Funny. I wanted the AMEK 200 for so long and it was so expensive for the longest time. Eventually got it for 30 bucks. Now this one launches for super cheap...Plugin prices fluctuate more than crypto ;)
Kind of seems like their going the waves route…I used to love them but I think their modeling lately kinda sucks. Alex B sampled and made a fantastic Sontec for Nebula (from acustica). It even sounds better than acoustica’s own sontec plugin. TimP has a phenomenal GML btw
There should have been an update to Amek 200 that would have a toggle switch in between the two (200 & 250). Indeed, the difference when matched curves is barely noticeable. Since I don’t have either, i’ll possibly go for 250… if ever needed. Thanks for the video!
Behaviour for sure. The thing is that coloring is really equal and skewed with differences in q. I first thought that the 250 was a bit cleaner, until i aligned the q widths. Agree with you, either one will be fine.
I don't care about any of the PA eq or channel strip plugins, apart from Digital V3, exactly because the frequencies are very inaccurate. It's much like playing, for example, a G minor chord and hearing a G flat minor chord.
Yeah agree. Having a difference of 100 hz or more on occasion really makes a difference in mixing, especially in lower frequencies. On their ssl4000e for instance, in default the difference can be even bigger , where its a difference of 2 semitones. .......
@@audiotoolshed But, these plugins are modelled from specific hardware units. With analog circuitry, there often are inconsistencies with units between the marked value and the true value/frequency it's actually affecting. The Pultecs became famous for this with their boosts and attenuations not exactly falling on the same centre frequency to the Hz (e.g. the "low end trick"). This is also the case for seperate units of the same hardware (e.g. two Neve 1073's or Neve EQs are not going to sound 100% exactly the same and this may close to 100Hz difference). This is where pure digital signal control has it's benefits in accuracy that is far beyond what was possible with analog. Many of these plugins modelled after specific units, also replicate their quirks and inaccuracies - PA has done this with almost all of their plugins. So you use your ears to get in the ball park frequency and shift accordingly as you would with the hardware. If you do want a plugin that boosts 10Khz at exactly 10,000.00Hz, there are clean digital parametric EQs such as Fabfilter Pro Q or DMG EQuilibrium. This is not what these PA plugins modelled after analog pieces are meant to be.
@@aryasoundau I dont disagree with you if these were 2 completely different plugins, or 2 different brands. The whole point is, that in this case, plugin alliance released a plugin which is very, very similar to an already excisting one, is even quoted to be based on a similar model as the amek 200 as well, and with adjustments of eq curve and bandwidth and gain even sounds exactly the same , even if you check the harmonics. The whole amek 250 could have been a preset pack and reskin for the amek 200, or plugin alliance should have said that the amek 250 is the v2 version with eq curves and q they like. IMO the amek 250 has no added value.
@@audiotoolshed Ah yes, completely agree with you, they could have released a V2 or something. Although from a bit of a dig, it seems like the amek 200 is modelled more closely on the GML 8200, and the new amek 250 modelled strictly on a Sontec MEP-250ex - Info from PA themselves. So they're not modelled from the same hardware at all, although similar in that they are relatively clean mastering EQs that share a lot of commonalities.
@@aryasoundau This was my question as well. Since PA/Dirk claims that the plugins were modeled on completely different consoles, were the original GML and Sontec consoles truly this similar? I would think this reputation (for similarity) would be known in the industry.
Thank you very much. I am not sure what PA wanted to achieve with this one to be honest. I already have 200 and I am not sure if I will ever reach out to 250.
McDonald's made a Shamrock Shake available around St. Patrick's Day, for a limited time. All they did, according to the company, was add green food dye to a normal vanilla shake. Customers swore that the shakes had a minty taste added, but it was all a mind trick. If you believe it strong enough, you can tell the difference. Is there a difference between the AMEK 200 and the AMEK 250? Possibly. Is it enough to have to buy both? That's up to the customer and his wallet.
Having managed a mcds for 7 years I don’t think that’s accurate because the min I would open the shamrock shake mix which was the raw syrup before it was mixed a milk by the machine the mint smell would open your sinuses pretty fast. Pro tip. 4/5’s choc shake and 1/5 shamrock tastes like a girl scout thin mint cookie
The amek eq200 is a gamechanger. use it and you know what i mean. Cant describe it, it really sounds 3D and dips / boosts sound very musical and almost invisible. Great eqs that are worth the full price! On discount they are absolute nobrainers.
Natural phase . lineair phase etc says nothing about their frequency curve. It speaks about phase behaviour. With eq changes, phase tends to change in teh audio, which you may like , or dont. The phase variations filters are designed to tackle that, although its not per sé an improvement.
@@joost3783 that just means the way they achieve boosts or cuts with phase is the same method done in hardware active eqs passive eqs dont use phase and use inductors and such to turn down everything around the signal "boosted" and then the whole signal gets turned up resulting in a boost.
@@audiotoolshed it doesnt tend to. Active Eq uses phases adjustments to make those boosts or cuts. So any eq is messing with phase unless its a passive eq.
Brother You Need Analog Gear then Print thru it.. then throw these back and forth on the Master bus with a Nice limiter at the end like DMG… and Boy you will definitely hear a difference!!! I prefer the 200 AMPEK better
Plugin Alliance has a handful of OK plugins, but you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.. Skeuomorphism just doesn't cut the mustard anymore for me... I want my digital tools to feature what's good about digital - visualization, high order eq bands, etc. And I like my analog gear to feature what's good about analog - saturation, physical interface, knob per function, etc.
I give you 10 points for using Skeuomorphism. I'm not really into overhyping how ''real'' a digital recreation sounds of analog gear. There's already so much variation between units of especially older gear that a plugin simply is anothe rvariation and sound be judged on its own merits. I do see value in these digital recreations, if you want a ceartin flavor of well known analog gear and you dont have the budget to afford analog gear. But for the listener, it absolutely doesnt matter at all.
@@audiotoolshed Yeah, some analog-modelled plugins / filters are nice and immediate. But like if you had the analog version eq, you might have one, maybe two, eq units in your rack. We don't need 10's of analog modeled eq plugins with questionable levels of difference. Sorry if I sound grumpy! I'm not really. 😊
@@audiotoolshed Yeah. I meant, plugins where there isn't much to differentiate them. Eg plugin alliance range of eqs. One or two is plenty for any reasonable toolbox.
Gain compensation though… you pointed out that the 250 adds an inherent boost to the signal, but didn’t compensate for it in the AB tests… you could even see your DAWs output meter jump when you switched to the 250 and drop again when you went back to the 200. Makes it really hard to tell if I’m actually hearing differences
The goal of modeling is to make a virtual copy sound as the original. The Sontec MEP 250ex, on which the 250 is based on, is a hardware copy of the GML 8200 EQ, on which the 200 is based on. It is consequent that the two sound very similar. As for me, I chose the 200, because I like it original, and the GML was probably the highest quality hardware piece.
It's only too bad that the Amek 250 is an exact copy of the amek 200 with some slightly different curves which can 100% be reproduced. I use the Amek 200 all the time and I don't touch the 250.
@@audiotoolshedOh. Maybe I should have picked the 200? I got the 250 because of the recommendation at the end and like the colour layout and labelling more.
How big of a difference in sound are both? Very minimal tbh The 250 has some kind of boost and who knows if that'll actually "ruin" what you are "shooting" for. Also, I've heard distrokid doesn't cover you for international airing services. Is that true? Good video btw
250 has a smaller q for sure in comparison to the 200. Skewshow it sounds. Distrokid provides you with an ISRC for your tracks, so if your track gets played internationally on a radiostation who does their administration, you're set.
@@audiotoolshed Oh ok so I'm assuming the Distrokid platform has been updated I've heard they didn't do those things in the past but I think there were glitches from what I understand amongst the few things. Also does Distrokid cover you in all aspects with your separate PROs? For example Soundexchange, BMI and ASCAP?
No with those type of organisations you still have to arrange manually. I dont even know if a third party is allowed to arrange that for you? And Distrokid still is first and foremost a streaming distributor ofcourse.
Interesting video. I would swear the 200 had a more open, airy top end on the final example. Also waatched another video comparison and thought the 250 had a punchier transient sound. Am I imagining all of this? Possibly. 😂
@@audiotoolshed Actually I've just analysed the examples and the 250 drops off significantly at about 16khz. If it's not a difference in the plugins then it's a difference in the track itself.
Label 480hz , real 660hz ... 🤦♂ maybe 250 it's bugged? anyway no reasons to get it if you have the 200. OR if want something "analog" and really derived (sampled) from the GML get Acustica Green that includes also great comps!
@@audiotoolshed latest AA core update results more better optimized on silicon machines (i'm on mac) than previous engine. Can't speak for Win users. Also Acustica is doing cyclical sales offers and "flash sales" to get their plugins at more competitive prices than a while back, and more you spend higher will be your loyalty coupons that can be used on top of sale price for additional discount.
I was rather gobsmacked at the similarities when it came out. The design is EXACTLY the same. It's just like they took the easiest route; re-coloured a few different parts and skewed some responses, as seen in your fair, rather shocking, assessment! But there are several rave reviews from experts I respect (Mixing With Mike and Crates Motel), so rather confused. I wish PA would challenge your video with some response, lol!
@@audiotoolshed PA insists that the modeling of the 250 was on a completely different console than the 8(200). Are those original consoles simply this similar?
@@chaddonal4331 they were very similar. One was built better than the other. The fact that these two hardware units get compared a lot says something as well. And you cannot argue with how similar they can sound if you tweak the curves. That seems , in these plugins to be the only real difference.
Hilarious how plugin alliance have TMT between channels, but are now just doing extended TMT between these two plugins. Also, making it so the EQs don't work as advertised just goes to show how amateur these plugins are. Monomaker and stereowidth also lack basic functions to stop phase differences, so they're just no longer that good. They're good fun mixing tools but anything actually worth doing should be done by other plugins that are just more pro
About TMT, I wonder how that actually is justifiable on a plugin which emulate 1 hardware unit. I think that's funny. But yeah. The behaviour of this one, especially compared to the amek 200 is pretty mindboggeling to me.
Amek 250. Jay or Nay?
AMEK 200 review: th-cam.com/video/aWlExLmt5EE/w-d-xo.html
Funny. I wanted the AMEK 200 for so long and it was so expensive for the longest time. Eventually got it for 30 bucks. Now this one launches for super cheap...Plugin prices fluctuate more than crypto ;)
Plugin Alliance is on a mission to crush the competition with cheap prices it seems. If you only look at their upcoming subscription changes...
Kind of seems like their going the waves route…I used to love them but I think their modeling lately kinda sucks. Alex B sampled and made a fantastic Sontec for Nebula (from acustica). It even sounds better than acoustica’s own sontec plugin. TimP has a phenomenal GML btw
Who knows. I hope size of Plugin Alliance wont affect much.
@@Rhuggins acustica plugins are mind blowingly good.
@@alexanderstuartpetty485 Acoustica plugins are no better than any other plugin you are paying for the name brand
There should have been an update to Amek 200 that would have a toggle switch in between the two (200 & 250). Indeed, the difference when matched curves is barely noticeable. Since I don’t have either, i’ll possibly go for 250… if ever needed. Thanks for the video!
I agree with your observation ;-)
100% agree. They are way too similar. Having both in one plugin and being able to cycle between them with the flick of a switch would be great
Yes!
Just a trivial info about those two similar EQ's :
The AMEK EQ 200 was modeled after the GML 8200
The AMEK EQ 250 was modeled after the MEP-250EX
What about phase? The same?
As far as I tested with seperate bands, yes. I could phase invert them and didn’t get phase cancellation in default.
There's some color and behavior differences. But, they both sound great.
Probably would be fine with either if you want this sound.
Behaviour for sure. The thing is that coloring is really equal and skewed with differences in q. I first thought that the 250 was a bit cleaner, until i aligned the q widths.
Agree with you, either one will be fine.
LOVE your unbiased reviews always !!!!!!!!! Cheer Marlon :)
Thanks Rezi!!!!!!
I don't care about any of the PA eq or channel strip plugins, apart from Digital V3, exactly because the frequencies are very inaccurate. It's much like playing, for example, a G minor chord and hearing a G flat minor chord.
Yeah agree. Having a difference of 100 hz or more on occasion really makes a difference in mixing, especially in lower frequencies.
On their ssl4000e for instance, in default the difference can be even bigger , where its a difference of 2 semitones. .......
@@audiotoolshed But, these plugins are modelled from specific hardware units. With analog circuitry, there often are inconsistencies with units between the marked value and the true value/frequency it's actually affecting. The Pultecs became famous for this with their boosts and attenuations not exactly falling on the same centre frequency to the Hz (e.g. the "low end trick"). This is also the case for seperate units of the same hardware (e.g. two Neve 1073's or Neve EQs are not going to sound 100% exactly the same and this may close to 100Hz difference). This is where pure digital signal control has it's benefits in accuracy that is far beyond what was possible with analog. Many of these plugins modelled after specific units, also replicate their quirks and inaccuracies - PA has done this with almost all of their plugins. So you use your ears to get in the ball park frequency and shift accordingly as you would with the hardware. If you do want a plugin that boosts 10Khz at exactly 10,000.00Hz, there are clean digital parametric EQs such as Fabfilter Pro Q or DMG EQuilibrium. This is not what these PA plugins modelled after analog pieces are meant to be.
@@aryasoundau I dont disagree with you if these were 2 completely different plugins, or 2 different brands.
The whole point is, that in this case, plugin alliance released a plugin which is very, very similar to an already excisting one, is even quoted to be based on a similar model as the amek 200 as well, and with adjustments of eq curve and bandwidth and gain even sounds exactly the same , even if you check the harmonics.
The whole amek 250 could have been a preset pack and reskin for the amek 200, or plugin alliance should have said that the amek 250 is the v2 version with eq curves and q they like. IMO the amek 250 has no added value.
@@audiotoolshed Ah yes, completely agree with you, they could have released a V2 or something.
Although from a bit of a dig, it seems like the amek 200 is modelled more closely on the GML 8200, and the new amek 250 modelled strictly on a Sontec MEP-250ex - Info from PA themselves. So they're not modelled from the same hardware at all, although similar in that they are relatively clean mastering EQs that share a lot of commonalities.
@@aryasoundau
This was my question as well. Since PA/Dirk claims that the plugins were modeled on completely different consoles, were the original GML and Sontec consoles truly this similar? I would think this reputation (for similarity) would be known in the industry.
When I pull up my AMEK 250 in plugin doctor it says AMEK 200, Anyone know why?
eh? for me its 250.
Thank you very much. I am not sure what PA wanted to achieve with this one to be honest. I already have 200 and I am not sure if I will ever reach out to 250.
I have it the bundle, but still grab the Amek 200.
McDonald's made a Shamrock Shake available around St. Patrick's Day, for a limited time. All they did, according to the company, was add green food dye to a normal vanilla shake. Customers swore that the shakes had a minty taste added, but it was all a mind trick. If you believe it strong enough, you can tell the difference. Is there a difference between the AMEK 200 and the AMEK 250? Possibly. Is it enough to have to buy both? That's up to the customer and his wallet.
This made me chuckle.
Having managed a mcds for 7 years I don’t think that’s accurate because the min I would open the shamrock shake mix which was the raw syrup before it was mixed a milk by the machine the mint smell would open your sinuses pretty fast.
Pro tip. 4/5’s choc shake and 1/5 shamrock tastes like a girl scout thin mint cookie
The amek eq200 is a gamechanger. use it and you know what i mean. Cant describe it, it really sounds 3D and dips / boosts sound very musical and almost invisible. Great eqs that are worth the full price! On discount they are absolute nobrainers.
I like the AMEK 200, and still use it more than the AMEK 250. Mainly on the mix bus, or in my mastering chain.
Both should have been 1 plugin.
What is the name of the analyzer tool on 0:39?
DDMF Plugin Doctor.
Does anybody know why the top end is "cramping" and going down? For example on the proq it goes "straight through"
Its more analog behaviour.
@@audiotoolshed Ok but this is kinda odd because fab filter describes their natural phase mode as modelling analog style behaviour.
Natural phase . lineair phase etc says nothing about their frequency curve. It speaks about phase behaviour. With eq changes, phase tends to change in teh audio, which you may like , or dont. The phase variations filters are designed to tackle that, although its not per sé an improvement.
@@joost3783 that just means the way they achieve boosts or cuts with phase is the same method done in hardware active eqs
passive eqs dont use phase and use inductors and such to turn down everything around the signal "boosted" and then the whole signal gets turned up resulting in a boost.
@@audiotoolshed it doesnt tend to. Active Eq uses phases adjustments to make those boosts or cuts. So any eq is messing with phase unless its a passive eq.
Brother You Need Analog Gear then Print thru it.. then throw these back and forth on the Master bus with a Nice limiter at the end like DMG… and Boy you will definitely hear a difference!!! I prefer the 200 AMPEK better
Plugin Alliance has a handful of OK plugins, but you have to separate the wheat from the chaff..
Skeuomorphism just doesn't cut the mustard anymore for me... I want my digital tools to feature what's good about digital - visualization, high order eq bands, etc. And I like my analog gear to feature what's good about analog - saturation, physical interface, knob per function, etc.
I give you 10 points for using Skeuomorphism. I'm not really into overhyping how ''real'' a digital recreation sounds of analog gear. There's already so much variation between units of especially older gear that a plugin simply is anothe rvariation and sound be judged on its own merits. I do see value in these digital recreations, if you want a ceartin flavor of well known analog gear and you dont have the budget to afford analog gear. But for the listener, it absolutely doesnt matter at all.
@@audiotoolshed
Yeah, some analog-modelled plugins / filters are nice and immediate. But like if you had the analog version eq, you might have one, maybe two, eq units in your rack. We don't need 10's of analog modeled eq plugins with questionable levels of difference.
Sorry if I sound grumpy! I'm not really. 😊
O you didnt sound grumpy at all to me. I can understand level differences with analog gear , with digital gear, not so much.
@@audiotoolshed Yeah.
I meant, plugins where there isn't much to differentiate them. Eg plugin alliance range of eqs. One or two is plenty for any reasonable toolbox.
Probably ;-) One clean surgical eq is good to have and some coloring ones.
Gain compensation though… you pointed out that the 250 adds an inherent boost to the signal, but didn’t compensate for it in the AB tests… you could even see your DAWs output meter jump when you switched to the 250 and drop again when you went back to the 200. Makes it really hard to tell if I’m actually hearing differences
You can be 100% sure I did the tests properly and quadruple checked everything. Otherwise what’s the point.
The goal of modeling is to make a virtual copy sound as the original. The Sontec MEP 250ex, on which the 250 is based on, is a hardware copy of the GML 8200 EQ, on which the 200 is based on. It is consequent that the two sound very similar. As for me, I chose the 200, because I like it original, and the GML was probably the highest quality hardware piece.
It's only too bad that the Amek 250 is an exact copy of the amek 200 with some slightly different curves which can 100% be reproduced. I use the Amek 200 all the time and I don't touch the 250.
@@audiotoolshedOh. Maybe I should have picked the 200? I got the 250 because of the recommendation at the end and like the colour layout and labelling more.
@@smujohnson nah you're good. Either one of those will do the same.
@@audiotoolshed Thanks for the reply and review!
High EQ Amek EQ 200 is bad?
No?
@@audiotoolshed Many People use Amek EQ 200 Said.
How big of a difference in sound are both? Very minimal tbh The 250 has some kind of boost and who knows if that'll actually "ruin" what you are "shooting" for. Also, I've heard distrokid doesn't cover you for international airing services. Is that true? Good video btw
250 has a smaller q for sure in comparison to the 200. Skewshow it sounds. Distrokid provides you with an ISRC for your tracks, so if your track gets played internationally on a radiostation who does their administration, you're set.
@@audiotoolshed Oh ok so I'm assuming the Distrokid platform has been updated I've heard they didn't do those things in the past but I think there were glitches from what I understand amongst the few things. Also does Distrokid cover you in all aspects with your separate PROs? For example Soundexchange, BMI and ASCAP?
No with those type of organisations you still have to arrange manually. I dont even know if a third party is allowed to arrange that for you? And Distrokid still is first and foremost a streaming distributor ofcourse.
@@audiotoolshed I guess one must ask for cue sheets if that's the most extreme of cases. Thank you for sharing btw great videos as always
Yeah probably and thanks!
I read/hear this way too much. At first i thought there is a noticable difference between the 6db vs 7db boost. But it seems like a skin now. Thanks
Default settings are different which skews what sound better, that’s why I made the effort to get them as close as possible
INACCURACY OR NOT!!! THIS IS AN AMAZING PLUGIN… GET THE 200!! Fire Melodic Glue Goodness
Interesting video. I would swear the 200 had a more open, airy top end on the final example. Also waatched another video comparison and thought the 250 had a punchier transient sound. Am I imagining all of this? Possibly. 😂
Well this video demonstrates how easily any observation can be tricked right ;-/
@@audiotoolshed Actually I've just analysed the examples and the 250 drops off significantly at about 16khz. If it's not a difference in the plugins then it's a difference in the track itself.
hm,...i had the opposite opinion actually,....250 seems more open to me.... :) maybe it was just the preset that i was testing,....
200 is more smooth glued transparent.👍
Both are great, I use them both on one channel bus to make a unique combination in sound (:
Label 480hz , real 660hz ... 🤦♂ maybe 250 it's bugged? anyway no reasons to get it if you have the 200.
OR if want something "analog" and really derived (sampled) from the GML get Acustica Green that includes also great comps!
The green pops up more here in these comments! How’s the cpu on that, because you know, acustica’s reputation with cpu ;-)
@@audiotoolshed latest AA core update results more better optimized on silicon machines (i'm on mac) than previous engine. Can't speak for Win users.
Also Acustica is doing cyclical sales offers and "flash sales" to get their plugins at more competitive prices than a while back, and more you spend higher will be your loyalty coupons that can be used on top of sale price for additional discount.
Correct. Its hard to keep up with them, seems like they have a release very week.
I was rather gobsmacked at the similarities when it came out. The design is EXACTLY the same. It's just like they took the easiest route; re-coloured a few different parts and skewed some responses, as seen in your fair, rather shocking, assessment! But there are several rave reviews from experts I respect (Mixing With Mike and Crates Motel), so rather confused. I wish PA would challenge your video with some response, lol!
I went in unbiased before testing and this is the outcome. Could have been a bunch of extra presents or tmt settings for the amek 200 in my opinion.
@@audiotoolshed PA insists that the modeling of the 250 was on a completely different console than the 8(200). Are those original consoles simply this similar?
@@chaddonal4331 they were very similar. One was built better than the other. The fact that these two hardware units get compared a lot says something as well. And you cannot argue with how similar they can sound if you tweak the curves. That seems , in these plugins to be the only real difference.
Either way they both spund amazing. But the 200 is what i alreayd owned lol
Hilarious how plugin alliance have TMT between channels, but are now just doing extended TMT between these two plugins.
Also, making it so the EQs don't work as advertised just goes to show how amateur these plugins are. Monomaker and stereowidth also lack basic functions to stop phase differences, so they're just no longer that good. They're good fun mixing tools but anything actually worth doing should be done by other plugins that are just more pro
About TMT, I wonder how that actually is justifiable on a plugin which emulate 1 hardware unit. I think that's funny.
But yeah. The behaviour of this one, especially compared to the amek 200 is pretty mindboggeling to me.
awe video , thnk master ♫
Just thought the same
I didnt at first, untill i started checking.
Acustica audio green, the best!!! Amek plug-in alliance no best)))
Which eq's does that one mimic?
@@audiotoolshed GML 8200
@@audiotoolshed Hi! I don't know for sure, I tried tuning Green, just like the Amek 250, and I liked Green more in sound.
Ah like the amek 200.
Fair enough!
The 200 is better…they’re suppose to be different too
good no need to buy both....
Agreed.
of course its a scam, too obvious... thanks big time for the video :)
I'm hoping that someone will proof my findings are wrong.