Universal Audio WebZine
Volume 4, Number 5, July 2006
[UA Universe] [Ask the Doctors] [Artist Interview] [Analog Obsession]
[Support Report] [The Channel] [Plug-In Power] [Playback] [Featured Promotion]
[Graphic-Rich WebZine]
[Back Issues] [UA Home]


Plug-In Power: Two Versions of the Neve 1073 EQ
By Joseph Lemmer

Why does UA provide two versions of the Neve 1073 EQ? What is the difference between the Neve 1073 EQ and Neve 1073SE EQ?
UA engineers consider every detail when creating plug-in emulations; no compromise is permitted. In a couple of cases though, namely the 1176 Limiting Amplifier and the Neve 1073 EQ, the engineers saw an opportunity to create versions that were only slightly different from the original analog unit, but that were much more DSP efficient than the no-compromise versions. UA's priority is no-compromise emulations. But why not provide a version that is significantly more DSP efficient, if it will do the job in all but the most critical applications?

Neve 1073 EQ

Neve 1073SE EQ

The difference between the Neve 1073 EQ and the 1073SE EQ is in the fact that the 1073 up-samples to either 176.4 kHz (for 44.1 or 88.2 kHz sessions) or 192 kHz (for 48 kHz or 96 kHz sessions). Up-sampling is great for EQs, because it ensures that the EQ curves in the plug-in match the EQ curves in the modeled analog EQ. As you probably already know, sampling rate is proportional to the amount of DSP needed in a plug-in. Additionally, some DSP is needed to do the up-sampling and then the down-sampling back to the session's sampling rate.

The 1073SE does not up-sample. Instead, it uses a method UA engineers call "fitting." This allows them to apply some math to the EQ curves, to correct for the errors that would otherwise occur without up-sampling. The result is a plug-in that is not exactly like the analog Neve 1073 EQ that UA modeled, but that will be indistinguishable in most situations.

Enable your demos and try them out! We guarantee you will be amazed by both the Neve 1073 EQ and the 1073SE.

Questions or comments on this article?