Waves API 2500 vs API 2500 HW - Page 3

Strobian · 31st March 2008, 12:37 AM

These tests never work really anyway. I really don't know anyone who wouldn't pick the hardware over the software given more than a weekend rental situation. The 2500 overtime keeps impressing. I've never heard a plugin yet, actually mimic the thrust circuit or the 2520 amp correctly. i use a combination of plugins, but like to use the hardware 2500 on the mix buss, its API glue, not an emulation. I guess with anything get the one that sounds good to your ears, not your wallet. If you plan to be in it for the longhaul, investing in nice equipment can make a difference. Its just a little bit more, but isn't that why everyone is doing these tests, to find out which one is just a little bit warmer, better.? I like plugins, but having some analog circuitry really can be what you need to make things sound great. 02

luctellier · 10th April 2008, 08:46 PM

Hey,

I got my new Toft ATB 24 and also the API 2500 bus compressor (hardware).
I had some time to make more scientific tests to compare the hardware vs the plugin. I still think the hardware beats the plugin for heavy compression but you can get really close to the real thing using the software version.

I took my time to match the input gain, gain reduction, and output gain and make sure that they are the same volume. I verified also by trying to null them the most I could in real time.

Let's start the blind test just for fun!

No Comp = Drum track without any of the compressors
1: guess!
2: guess!

I'll give the result once 4 to 5 people has tried to guess!

You better not make a mistake when guessing 'cause my guitar player and my girlfiend have been able to tell which one was the hardware version!

I'm sure even grand'ma would hear the difference! ;)

LT

PeterSturm · 10th April 2008, 11:24 PM

Thank you for this! I guess the second one is the hardware.
Can you post the settings, please?

luctellier · 10th April 2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterSturm

Thank you for this! I guess the second one is the hardware.
Can you post the settings, please?

TRESHOLD: -12
ATTACK: 3
RATIO: 3
RELEASE: -.05 (FASTEST)
THRESH KNEE: MEDIUM
DETECTOR TRUST: LOUD
TYPE: NEW
PERCENT LINK: 100%
FILTER SHAPE: HP ON, LP OFF

MANUAL MAKEUP GAIN: +6

True North · 10th April 2008, 11:31 PM

Nice Test - I am going to check out the most recent comparisons

I have the same pet peeve as you - it drives me absolutely bananas when people say - "I can hear the difference as clear as night and day"

Maybe it's because my ears suck and I am jealous, but I generally fair pretty well on listening tests. I can hear differences but I would not characterize those differences as night and day.

Thanks for doing this, cheers!!

SonOfSteven · 10th April 2008, 11:34 PM

I have been using the Hardware for a few months. I had to send my mixer for repairs so im mixing ITB at the moment with the software on the mixbuss in logic pro, I feel that it doesnt sound as strong as the hardare with the same exact settings. didnt do an A B comparison, but this is what i felt using the sofware version.

norman_nomad · 11th April 2008, 12:21 AM

Well done. Nulling IMO is the best way to do these kinds of tests.

I gave both files a listen and I have to say that these are really pretty close to my ears.

My initial gut impression after listening on some ear buds was to say that file 1 is the plug and file 2 is the hardware. I think the low end on file 2 has more "thud" and then bloom which I associated with hardware.

Andrew07 · 11th April 2008, 01:57 AM

I really don't know which is which

. Theres a buzzing which is more prenounced on file one between 2-3 seconds

Just curious, how do you guys perform null tests like this? Do you adjust input/output/amount of compression and just twiddle until it gets close to canceling out?

t_d · 11th April 2008, 02:39 AM

i have no idea which is the hardware of software, but #2 sounds a bit more pillowy and spacious in the highs..

and at the same time #1 sounds like the bass is a bit rounder

but god, i could be hallucinating. there *is* a difference, but it's minor..

i like #2 better.

luctellier · 11th April 2008, 03:45 AM

Second one (#2) is the hardware!

I'm having so much fun with the hardware unit . I'm testing it on kick, snare, drum buss, parrallel compression, master buss... oh wait.. am I becoming a gearslutz?

raal · 11th April 2008, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luctellier

Second one (#2) is the hardware!

Quote:

Originally Posted by raal

my guess is software too... which of course means it's the hardware.

see? i was right in that i was wrong. i'm getting pretty good at this.

duvalle · 11th April 2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luctellier

I'm having so much fun with the hardware unit .

Strobian · 11th April 2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luctellier

Second one (#2) is the hardware!

I'm having so much fun with the hardware unit . I'm testing it on kick, snare, drum buss, parrallel compression, master buss... oh wait.. am I becoming a gearslutz?

Nice. That is what I thought, 2 sounded better in clarity and depth. IT adds up to a great final mix when every track sounds a little bit better. The master buss is really where the hardware shines. Thanks for the test.

luctellier · 11th April 2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strobian

Nice. That is what I thought, 2 sounded better in clarity and depth. IT adds up to a great final mix when every track sounds a little bit better. The master buss is really where the hardware shines. Thanks for the test.

Yesterday I tested it on the master buss of many songs I previously used the software version and the hardware glued better and the low-end was tighter. I'm going to post those test.

norman_nomad · 11th April 2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luctellier

Yesterday I tested it on the master buss of many songs I previously used the software version and the hardware glued better and the low-end was tighter. I'm going to post those test.

nice. lookin forward to checkin those out.

lpkyer · 11th April 2008, 10:25 PM

great test !!

Hardware really pushed the reverb in a nice manner.

superb drums sounds too !

JamieMB · 12th April 2008, 01:50 PM

I'm using Samp over here too and Ammunition sounds better than both those IMO but that coul djust be because I'm using settings which I prefer anyway.

luctellier · 12th April 2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamieMB

I'm using Samp over here too and Ammunition sounds better than both those IMO but that coul djust be because I'm using settings which I prefer anyway.

This thread is about Waves API 2500 plugin vs hardware. You can't compare what you can achieve with some other plugin with the result of this test. You must compare apples with apples. There's too many factors such as the sound of the drum at the source, then how much compression was applied, the EQ applied, etc.

t_d · 2nd May 2008, 02:18 PM

i really love the sound of the waves API 2500... best software compressor i've heard... so it makes me want the real thing..

but i'm torn.. i already have a (real) 5500 EQ.. and i've got a boat load of UAD-1 EQs... so i don't really need the whole waves API bundle.. if i got it, i'd use it mostly for the 2500..

i can get it for around $600.... or, i can get the 2500 hardware for $2500

obviously a big difference in price.. and, obviously, all the slutz are going to tell me to get the hardware.... can anyone thing of a reason to just get the software? the HW and SW are *close*.. but i chose the HW in the listening test above..

damn, i hate these decisions.. especially when there are other things to buy as well... and money becomes a big issue...!

luctellier · 2nd May 2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t_d

can anyone thing of a reason to just get the software?

It's cheaper and you get run as many instances as your CPU can handle.

t_d · 2nd May 2008, 02:50 PM

that is the great debate.....!

Quote:

Originally Posted by luctellier

It's cheaper and you get run as many instances as your CPU can handle.

prosodio · 27th May 2008, 10:44 PM

Luctellier, would you mind if I run your NO COMP loop test through my compressors and I upload the results??

Greetings.

luctellier · 28th May 2008, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosodio

Luctellier, would you mind if I run your NO COMP loop test through my compressors and I upload the results??

Greetings.

Yeah no prob, go ahead :)

heyman · 28th May 2008, 04:36 PM

Luc, as a side note....

How you liking the Toft board?

I find that I like the Eq more for Vox, keys, percussion and drums than I do for Bass and Guitar..

luctellier · 28th May 2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heyman

Luc, as a side note....

How you liking the Toft board?

I find that I like the Eq more for Vox, keys, percussion and drums than I do for Bass and Guitar..

I sent it back to store and got the Midas Venice 240! I had ground issue, noise, EQ and Gain not linear, less headroom than the Midas, button that stayed in my hand! Anyways, too much problem for having it one week! On the other side, I really like the Midas even if the routing is not really designed for studio application. I mix totally in the box so it's no big deal.

heyman · 28th May 2008, 05:41 PM

Sorry you had a problem..

Best of luck with the midas.

Jax · 31st May 2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpkyer

superb drums sounds too !

I got to this thread late, but I agree about the drum sounds.

Are they samples, or were they recorded live in your (luc's) room?

Jax · 31st May 2008, 09:52 PM

I've been digging these tests, but I think one feature of the Waves 2500 is being overlooked - the Analog on/off switch. The API box can't do this, but it would be revealing to see if the SW can get closer to the low freq signature of the HW, because the Analog switch in ON cuts lows a bit.

How about a comparison between the HW and SW version, but with the Analog switch OFF on the SW? I assume all tests were done with the Analog switch ON, but didn't see it mentioned.

On the Waves version, I notice a difference between the Analog switch being on and off. ON sounds like a mild (maybe -6 to -10 dB/oct) high pass filter is engaged somewhere @ 80 Hz. OFF sounds like the frequency content of the source is not affected.

Perhaps some of that low end "bloom" will come back into focus with Analog off. I regularly use it this way. ON is usually too HP'd for me but can work on some sources... definitely NOT on drums though!

Jax · 3rd June 2008, 07:17 PM

What the futch?

Call me the thread killer!

Somebody do a test with the Analog switch off. Thanks.

krheatman · 12th June 2008, 10:37 PM

Am I the only one hearing the difference in the kick drum between 1 and 2?The hardware unit sounds waaay tighter.I have all the waves but see this unit in my rack.I have the SSL Duende PCIe and all UAD-1 plugs also.The SSL buss plug is very transparent and awesome as 2 buss or mixing,unless you want color.I run an analog chain thru my cranesong hedd with a drawmer 1968 which works great on the 2 buss upper end for glue. If my comprehension is right,the 2500 hw unit will tighten the bottom only using certain settings? Appreciate any feedback.

31st March 2008, 12:37 AM	#61
Strobian Gear maniac Join Date: May 2007 Location: USA Posts: 264	These tests never work really anyway. I really don't know anyone who wouldn't pick the hardware over the software given more than a weekend rental situation. The 2500 overtime keeps impressing. I've never heard a plugin yet, actually mimic the thrust circuit or the 2520 amp correctly. i use a combination of plugins, but like to use the hardware 2500 on the mix buss, its API glue, not an emulation. I guess with anything get the one that sounds good to your ears, not your wallet. If you plan to be in it for the longhaul, investing in nice equipment can make a difference. Its just a little bit more, but isn't that why everyone is doing these tests, to find out which one is just a little bit warmer, better.? I like plugins, but having some analog circuitry really can be what you need to make things sound great. 02 __________________ Best Regards. Let the ear be the final judge.

10th April 2008, 11:31 PM	#65
True North Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario (Canada) Posts: 2,265	Nice Test - I am going to check out the most recent comparisons I have the same pet peeve as you - it drives me absolutely bananas when people say - "I can hear the difference as clear as night and day" Maybe it's because my ears suck and I am jealous, but I generally fair pretty well on listening tests. I can hear differences but I would not characterize those differences as night and day. Thanks for doing this, cheers!! __________________ "In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey" - Beck, Loser "I do use compressors/limiters but not for controlling dynamics, I use EQ for that!" Jp22 (damn I miss him) "Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance." -- Will Durant, historian (1885-1981) "I try to get a boom out of the bass drum, in one of my albums, my CD, boom, I try to get that big boom, I could not get a big boom, I paid bucks, and could not get the boom" - Recording Expert, Tad Donley

10th April 2008, 11:34 PM	#66
SonOfSteven Gear nut Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Ibiza Spain Posts: 117	I have been using the Hardware for a few months. I had to send my mixer for repairs so im mixing ITB at the moment with the software on the mixbuss in logic pro, I feel that it doesnt sound as strong as the hardare with the same exact settings. didnt do an A B comparison, but this is what i felt using the sofware version. __________________ www.shanti-music.net www.myspace.com/kromeangels www.myspace.com/shantimatkin

11th April 2008, 12:21 AM	#67
norman_nomad Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 1,533	Well done. Nulling IMO is the best way to do these kinds of tests. I gave both files a listen and I have to say that these are really pretty close to my ears. My initial gut impression after listening on some ear buds was to say that file 1 is the plug and file 2 is the hardware. I think the low end on file 2 has more "thud" and then bloom which I associated with hardware. __________________ www.musicians-samples.com

11th April 2008, 02:39 AM	#69
t_d Gear addict Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: pound ridge, NY Posts: 455	i have no idea which is the hardware of software, but #2 sounds a bit more pillowy and spacious in the highs.. and at the same time #1 sounds like the bass is a bit rounder but god, i could be hallucinating. there is a difference, but it's minor.. i like #2 better. __________________ taylor deupree \| www.12k.com • myspace.com/taylordeupree • photography

10th April 2008, 11:24 PM	#63
PeterSturm Gear interested Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 21	Thank you for this! I guess the second one is the hardware. Can you post the settings, please?

11th April 2008, 01:57 AM	#68
Andrew07 Gear maniac Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 201	I really don't know which is which . Theres a buzzing which is more prenounced on file one between 2-3 seconds Just curious, how do you guys perform null tests like this? Do you adjust input/output/amount of compression and just twiddle until it gets close to canceling out?

11th April 2008, 10:25 PM	#76
lpkyer Lives for gear Join Date: May 2006 Location: Montreal, Québec Posts: 1,155	great test !! Hardware really pushed the reverb in a nice manner. superb drums sounds too ! __________________ Lou Kyer & Charlier www.kcstudio.net myspace.com/kyercharlier

12th April 2008, 01:50 PM	#77
JamieMB Gear maniac Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 183	I'm using Samp over here too and Ammunition sounds better than both those IMO but that coul djust be because I'm using settings which I prefer anyway.

2nd May 2008, 02:18 PM	#79
t_d Gear addict Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: pound ridge, NY Posts: 455	i really love the sound of the waves API 2500... best software compressor i've heard... so it makes me want the real thing.. but i'm torn.. i already have a (real) 5500 EQ.. and i've got a boat load of UAD-1 EQs... so i don't really need the whole waves API bundle.. if i got it, i'd use it mostly for the 2500.. i can get it for around $600.... or, i can get the 2500 hardware for $2500 obviously a big difference in price.. and, obviously, all the slutz are going to tell me to get the hardware.... can anyone thing of a reason to just get the software? the HW and SW are close.. but i chose the HW in the listening test above.. damn, i hate these decisions.. especially when there are other things to buy as well... and money becomes a big issue...! __________________ taylor deupree \| www.12k.com • myspace.com/taylordeupree • photography

27th May 2008, 10:44 PM	#82
prosodio Gear Head Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 43	Luctellier, would you mind if I run your NO COMP loop test through my compressors and I upload the results?? Greetings. __________________ Jose

28th May 2008, 04:36 PM	#84
heyman Lives for gear Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waterbury CT, then Providence, RI Posts: 1,756	Luc, as a side note.... How you liking the Toft board? I find that I like the Eq more for Vox, keys, percussion and drums than I do for Bass and Guitar.. __________________ Ummm, thats it... move a little to the left..

28th May 2008, 05:41 PM	#86
heyman Lives for gear Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waterbury CT, then Providence, RI Posts: 1,756	Sorry you had a problem.. Best of luck with the midas. __________________ Ummm, thats it... move a little to the left..

31st May 2008, 09:52 PM	#88
Jax Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Rafael, CA Posts: 3,548	waves Analog switch on the 2500 I've been digging these tests, but I think one feature of the Waves 2500 is being overlooked - the Analog on/off switch. The API box can't do this, but it would be revealing to see if the SW can get closer to the low freq signature of the HW, because the Analog switch in ON cuts lows a bit. How about a comparison between the HW and SW version, but with the Analog switch OFF on the SW? I assume all tests were done with the Analog switch ON, but didn't see it mentioned. On the Waves version, I notice a difference between the Analog switch being on and off. ON sounds like a mild (maybe -6 to -10 dB/oct) high pass filter is engaged somewhere @ 80 Hz. OFF sounds like the frequency content of the source is not affected. Perhaps some of that low end "bloom" will come back into focus with Analog off. I regularly use it this way. ON is usually too HP'd for me but can work on some sources... definitely NOT on drums though! __________________ When the music is good, the mix is that much better.

3rd June 2008, 07:17 PM	#89
Jax Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Rafael, CA Posts: 3,548	What the futch? Call me the thread killer! Somebody do a test with the Analog switch off. Thanks. __________________ When the music is good, the mix is that much better.

12th June 2008, 10:37 PM	#90
krheatman Gear interested Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3	Api 2500 Am I the only one hearing the difference in the kick drum between 1 and 2?The hardware unit sounds waaay tighter.I have all the waves but see this unit in my rack.I have the SSL Duende PCIe and all UAD-1 plugs also.The SSL buss plug is very transparent and awesome as 2 buss or mixing,unless you want color.I run an analog chain thru my cranesong hedd with a drawmer 1968 which works great on the 2 buss upper end for glue. If my comprehension is right,the 2500 hw unit will tighten the bottom only using certain settings? Appreciate any feedback.