only consider a brick-wall limiter as appropriate as a
nalornext-to-nalprocess.Andwhilethatisgenerallyagoodplaceforone,youmightndthata
limiter early in the chain helps compressors and de-essers further down from over-reacting and pump-
ing, and might prevent EQs from clipping. We are not suggesting trying it for the sake of an idea, but
suggesting a listening experiment because, in the end, it is more about the particular collection of gear
that you have chosen and the collection of input-output idiosyncrasies that few are aware of. This hints
at why some people hate gear that others love. The “sound” of a processor has to do with what device is
patched to what, and settings of input and output levels. One might hear serious raves about some piece
and expect something dramatic, when it was actually the subtlety of the box that was so sweet, so one’s
expectations play a part in user reviews. And not everybody has the same goals, styles and require-
ments.
SOME SUM-DIFFERENCE MUSINGS
One school of thought suggests we use our gentlest and smoothest processors for mid-side tweaks,
mostly because there can be inherent dangers with moderate alterations of those channels. But this is
mastering, and a few dB of this or that is already verging on drastic, right? The other school of thought
suggeststhatsometimesanarrownotchorsteeplteroneitherthesumordifferencecaneffectively
treatproblemsthatcan’tbexedanyotherway.Perhapsyouwillndthatthesetwoinsertsarebetter
served with your best EQ’s than with dynamic processors. Equalizing in the sum-diff domain relaxes
some of the demands of precise left-right matching.
“WIDTH”
We’ve just talked about how subtle SUM-DIFF processing can be very useful. With that said, be
very careful not to mangle the stereo image too much - this is a tool that is often over-used, abused, and
very poorly understood. Certainly you have heard speakers wired out-of-phase and heard a stereo pair
and checked out what happens if one side is phase-reversed. It is not pleasant and can be rather discon-
certing. Increasing the stereo width is employing the same effect but to a lesser degree.