So this is the infamous review! I'm amazed how it was everything promised, it wasn't dramatising! The design of Klark looked like the 10 V power supply I ordered from China. Had just a pcb inside and didn't work. Heck, just the transformer of Pultec must cost half the price of Klark. Unfortunately the Klark worked. It wasn't only that it didn't match the thing it tried to copy at all, not even close to just part tolerances. It sounded awful. That shizzle and whatnot. Truly made things sound worse. The most shocking thing is that some people actually vouch for Klark and come up with explanations and fixes. This video was amazing production, really good scenes and comedic reliefs. Also god damn you look slim after seeing the old Orange warranty vids.
3:25 well well, it sounds amazing on the basses I've been recording as in the vocaLs, off course I play reggae wich is not the bright sound bass as in the video
clearly not a fan of distorted, grungy and thrashy tones. Either way you can hear the eq sounds likes a tin can. Even the plugin-in give the guitar a smoother sound.
@@ttusch soo you're saying it also has limitations of what genre of music this piece of crap can do? Also I bet it will sound even bad in clean too. XD
@@trurisingrecords9801 Actually this "piece of crap" is quite decent. Apparently most of you guys dont know how to use it... Sending an distorted signal through it and then wondering that it will sound good? Are you guys dumb or what? xD
It's a shit test if you mix the sound on one machine to the point where it sounds good and then just copy the settings to the other machine. This only tells you the knobs dont do same things on two different machines. Have you checked if even two original pultecs cancel each other out on same settings? What it doesn't tell you is how close you could get to the original sound by tweaking the knobs a little. A proper null test should be done by having both tracks playing and tweaking the knobs to get the best possible result. Why? Because if you can get a good sound out of a piece of equipment, who cares where the knobs are pointing.
100000000000% Better yet, get your sound on the Klark and match the Pultec to those settings. I like Glenn and how he unapologetically “tells it like it is” and even though he’ll call us crybaby’s... there isn’t an engineer worth their weight in salt who isn’t screaming at the computer monitor. Anyone who isn’t is a simp and I could not possibly care less about their opinion. So thanks Glenn for giving the idiots a sign to wave so we can all see who they are! (For the record I worked at a studio with a real Pultec for several years, in no way do I think the Klark compares, but that has nothing to do with it having value to a smaller studio. There is no wisdom or truth to implying “If you don’t have $4,000 don’t bother”.) Also, real talk, for the budget studio or ANY studio: the Acustica Audio Pultec sounds EXACT. It’s a bitch on CPU so you gotta find your settings and use audiosuite or print it but it’s the only game in town that truly has the euphoric sound of the hardware... It beats Waves, UAD etc by miles, not inches or feet.
That would be true if we didn't run the plugin against it with the exact same settings as well. The Plugin destroyed the Klark. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
@@SpectreSoundStudios running the plugin with the same settings was just repeating the mistake. It just showed that the knobs on the plugin did different things as well. Nobody (you included) learned nothing about the shape of eq curves or the flavour of harmonic saturation or none of the things that actually matter. All we learned was that it is possible to get a bad sound out of the KT u it. I bet you could even get the real deal to sound bad if you tried.
I picked up a pair of these Klark's recently, obviously I didnt expect a pultec for that money, anybody who expects that is a fool. What I did get was a perfectly good 'classic style' valve EQ for a reasonable price, you simply CANNOT compare the two directly. I really enjoy mine, I have them on the master bus just to add some depth and sparkle, I find the Klarks work best with acoustic instruments and traditional classic rock tones, you can coax electronic and metal stuff out of them but they suit the aforementioned styles better. I've followed along with pro videos demonstrating classic pultecs and managed to get similar results, the premise is the same, your hands on, with a classic program EQ, friggin awesome! The fact Glenn destroyed his Klark with a sledge hammer is just infantile... Somebody could have yeilded some good results with that EQ. We dont all have the casual $500 for a 500 series rack.... I saved hard for months to get my Klark's and frankly this video pissed me off so much I unsubscribed. To anybody reading this, you can have fun, learn and get great sounds from cheap gear, it just takes patients and practice, there will come a day when you can afford the real thing and step things up, but until that time these cheap copies make great learning tools, even useful pro tools for the right application. Fuck you, Glenn.
I think Glenn is the fake, how could someone with his "experience" expect to different units to null is beyond me. Also it seemed that the Klark not calibrated the same. I really expected Glenn to use his EARS and try to get the similar result from the clark rather than use the carbon copy settings...I agree quite infantile and stupid.
I share your opinion - we are not rich and have mouths to feed - how could I spend 2K on one hardware pcs - that is a lot of food, clothes and activities wirh my family - how could a man justify that? Except you do this as a day job and need those tools to MAKE!!!!!! money.
2:26 i'm not trying to defend the thing, but this doesn't seem like a fair test - seems fairer to play the source through each EQ trying to get the best possible sound, then compare results (rather than matching settings)
@@SpectreSoundStudios Amateur question here, but couldn't you start with the null test settings, then get the two samples as close to canceling out as possible, then flip one back from the Null settings to reveal the truest comparison? Again, perhaps a stupid question, but I am curious.
Gunnar Wegener i know vintage units ain’t identical but if you buy something that’s claiming to be a “pultec style” unit you would hope it’s like a pultec
@@SpectreSoundStudios So? I like your vids mate but comparing them sound wise just because they're designed to look similar is just plain wrong. The null test was a simply pathetic attempt to try and look clever, "ooh look i know what a null test is..." That wouldn't even work with TWO PULTECS!!! Maybe the Klark is shite, but this vid was worse...
@ewen lagadeg - yeah, didn't think so. The point that's being made isn't whether you can get acceptable sounds out of the KT. It's the blatant ripoff of the look of the original, when the truth is it's nothing like it. That's why the null tests at the same physical settings are both valid and relevant, when they're neither of those things in most of Glenn's tests.
Great video thank you! Glenn, I’ve been splitting the stereo audio stream from your videos and running your voice through two identical EQ’s creating a NUL. Not hearing your voice has really improved these videos. Thanks again!
Lol this is probably the ONLY negative video on this unit guys. Don't be sheep. Watch the unbiased reviews and comparisons. Don't let Glenn's ego hold you back from this awesome EQ.
@@SpectreSoundStudios thanks for making my point. Can we all take guesses who's paying you for this one? Lol smh Check out some real demos of this, yes, awesome EQ. th-cam.com/video/oDpC2m7wQgM/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/xwBJ-Nvq7nI/w-d-xo.html Please review these videos and show us how much "worse" it sounds in comparison to the warm and pultecs. I'd love some more good laughs lol
The other 300$ are for the "Klark Tecknik" logo :P But seriously now, about switching tubes: it makes a slight difference, but worth your while only if you like the initial sound of the gear/amp/whatever. it can't and it WON'T turn crap gear into gold.
Ah dear why do people either do a comparison by sight or by ear, but never both. Obviously the Klark boosts way stronger and at different (maybe more unpleasant) frequencies. It would have been Interesting to try and match them by ear. We have both versions at our studio and while of course the Klark doesn't sound like a Pultec (how could it at that price) it doesn't necessarily sound bad. It just depends on the Settings. These here obviously were way to extreme for the unit. Still loved the Scene Of destruction - btw Glenn it really shows how much fitter and healthier you look. So congrats on that!
Klark just doesn't even give a really well rounded mix in overall. There is a bit more high end then I'd like, but putting it to comparison to the rest of the sounds, which boost the mid/low end more, makes it sound worse than it actually is. If you want something grittier like in black metal, that might've done the trick. Still it won't be my first choice, and has little value as a ripoff
It would also be kinda interesting if they didn't print the frequency and db markings on the front panel to give the impression that you can dial in by sight. When gear has 0-10 type of controls I'm completely fine with them being wherever, but when you say it's this or that frequency by this much and it's nowhere close, I'm a bit concerned.
Who would've thought using your ears instead of copying values from a unit with a completely different electrical architecture would give good results from an EQ?!
@@nickpekarsky954 "Oh, let's make an EQ with the controls very closely resembling that famous EQ, but with a completely different design so kids will buy it thinking they'll get something like the original when they are getting another thing altogether"... Can you see the problem here?
@@erlikquadros5873 I'm not sure "the kids" would have ever used a pultec. I'm sure 95 percent of the people watching this video including myself will never use a real pultec. So the comparison is based on expectation using your eyes, not your ears. Much like said review. If you're buying a piece of gear for 300 bucks based on looks and then get upset because it doesn't perform like a 4k piece of kit you've never used I'd say you have unrealistic expectations. The KT applies EQ in a similar manner as a pultec but of course it doesn't sound identical. There are plenty of people out there including myself getting good results using the KT. This is the only video I've seen absolutely shit canning it. Seemed like a cheap excuse to get some views by smashing something personally. Is what it is....
@@nickpekarsky954 To my reality, since I'm in Brazil and even the cheapest piece of hardware gear turns to costing a shitton of money due to our currency devalued, import taxes and other BS, it seems the software solutions are just better. Also having performed in a way people expect to perform close to a real pultec EQ in a context similar to what Glenn works with, more points to the plug-in.
@@erlikquadros5873 expectation of something they haven't used before to perform in a certain way? I don't get your point on that level. If you've not used a vintage pultec extensively how the how can you know what character it gives to a mix? It's all assumption and preconceptions. The KT just a tool at the end of the day and one that has nothing inherently wrong with it, contrary to what this video claims. Outboard gear costs a fair bit here in Australia too. If you feel plugins are a better option then go with that for sure. Main thing is to focus on your skills. That's what makes great mixes.
As a point of comparison, it would’ve been interesting to hear a null test on two separate pultecs set the same. I’m going to bet that wouldn’t null either. But yes, that KT was doing something pretty nasty to the mid range.
I like the concept of this vid, but Glenn, for the sake of us "broke" bois itd be amazing if you could do a video on Thomanns SCT series of budget tube mics vs some more expensive tube mics please.
The SCT800 is the same mic as first gen SE 5500, designed by ex-neumann engineers, now available from Thomann. We've already done testing and been through this topic quite extensively over on the GS forums (though I know some people here seem to hate that forum)
Some people actually used to sell sealed soda cans with "fresh air" in Beijing as a demonstration because of air pollution and the smog there. No joke.
3:26 I love how it boosted the nastiest frequency in the tone, around 4k. It would be the first one I'd actually cut haha 3:32 This out of phase signal sounds kind cool! I'd make IR of it and use it for low end tones in verse sections and stuff like that.
Why would you think these two units would null? That test makes no sense. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sound of this Klark EQ. If you want an analog EQ that adds some transformer and tube mojo then don’t be afraid to get this. There are much better and more scientific reviews of this EQ to be found on TH-cam, though admittedly no one bashes the gear with a hammer because it’s “cheap” in any of the other videos. If it sounds good, it is good.
Haven’t tried the Klark so I can’t say if it’s any good from personal experience but you can’t really test hardware units with the same settings on the pots. You could do that with two real pultecs and they wouldn’t sound the same from component variation. Same deal with comparing guitar pedals with clones or modified versions. One thing I did notice is that on the first guitar tone, both eqs made it sound worse. The Klark was a lot more brittle but the actual one had way too much high for that tone as well. I’ve seen other comparisons where the knock on the Klark is more that it has less character but they can still get pretty solid sounds out of it. As I said, not sure if it’s actually any good but pretty sure it’s also not as bad as it sounds here.
To answer the question, “is air really that expensive in China”, they were selling “fresh air” cans from Canada in China. It’s called Vitality Air. I have no doubt someone took the idea from Spaceballs.
You could have sent that one my way, I wouldn't be upset to give it a go and see what it can do. Off camera, did you try to make it sound good without matching settings or was it an entirely side by side comparison?
damn KT must of heard this. Just got mine and sounds good. Swapped the tubes and it’s got great detail in the top end now. If a pulteq is better I honestly don’t care it works for me. 😊 Also the plugin sounds like hot ass
Great video, though I would have loved to see you do more with the eq settings on the klark than just try to match the identical settings that the pultec has. Maybe it would have sounded more similar with a little more (or less) gain on the klark? I dunno, just a thought for future vids. You rock, thanks for the stellar content.
that tube swap was hilarious. that klark was bright as fuck, didn't care for the darker tone of the plugin either. but what i mostly took from this video is that the dry tracks sounded great on their own. number 1 lesson in mixing: avoid polishing a turd.
The klark sounded like a piece of shit on my phone. I didn't even need the monitors to hear the horrible sound it produces. It's like throwing the tracks through a toilet pipe while you're flushing it.
Dude seriously, i cant stress the importance of ur brutal honesty. Basically, before i shop, i check ur channel to see if there is a review on it.. u just saved me 350 bucks ❤️
@Gunnar Wegener i read ur long reply.. albeit makes sense - its important to remember one fact!! this guy, glenn, has been at this industry for years and years.. i have no recording experience professionally but i consider myself a gear nerd.. after all these years i can tell the difference between whats good and whats bad.. and i believe glenn can do that as well, in fact better because he has more years into the sector.. i seriously doubt that if a piece of gear is good, that he'd say something bad about it just because it wasn't sponsored. im thinking he just wouldnt have it on the show.. period.. when a product is sponsored, he outright tells his viewers that its a sponsored video - giving us all a clue that even if he had something bad to say about it - he wouldn't.. but the fearless gear reviews, gear he purchases with his own money - well then, he has the right to say whatever he wants. i dont know glenn personally but im 51 years old and i can pretty much tell if someone is talking bs or not.. let alone the fact that i personally agree with him on the products that he's reviewed and that i've personally had a chance to try out myself... so in long story short, yes youtube is full of gear demos and reviews, and i try to watch and listen to them all before i make a purchase, but glenn's channel seems more sincere than others.. henning, ola, rabea, fluff, mcknight, glenn.. all these guys who are making a living off youtube - they would never have lasted so long if they were spreading false info or misstating their true opinions.. i think we are all lucky to have these guys checking out gear for us, spending hours on properly mic-ing amps to give us the best representation of what to expect if we bought that gear.. so thanks to all these guys, seriously.. they are providing a much needed service, and rightfully getting paid for it... i think, for glenn specifically, the people who find him "irritating" or "full of bs" are basically those who dont like his manner of speaking.. i doubt any of them have any objections content wise.. i live in LA but im from NY so, glenn, love ya man.. keep it up......
@ewen lagadeg I had this unit at the studio and it couldn't even hold up to plugins. The UAD Pultec put it to shame in all my tests. We have a Type Tec Pultec and comparing was a joke. No comparison for me at all.
I have been waiting for this moment. Don’t go breaking my heart glenn Update: you did not ;) , even threw in a majestic hair flick before slamming that trash into another hemisphere. Much love glenn!
I don't know dude. It definitely has it's place. Although it's not a Pultec, it does work quite well on a kick, snare and vocals. I quite enjoy it for the money. Let's do a comparison on the new Lindell Lintec coming out of which I have already ordered.
I would really love to be able to hear how the Warm Audio Pultec, Lydkraft Tube-Tec, UAD plugin and Softube plugin all sound compared to the real thing
the warm audio and the klark audibly are almost identical, as they are most likely made by the same factory, if not same factory, then at the very least, the parts supplier is the same, the WA though... is 700$ instead of 350$.
I think too many people do not realize that a passive EQ like a Pultec isn't really used as an "EQ" and either try to use it as such or cheaper manufactures (like Behringer in this case) take what is often an active Parametric EQ and make it look like a Pultec. The passive EQs are more in line with like Sonic Maximizer end of things. They color the sound in a pleasing way while doing their basic job. A pure signal goes in and an unpure, distorted in a good way, signal comes out. Distortion doesn't always mean harsh. "Sterile" gear is clean gear, "Warm" gear is distorted gear. The bottom line in our day and age "Clean" gear is easier and cheaper to build than predictably distorted gear. The Pultec costs what it does for two reasons. One is lemonade stand pricing. If people will pay it, charge it! The Pultec "sound" beyond just eq'ing is subtle. If every single component isn't absolutely to the required spec it isn't going to sound like a Pultec. Most of the really cheap components can be off by as much of 10% in their values and in a passive design that can stack up and make two pieces sound wildly different. As tolerances go up the price goes up massively. That being said... the Pultec still costs too damn much :)
I’m sorry you didn't get a better sound of it. I’m delighted with my pair, significantly after I did change the tubes. It was $150 plus, but it sounds great. It looks like the majority of the owners agree with me. So it wasn't enjoyable to see you couldn't make it work for you.
What were you expecting??? Clearly you don’t understand analogue circuitry! OF COURSE the KT isn’t going to process the signal identically to the pultec. To even think it would is just ignorant. Secondly, you didn’t even explain HOW you setup the units. Did you just turn the dials to the same settings and hope for the best? Or did you try and get close using your ears??? Irrespective, the aim isn’t to replicate the pultec. If you like the EQ then use it. If not, then don’t.
There are two things to like about the Klark, the looks and the price, but they don't make up for the sound. Oh and a quick word of advice, place a piece of ply under, 500 x 750 x 19 should do the trick, the gear before hitting it with the hammer, it will save your yard
I might be deaf, but this is what I hear: 1. you made the Klark sound bad on purpose to get clicks, knowing how Behringer gets a bad rep (I don't see a way to avoid such a conclusion, sorry). You were also trying to show how it sounded NOTHING like the original. Yeah, we get that, it's like destroying a Honda for not being a Ferrari, although the design reminds of it! After seeing this video, I have seen other videos on the 'tube where it sounded awesome, how is that possible????? 2. The sound reminded me a lot of my Behringer 8 channel Magicians set on 10 o'clock, a sound always on in my chain (I own two of them). More saturation sounds good on some sources, I think, but I like it just the way it is, relatively subtle, yet quite pleasing. I guess that's just Uli's take on tubes (or tube emulation, for that matter), a sound he can achieve while keeping things cheap, so take it or leave it. I don't see anyone hating any other manufacturer for having "a signature tube sound" - good or bad. You can hate a piece of gear, say it sounds bad - fine with me. But, if someone else likes it, and you still enforce your opinion on them (with a hammer, no less!), what does that make you? 3. as many pointed out, why didn't you try to make it sound good, and instead opted for same settings "proving" they don't sound the same, and even attempted this ludacris "null test?" I must say my jaw dropped when I heard you saying you were gonna do that. Why?! Show me where anyone from Klark Teknik or Behringer claimed it sounded the same like the original, or that it was a direct clone or something, and I'll give you credit. Check their web-site, they claim it is "a hommage," "inspired by," nothing more, nothing less. Ok, there is the usual marketing crap: "Highest quality components, blabla" but which firm doesn't do that?! It is what it is: cheap. The cheapest way to get something slightly reminding of the Pultec. Does it sound bad to you? I bet you could make a Fairchild sound shitty if you tried really hard, I know I can (UAD plugin) without much effort. :) So tell me what's the point, other than clicks? I am very disappointed. Very. I think you got carried away in the pursuit of clicks, and I forgive you, because I enjoy your content nevertheless. I understand capitalism and don't expect you to be Che Guevara or Lenin about it, we all need to make a living. I also get how some people into Nascar of other extreme violence like Hockey or UFC got their pants wet watching you use the hammer. I felt sorry for you, because you couldn't even hit the thing directly the first couple of times, old man (neither can I, so I sympathize, that is). Violence doesn't solve (or in this case prove!) nothing. Why didn't you return the unit? If it was so bad, maybe it was faulty? But no! Let's be cavemen about it and use a hammer "because we can!" Or to get more clicks from other cavemen drooling and waiting for you to do it. You just pissed all over everything you did so far. Shame. I'll stop writing now because I do belong to the minority, you create content for followers, and most followers are sheep anyway, I guess so you have no choice. My little comment will not change the world. But I can at least say how I feel about things. Greetings from Croatia. Love your show!
You just may have saved me some money! I was considering this but I was leaning more towards the Warm Audio Variant. But man! That Pultec is something! I really love the mix tone through it! Obviously more research is required of the Warm. Cheers for the mention of other options. Very helpful ;)
@Gunnar Wegener Thanks mate. I have been doing my research and watching various other reviews. My budget like most will clearly not allow for an $8000 Pultec. However if I am intending on buying an obvious attempt/clone at the Pultec style valve EQ, the build does have to better than what the Klart is here. My choice to divert from the Klark in this case is more based on when Glenn showed the inside of the unit, revealing the obvious difference. I'd rather invest my money and spend a little more for a better made product, even if it is a different style of EQ. If people like the Klark, Great! Get one. Is it a Pultec clone? Aside from the front panel, No. Can it sound great if you tweek the knobs more than in this demo? Most probably. Is it a Pultec Clone as it is clearly marketed as? Clearly not. Unsuspecting consumers like myself would buy something like this having never experienced a real Pultec and never known the difference and I appreciate being shown because I am stupid and I would have been annoyed if I had have brought such a unit only to find out later that its actually very different circuitry. But thats just me. Cheers.
im so glad i came across this video! i almost considered the klark as i write this i have it up in Sweetwater. Yeahhh No!. i will not be getting this at all. sounds like crap. thank you for stopping me from making a dumb stupid purchase!!! IT had no choice but to meet "THE HAMMER OF TRUTH"😆😅😂🤣😅😅😂🤣😅😆 The utter disrespect of just dropping it to the ground before its demise!!😅😂🤣🤣Priceless!!!! i get the feeling you were looking in the souls of those that work at Klark!! hahahahahahahahahaha! 😂My side hurts!!🤣😂😆😅🤣 Awesome video Sir!! what are your thoughts on the warm audio version?
You do know KT is Behringer right? great video, more bargain basement studio gear reviews in this format please. whole KT range please. I wonder if the KT chassis and controls could be used as a starting point for a cheap PULI build.
100% agree with Pertti Huikuri. It’s a corrupt test. I challenge you to get your sound on the Klark and match the Pultec to those settings...I like Glenn and how he unapologetically “tells it like it is” and even how he trolls those who dissent in the comments section as I am now, but this isn’t coming from “bassists”, crybaby’s or other chumps... there isn’t an engineer worth their weight in salt who isn’t screaming at the computer monitor for the way he conducted this test. Anyone who isn’t shaking their heads is a novice or a simp. If you’re new to the game, no harm but if you act like you know something and you’re complicit in this clickbait pageantry then shame on you. Still, we owe thanks to Glenn for exposing the drooling fakers (For the record I’m a 20yr audio veteran & worked at a studio with a real Pultec for several years, in no way do I think the Klark is an accurate copy, but that has nothing to do with it having value to a smaller studio or budding engineer. There is no wisdom or truth to shitting on an affordable and useable piece of gear that exercises a “different muscle group” for people who are learning) There are plenty of non sponsored videos that show this as a perfectly decent tool, regardless of it being a direct copy of the original. Also, real talk, for the budget studio or ANY studio: the Acustica Audio Pultec sounds great. It’s a bitch on CPU so you gotta find your settings and use audiosuite or print it but it’s the only game in town that truly has the euphoric sound of the hardware... It beats Waves, UAD etc by miles, not inches or feet. So there... something actually useful to musicians related to this disappointing video. Glenn... all due respect, you know better. Please don’t start posting crap like this regularly just for an excuse to swing a hammer. I ask not for the sake of gear manufacturers, but so that you may maintain your channel’s integrity and the fidelity of your content. If this was all a prank: BRILLIANT! Best troll ever.
Dude, the plugin sounded better. The Klark is awful. I make plenty of alternative recommendations at the end of the video as well. Spending money on the Klark is a bad idea.
SpectreSoundStudios At that setting it did. The same result could happen with any of your recommendations. I get it. I do. Klark is made by a huge conglomerate and if you can pay for an alternative that rewards “real people” then do that... Screw that company. They have the resources to produce in such bulk to undercut the lowest prices of companies making better gear for similar prices... but I’m just saying: say that. But you CAN get good sounds out of this gear and to suggest otherwise is straight up sophistry. That’s how the good guys become bad guys, when they do something kind of shady in the interest of noble intentions. You know it, I know it and anyone with some experience knows it. If you say “Hey, if you’re going to go cheap there are better alternatives that AREN’T Behringer... they’re a little more expensive but just save a liiiiittle longer” ...that’s fair. A 500 series rack adds significant cost so it’s not a 1:1 alternative and ART doesn’t make an equivalent product, but once they have it they can FILL IT with great, affordable gear that’s made by “real people”. But the defense that showing these cheap things you endorse at the end that you were being fair is like making discriminatory remarks and saying “See, I have black friends” to justify the discrimination. You CAN get decent sounds out of the Klark gear but for a little more you can get better sounds and support better companies that will otherwise get crushed by products/companies like this. Teaching people through your true perspective will give them the fishing pole instead of the fish and you have SO MUCH to offer in this regard. I’m just saying please consider operating from honest disclosure, that’s where your powers are at their height and the funny thing is, you’re fighting for products with more integrity... you’re doing a noble thing. But trust your audience enough to share your true convictions or you’ll underestimate them and try to persuade them like this, not realizing they can sense the machinations and take you more and more with a grain of salt. Love and respect Glenn. I’ve been guilty of MUCH worse and luckily had friends and artists to intervene and help me reorient.
got 2 of the KT, they do not have the same eq curve as waves plugin or warm audio version of pultech, but twisting the knobs I can achive interesting stuff especially on bass.
As does any (at least parametric) EQ... The Klark Teknik is just a polished turd of a cheap EQ masquerading as something it's just not... Which is exactly the point here.. If you put any cheap eq in front of me and it's the only thing I have, I am going to use it if I have to. But justifying a Klark Teknik as a purchasing decision over any other cheap-o EQ is just a huge joke. Because that is literally all it is. It's a cheap, shrilly-sounding EQ that only looks nice.
I have 2 of these that I manage to use in a constructive manner with my mixes. It's an EQ and it does it's own thing in a good way to my ears when I dial it in. I bought 2 for 600au and don't feel like I wasted my money at all. More oldies but badies!!
You don't want to believe you wasted your money, but if you heard the Pultec from AudioScape, or from another company that's upscale you'd throw that Klark thing in the trash. 😂. I'm telling you.
This video makes me want you to do like a Top Beginner's Gear Guide where you take a look at various stuff at the cheaper price points but is still good equipment for someone's first purchase. Top 3 mics, top 3 USB audio inputs, etc. I know you have some sparse vids on specific items but one video to encapsulate them all in a quick like 10 min countdown would be really useful.
I use the waves plugin and it is extremely useful. I also use the ignite plugin version (which is free), and they're quite different in sonic flavor. the waves has a bigger low end and much fuller overall sound. the Ignite is much tighter, and shrill over all. the ignite has it's place in a modern metal tone for sure. but i'd say overall it's more sterile, modern and bright. versus the waves very classic warmth vibe. personally, i use the waves much more often than the ignite because that's the sound i like for my own music. if i were recording a more modern voiced metal band, i'd almost definitely use the ignite pultec. (which is actually modeled very well off of a different pultec hardware eq, not the original).
I don't think the tubes are getting used at all. Just like many of the tube headphone amps around, the tube is just there for decoration and show and doesn't get used at all. Would be interesting to do a complete teardown of the unit and check if the tubes actually are connected to anything at all.
why expect these to cancel out? They're clearly very different circuits, meeting different demands. Lets not even mention how old each unit could be. Why not try and make each one sound good on each individual track in its own right rather than blindly matching settings? Tolerances on cheaper Chinese gear is always going to be looser than hand built US made stuff. If you really want to match them, spend an extra 10 minutes measuring them in a graph and match like that. what also confuses me, is in your Neve video you make a big fuss about how it doesn't matter that its not EXACTLY a 1073 because it sounds good. I've never used the KT stuff, and my expectations aren't very high for it, but I don't doubt that they're far more usable than you're making out. Shootout 5 different high end Pultec clones (or any other gear with hefty transformers and lots of valves in) and see how close they get.
SpectreSoundStudios I hope you tested it more than what it shows in the video because I don’t think your comparison is really thorough or scientific enough to determine anything. It didn’t sound good on the examples to me, but I think it was dialled badly - a well functioning pultec dialled in with bad settings will sound equally shit. You decided to match the settings purely because of how the units look - that doesn’t strike me as a sound engineering approach. How often does that ever work?
also, was the purpose of this video to properly test gear? or was it to make an angry video smashing something up? Given you make more money from youtube videos than engineering music, I suppose smashing it up is going to earn you more money from youtube revenue than using it on a session. Dan Korneff has been using these for a while on his mix bus. Given the tube gear available at his disposal, as well as the stuff he makes, do you think he agrees with you?
I would agree with this as well. I think it was a pretty bizarre way to compare two pieces of gear, especially since you could grab two "real" pultecs and set them the same and the part tolerances would still yield different overall settings. I'm not saying that the Klark is going to sound amazing, but I bet with a little more care and less bias this test could of been much closer.
I think the tube-swap says it all. If changing the tubes made that small a difference, does it indicate that the tubes are not really being leveraged in the circuit? Maybe they are at half voltage or something .... ?
I think that it is wholly unreasonable to expect a knock-off priced that many times lower than the original to go 'head-to-head' with the original. Also, setting those two devices to the same settings and expecting the same results is not really comparing them accurately; The real question should be 'can you get a good sound with it', not 'can you get a good sound out of it set at the same settings as a separate piece of gear'.
I have a Bugera tube amp I had bought used. I can't see it sounding anything better than a pos. You are more than welcome to test this product and do as you will for a gear review. It sounded well when I bought it a year ago, today not so much. I've even swapped out power and one of the pre amp tubes because it also said it could create better sound.
Then I guess the myth about changing the stock “cheap” chinese tubes in an amp considerably changing your tone is also false, WOW who would have thought /sarcasm
Seriously folks an OUTPUT tube swap (da BIG bottles) sure CAN do something - just maybe the PI - but swapping most the LITTLE tubes would NOT pass the hammer of Null Test ;)
I mean, can tubes change the sound? yes. do they reliably? no. for one thing there's only about 4 or 5 places in the world that actually make tubes. so every 'brand' of tube is a relabeled tube from one of those factories. There's one in Russia, Slovakie, China, and another one in China that i know of. So when people say there's a difference between... say Electro harmonix tubes and Sveltana tubes- they were made in the same factory in Russia. when people say there's a difference between mesa, TAD, or Groove tubes... Those are possibly re-branded electro harmonix or svetlana tubes, that came out of the same factory in russia! this is just an example. for further example, mesa now claims their tubes are russian after a period of claiming they were Slovakian made. I believe them, they probably switched which factory they're buying from. mesa also stopped offering the str 441 tube which was made in slovakia, so my guess is that they felt the factory change was big enough to warrant a product number change. which i respect from a business ethics point of view. The biggest way tubes change the sound is obviously not in brand. tubes are so unreliable that literally no manufacturer will offer warranty nor accept returns on them. basically the manufacturers don't even know if they're going to work, let alone work in an exacting tolerance to produce a certain flavor! Tubes change sound by changing the ouptut of the tube, the noise floor of the tube, and the saturation or when the tube 'breaks up'. these are the most notable changes in tube sound. Different tube Designs (not brands) will slightly effect eq. for example, statistically you wouldn't reliably notice the difference between a mesa 6l6 power tube and a ruby 6l6 power tube. (they might actually be the exact same tube as i mentioned above). but statistically, you might notice the difference between various 6l6's in the same amp, compared to various El34's in the same amp. and the same goes for kt88's (50 watt tubes that generally come in bass tube amps). change between tube types, and you'll notice a subtle difference. will that subtle difference translate to a mix? I have no idea. my guess would be... that if it did, it is because the guitars were sculpted first, then all other tones in the mix were made to match and compliment the all-important metal guitar tone. So yes, That mix would sound slightly different as a whole. If the mix was sculpted first and guitars dropped in last like in a pop song, the difference between 6l6 and El34's wouldn't be noticeable at all. That's my best guess anyway. world that actually make tubes. so every 'brand' of tube is a relabeled tube from one of those factories. There's one in Russia, Slovakie, China, and another one in China that i know of. So when people say there's a difference between... say Electro harmonix tubes and Sveltana tubes- they were made in the same factory in Russia. when people say there's a difference between mesa, TAD, or Groove tubes... Those are possibly re-branded electro harmonix or svetlana tubes, that came out of the same factory in russia! this is just an example. for further example, mesa now claims their tubes are russian after a period of claiming they were Slovakian made. I believe them, they probably switched which factory they're buying from. mesa also stopped offering the str 441 tube which was made in slovakia, so my guess is that they felt the factory change was big enough to warrant a product number change. which i respect from a business ethics point of view. The biggest way tubes change the sound is obviously not in brand. tubes are so unreliable that literally no manufacturer will offer warranty nor accept returns on them. basically the manufacturers don't even know if they're going to work, let alone work in an exacting tolerance to produce a certain flavor! Tubes change sound by changing the ouptut of the tube, the noise floor of the tube, and the saturation or when the tube 'breaks up'. these are the most notable changes in tube sound. Different tube Designs (not brands) will slightly effect eq. for example, statistically you wouldn't reliably notice the difference between a mesa 6l6 power tube and a ruby 6l6 power tube. (they might actually be the exact same tube as i mentioned above). but statistically, you might notice the difference between various 6l6's in the same amp, compared to various El34's in the same amp. and the same goes for kt88's (50 watt tubes that generally come in bass tube amps). change between tube types, and you'll notice a subtle difference. will that subtle difference translate to a mix? I have no idea. my guess would be... that if it did, it is because the guitars were sculpted first, then all other tones in the mix were made to match and compliment the all-important metal guitar tone. So yes, That mix would sound slightly different as a whole. If the mix was sculpted first and guitars dropped in last like in a pop song, the difference between 6l6 and El34's wouldn't be noticeable at all. That's my best guess anyway.
Sweetwater did a cool comparison video some years back with a bunch of different Pultec clones vs an original vs 3 plugin versions. I was surprised at how poorly the Klark Tecknik's faired. The Warm Audio ones, although clearly not as sweet as the higher end models, still held their own, added something nice to each source. But, the Klark's clearly degraded each signal. The plugins were much better.
I'd like to see a frequency response graph for this test. Like what is it that's wrong with the klark. Is it a wider Q on its shelves, is it boosting the top end significantly more. What does it sound like without engaging the EQ. Like what part of the unit is causing it to sound so bad?
When you set the Klark's controls so that the curves match the original the story is much different: th-cam.com/video/oDpC2m7wQgM/w-d-xo.html The bandwidth control on KT gives a different Q, so you have to set it differently than on the original. The low boost amount is also not the same, but the biggest difference is in the hi-boost range which is about one third more on the KT. These differences are there because Klark Teknik have cut some corners with using a different inductor in order to cut the cost. There is a lenghty thread on Gearspace about it where curves have been analyzed. For some, the fact that the settings don't match the original is a big deal, for some it isn't. Personally, I don't care. If I can get it to sound good, then it's good. I actually might get a pair based on the above mentioned comparison. Maybe it would be good for you to learn the units you're testing first. Imho this was a bit brutal, not really fair and not professional. And regarding the mocking of half-empty box: SMT takes much, much less space (like 3-4 times less). I hope you're aware of this.
I have this philosophy that every piece of gear, no matter how shitty, can be just the right thing in the right situation. This demo made it clear that the KT absolutely fails at doing the usual pultec things that you use them for in your style of metal production. But just like those cheap Behringer mixer pre-amps turning out to be really good at recording metal guitars when they might not be great for anything else, I get the feeling that everything that makes this EQ shitty for what you and I would use it for, might make it just the right unit for a certain application in someone else's approach to production. Don't know what it is, but I bet its out there. But you're absolutely right to caution newbies from buying one of these. The only people who should get these are well-off studio owners who can afford to blow $350 on a cheap piece of gear just to experiment with it.
I don't think it is a fair review, it is very biased...first of all cheap gear can be moded. Secondly everyone buys cheap parts in China and destroying ANY gear is a very childish behavior... 👎
@@SpectreSoundStudios Obviously it is a cheap clone but you cannot say it is useless…in fact it is even normal, often better and useful if equipment sounds different…and that has its value in audio engineering. Definitely it is a waste of time watching such hate theatre instead of a fair and healthy, unbiased REVIEW.
Wow. Thanks, Glenn... I was actually looking at this piece of crap. You went way beyond the basic comparison on this one, really great job. The "EQ bypassed" mix actually sounded better than the KrapTastic. But how about the Warm Audio version, the EQP-WA? Twice the price of the KrapTastic (still only a fraction of the original), but with similar claims...
actually the Warm doesnt have more going on inside, it just has a prettier name on the front of the "similarly inexpensive but painted blue" face plate, after just a tad bit of research, its bloody likely the Warm Audio and that Klark Teknik are made in the same factory. Warm Audio just charges you double. There is a comparison video of the Warm Audio EQP-WA and the Klark Teknik EQP-KT, in that video the EQ's were dialed in almost exactly the same and the difference while listening through in ear monitors? Just about "null", basically indistinguishable... Odd... the similarity in name as well between them the only difference between them being the abbreviate letters in their names, it's ALMOST like both companies were trying to accomplish the same thing. Except one got scrutinized while being compared to a friggin classic of a tube EQ that costs 10 times more in greenbacks .... 10 TIMES as much.... the warm audio would essentially fare no better, especially when dialed into matching (and yet very unscientific and superficial for sure) settings with the Pultec... No EQ is the same, not even a "clone"... not even two Pultecs! NOTHING that has a single ECC82 and one ECC83 for its tube input stage and mosfet output is ever going to saturate audio the way a established powerhouse EQ with 3 power tubes, 2 preamp tubes, 1 rectifier tube, and honking output transformer will... The more i think about the unscientific way in which this comparison was accomplished, the more it annoys me.
@ewen lagadeg shocker. I got nothing against inexpensive gear, as long as it performs best at it's price point and actually does what it says. And I especially get chuffed when it gets a less than fair shake against a piece of all analog hardware that sports an audio path with individual components that bloody likely cost more than my audio interface, rack preamp, headphone amp, and power conditioner combined.
Love your channel. Btw, just to be fair a null comparison should be done after setting both units as close as possible with tools like Plugin Doctor. KT boosts and cuts way more than pultec. For the materials, since i've built some units in the past, i can say that 12$ is the cost of 2 XLR connectors or 2 knobs. You can buy an aluminum chassis for about 70$, just to say. Mass production lowers the cost of course, but don't give them for free.
So I get what you’re going for with the null test, but all that shows is that THOSE EQ settings on the klark aren’t precisely the same as on the pultec. Tbh I feel like if you played with the settings just a smidge you could achieve a similar sound.
Hi, Did you try the mach eq curves with some software, e.g. Plugin doctor? Tolerances are really big in analog devices and sometimes you can't find two that are close to the same. In my opinion, based on hearing, the gain values were wrong in your test! Perhaps you know that in a Pultec-style EQ, all parameters influence each other. So I would only rely on the readings of the analyzer and then the auditory difference. Sorryyyy... :D Rock'n roll!
You inadvertently answered my other question. I have been wondering for a while if those were Pultecs behind you in the rack, or the KT clone. I am used to seeing the blue Pultecs. Now I know for sure... Thanks for doing this test, because I too have considered getting a couple of the cheap KTs. You just saved me from wasting some cash.
10:58 Maybe He's Born With It, Maybe It's Maybelline Shampoo. Great video Glenn, excellent side by side comparisons, I can't wait to see more in the future. Also seeing the hammer of truth being used was oddly very comforting. - Kevin
Wow! Killer review! I'm so disappointed in the KT. That monster transformer in the Pultec eats those baby transformers for breakfast. Btw, check out the Artistic Series by Fredenstein for more good cheap 500 series gear.
I've used a real pultec, have a pultec-style VST in my mastering chain...You're right...the Klark-Technik is NOT the same thing. I'd rather an ART Pro VLA for something tube in the chain...I got to use a pre-production unit (yeah, I'm old too) that my friend who did the initial review of the unit still owns to this day. Thanks for saving me the trouble of researching this box!
![Klark Teknik EQP-KT Review [with DEMO]](/img/n.gif)
So this is the infamous review! I'm amazed how it was everything promised, it wasn't dramatising! The design of Klark looked like the 10 V power supply I ordered from China. Had just a pcb inside and didn't work. Heck, just the transformer of Pultec must cost half the price of Klark.
Unfortunately the Klark worked. It wasn't only that it didn't match the thing it tried to copy at all, not even close to just part tolerances. It sounded awful. That shizzle and whatnot. Truly made things sound worse.
The most shocking thing is that some people actually vouch for Klark and come up with explanations and fixes.
This video was amazing production, really good scenes and comedic reliefs. Also god damn you look slim after seeing the old Orange warranty vids.
Or maybe your mixes are just bad?
I like the Klark. Uh oh.
3:25 well well, it sounds amazing on the basses I've been recording as in the vocaLs, off course I play reggae wich is not the bright sound bass as in the video
The klark is way too bright, not in a good way. Sure, maybe you like it more bright, but being inherently nastily bright is not a good thing.
@@rowanmartin4397 if u properly set it up it reduces the highs. That's why u have the option to cut some Frequencies to make it tight.
Children of Africa could've eaten that EQ, what are you even doing, Glenn?
old but gold
Oh, they like it smoked, so he's probably still alright to send it... ;)
Nom nom nom nom nom nom...
You beat me to this comment
*Unfortunately, even a real pultec couldn't fatten up those starving African kids!* 😥😥
I seriously cannot believe you smashed up a $350 piece of equipment. You might've hurt the hammer. Not worth it.
Nothing could make that guitar tone sound good, even the Pultec.
Yea they should use clean sounds for testing....
clearly not a fan of distorted, grungy and thrashy tones. Either way you can hear the eq sounds likes a tin can. Even the plugin-in give the guitar a smoother sound.
@@ttusch soo you're saying it also has limitations of what genre of music this piece of crap can do? Also I bet it will sound even bad in clean too. XD
@@ttusch imagine asking for clean sounds on a metal oriented channel
@@trurisingrecords9801 Actually this "piece of crap" is quite decent. Apparently most of you guys dont know how to use it... Sending an distorted signal through it and then wondering that it will sound good? Are you guys dumb or what? xD
It's a shit test if you mix the sound on one machine to the point where it sounds good and then just copy the settings to the other machine. This only tells you the knobs dont do same things on two different machines. Have you checked if even two original pultecs cancel each other out on same settings? What it doesn't tell you is how close you could get to the original sound by tweaking the knobs a little.
A proper null test should be done by having both tracks playing and tweaking the knobs to get the best possible result. Why? Because if you can get a good sound out of a piece of equipment, who cares where the knobs are pointing.
100000000000% Better yet, get your sound on the Klark and match the Pultec to those settings. I like Glenn and how he unapologetically “tells it like it is” and even though he’ll call us crybaby’s... there isn’t an engineer worth their weight in salt who isn’t screaming at the computer monitor. Anyone who isn’t is a simp and I could not possibly care less about their opinion. So thanks Glenn for giving the idiots a sign to wave so we can all see who they are! (For the record I worked at a studio with a real Pultec for several years, in no way do I think the Klark compares, but that has nothing to do with it having value to a smaller studio. There is no wisdom or truth to implying “If you don’t have $4,000 don’t bother”.) Also, real talk, for the budget studio or ANY studio: the Acustica Audio Pultec sounds EXACT. It’s a bitch on CPU so you gotta find your settings and use audiosuite or print it but it’s the only game in town that truly has the euphoric sound of the hardware... It beats Waves, UAD etc by miles, not inches or feet.
@@hauntedbytheliving1175 close, N4 with Tim P's Dual-Tec is the truest emulation period. You're welcome :)
That would be true if we didn't run the plugin against it with the exact same settings as well. The Plugin destroyed the Klark. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Gunnar Wegener just curious, how many Klarks do you own?
@@SpectreSoundStudios running the plugin with the same settings was just repeating the mistake. It just showed that the knobs on the plugin did different things as well. Nobody (you included) learned nothing about the shape of eq curves or the flavour of harmonic saturation or none of the things that actually matter. All we learned was that it is possible to get a bad sound out of the KT u it. I bet you could even get the real deal to sound bad if you tried.
I’m just here for the hair flips.
I picked up a pair of these Klark's recently, obviously I didnt expect a pultec for that money, anybody who expects that is a fool. What I did get was a perfectly good 'classic style' valve EQ for a reasonable price, you simply CANNOT compare the two directly. I really enjoy mine, I have them on the master bus just to add some depth and sparkle, I find the Klarks work best with acoustic instruments and traditional classic rock tones, you can coax electronic and metal stuff out of them but they suit the aforementioned styles better. I've followed along with pro videos demonstrating classic pultecs and managed to get similar results, the premise is the same, your hands on, with a classic program EQ, friggin awesome! The fact Glenn destroyed his Klark with a sledge hammer is just infantile... Somebody could have yeilded some good results with that EQ. We dont all have the casual $500 for a 500 series rack.... I saved hard for months to get my Klark's and frankly this video pissed me off so much I unsubscribed. To anybody reading this, you can have fun, learn and get great sounds from cheap gear, it just takes patients and practice, there will come a day when you can afford the real thing and step things up, but until that time these cheap copies make great learning tools, even useful pro tools for the right application. Fuck you, Glenn.
Love mine for the price
I think Glenn is the fake, how could someone with his "experience" expect to different units to null is beyond me. Also it seemed that the Klark not calibrated the same.
I really expected Glenn to use his EARS and try to get the similar result from the clark rather than use the carbon copy settings...I agree quite infantile and stupid.
I love mine and also very disappointed with this video. He destroyed something made to create instead of giving it away, that´s not so cool.
I share your opinion - we are not rich and have mouths to feed - how could I spend 2K on one hardware pcs - that is a lot of food, clothes and activities wirh my family - how could a man justify that? Except you do this as a day job and need those tools to MAKE!!!!!! money.
2:26 i'm not trying to defend the thing, but this doesn't seem like a fair test - seems fairer to play the source through each EQ trying to get the best possible sound, then compare results (rather than matching settings)
There isn’t that much control to do anything different. It won’t sound like a Pultec in a million years.
@@SpectreSoundStudios Amateur question here, but couldn't you start with the null test settings, then get the two samples as close to canceling out as possible, then flip one back from the Null settings to reveal the truest comparison? Again, perhaps a stupid question, but I am curious.
It shouldn’t claim to be like a pultec then
Gunnar Wegener i know vintage units ain’t identical but if you buy something that’s claiming to be a “pultec style” unit you would hope it’s like a pultec
@@SpectreSoundStudios So? I like your vids mate but comparing them sound wise just because they're designed to look similar is just plain wrong.
The null test was a simply pathetic attempt to try and look clever, "ooh look i know what a null test is..." That wouldn't even work with TWO PULTECS!!! Maybe the Klark is shite, but this vid was worse...
You should get an official SMG hammer... with "TRUTH" embossed on the faces
"Piece of fucking shit batton" written on the handle
If he'll sell an SMG hammer I would purchase within a heartbeat.
@@CrimsonRedstone Me too!
Crimson same
Same here. Do it Glenn!!!
LOL - the Klark actually sounded worse than the null test on the kick :D
Good point!
😂🤣😂🔨
I was going to comment this but I figured someone would beat me to it! Lol
@ewen lagadeg - great! Can you do a video on it, then?
@ewen lagadeg - yeah, didn't think so.
The point that's being made isn't whether you can get acceptable sounds out of the KT. It's the blatant ripoff of the look of the original, when the truth is it's nothing like it. That's why the null tests at the same physical settings are both valid and relevant, when they're neither of those things in most of Glenn's tests.
Great video thank you! Glenn, I’ve been splitting the stereo audio stream from your videos and running your voice through two identical EQ’s creating a NUL. Not hearing your voice has really improved these videos. Thanks again!
😆
Lol this is probably the ONLY negative video on this unit guys. Don't be sheep. Watch the unbiased reviews and comparisons. Don't let Glenn's ego hold you back from this awesome EQ.
Bingo. Pure click-bait. This guy is a TH-camr.
I'll be sure to do a video on an awesome EQ. The Klark isn't even remotely close to "awesome."
@@SpectreSoundStudios thanks for making my point. Can we all take guesses who's paying you for this one? Lol smh
Check out some real demos of this, yes, awesome EQ.
th-cam.com/video/oDpC2m7wQgM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/xwBJ-Nvq7nI/w-d-xo.html
Please review these videos and show us how much "worse" it sounds in comparison to the warm and pultecs. I'd love some more good laughs lol
Considering Dan Korneff uses these on his mix bus for every mix, I’ll take his opinion over Glenn’s any day.
@@AtTheSourceStudios th-cam.com/video/ErtUUV4XNBw/w-d-xo.html I like this one alot. It made my buy 2 used units of the Klarks
The other 300$ are for the "Klark Tecknik" logo :P
But seriously now, about switching tubes: it makes a slight difference, but worth your while only if you like the initial sound of the gear/amp/whatever. it can't and it WON'T turn crap gear into gold.
That would make sense if the klark wasn't bullshit to begin with.
if it made a slight difference there would be a slight difference and you would hear something in a null test.
@@damiengreen28 I was talking in general and from my experience with tubes and amps. It gives more of a 'good feeling' then an actual change in sound.
Ah dear why do people either do a comparison by sight or by ear, but never both. Obviously the Klark boosts way stronger and at different (maybe more unpleasant) frequencies. It would have been Interesting to try and match them by ear. We have both versions at our studio and while of course the Klark doesn't sound like a Pultec (how could it at that price) it doesn't necessarily sound bad. It just depends on the Settings. These here obviously were way to extreme for the unit.
Still loved the Scene Of destruction - btw Glenn it really shows how much fitter and healthier you look. So congrats on that!
Klark just doesn't even give a really well rounded mix in overall. There is a bit more high end then I'd like, but putting it to comparison to the rest of the sounds, which boost the mid/low end more, makes it sound worse than it actually is. If you want something grittier like in black metal, that might've done the trick. Still it won't be my first choice, and has little value as a ripoff
It would also be kinda interesting if they didn't print the frequency and db markings on the front panel to give the impression that you can dial in by sight. When gear has 0-10 type of controls I'm completely fine with them being wherever, but when you say it's this or that frequency by this much and it's nowhere close, I'm a bit concerned.
Have one. Use it. It can sound pretty good when you use your ears to dial the sound in.
Who would've thought using your ears instead of copying values from a unit with a completely different electrical architecture would give good results from an EQ?!
@@nickpekarsky954 "Oh, let's make an EQ with the controls very closely resembling that famous EQ, but with a completely different design so kids will buy it thinking they'll get something like the original when they are getting another thing altogether"...
Can you see the problem here?
@@erlikquadros5873 I'm not sure "the kids" would have ever used a pultec. I'm sure 95 percent of the people watching this video including myself will never use a real pultec. So the comparison is based on expectation using your eyes, not your ears. Much like said review. If you're buying a piece of gear for 300 bucks based on looks and then get upset because it doesn't perform like a 4k piece of kit you've never used I'd say you have unrealistic expectations. The KT applies EQ in a similar manner as a pultec but of course it doesn't sound identical. There are plenty of people out there including myself getting good results using the KT. This is the only video I've seen absolutely shit canning it. Seemed like a cheap excuse to get some views by smashing something personally. Is what it is....
@@nickpekarsky954 To my reality, since I'm in Brazil and even the cheapest piece of hardware gear turns to costing a shitton of money due to our currency devalued, import taxes and other BS, it seems the software solutions are just better. Also having performed in a way people expect to perform close to a real pultec EQ in a context similar to what Glenn works with, more points to the plug-in.
@@erlikquadros5873 expectation of something they haven't used before to perform in a certain way? I don't get your point on that level. If you've not used a vintage pultec extensively how the how can you know what character it gives to a mix? It's all assumption and preconceptions. The KT just a tool at the end of the day and one that has nothing inherently wrong with it, contrary to what this video claims. Outboard gear costs a fair bit here in Australia too. If you feel plugins are a better option then go with that for sure. Main thing is to focus on your skills. That's what makes great mixes.
As a point of comparison, it would’ve been interesting to hear a null test on two separate pultecs set the same. I’m going to bet that wouldn’t null either. But yes, that KT was doing something pretty nasty to the mid range.
(Klark EQ + Line 6 Spider)/Marshall Code = Why the hell am I trying to turn this into a math equation?
[Shit + Shit / The sweat of my ass] is never gonna be good no matter how much BBQ sauce you add...
I think you just discovered quantum sucksass.
Just wait until I raise it by the power of Digitech RP-50!
Ladies and Gentlemen, let Me present to You the Klark Tube Depressor
More like the Klark Bass Deleter
lol
I like the concept of this vid, but Glenn, for the sake of us "broke" bois itd be amazing if you could do a video on Thomanns SCT series of budget tube mics vs some more expensive tube mics please.
Yes, sounds like a good idea!
SpectreSoundStudios lol. you heard that in vc.
I guess if your broke it's better to stay with good software vs crappy gear.
Thomann has a lot of great budget mics (t.bone), so testing that would be interesting.
The SCT800 is the same mic as first gen SE 5500, designed by ex-neumann engineers, now available from Thomann. We've already done testing and been through this topic quite extensively over on the GS forums (though I know some people here seem to hate that forum)
"Is air actually that expensive in China?"
...well, during a pandemic, maybe? Dunno
Nice.
Some people actually used to sell sealed soda cans with "fresh air" in Beijing as a demonstration because of air pollution and the smog there. No joke.
@@TheToillMainn Indeed, I was about to comment on the prodigious pollution....
not gonna lie, i actually thought the knock off had its own thing going, and would sound sick if treated like a different piece of gear
3:26 I love how it boosted the nastiest frequency in the tone, around 4k. It would be the first one I'd actually cut haha
3:32 This out of phase signal sounds kind cool! I'd make IR of it and use it for low end tones in verse sections and stuff like that.
Why would you think these two units would null? That test makes no sense.
Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sound of this Klark EQ. If you want an analog EQ that adds some transformer and tube mojo then don’t be afraid to get this. There are much better and more scientific reviews of this EQ to be found on TH-cam, though admittedly no one bashes the gear with a hammer because it’s “cheap” in any of the other videos.
If it sounds good, it is good.
I have never seen a product get such a fair review.
Haven’t tried the Klark so I can’t say if it’s any good from personal experience but you can’t really test hardware units with the same settings on the pots. You could do that with two real pultecs and they wouldn’t sound the same from component variation. Same deal with comparing guitar pedals with clones or modified versions. One thing I did notice is that on the first guitar tone, both eqs made it sound worse. The Klark was a lot more brittle but the actual one had way too much high for that tone as well.
I’ve seen other comparisons where the knock on the Klark is more that it has less character but they can still get pretty solid sounds out of it. As I said, not sure if it’s actually any good but pretty sure it’s also not as bad as it sounds here.
Here in America the best way to get people to do something is to tell them not to...So great sales video for Klark Teknik, ordered one today.
Thank you for testing the tubes on this. I think that is valuable for most people, including myself. Cheers!
I have 13 metal master pedals I run as inserts for each mic on the drum kit.
Lmao
You must be a bass player
@@thetruepyromancer2928 I've had sex so no I am not a bass player.
Sheep don’t count:-)
@@reeread Yes they Do. They've got to get to sleep somehow ...
I do hope that you removed the tube's before you smashed it apart
I'm no expert, but the plugin didn't sound very good to me either. It sounded like the band got locked in a closet underneath a bunch of blankets.
To answer the question, “is air really that expensive in China”, they were selling “fresh air” cans from Canada in China. It’s called Vitality Air. I have no doubt someone took the idea from Spaceballs.
lol. i had the same reaction when he said that. "yes, yes it is glen".
You could have sent that one my way, I wouldn't be upset to give it a go and see what it can do.
Off camera, did you try to make it sound good without matching settings or was it an entirely side by side comparison?
I checked the video out on my phone and was so utterly disgusted, that I checked it out on my sound system. Did NOT improve it at ALL.
BLEGH.
damn KT must of heard this. Just got mine and sounds good. Swapped the tubes and it’s got great detail in the top end now. If a pulteq is better I honestly don’t care it works for me. 😊
Also the plugin sounds like hot ass
The 500 series on plugin alliance actually sounds nice
Great video, though I would have loved to see you do more with the eq settings on the klark than just try to match the identical settings that the pultec has. Maybe it would have sounded more similar with a little more (or less) gain on the klark? I dunno, just a thought for future vids. You rock, thanks for the stellar content.
that tube swap was hilarious. that klark was bright as fuck, didn't care for the darker tone of the plugin either. but what i mostly took from this video is that the dry tracks sounded great on their own. number 1 lesson in mixing: avoid polishing a turd.
Thanks so much for this, Glenn! I was going to purchase this at the end of the year! Guess I'll spring for some plugins instead!
Save up and get one from AudioScape. Their Pultec is 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Should've used plugin doctor to match the curves, you could be comparing a 10 dB boost to a 20 dB boost.
Pultec EQP-1A3 is the secret weapon for snare EQ and of course vocals.
I have one but only use it in a vocal chain. Does great for rolling off the bass on proximity effect. Thanks for the dispelling the tube myth.
There's still something magic about good tube gear. The plugin did surprise me a bit though.
Idk Glenn they all sounded pretty fantastic on my phone... looking forward to more of these ;)
Lol!!
The klark sounded like a piece of shit on my phone. I didn't even need the monitors to hear the horrible sound it produces.
It's like throwing the tracks through a toilet pipe while you're flushing it.
Same here. I listened on my toaster and they all sounded great!
I listened on my phone and it still sounded like crap to me and my bad ears.
@@Tekkerue Try the microwave, it will sound even better ....
All things aside that Pultec bass tone is fucking killer, still punchy but not obnoxious and some lovely bass to it. Great job
Dude seriously, i cant stress the importance of ur brutal honesty. Basically, before i shop, i check ur channel to see if there is a review on it.. u just saved me 350 bucks ❤️
Gunnar Wegener if u say so !!!!
@Gunnar Wegener i read ur long reply.. albeit makes sense - its important to remember one fact!! this guy, glenn, has been at this industry for years and years.. i have no recording experience professionally but i consider myself a gear nerd.. after all these years i can tell the difference between whats good and whats bad.. and i believe glenn can do that as well, in fact better because he has more years into the sector.. i seriously doubt that if a piece of gear is good, that he'd say something bad about it just because it wasn't sponsored. im thinking he just wouldnt have it on the show.. period.. when a product is sponsored, he outright tells his viewers that its a sponsored video - giving us all a clue that even if he had something bad to say about it - he wouldn't.. but the fearless gear reviews, gear he purchases with his own money - well then, he has the right to say whatever he wants. i dont know glenn personally but im 51 years old and i can pretty much tell if someone is talking bs or not.. let alone the fact that i personally agree with him on the products that he's reviewed and that i've personally had a chance to try out myself... so in long story short, yes youtube is full of gear demos and reviews, and i try to watch and listen to them all before i make a purchase, but glenn's channel seems more sincere than others.. henning, ola, rabea, fluff, mcknight, glenn.. all these guys who are making a living off youtube - they would never have lasted so long if they were spreading false info or misstating their true opinions.. i think we are all lucky to have these guys checking out gear for us, spending hours on properly mic-ing amps to give us the best representation of what to expect if we bought that gear.. so thanks to all these guys, seriously.. they are providing a much needed service, and rightfully getting paid for it... i think, for glenn specifically, the people who find him "irritating" or "full of bs" are basically those who dont like his manner of speaking.. i doubt any of them have any objections content wise.. i live in LA but im from NY so, glenn, love ya man.. keep it up......
btw, i am Distortion Club LA -- wrote the reply from my personal page by accident :))
@Gunnar Wegener :)) sorry abt ur broken leg, hope u get well soon..
This is the second time in 25 years that Klark tried to make clones and failed miserably....
What do you consider to be the first?
@ewen lagadeg I had this unit at the studio and it couldn't even hold up to plugins. The UAD Pultec put it to shame in all my tests. We have a Type Tec Pultec and comparing was a joke. No comparison for me at all.
I don’t think it’s fair to judge it based solely on identical knob settings. Should’ve done more by ear
I have been waiting for this moment. Don’t go breaking my heart glenn
Update: you did not ;) , even threw in a majestic hair flick before slamming that trash into another hemisphere. Much love glenn!
I don't know dude. It definitely has it's place. Although it's not a Pultec, it does work quite well on a kick, snare and vocals. I quite enjoy it for the money. Let's do a comparison on the new Lindell Lintec coming out of which I have already ordered.
I like what you did here! Awesome work! Interested in seeing Warm Audios’s 1176 and LA-2A offering to the real thing on vocals.:)
the klark sounds so fizzy it might as well be a soda
I would really love to be able to hear how the Warm Audio Pultec, Lydkraft Tube-Tec, UAD plugin and Softube plugin all sound compared to the real thing
the warm audio and the klark audibly are almost identical, as they are most likely made by the same factory, if not same factory, then at the very least, the parts supplier is the same, the WA though... is 700$ instead of 350$.
I think too many people do not realize that a passive EQ like a Pultec isn't really used as an "EQ" and either try to use it as such or cheaper manufactures (like Behringer in this case) take what is often an active Parametric EQ and make it look like a Pultec.
The passive EQs are more in line with like Sonic Maximizer end of things. They color the sound in a pleasing way while doing their basic job. A pure signal goes in and an unpure, distorted in a good way, signal comes out. Distortion doesn't always mean harsh. "Sterile" gear is clean gear, "Warm" gear is distorted gear.
The bottom line in our day and age "Clean" gear is easier and cheaper to build than predictably distorted gear. The Pultec costs what it does for two reasons. One is lemonade stand pricing. If people will pay it, charge it! The Pultec "sound" beyond just eq'ing is subtle. If every single component isn't absolutely to the required spec it isn't going to sound like a Pultec. Most of the really cheap components can be off by as much of 10% in their values and in a passive design that can stack up and make two pieces sound wildly different. As tolerances go up the price goes up massively.
That being said... the Pultec still costs too damn much :)
I’m sorry you didn't get a better sound of it. I’m delighted with my pair, significantly after I did change the tubes. It was $150 plus, but it sounds great. It looks like the majority of the owners agree with me. So it wasn't enjoyable to see you couldn't make it work for you.
It gives him more clicks when he dials in a shit tone on purpose and films himself swinging with a hammer
What were you expecting??? Clearly you don’t understand analogue circuitry! OF COURSE the KT isn’t going to process the signal identically to the pultec. To even think it would is just ignorant.
Secondly, you didn’t even explain HOW you setup the units. Did you just turn the dials to the same settings and hope for the best? Or did you try and get close using your ears???
Irrespective, the aim isn’t to replicate the pultec. If you like the EQ then use it. If not, then don’t.
There are two things to like about the Klark, the looks and the price, but they don't make up for the sound. Oh and a quick word of advice, place a piece of ply under, 500 x 750 x 19 should do the trick, the gear before hitting it with the hammer, it will save your yard
The review was a bit vague. And no review at all of the hammer.
Glenn must do a review of the Hammer of doom... eh i mean truth.
I might be deaf, but this is what I hear:
1. you made the Klark sound bad on purpose to get clicks, knowing how Behringer gets a bad rep (I don't see a way to avoid such a conclusion, sorry). You were also trying to show how it sounded NOTHING like the original. Yeah, we get that, it's like destroying a Honda for not being a Ferrari, although the design reminds of it!
After seeing this video, I have seen other videos on the 'tube where it sounded awesome, how is that possible?????
2. The sound reminded me a lot of my Behringer 8 channel Magicians set on 10 o'clock, a sound always on in my chain (I own two of them). More saturation sounds good on some sources, I think, but I like it just the way it is, relatively subtle, yet quite pleasing. I guess that's just Uli's take on tubes (or tube emulation, for that matter), a sound he can achieve while keeping things cheap, so take it or leave it. I don't see anyone hating any other manufacturer for having "a signature tube sound" - good or bad. You can hate a piece of gear, say it sounds bad - fine with me. But, if someone else likes it, and you still enforce your opinion on them (with a hammer, no less!), what does that make you?
3. as many pointed out, why didn't you try to make it sound good, and instead opted for same settings "proving" they don't sound the same, and even attempted this ludacris "null test?" I must say my jaw dropped when I heard you saying you were gonna do that. Why?! Show me where anyone from Klark Teknik or Behringer claimed it sounded the same like the original, or that it was a direct clone or something, and I'll give you credit. Check their web-site, they claim it is "a hommage," "inspired by," nothing more, nothing less. Ok, there is the usual marketing crap: "Highest quality components, blabla" but which firm doesn't do that?! It is what it is: cheap. The cheapest way to get something slightly reminding of the Pultec.
Does it sound bad to you? I bet you could make a Fairchild sound shitty if you tried really hard, I know I can (UAD plugin) without much effort. :) So tell me what's the point, other than clicks? I am very disappointed. Very. I think you got carried away in the pursuit of clicks, and I forgive you, because I enjoy your content nevertheless. I understand capitalism and don't expect you to be Che Guevara or Lenin about it, we all need to make a living. I also get how some people into Nascar of other extreme violence like Hockey or UFC got their pants wet watching you use the hammer. I felt sorry for you, because you couldn't even hit the thing directly the first couple of times, old man (neither can I, so I sympathize, that is). Violence doesn't solve (or in this case prove!) nothing. Why didn't you return the unit? If it was so bad, maybe it was faulty? But no! Let's be cavemen about it and use a hammer "because we can!" Or to get more clicks from other cavemen drooling and waiting for you to do it. You just pissed all over everything you did so far. Shame. I'll stop writing now because I do belong to the minority, you create content for followers, and most followers are sheep anyway, I guess so you have no choice. My little comment will not change the world. But I can at least say how I feel about things. Greetings from Croatia. Love your show!
You just may have saved me some money! I was considering this but I was leaning more towards the Warm Audio Variant. But man! That Pultec is something! I really love the mix tone through it! Obviously more research is required of the Warm. Cheers for the mention of other options. Very helpful ;)
@Gunnar Wegener Thanks mate. I have been doing my research and watching various other reviews. My budget like most will clearly not allow for an $8000 Pultec. However if I am intending on buying an obvious attempt/clone at the Pultec style valve EQ, the build does have to better than what the Klart is here.
My choice to divert from the Klark in this case is more based on when Glenn showed the inside of the unit, revealing the obvious difference.
I'd rather invest my money and spend a little more for a better made product, even if it is a different style of EQ. If people like the Klark, Great! Get one. Is it a Pultec clone? Aside from the front panel, No.
Can it sound great if you tweek the knobs more than in this demo? Most probably. Is it a Pultec Clone as it is clearly marketed as? Clearly not.
Unsuspecting consumers like myself would buy something like this having never experienced a real Pultec and never known the difference and I appreciate being shown because I am stupid and I would have been annoyed if I had have brought such a unit only to find out later that its actually very different circuitry. But thats just me. Cheers.
"The Bass player of Tube EQs" - has to be the worst possible rating ever. XD
That was a fun review! Want to see the hammer of truth featured more!! How about the Klark KT-2A comp next.....
@ewen lagadeg oh ok, nice! Can you provide a link? I would love to have a watch.
The klark in the full mix sounded like everything just went through a digitech metal master with the level on 0.1 xD
Dude, thank you so much for making this. I was so damn close to buying one of these haha, i'm glad I didn't. Cheers man. Peace
Happy to save you some money'!
@@SpectreSoundStudios And I appreciate it, it's not the first time either ha, stay awesome dude. Cheers
@@mrphoenixasmr Can't be cheap in this game. You've got to go in hard. Go hard, or go home!!!!
Thanks for saving me from this piece!! I almost bought one. It's a terrible thing when the bypass switch sounds way better!
Grab a unit from AudioScape. Their Pultec EQ is AMAZING!!!!
im so glad i came across this video! i almost considered the klark as i write this i have it up in Sweetwater. Yeahhh No!. i will not be getting this at all. sounds like crap. thank you for stopping me from making a dumb stupid purchase!!! IT had no choice but to meet "THE HAMMER OF TRUTH"😆😅😂🤣😅😅😂🤣😅😆 The utter disrespect of just dropping it to the ground before its demise!!😅😂🤣🤣Priceless!!!! i get the feeling you were looking in the souls of those that work at Klark!! hahahahahahahahahaha! 😂My side hurts!!🤣😂😆😅🤣 Awesome video Sir!!
what are your thoughts on the warm audio version?
You do know KT is Behringer right? great video, more bargain basement studio gear reviews in this format please. whole KT range please.
I wonder if the KT chassis and controls could be used as a starting point for a cheap PULI build.
Yes
I actually really like the plugin's sound. Cool test!
I just got an ad for a Master and Mixing specialist where the ad video features 2 (!) Klark Teknik tube EQs
EQ bypassed tone is the best out of four!
EQ sounds more.... compressed. If thats the sound you're looking for than more power to you.
The klark sounds compressed as hell to me. I'd rather have the Pultek or the plug-in
100% agree with Pertti Huikuri. It’s a corrupt test. I challenge you to get your sound on the Klark and match the Pultec to those settings...I like Glenn and how he unapologetically “tells it like it is” and even how he trolls those who dissent in the comments section as I am now, but this isn’t coming from “bassists”, crybaby’s or other chumps... there isn’t an engineer worth their weight in salt who isn’t screaming at the computer monitor for the way he conducted this test. Anyone who isn’t shaking their heads is a novice or a simp. If you’re new to the game, no harm but if you act like you know something and you’re complicit in this clickbait pageantry then shame on you. Still, we owe thanks to Glenn for exposing the drooling fakers (For the record I’m a 20yr audio veteran & worked at a studio with a real Pultec for several years, in no way do I think the Klark is an accurate copy, but that has nothing to do with it having value to a smaller studio or budding engineer. There is no wisdom or truth to shitting on an affordable and useable piece of gear that exercises a “different muscle group” for people who are learning) There are plenty of non sponsored videos that show this as a perfectly decent tool, regardless of it being a direct copy of the original. Also, real talk, for the budget studio or ANY studio: the Acustica Audio Pultec sounds great. It’s a bitch on CPU so you gotta find your settings and use audiosuite or print it but it’s the only game in town that truly has the euphoric sound of the hardware... It beats Waves, UAD etc by miles, not inches or feet. So there... something actually useful to musicians related to this disappointing video. Glenn... all due respect, you know better. Please don’t start posting crap like this regularly just for an excuse to swing a hammer. I ask not for the sake of gear manufacturers, but so that you may maintain your channel’s integrity and the fidelity of your content. If this was all a prank: BRILLIANT! Best troll ever.
Dude, the plugin sounded better. The Klark is awful. I make plenty of alternative recommendations at the end of the video as well.
Spending money on the Klark is a bad idea.
SpectreSoundStudios At that setting it did. The same result could happen with any of your recommendations. I get it. I do. Klark is made by a huge conglomerate and if you can pay for an alternative that rewards “real people” then do that... Screw that company. They have the resources to produce in such bulk to undercut the lowest prices of companies making better gear for similar prices... but I’m just saying: say that. But you CAN get good sounds out of this gear and to suggest otherwise is straight up sophistry. That’s how the good guys become bad guys, when they do something kind of shady in the interest of noble intentions. You know it, I know it and anyone with some experience knows it. If you say “Hey, if you’re going to go cheap there are better alternatives that AREN’T Behringer... they’re a little more expensive but just save a liiiiittle longer” ...that’s fair. A 500 series rack adds significant cost so it’s not a 1:1 alternative and ART doesn’t make an equivalent product, but once they have it they can FILL IT with great, affordable gear that’s made by “real people”. But the defense that showing these cheap things you endorse at the end that you were being fair is like making discriminatory remarks and saying “See, I have black friends” to justify the discrimination. You CAN get decent sounds out of the Klark gear but for a little more you can get better sounds and support better companies that will otherwise get crushed by products/companies like this. Teaching people through your true perspective will give them the fishing pole instead of the fish and you have SO MUCH to offer in this regard. I’m just saying please consider operating from honest disclosure, that’s where your powers are at their height and the funny thing is, you’re fighting for products with more integrity... you’re doing a noble thing. But trust your audience enough to share your true convictions or you’ll underestimate them and try to persuade them like this, not realizing they can sense the machinations and take you more and more with a grain of salt. Love and respect Glenn. I’ve been guilty of MUCH worse and luckily had friends and artists to intervene and help me reorient.
got 2 of the KT, they do not have the same eq curve as waves plugin or warm audio version of pultech, but twisting the knobs I can achive interesting stuff especially on bass.
As does any (at least parametric) EQ...
The Klark Teknik is just a polished turd of a cheap EQ masquerading as something it's just not... Which is exactly the point here..
If you put any cheap eq in front of me and it's the only thing I have, I am going to use it if I have to. But justifying a Klark Teknik as a purchasing decision over any other cheap-o EQ is just a huge joke. Because that is literally all it is. It's a cheap, shrilly-sounding EQ that only looks nice.
@@getmeoutofsanfrancisco9917 what's the best cheap turd?
I have 2 of these that I manage to use in a constructive manner with my mixes. It's an EQ and it does it's own thing in a good way to my ears when I dial it in. I bought 2 for 600au and don't feel like I wasted my money at all.
More oldies but badies!!
You don't want to believe you wasted your money, but if you heard the Pultec from AudioScape, or from another company that's upscale you'd throw that Klark thing in the trash. 😂. I'm telling you.
Great comparison!!! Now do the Warm Audio version! 🤘
This video makes me want you to do like a Top Beginner's Gear Guide where you take a look at various stuff at the cheaper price points but is still good equipment for someone's first purchase. Top 3 mics, top 3 USB audio inputs, etc. I know you have some sparse vids on specific items but one video to encapsulate them all in a quick like 10 min countdown would be really useful.
Check out his $1500 studio vid it’s very helpful and gives you all the gear youd need to record an entire band.
The ending is just a shampoo commertial. Loved the vid, makes me want to take a look at the waves plugin.
I use the waves plugin and it is extremely useful. I also use the ignite plugin version (which is free), and they're quite different in sonic flavor. the waves has a bigger low end and much fuller overall sound. the Ignite is much tighter, and shrill over all. the ignite has it's place in a modern metal tone for sure. but i'd say overall it's more sterile, modern and bright. versus the waves very classic warmth vibe. personally, i use the waves much more often than the ignite because that's the sound i like for my own music. if i were recording a more modern voiced metal band, i'd almost definitely use the ignite pultec. (which is actually modeled very well off of a different pultec hardware eq, not the original).
I don't think the tubes are getting used at all. Just like many of the tube headphone amps around, the tube is just there for decoration and show and doesn't get used at all. Would be interesting to do a complete teardown of the unit and check if the tubes actually are connected to anything at all.
why expect these to cancel out? They're clearly very different circuits, meeting different demands. Lets not even mention how old each unit could be. Why not try and make each one sound good on each individual track in its own right rather than blindly matching settings? Tolerances on cheaper Chinese gear is always going to be looser than hand built US made stuff. If you really want to match them, spend an extra 10 minutes measuring them in a graph and match like that.
what also confuses me, is in your Neve video you make a big fuss about how it doesn't matter that its not EXACTLY a 1073 because it sounds good. I've never used the KT stuff, and my expectations aren't very high for it, but I don't doubt that they're far more usable than you're making out. Shootout 5 different high end Pultec clones (or any other gear with hefty transformers and lots of valves in) and see how close they get.
The Klark is dogshit. Period.
SpectreSoundStudios I hope you tested it more than what it shows in the video because I don’t think your comparison is really thorough or scientific enough to determine anything.
It didn’t sound good on the examples to me, but I think it was dialled badly - a well functioning pultec dialled in with bad settings will sound equally shit.
You decided to match the settings purely because of how the units look - that doesn’t strike me as a sound engineering approach. How often does that ever work?
also, was the purpose of this video to properly test gear? or was it to make an angry video smashing something up? Given you make more money from youtube videos than engineering music, I suppose smashing it up is going to earn you more money from youtube revenue than using it on a session.
Dan Korneff has been using these for a while on his mix bus. Given the tube gear available at his disposal, as well as the stuff he makes, do you think he agrees with you?
I would agree with this as well. I think it was a pretty bizarre way to compare two pieces of gear, especially since you could grab two "real" pultecs and set them the same and the part tolerances would still yield different overall settings. I'm not saying that the Klark is going to sound amazing, but I bet with a little more care and less bias this test could of been much closer.
I think the tube-swap says it all. If changing the tubes made that small a difference, does it indicate that the tubes are not really being leveraged in the circuit? Maybe they are at half voltage or something .... ?
not the case, they run at 120V plate voltage.
I think that it is wholly unreasonable to expect a knock-off priced that many times lower than the original to go 'head-to-head' with the original. Also, setting those two devices to the same settings and expecting the same results is not really comparing them accurately; The real question should be 'can you get a good sound with it', not 'can you get a good sound out of it set at the same settings as a separate piece of gear'.
This 👆🏻
I have a Bugera tube amp I had bought used. I can't see it sounding anything better than a pos. You are more than welcome to test this product and do as you will for a gear review. It sounded well when I bought it a year ago, today not so much. I've even swapped out power and one of the pre amp tubes because it also said it could create better sound.
Then I guess the myth about changing the stock “cheap” chinese tubes in an amp considerably changing your tone is also false, WOW who would have thought /sarcasm
Bro, you didn't buy the right ones!
If you paid for NOS Mullards, you'd hear a difference too ;)
Seriously folks an OUTPUT tube swap (da BIG bottles) sure CAN do something - just maybe the PI - but swapping most the LITTLE tubes would NOT pass the hammer of Null Test ;)
I mean, can tubes change the sound? yes. do they reliably? no. for one thing there's only about 4 or 5 places in the world that actually make tubes. so every 'brand' of tube is a relabeled tube from one of those factories. There's one in Russia, Slovakie, China, and another one in China that i know of. So when people say there's a difference between... say Electro harmonix tubes and Sveltana tubes- they were made in the same factory in Russia. when people say there's a difference between mesa, TAD, or Groove tubes... Those are possibly re-branded electro harmonix or svetlana tubes, that came out of the same factory in russia! this is just an example. for further example, mesa now claims their tubes are russian after a period of claiming they were Slovakian made. I believe them, they probably switched which factory they're buying from. mesa also stopped offering the str 441 tube which was made in slovakia, so my guess is that they felt the factory change was big enough to warrant a product number change. which i respect from a business ethics point of view.
The biggest way tubes change the sound is obviously not in brand. tubes are so unreliable that literally no manufacturer will offer warranty nor accept returns on them. basically the manufacturers don't even know if they're going to work, let alone work in an exacting tolerance to produce a certain flavor!
Tubes change sound by changing the ouptut of the tube, the noise floor of the tube, and the saturation or when the tube 'breaks up'. these are the most notable changes in tube sound.
Different tube Designs (not brands) will slightly effect eq. for example, statistically you wouldn't reliably notice the difference between a mesa 6l6 power tube and a ruby 6l6 power tube. (they might actually be the exact same tube as i mentioned above). but statistically, you might notice the difference between various 6l6's in the same amp, compared to various El34's in the same amp. and the same goes for kt88's (50 watt tubes that generally come in bass tube amps). change between tube types, and you'll notice a subtle difference. will that subtle difference translate to a mix? I have no idea. my guess would be... that if it did, it is because the guitars were sculpted first, then all other tones in the mix were made to match and compliment the all-important metal guitar tone. So yes, That mix would sound slightly different as a whole. If the mix was sculpted first and guitars dropped in last like in a pop song, the difference between 6l6 and El34's wouldn't be noticeable at all. That's my best guess anyway.
world that actually make tubes. so every 'brand' of tube is a relabeled tube from one of those factories. There's one in Russia, Slovakie, China, and another one in China that i know of. So when people say there's a difference between... say Electro harmonix tubes and Sveltana tubes- they were made in the same factory in Russia. when people say there's a difference between mesa, TAD, or Groove tubes... Those are possibly re-branded electro harmonix or svetlana tubes, that came out of the same factory in russia! this is just an example. for further example, mesa now claims their tubes are russian after a period of claiming they were Slovakian made. I believe them, they probably switched which factory they're buying from. mesa also stopped offering the str 441 tube which was made in slovakia, so my guess is that they felt the factory change was big enough to warrant a product number change. which i respect from a business ethics point of view.
The biggest way tubes change the sound is obviously not in brand. tubes are so unreliable that literally no manufacturer will offer warranty nor accept returns on them. basically the manufacturers don't even know if they're going to work, let alone work in an exacting tolerance to produce a certain flavor!
Tubes change sound by changing the ouptut of the tube, the noise floor of the tube, and the saturation or when the tube 'breaks up'. these are the most notable changes in tube sound.
Different tube Designs (not brands) will slightly effect eq. for example, statistically you wouldn't reliably notice the difference between a mesa 6l6 power tube and a ruby 6l6 power tube. (they might actually be the exact same tube as i mentioned above). but statistically, you might notice the difference between various 6l6's in the same amp, compared to various El34's in the same amp. and the same goes for kt88's (50 watt tubes that generally come in bass tube amps). change between tube types, and you'll notice a subtle difference. will that subtle difference translate to a mix? I have no idea. my guess would be... that if it did, it is because the guitars were sculpted first, then all other tones in the mix were made to match and compliment the all-important metal guitar tone. So yes, That mix would sound slightly different as a whole. If the mix was sculpted first and guitars dropped in last like in a pop song, the difference between 6l6 and El34's wouldn't be noticeable at all. That's my best guess anyway.
Sweetwater did a cool comparison video some years back with a bunch of different Pultec clones vs an original vs 3 plugin versions. I was surprised at how poorly the Klark Tecknik's faired. The Warm Audio ones, although clearly not as sweet as the higher end models, still held their own, added something nice to each source. But, the Klark's clearly degraded each signal. The plugins were much better.
How much did that plugin cost? It sounded very similar to the $3k hardware.
$35 with a coupon. Link is in the video description
SpectreSoundStudios how about Analog Obsession‘s RARE plugin? It‘s modeled a Pultec...
@@krokovay.marcell yes
@@SpectreSoundStudios As Nathan Explosion would say "Brutal!"
I'd like to see a frequency response graph for this test. Like what is it that's wrong with the klark. Is it a wider Q on its shelves, is it boosting the top end significantly more. What does it sound like without engaging the EQ. Like what part of the unit is causing it to sound so bad?
When you set the Klark's controls so that the curves match the original the story is much different:
th-cam.com/video/oDpC2m7wQgM/w-d-xo.html
The bandwidth control on KT gives a different Q, so you have to set it differently than on the original. The low boost amount is also not the same, but the biggest difference is in the hi-boost range which is about one third more on the KT. These differences are there because Klark Teknik have cut some corners with using a different inductor in order to cut the cost. There is a lenghty thread on Gearspace about it where curves have been analyzed. For some, the fact that the settings don't match the original is a big deal, for some it isn't. Personally, I don't care. If I can get it to sound good, then it's good. I actually might get a pair based on the above mentioned comparison. Maybe it would be good for you to learn the units you're testing first. Imho this was a bit brutal, not really fair and not professional.
And regarding the mocking of half-empty box: SMT takes much, much less space (like 3-4 times less). I hope you're aware of this.
Nice....been hoping for this review. Thanks Glenn!
funny that the Klark gets good reviews everywhere....
Best review you’ve done yet. I like them all, but I LOVE this one. Awesome job.
Thanks so much, Andrew!
I have this philosophy that every piece of gear, no matter how shitty, can be just the right thing in the right situation. This demo made it clear that the KT absolutely fails at doing the usual pultec things that you use them for in your style of metal production. But just like those cheap Behringer mixer pre-amps turning out to be really good at recording metal guitars when they might not be great for anything else, I get the feeling that everything that makes this EQ shitty for what you and I would use it for, might make it just the right unit for a certain application in someone else's approach to production. Don't know what it is, but I bet its out there. But you're absolutely right to caution newbies from buying one of these. The only people who should get these are well-off studio owners who can afford to blow $350 on a cheap piece of gear just to experiment with it.
I don't think it is a fair review, it is very biased...first of all cheap gear can be moded. Secondly everyone buys cheap parts in China and destroying ANY gear is a very childish behavior... 👎
Null tests don’t lie.
@@SpectreSoundStudios Obviously it is a cheap clone but you cannot say it is useless…in fact it is even normal, often better and useful if equipment sounds different…and that has its value in audio engineering.
Definitely it is a waste of time watching such hate theatre instead of a fair and healthy, unbiased REVIEW.
A null test on two different bits of gear is probably the most pointless thing I've ever seen you do.
Wow. Thanks, Glenn... I was actually looking at this piece of crap. You went way beyond the basic comparison on this one, really great job. The "EQ bypassed" mix actually sounded better than the KrapTastic.
But how about the Warm Audio version, the EQP-WA? Twice the price of the KrapTastic (still only a fraction of the original), but with similar claims...
Haven't tried the Warm yet.... IT's got more going on inside it than the Klark.... but can't say for certain.
actually the Warm doesnt have more going on inside, it just has a prettier name on the front of the "similarly inexpensive but painted blue" face plate, after just a tad bit of research, its bloody likely the Warm Audio and that Klark Teknik are made in the same factory. Warm Audio just charges you double. There is a comparison video of the Warm Audio EQP-WA and the Klark Teknik EQP-KT, in that video the EQ's were dialed in almost exactly the same and the difference while listening through in ear monitors? Just about "null", basically indistinguishable... Odd... the similarity in name as well between them the only difference between them being the abbreviate letters in their names, it's ALMOST like both companies were trying to accomplish the same thing. Except one got scrutinized while being compared to a friggin classic of a tube EQ that costs 10 times more in greenbacks .... 10 TIMES as much.... the warm audio would essentially fare no better, especially when dialed into matching (and yet very unscientific and superficial for sure) settings with the Pultec... No EQ is the same, not even a "clone"... not even two Pultecs! NOTHING that has a single ECC82 and one ECC83 for its tube input stage and mosfet output is ever going to saturate audio the way a established powerhouse EQ with 3 power tubes, 2 preamp tubes, 1 rectifier tube, and honking output transformer will... The more i think about the unscientific way in which this comparison was accomplished, the more it annoys me.
@ewen lagadeg shocker. I got nothing against inexpensive gear, as long as it performs best at it's price point and actually does what it says. And I especially get chuffed when it gets a less than fair shake against a piece of all analog hardware that sports an audio path with individual components that bloody likely cost more than my audio interface, rack preamp, headphone amp, and power conditioner combined.
Supposedly the Warm Audio is awesome and close to the Pultec. I can’t confirm this but will eventually buy 2 for casual fun.
Love your channel. Btw, just to be fair a null comparison should be done after setting both units as close as possible with tools like Plugin Doctor. KT boosts and cuts way more than pultec.
For the materials, since i've built some units in the past, i can say that 12$ is the cost of 2 XLR connectors or 2 knobs. You can buy an aluminum chassis for about 70$, just to say. Mass production lowers the cost of course, but don't give them for free.
So I get what you’re going for with the null test, but all that shows is that THOSE EQ settings on the klark aren’t precisely the same as on the pultec. Tbh I feel like if you played with the settings just a smidge you could achieve a similar sound.
Hi,
Did you try the mach eq curves with some software, e.g. Plugin doctor? Tolerances are really big in analog devices and sometimes you can't find two that are close to the same. In my opinion, based on hearing, the gain values were wrong in your test! Perhaps you know that in a Pultec-style EQ, all parameters influence each other. So I would only rely on the readings of the analyzer and then the auditory difference. Sorryyyy... :D Rock'n roll!
God, that EQ was horrific. What do you think of the Warm Audio stuff?
You inadvertently answered my other question. I have been wondering for a while if those were Pultecs behind you in the rack, or the KT clone. I am used to seeing the blue Pultecs. Now I know for sure... Thanks for doing this test, because I too have considered getting a couple of the cheap KTs. You just saved me from wasting some cash.
10:58 Maybe He's Born With It, Maybe It's Maybelline Shampoo. Great video Glenn, excellent side by side comparisons, I can't wait to see more in the future. Also seeing the hammer of truth being used was oddly very comforting. - Kevin
Coming back to this because I am in need of a parametric EQ. Thought about shooting your pultec out against the warm audio version?
Wow! Killer review! I'm so disappointed in the KT. That monster transformer in the Pultec eats those baby transformers for breakfast.
Btw, check out the Artistic Series by Fredenstein for more good cheap 500 series gear.
I've used a real pultec, have a pultec-style VST in my mastering chain...You're right...the Klark-Technik is NOT the same thing. I'd rather an ART Pro VLA for something tube in the chain...I got to use a pre-production unit (yeah, I'm old too) that my friend who did the initial review of the unit still owns to this day. Thanks for saving me the trouble of researching this box!