UAD Cambridge EQ

Discussion in 'Mixing & Editing' started by Doublehelix, Aug 7, 2003.

  1. Doublehelix

    Doublehelix Distinguished Member

    Oct 7, 2001
    I just bit the bullet and bought this plug-in for my UAD card, and so far, I think I am in love! I am still trying to get my brain around all the ins and outs of it, but it looks like it is a really fine piece of work. I guess it is supposed to be an Oxford clone, but for the price (US$149), I don't see how that is possible.

    Has anyone else picked this thing up? What is the general consensus on its functionality? How about comparisons to the Sony Oxford? Any tips on how to best use it (like the A/B/C algorythms on the high-shelf filter)?
  2. Doublehelix

    Doublehelix Distinguished Member

    Oct 7, 2001
    You are kidding me, right? There is nobody else here that has the Cambridge EQ??? How about the demo? Has anybody tried the demo???
  3. Ok, Ok, DH, I will see what I can do... in my internet adventures I have read only good things about the Cambridge, and, yes, it is supposed to be based on the Oxford console. David
  4. Doesn't look like I can try before I buy... am I missing something (other than a UAD card)? David
  5. Alécio Costa - Brazil

    Alécio Costa - Brazil Distinguished Member

    Mar 19, 2002
    your bud in the same boat
  6. Doublehelix

    Doublehelix Distinguished Member

    Oct 7, 2001
    Yeah guys, sorry! You have to have a UAD card to try it. I guess I was directing my question to anyone with a UAD card...thanks for trying anyway, and sorry for the false alarm!!!

    I've been playing with this thing for about 2 days now, and I am extremely impressed! Wow!
  7. Alécio Costa - Brazil

    Alécio Costa - Brazil Distinguished Member

    Mar 19, 2002
    so we have to go UA TDM. I think the bombguy was complaining somewhere else...
  8. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Distinguished Member

    Apr 7, 2001
    I will eventually get the Cambridge plug in but I am waiting for UA to get the drivers working properly on 3.10.

    I've seen too many issues as of late with them and can't afford to be troubleshooting them as of now.

    Soon I'm sure!

  9. chrisperra

    chrisperra Active Member

    Oct 24, 2002
    i've got one. the cambridge completely smokes. especially if you have nuendo 2.o. i use the type 3 for mastering, 1 or 2 for more drastic eq settings.

    it's extreemly smooth and rich sounding. makes the waves sound insignifigant. also, check out the cs-1 eq, it's pretty damn good as well.

    chris perra
  10. Doublehelix

    Doublehelix Distinguished Member

    Oct 7, 2001
    GARY: Yeah, there are some UAD 3.1 issues, and I've had a few, but for the most part, they are not "show-stoppers" (but they are pretty damn inconvenient at times!).

    I read through the UAD manual on the Cambridge, and understand the controls a bit more now (type I, II, and III, plus the shelving types A, B, and C), and I can see just how awesome this thing can be!!! And the sound...ahh...sweet! :)

    CHRISPERRA: I have never been a big fan of the CS-1, although I have used it quite a bit. It sounds too sterile for my tastes, and I prefer the sound of the Waves RenEQ myself. I do resort to the CS-1 to save on CPU ticks, and for some things it works quite well.

    Right now for EQ'ing, my top 3 are:

    1) Cambridge EQ (UAD)
    2) Pultec EQ (UAD)
    3) Waves RenEQ

    Great stuff!!!
  11. chrisperra

    chrisperra Active Member

    Oct 24, 2002
    i liked the waves stuff as well. the interface is much better than the cs-1. try this, set up an eq setting with the waves. then copy the settings exactly with the cs-1.

    i was very surprized with the results.getting a nice eq setting for me is harder with the interface of the cs-1, i think more visually like the cambridge or waves.

    but with matched settings i like the cs-1 better most of the time than the waves.

    however, now that i have the cambridge i rarely use anything else

    chris perra
  12. Alécio Costa - Brazil

    Alécio Costa - Brazil Distinguished Member

    Mar 19, 2002
    hey, what about filterbank? P6, E6. Do you guys prefer them over the ordinary reasonable Waves Q?
  13. missilanious

    missilanious Guest

    I deffinately prefer the Filterbank EQ's over the Waves EQ's except if I have to do some surgical work I go for the Waves Q EQ's, though I'm really looking foward to hearing the UA EQ's when they are realesed for TDM.
  14. Alécio Costa - Brazil

    Alécio Costa - Brazil Distinguished Member

    Mar 19, 2002
    Missi, what is your rig/daw?
  15. missilanious

    missilanious Guest

    I posted this in the "yer personal space" thread in the mixing forum. Its basicly my studio and everthing I own listed since I couldn't post a picture of my space cause I have no webspace to post it.
    Protools HD3 Syatem w/ PT 6.1
    Mac G4 w/ Syncmaster 171v monitor
    Otari MX5050MKIII8
    Harman/Kardon DC5300 Tape Deck
    192 Digital I/O
    Apogee AD-8000
    Midi I/O
    Universal Audio 2108
    Universal Audio M-610
    Manley ELOP
    Mackie 1402 VLZ
    EMU ESI-2000
    Kurzweil PC2R
    Boss DR-770
    Fatar SL-880
    Vestax PMC-05ProII Dj Mixer
    Technics SL-1200 M3D
    Boston Acoustic CR85 Bookshelf speakers
    Yamaha VST-SW150 Sub
    Adcom GFA 535L Amp
    Adcom GFP 555II Pre-amp
    Furman HD56 Headphone Distribution System
    BLUE Cactus Tube Mic
    BLUE Dragonfly
    (2) AKG 414B-TLII
    (2) AKG 451B
    (2) SM-57
    Audio Technica 4040
    Rockman Distortion Box
    Oh yeah and if anyone can help me out calibrating my tape deck, it wants a tone refernced to dbm not dbv which my oscillator outputs at. Should I run it through my mackie, get 0 on the meters and take into account that it outputs at +4, say if the calibration setting it wants is a 1k tone at -18 dbm, i'll get a -24 on my board and everything will be fine (to be precise I'll use the pk read in PT since me AD is calibrated) or am I off. Also my AD is calibrated to -14dbfs=0db and is set to recieve a +4 proffesional level, and the deck outputs at +4. Basicly i shoot a -18dbm signal into the ocs in on the deck, which then I crank the trims on each channel all trhe way up and adjust a pin on the back to make the output read at +4 and the VU at 0, since I don't own a voltmeter and they are to expensive for me to jump up and get I have to use the peak meter in PT to see where the output of the tape deck's at, since my AD is calibrated to -14dbfs=0db should I be looking for a -10 reading on the peak meter or a -14 reading on the peak meter to calibrate my tape deck for a +4 output reading. Starting in a mostly digitaly revised world regarding how you record, buying that tape deck is deffinatly a learning experience for me, you don't really think about these things when everything in your studio is referenced to the same scale and a professional level. Any help regarding this problem I'm having would be greatly apprecaited.
  16. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Distinguished Member

    Apr 7, 2001

    Here's what I tell most of the Apogee customers when they call in asking how to get a +4 signal into their gear for proper calibration when they don't have a test tone generator.

    You can get any constant tone signal and put it into a pre amp and have the pre amp set so the meters are at 0. At that point the pre will send a +4 signal to whetever you need to calibrate.

    I wouldn't trust the Mackie board for 0 level to be honest as the meters aren't truly an analog style...having a pre amp with analog VU meters is the best way to go as it's more acurate at that point.


    Opus :D
  17. missilanious

    missilanious Guest

    yeah after reading alot over the weekend I've learned alot, yeah I already calibrated my AD and the tape deck getting 0 on the vu meters on my manley which outputs at 0dbvu=+4dbm, the main thing that was screwing up everything when I was calibrating was using the mackie, and the fact that the main outs I was using on the board didn't output as hot as the main outs on the back actaully 6db hotter on the outs on the back which output at +4dbu, so already right there everything was off, well anyway thanks but I already did everything, well atleast everythings calibrated and I learned a good deal.
  18. thedug

    thedug Guest

    I have the cambridge. Mackie gave to existing customers for $80.00! I couldn't resist at that price. I really like it. I have even used it on the 2-Bus!

    If you install 3.10 it comes with a demo of cambridge so you can check it out.

  19. Pez

    Pez Active Member

    Dec 27, 2002
    I have a UAD-1 but I've held out for the exact reasons Opus has + I've been waiting for the next recording project to try out the Cambridge. I figure I might as well get the best use out of it's trial period. I'll probably buy it if it impresses me or I find I can't live without it. I played around with the Oxford briefly at the NAMM show. Sony also has a hardware convolution reverb box that costs an arm and a leg. Surprisingly the sales rep had never heard of SIR and he looked a little concerned when I explained how it was a free plugin that everyone was downloading. lol
  20. MisterBlue

    MisterBlue Guest

    How much resources does the Cambridge EQ use of a UAD card? In other words, how many EQ's can you run on one card ?

    For what it's worth, my UAD card has been running without issues and at minimum latency since day one on my (quite cheap) ECS/AMD combination. Remarkably enough also without interference from my TC Powercore and the RME Hammerfall card. For some funny reason the stuff just works ;) ...


Share This Page