I owned one back in the 80's. I used it for live kick drum applications.Very noisy but worked great for dance. (y)

For pro audio recording, don't waste your time. ITB is superior to my thinking. IMHO, there are very few EQ's I would ever use for tracking today. Why even bother is how I hear it?
Other than the stock ITB EQ's, I'd be looking at Fabfilter.

Hardware Eq... Pulse Techniques Pultecs are about the only EQ I would spend money on. Those are the real deal for tracking and mixing but they aren't cheap. Even then, I doubt any of what we buy as hardware (other the real pultecs (not plug-ins) today are really worth the fuss or sonic improvement.
But, its fun twisting knobs, I cannot deny that. I often think its the twisting to why we do what we do :love:.

Digital parametric EQ are miles ahead. The analog parametric can't even compete.

imho

if someone is happy with itb eqs, i'm happy for them but digital eq and analog eq are different beasts and they do not sound the same to me. there are plenty of decent analog eqs other than Pultecs although i agree that Putecs are the shinzzel. another fave of mine would be the Amek Neve 9098'. the Orban however is not that great of a box. i would rate it right up there with something like a Furman. @ $350, i would pass.

if someone is happy with itb eqs, i'm happy for them but digital eq and analog eq are different beasts and they do not sound the same to me. there are plenty of decent analog eqs other than Pultecs although i agree that Putecs are the shinzzel. another fave of mine would be the Amek Neve 9098'. the Orban however is not that great of a box. i would rate it right up there with something like a Furman. @ $350, i would pass.

I agree with Kurt, then clarify I am basing much of my opinion specifically in regards to the OP and analog parametric vs ITB parametric. The Orban 622b is an analog parametric. Since I actually owned one and used it extensively, I believe you will get more parametric goodness ITB.

After using other EQ's along the way its also my opinion (now that we have insane DAW's and plug-ins), cheap analog EQ's in general suck and that's why we pay a good wad for good consoles or modular hardware. Otherwise, why bother smearing your track up is my thinking. But each to his own. Cheap, good better best " there is a place for everything.I've always wanted an old Soundcraft from the 70's.

Live work .. PA and shaping to deal with rooms, any console or EQ is better than no console or no EQ.

https://en.wikipedi…

http://stereos.abou…

Boat anchor it is by the sound of it. The last thing I want to do is introduce something that will have a negative effect on the audio signal.

There is not a lot of info on them apart from a few short threads on GS...a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to feedback.

A common reference is that they are noisy, as you stated above Chris they seem to be better suited to kick drum than anything else really.
Not really knowing much about them I thought it would be a good idea to throw the question out there for those that are more familiar with this blue box EQ than me.

Thats why RO is such a good source of info when it comes to these things. I'd trust the info I get from here first from members than what you read on other forums.

Edit: Posted this before I just read your last post, Sean.
@Sean G
If you had one of those, what would you be wanting it for?

audiokid, post: 438778, member: 1 wrote: Edit: Posted this before I just read your last post, Sean.
@Sean G
If you had one of those, what would you be wanting it for?

Probably an option to use on bass and kick when going in.

For bass (low freq tuning/ sculpting) I've been looking at phase adjustment tools. Might be worth looking into as well.

Thats the advantage of doing things ITB, there are more options and you can always undo or change it later, as opposed to printing it and being stuck with it.

coincidentally, I just received an inquiry yesterday on advertising with us from Little Labs and saw this in their arsenal of products. http://www.littlela…

Radial makes something interesting too. I think Davedog has some experience using phase alignment tools. Phase Dial in bass freq, including how to use those to fit bass into a mix apposed to EQ goes a long way to my ears.

PS, this includes using them to shape the freq like we are familiar in analog synths via freq modulation.

Somewhat related to this topic.
Pinning certain freq in a digital sidechain so other tracks pop out is another fun topic.

That IPB in that link looks interesting...could be beneficial with correcting phase issues with drum mics

audiokid, post: 438783, member: 1 wrote: Somewhat related to this topic.
Pinning certain freq in a digital sidechain to shape bass freq or volume so other tracks pop out is another fun topic.

You should start a thread on this if there isn't one here in archive already...I would be keen to dive head first into this one.

Sean G, post: 438784, member: 49362 wrote: That IPB in that link looks interesting...could be beneficial with correcting phase issues with drum mics

I'm thinking tracking too but I'm speculating. Never used one. I definitely would like something like these.

audiokid, post: 438786, member: 1 wrote: I'm thinking tracking too but I'm speculating. Never used one. I definitely would like something like these.

I was thinking the same thing with drum mics...use it to track therefore eliminating any phase issues before you print...but you would most likely need a whole rack of them inline on the way in.

Sean G, post: 438785, member: 49362 wrote: You should start a thread on this if there isn't one here in archive already...I would be keen to dive head first into this one.

Ah, you know it.
Its what I was getting at in our last conversation about mixing> electronic music vs traditional engineers and how they are blocking out technology because it has electronic music attached to it. There is so much more we don't discuss here. Sidechaining and using them to focus punch in a mix, wow.

Maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks...;)

Sean G, post: 438789, member: 49362 wrote: Maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks...;)

I'm sure someone more qualified than I has a better chance at that. A wordsmith I am not. But I'm all over threads that discuss and discover new methods. I think we could do a lot more mix offs that discuss our tricks.

Hearing is believing. Participating is even more eye opening.

Kurt Foster, post: 438774, member: 7836 wrote: if someone is happy with itb eqs, i'm happy for them but digital eq and analog eq are different beasts and they do not sound the same to me. there are plenty of decent analog eqs other than Pultecs although i agree that Putecs are the shinzzel. another fave of mine would be the Amek Neve 9098'. the Orban however is not that great of a box. i would rate it right up there with something like a Furman. @ $350, i would pass.

Lmao Kurt, are you saying this eq is as good as a glorified power strip?

audiokid, post: 438780, member: 1 wrote: For bass (low freq tuning/ sculpting) I've been looking at phase adjustment tools. Might be worth looking into as well.

How do you feel about pluggin vs hardware in this area? I'm pretty sure there's pluggin versions of this. From what I understand of phase cancelization, it cancels things, that can't be brought back. Are you talking tracking mixing or both? I could see even perfectly phase coherent tracks, having phase relationship problems with other tracks in a mix scenerio. A phase knob would be a welcome addition to any stereo pre.

audiokid, post: 438788, member: 1 wrote: Ah, you know it.
Its what I was getting at in our last conversation about mixing> electronic music vs traditional engineers and how they are blocking out technology because it has electronic music attached to it. There is so much more we don't discuss here. Sidechaining and using them to focus punch in a mix, wow.

Unless your recording classical with a gramma phone, or wax cylinder, we're all doing electronic music. I'd like to see less stigma attached to things in a field that's as creative as music. Any engineer who knows how to mix the low end of hip hop/dance will have no trouble with modern rock or pop, live or otherwise, at least imho.

kmetal, post: 438796, member: 37533 wrote: Lmao Kurt, are you saying this eq is as good as a glorified power strip?

Kyle I think Kurt was referring to the Furman PQ-3 Parametric EQ like this one

I think the power strip has less degradation of audio quality though...;)

kmetal, post: 438796, member: 37533 wrote: Unless your recording classical with a gramma phone, or wax cylinder, we're all doing electronic music

I think if your using synths, loops and samples and say something like a NI Maschine to create music I would agree, that would be making electronic music, but personally I don't take the view that using a computer-based DAW to replace traditional analog recording equipment to record acoustic instruments should be viewed as making electronic music.

After all, its not the DAW thats making the music (in the case where no virtual instruments native to the DAW are used), but the DAW merely being used as a means of capture, not creation.

IMHO of course.

So far, 2 knowledgeable contributors to this thread say that the Orban 622B is a bucket of poo...

- Anyone else have any user experience they would like to share ?

This would be a good future reference for anyone else who may be searching the web for information on the Orban Parametric EQ model 622B down the track.

(Or should that be Parametric E-Poo ?...)

If the Orban came out of a broadcast facility, how bad could it be? Orban is still in business selling broadcast-quality gear, and not many companies would survive 40+ years if their stuff didn't deliver to some extent. Most radio or television stations can't be bothered with junk signal processing. I don't think I'd pay anywhere near that much for it, but I doubt it's terrible. If the ICs are socketed, it's amazing what a chip upgrade will do for some of those old pieces.

A friend of mine still uses an ancient Moog Three Band Parametric on kick drum, which I think I was with him when he bought around 1978. I'm sure there are EQs with better specs, but it still sounds great after almost 4 decades of live and recording use.

In the same price as that used Orban, I'd bet you could find a used Klark DN410 or DN405. My buddy with the Moog also has a Dn405, and I have a DN410 and both are extremely useful tools - with every single band sweepable from 20Hz-20Khz.

kmetal, post: 438796, member: 37533 wrote: How do you feel about pluggin vs hardware in this area? I'm pretty sure there's pluggin versions of this. From what I understand of phase cancelization, it cancels things, that can't be brought back. Are you talking tracking mixing or both? I could see even perfectly phase coherent tracks, having phase relationship problems with other tracks in a mix scenerio. A phase knob would be a welcome addition to any stereo pre.

Both, but as you probably know, my forte is mixing so I'm taking a guess that they are useful for both tracking and mixing.
I've never used either. But I want to.

kmetal, post: 438796, member: 37533 wrote: Unless your recording classical with a gramma phone, or wax cylinder, we're all doing electronic music. I'd like to see less stigma attached to things in a field that's as creative as music. Any engineer who knows how to mix the low end of hip hop/dance will have no trouble with modern rock or pop, live or otherwise, at least imho.

Especially when it comes to mixing and mastering. Its now electronic and ITB regardless of how it was created.

Hey dvdhawk, with the DN410 is the supply switchable at the rear to 240v ?

Theres one on ebay in the states but our power supply is 240v, I've looked at a pic of the rear on google, looks like it may be but a little hard to see correctly.

Edit : Its OK, I found that it has switchable 110v-240v supply...

dvdhawk, post: 438802, member: 36047 wrote: If the Orban came out of a broadcast facility, how bad could it be? Orban is still in business selling broadcast-quality gear, and not many companies would survive 40+ years if their stuff didn't deliver to some extent.

I agree.

I liked it back in the day but in today's world, I wouldn't waste a second with it.

Sean G, post: 438804, member: 49362 wrote: Hey dvdhawk, with the DN410 is the supply switchable at the rear to 240v ?

Edit : Its OK, I found that it has switchable 110v-240v supply...

That's right. They're made in England, and I've never seen one that didn't have switchable mains power.

One quirk I've noticed Sean with all of the Klark EQs I've seen is the XLR pinout. They put the + 'hot' signal on Pin 3 of the XLR and the - reversed phase 'cold' signal on Pin 2, instead of the other way around (like virtually EVERY other manufacturer on Earth).

dvdhawk, post: 438806, member: 36047 wrote: That's right. They're made in England, and I've never seen one that didn't have switchable mains power.

One quirk I've noticed Sean with all of the Klark EQs I've seen is the XLR pinout. They put the + 'hot' signal on Pin 3 of the XLR and the - reversed phase 'cold' signal on Pin 2, instead of the other way around (like virtually EVERY other manufacturer on Earth).

Does this mean a mod to the leads Dave?

Whats your recommendation ?

We have always made specific XLR cables to keep the signal phase correct coming and going through the Klarks, but honestly we could never say for sure if it was necessary. This was a topic of discussion for my friend and me. This was long before anyone had the internet, and smart guys qualified to provide a definitive answer, such as sir Boswell or MrEase, weren't accessible unless you wanted to make an international phone call to the manufacturer's tech-support.

If the hot and cold signals get flipped (relative to the device before it) at the Klark's input - the signal gets processed - and they flip again at the output (relative to the next device), it should have righted itself by shifting 180 twice. Whether or not the EQ's filtering works as well on an inverted signal was the question we were never educated enough to answer with 100% certainty. Meanwhile, we were both quite handy with a soldering iron, so we got some red mic cable and made a few custom phase reversal XLR-XLR and XLR-TRS cables to go to and from the Klarks.

If Boswell, MrEase, or anyone else with the EE sheepskin, would like to lay this debate to rest and sort the mountains from the molehills, I'm eager to learn.

The other mystery has always been, why Klark-Teknik would so stubbornly hold on to the unorthodox pinout. Does it serve some purpose? I believe there was a time as we were transitioning from terminal strips to XLR being more common, when European companies used one XLR pinout and Japanese companies used the other. So we've wondered if they hold on to this out of pride, or we can't rule out the possibility it somehow serves a purpose.

The pinout is baked right into the name XLR.

Pin 1 = X = Shield
Pin 2 = L = Line
Pin 3 = R = Reverse

Your threads and posts are always informative Dave. (y)

dvdhawk, post: 438811, member: 36047 wrote: The other mystery has always been, why Klark-Teknik would so stubbornly hold on to the unorthodox pinout. Does it serve some purpose?

Yamaha vs Tascam pinout is another. Tascam is the industry standard yet Yamaha chooses to screw us up on the digital DB25 pinout.

Thanks Chris! I don't know how informative that one was, more questions than answers. Maybe I should have gotten an engineering degree instead of making music the first half of my adult life, so I'd know the answers …... Naaaah! No regrets there, it's been great fun, with great friends, and learned a couple audio things along the way.

At first glance the Yamaha DB25 looks like it would be physically more difficult to solder / assemble. I have soldered a couple Tascam DB25, and numerous Elco like you'd find on the back of an ADAT machine, Veam multi pins for snakes and Amphenol for stage lighting. Actually, none of them are much fun, but the Yamaha protocol looks a little extra challenging.

Hey there. I own a Little Labs VOG 500. And I have the UAD version of the IBP. I have an acquaintance with one of the LMNOPREs . I think it gets used for very highly technical recordings....violin, piano etc.....

The VOG is a bass resonance alignment type of tool. You'll have to google it to fully understand its use. Its on a permanent setting in my rig for ANY bass guitar at tracking. I put it behind the pre before capture. Its a great addition especially when I'm recording bass with a mic on an amp and a DI. Those of you who also do this know that after the capture, bass frequencies or resonances will sometimes sound like they slightly out of phase with each other. It may not be very much but I'll bet that a lot of time its enough that you eventually wind up abandoning one or the other capture method for the one that sits better. With the VOG you can use both and get low end without that big bloom that covers everything around it and the only choice you need to make is what you like better, the sound of a mic'd speaker or a direct line in. I also will use it to reamp a bass recorded outside my room. Some come in terribly recorded. Sound familiar? I never say what I don't like about the bass, I just set it up and reamp when they aren't around. The bass sounds better and sits better and the tonality is so similar that I'm the only one who knows. Bang.

IBP is a must. I've seen a few live rigs with these in from of a bunch of DI's.

There is a setting on the Orban that can be magic. Like all older circuits. Yes, the IC's are socketed. Is it worth that amount? I don't know. Look at the gear lists of almost every major studio still in business. They all have one. One trick pont that does what it does with magic. I completely agree with the observation that a piece of gear still being built after 40 years with a specific industry as its major customers and one that simply does NOT allow for gear with sonically degrading sound must be something OTHER than a boat anchor. Is it right for you? Its a specialty item for a studio.

Thanks dvdhawk and Davedog for your informative contributions to this thread. Maybe I was coming off a little harsh calling the Orban a boat anchor, I did give some thought to the valid point you both raise that this is used in broadcast facilities, in this case a major radio station in a major capital city here in Oz, that it would not be just an average piece of gear.

Is it right for me and what I want it for?...thats still up in the air I suppose...but I doubt it.

I do like the recommendation from Hawk regarding looking into the Clark Teknik DN 410...thats' something thats really worth a consideration.

Even if I have to mod a few leads in the process thats neither here nor there.

I appreciate everyones thoughts and considerations. This is a great community we are all apart of here at RO. The free exchange of information and ideas is priceless.

Sean G, post: 438798, member: 49362 wrote: Kyle I think Kurt was referring to the Furman PQ-3 Parametric EQ like this one

I think the power strip has less degradation of audio quality though...;)

I literally had no idea furman made other gear, I thought Kurt was just being funny. It sounds like his sense of humor. I'm now curious in how awfully cool that furman eq might be. I live with extremes, I like super trashy cheap gear, and ultra high quality gear.

Sean G, post: 438799, member: 49362 wrote: I think if your using synths, loops and samples and say something like a NI Maschine to create music I would agree, that would be making electronic music, but personally I don't take the view that using a computer-based DAW to replace traditional analog recording equipment to record acoustic instruments should be viewed as making electronic music.

After all, its not the DAW thats making the music (in the case where no virtual instruments native to the DAW are used), but the DAW merely being used as a means of capture, not creation.

IMHO of course.

I tend to think of myself as a new school old guy. Watever that means. I use traditional recording technique with and anything goes digital mentality. As soon as you start cut copy paste, it tends toward 'electronic' categorically to my mind. Not that it's important.

dvdhawk, post: 438802, member: 36047 wrote: If the ICs are socketed, it's amazing what a chip upgrade will do for some of those old pieces.

Good call. Lmao chips and caps, chips and caps....

dvdhawk, post: 438806, member: 36047 wrote: That's right. They're made in England, and I've never seen one that didn't have switchable mains power.

One quirk I've noticed Sean with all of the Klark EQs I've seen is the XLR pinout. They put the + 'hot' signal on Pin 3 of the XLR and the - reversed phase 'cold' signal on Pin 2, instead of the other way around (like virtually EVERY other manufacturer on Earth).

Dude, we're still confused over at the studio about this. We have a klark graphic on the mains because one of the engineers insisted on eqing the mains. The tech made cables, but something still is off. The more stuff physically, and signal path wise, that got in between the sound source and the speakers, the smaller and less realistic it got.

Our Meyers have pins 1 and 2 swapped from there typical positions at the other studio. Nobody, after years of me pointing it out, has bothered to make a cable proper for it. If i could solder decently, I would. It soooo amateur to have the polarity messed up on a 6k pair of speakers, and it screws with were the vocal sits, and possibly some weird 300hz ish mud or something.

Davedog, post: 438815, member: 4495 wrote: It may not be very much but I'll bet that a lot of time its enough that you eventually wind up abandoning one or the other capture method for the one that sits better.

Yes. I usually end up with the DI for this very reason, and will duplicate it sometimes to add parallel distortion. I also wonder about the phase cohenercy of parallel compression on some things.

Looks like I've got a new item(s) for the bass rig list. I'm ditching the Ampeg svt pro 3, which I've had in the sale pile for a while.

Well, once again, this is yet Another very informative and cool thread on RO ... I love this place. :)

I don't consider the Orban to be bad... I don't think it's anything special, but it's certainly not the worst EQ I ever used, not by a long shot.
I don't think it's as nice as a Neve or a Weiss, ( lol I just realized I made a goofy rhyme, say it with a triplet limerick meter. Lol) and it's not gonna give you any Pultec-type "magic", (nor I would I spend $350 for one, either), but I certainly wouldn't describe it as a boat anchor. There's a lot of other older gear that does deserve that description, but I wouldn't put the Orban into that category.
And, while it might not be the best OB EQ choice to have in your rack; here's the thing... It might give you a certain kind of magic or vibe for a particular track at a particular setting, and even though it may be considered to be a one-trick pony (or not), I think this is why so many studios had them as standard faire in their OB racks for so many years - not excluding the possibility of another reason - that there was that particular time period when it was popular for recording studios to often have certain pieces of broadcast processing gear that was popular with and frequently used by radio stations; in an effort to emulate the conditions of broadcast facilities, so that the studios could test and check mixes for the "radio sound".

IMHO of course. ;)

I was being unfair in my assumption of this piece of gear...guilty, your honour...:oops:

Ideally I'd like an analog EQ that would allow me to tweek a signal on the way in should it be required and patch it across the odd stereo mix bus if I needed.

IMO from what I have read I don't think the Orban 622B would be suited to be used on a stereo mix bus...from what I have read they are a gritty EQ that add can some punch to a kick and bass...and matching / balancing the gain across the two channels across a mix bus has been something that has come up as a consideration when reading other threads from google. I believe they add some color and Im sure like all hardware there would be a sweetspot that could be dialled in somewhere.
Add to that the initial outlay and by the time the unit was serviced and recapped etc and what ever else needed addressing it could be an expensive exercise for something without a lot of benefit, if any.

Would the Clark Teknik DN410 that Hawk mentioned be a better option ? These seem to be in the same price range.

I have 3 Klark EQs, (4 if you count the purple one - which I don't) I have a DN410, a DN360, and a DN300. The guy I've collaborated with for years has 2 Klarks that he's used even longer, a DN405 and DN360, in addition to the Moog 3-band. The Klark EQs all seem to do exactly what they're supposed to do without any drama, or 'magic' either, for that matter. They're pretty clean and uncolored, and not likely to impart any special character of their own.

The unique thing about the Klark parametrics, as I mentioned before, is the fact that unlike most parametrics they don't just overlap the freq. range of the bands by an octave or two. Every single filter band on the DN405 or DN410, is completely sweepable from 20Hz to 20kHz. And I also like the fact that you can engage just the filters you want individually, so if you only need one little notch you don't have to pass through the other bands. The DN410 also lets you choose between using it as a 10-band parametric in 'single' mode, or 2 channels of 5-band functionality in 'dual'.

There's no way to link the two channels for perfectly mirrored settings, so I don't know how useful it would be across the stereo bus. If there's a down-side to having each band sweepable from the full 10 octaves from 20Hz-20kHz (by means of a multiplier switch), it's that it might be difficult to get EXACTLY the same frequency dialed in on both channels using it in 'dual' mode for stereo. The knobs on the DN405 and DN410 are on the smallish side to begin with, which leaves you with what feels like a more limited range of motion. If you know what I mean.

DonnyThompson, post: 438823, member: 46114 wrote: that there was that particular time period when it was popular for recording studios to often have certain pieces of broadcast processing gear that was popular with and frequently used by radio stations; in an effort to emulate the conditions of broadcast facilities, so that the studios could test and check mixes for the "radio sound".

(y)
my thoughts too, plus... there wasn't a DAW and digital audio around like today where quality plug-ins kick the shit out of analog parametric.
 

Sean G, post: 438824, member: 49362 wrote: Ideally I'd like an analog EQ that would allow me to tweek a signal on the way in should it be required and patch it across the odd stereo mix bus if I needed.

Honestly Sean, tracking, mixing, mastering.... other than the desire of twisting knobs, don't waste a thought on hardware parametric EQ's unless you are live or its part of your amp.
What you get from an analog EQ on a stereo bus (I echo what Dave just said) will also remove focus and bandwidth, including add hiss. Those who believe analog EQ bus hardware (including mastering engineers) is a better sonic choice to digital today (no disrespect intended) haven't done there homework (well, except for once again... the Pulse Technique lineups.)
imho.
There are about 4 brands of EQ's that I would only consider today and they all costs a lot of money. Everything else can be had ITB, better. Especially parametrics.

EQ hardware strapped on single instrument or insert channels makes more sense. Maybe check out a used Warm pultec. Pultecs are about the only design that I personally think plug-ins don't accomplish.

Look at this video. Here is a guy using an 622a on a drum box. Its the most ridiculous concept in comparison to what he could do far better itb or with a synth and a sequencer.

Then look at this:
http://www.fabfilte…
http://www.fabfilte…

dvdhawk, post: 438826, member: 36047 wrote: The unique thing about the Klark parametrics, as I mentioned before, is the fact that unlike most parametrics they don't just overlap the freq. range of the bands by an octave or two. Every single filter band on the DN405 or DN410, is completely sweepable from 20Hz to 20kHz. And I also like the fact that you can engage just the filters you want individually, so if you only need one little notch you don't have to pass through the other bands. The DN410 also lets you choose between using it as a 10-band parametric in 'single' mode, or 2 channels of 5-band functionality in 'dual'.

(y)