Which Pultec do you prefer?

[casiobioassay]

I just use Pro-Q though, tried to force myself to use analog style EQs, but I'd rather use 2 nodes in Pro-Q.

Same. Once an engineer understands what a Pultec does, there's really no need for a dedicated Pultec plugin. Just create a similar curve in Pro-Q (or even a stock DAW EQ). Of course with Pro-Q you also get way more flexibility than a Pultec, excellent visuals, and it can also add saturation if needed.

workflow dude

[hey212]

nvm

[funky lime]

Analog Obsession RareSE. Maybe it's not the "best" (whatever that means) but the mid-side mode makes it stand out a bit. Plus it's a free download...

[djanthonyw]

I prefer MP-EQ from Pulsar Audio. Massive Passive was designed to be a "Pultec on steroids".

[djanthonyw]

I just use Pro-Q though, tried to force myself to use analog style EQs, but I'd rather use 2 nodes in Pro-Q.

Same. Once an engineer understands what a Pultec does, there's really no need for a dedicated Pultec plugin. Just create a similar curve in Pro-Q (or even a stock DAW EQ). Of course with Pro-Q you also get way more flexibility than a Pultec, excellent visuals, and it can also add saturation if needed.

Sure, if you just want the curves, but many people use analog style EQ for specific analog character which you're not going to get from a stock EQ or FF Pro-Q. The latest version of Pro-Q does include "character" modes, but neither Pro-Q or any of their plugins actually sound analog compared to an accurately modeled analog style EQ.

[Mr. Spock]

UAD but I also like to use bx_digital V3's Bass Shift for the pultec low end thing.

[discogsaddict]

UAD. Started years ago with the now legacy version and then picked up the revised bundle. Never used a real pultec but can say the UA ones sound great and just work.

I dont see the need to try anything else. In fact i prefer to find solid tools and learn them well rather than keep trying new

[discogsaddict]

Actually if anyone from UAD is reading this. Please make a combined v2 Pultec like the old legacy version. I know its petty but after years of using it thats one niggle with the new ones

[thievedletter]

Same. Once an engineer understands what a Pultec does, there's really no need for a dedicated Pultec plugin. Just create a similar curve in Pro-Q (or even a stock DAW EQ). Of course with Pro-Q you also get way more flexibility than a Pultec, excellent visuals, and it can also add saturation if needed.

I get that to a degree, but isn't the Pultec a passive EQ? Making a curve in a parametric EQ wouldn't be the same?

My impression, is that passive EQs can be pushed harder, while retaining a tighter transient response across the spectrum.

I'm sure something like Pro-Q could account for that in some way, but I wouldn't know.

[jens]

Use these on my vocal chain going in

Screenshot 2025-12-03 54634564563456543.png

Ha! Never thought of that, I guess I should try it - thanks for giving me the idea!

[jens]

hit quote instead of edit (for about the 1000th time )

[billinder33]

I just use Pro-Q though, tried to force myself to use analog style EQs, but I'd rather use 2 nodes in Pro-Q.

Same. Once an engineer understands what a Pultec does, there's really no need for a dedicated Pultec plugin. Just create a similar curve in Pro-Q (or even a stock DAW EQ). Of course with Pro-Q you also get way more flexibility than a Pultec, excellent visuals, and it can also add saturation if needed.

workflow dude

I had no idea that my comment would raise such a stir, but this one I actually understand. I much prefer the surgical, visual feedback of a Pro-Q interface, but can see a legit argument for a tool that can potentially reduce clicks.

[casiobioassay]

I just use Pro-Q though, tried to force myself to use analog style EQs, but I'd rather use 2 nodes in Pro-Q.

Same. Once an engineer understands what a Pultec does, there's really no need for a dedicated Pultec plugin. Just create a similar curve in Pro-Q (or even a stock DAW EQ). Of course with Pro-Q you also get way more flexibility than a Pultec, excellent visuals, and it can also add saturation if needed.

workflow dude

I had no idea that my comment would raise such a stir, but this one I actually understand. I much prefer the surgical, visual feedback of a Pro-Q interface, but can see a legit argument for a tool that can potentially reduce clicks.

Such a stir? It was only two words....lol

Surgery is for repair. Record the source correctly and you won't need "surgical". When I get recordings from clients, I often need it, but with my own stuff, usually not.

As for saturation, I add some going in (recording/tracking).

You like Pro-Q and want to be a fanboy, congratulations brother. Good for you

[t.o.t.s.]

Pultecs I have: Waves, Black Rooster, UAD, PSP, Softube, IK, d16. Maybe more? Those are the ones I can remember. Don't judge me!

The one I use the most is the Softube (yeah yeah I know it's not technically Pultec) but I prefer the sound and the workflow. I like Softube's extended features and that the modules are combined and not broken out into individual plugins. I also like that I can manually enter values (can't on UAD).

[Alexander_D]

Cubase stock version of Pultec is really good! Use it a lot