Trident A-Range EQ released by Softube
Softube is releasing the Trident A-Range EQ today, an emulation of the channel EQ found on the legendary A-Range desk. The plug-in was created together with Malcolm Toft and Trident. Let’s have an in-depth look at it!
Legacy
In case you don’t know, the A-Range is a very exclusive desk built by Trident (Malcolm Toft). It was only built in 13 copies so needless to say it’s not very likely you’ll ever come across one. If you’re into recording history, you might be happy to know that Queen, David Bowie and Elton John has recorded on A-Range desks.
The particular unit that was modeled by Softube comes from Denmark, and Flemming Rasmussen’s studio. Flemming picked out his favorite channels and sent them to us. Among the recordings from his desk you’ll find the early Metallica albums (Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, as well as … And Justice for All) Rainbow and many others.
One of Flemming Rasmussen’s channels. Some modifications have been made to the exteriors.
Abnormalities
The emulation is extremely close to the channels Flemming sent, something he’d be the first to tell you. There is however an added a knob on the plug-in not found on the original desk. A saturation knob is there to simply emulate the unit being driven hard. The channels have a quite noticeable distortion when you do, so a separate knob was added, as that approach better fits the workflow on a DAW. The saturation itself appears after the filters, meaning that you can also crank the bands to have the distortion occur. This is exactly how the original unit works. We’ve learned by talking to engineers working with A-Range’s that some of them really like to overdrive the channels, while some never did it. Therefore you can turn the saturation completely off.
The plug-in…
The A-Range EQ behaves very differently from many EQ’s. The bands interact with each other in a very odd way. Even if you don’t have any gain on a particular band, it’s frequency setting can actually affect another band. This is also modeled in the plug-in and gives the A-Range EQ a very distinct flavor. The highest and lowest bands are shelving, while the top mid bands are bells.
There’s also something to be said about the filters. Both high-pass and low-pass filters are available. They show up in the form of buttons, three per filter. The thing is, you might think that just pushing the button with the highest frequency will simply make it cut there. Well, there’s more to it, the filter will also depend on the other buttons. You can have all three buttons of one filter pressed at the same time. The filters are nice indeed, and because of this oddity they’re also fairly flexible.
A mixer?
Another thing I like to mentioned is how it maps to control surfaces. As you know, this is a big deal to me. My favorite way of working with it is to simply flip the faders because the gain controls are faders (on the plug-in). While the frequency controls are knobs, it’s very easy to spot which of the faders (on the control surface) are for frequency and which are for gain. This is because at default the gain faders are all set to one position, while the frequency faders are set to another. I never even look at the little screen on the controller.
Finally, make no mistake, while this EQ has tons of character, it is a channel EQ. You’ll have no problem using this on everything. To each their own of course, but my current template is actually 16 audio tracks with the A-Range EQ on every channel. Makes for a nice mini mixer, especially with the saturation control. And no, it’s not heavy on the CPU.
Price? An introductory offer makes the Native version land at $229 and the TDM at $329 if you buy from the Softube website. Some dealers might have it cheaper.
And yes, I’m biased. So as always: try before you buy.
TDM! nice!
By Andreas Rauscher ~ February 1, 2010 kl 6:51 am
While, Softube have my ranking in the top 5 Algorithmes out there, I think they have a severe problem with copying vintage gear GUIs and behaviour. Just the filter section (as you describes above) seem just as messed up in usability as the Passive-Active Pack, where they choose to implement all the weird stuff like upside down controls and that awkward Low/HiPass Design in the Passive EQ and the auto-band without calibration in the Focusing.
AS I wrote in my P-A EQ review back then, implementing vintage GUI and behaviour for the sake of vintage worship is the wrong way. Because for me it feels like it.
And I think they are limiting themselves by just copying vintage. The P-A could have been so much more. I had such high hopes afer the innovative FET Compressor, which is as about as perfect as can be – in GUI, behaviour and parameter recognition. But my enthusiasm fades with each new product. Well, Softube seem to see it the other way, obviously.
Maybe this is just down to personal taste, since I take a strong position for clear GUIs with straight visible parameter feedback and clear functionality like brainworx, Flux, URS or RND, etc.
Am I alone with this?
By dyscode ~ February 1, 2010 kl 9:13 am
Well in the modeling area, Softube is the best to me, so I have no problem with them doing exact replicas with the same workflow and faithful sound.
I like it that way
.
By Jay Key ~ February 1, 2010 kl 10:40 am
I have no problems with the GUI even though it’s not the most intuitive GUI i’ve used.
In the P-A Pack I kinda like the fact you don’t really see where the knobs are, this happens most with the active eq. That way you really need to listen instead of seeing what it is doing.
If it had no GUI I would also be happy because it sounds good to me.
Tomorrow I’ll start demoing this Trident EQ.
By Miguel Marques ~ February 1, 2010 kl 2:56 pm
softube is king in my books. stoked to try that fender amp. I hope its good.
By dominic ~ February 1, 2010 kl 3:16 pm
odd, as UAD came out with this a few months ago. malcolm toft playing both sides off or each other or what? i also find it odd that your review doesn’t seem to mention the UAD version…
i would like to ry it because the trident was my fav EQ on the UAD platform but i’ve NEVER had any luck getting softube stuff to work on my Ilok so…
By kassin ~ February 1, 2010 kl 5:33 pm
Dyscode’s grievance doesn’t make any sense to me.
If you like the more science-y plug-ins, why not just use them? Why would you care? Use what you have!
This is made for people like me who are used to the original Trident module and want to feel right at home.
- c
p.s. I’m buying both the Softube and the UA.
By Chad ~ February 1, 2010 kl 5:53 pm
@chad
the reason for my dislike, as I stated is my high praise oft the FET Comp (which has no orignial Hardware and some reall innovative feature like stepless ratio) and then see Softubes GUI stick to the same design quirks of the emulated hardware in the following products blindly.
And guess what plug-ins I am using.
But the intention is not to diss Softube but questioning some paradigms concerning Vintage Emulation. You have all the options in a Plug-in. But few Software companies actully invest in design studies and so it comes that most vintage emulations GUIs do not translate well on the computer screen.
This is a more general problem but P-A happend to push it over the top for me.
And I think, Chad is also right, when he says this plugs is made for people who actually had a chance to use that hardware.
But again this is not good enough for me. I WANT the sound but I want an 2010 update for the clear usability of it.
So I guess I have to settle with the fact that Softube is not what I wanted/hoped it to be.
best
By dyscode ~ February 1, 2010 kl 9:38 pm
kassin,
Ouch, that’s harsh man
There was no playing one against the other. Both Softube and UA were well aware that the other was developing a plug-in as well. There’s no bad blood between the two companies at all. I haven’t tried the UAD, don’t have their cards.
Btw, this shouldn’t be considered a review as such, I’ve used it a fair bit for the last months so I figured I should give you the inside scoop. As for the quality of the plug-in I think you should trust your own ears over mine. As stated in the very last sentence: I’m biased – try before you buy.
As a matter of fact, always do that, regardless if I’m biased or not
By stiff ~ February 2, 2010 kl 3:44 am
Dyscode,
>> “questioning some paradigms concerning Vintage Emulation”
Now that’s interesting. Maybe I should do a separate post about that…?
As far as most plug-ins go, I think that all important controls must be available on two pages of a 8-fader control surface. Mapping is crucial. This is in a way connected to what you’re talking about, however it seems like we’re focusing on different things.
By the way, the Focusing EQ isn’t weird because of vintage hardware. It is a combination of a Neumann and a Filtek but I don’t know a single EQ that works like it does where the filters dictate the other bands frequency. Definitely my favorite of the three in the pack. But I understand if everyone doesn’t like the workflow
By stiff ~ February 2, 2010 kl 4:05 am
Stiff,
yes the Focusing has not any original hardware that´s why I find it even more odd Softube chose the GUI the way they did.
You need lots of experience to use it IMHO, since you can only use it by your listening experience. Which is not essentially a bad thing, in fact it SHOULD be always ears before numbers. It´s just that I am forced to work that way.
But they can be mapped easily to a controller which makes the P-A much more accessable.
Like on the other hand trying to map any RND plug will drive you crazy.
cheers
By dyscode.com ~ February 2, 2010 kl 5:42 am
>> “questioning some paradigms concerning Vintage Emulation”
> Now that’s interesting. Maybe I should do a separate post > about that…?
definately!
By dyscode.com ~ February 2, 2010 kl 5:49 am
tried it – liked it!!
By Andreas Rauscher ~ February 2, 2010 kl 7:16 pm
Well, having worked on an A range console, I will say that they could have given you the GUI vertically. The orientation is a little strange. But it does sound good.
By frank ~ February 6, 2010 kl 11:49 pm