7th May 2012
|
#1 | | Gear interested
Joined: May 2012 Location: Linz
Posts: 5
Thread Starter | UA1176LN vs. Purple MC77 vs. new UAD Classic Collection 1176 Rev. E
Hi,
I finally managed to create an account as I thought it would be a good idea to post some files of my latest shootout. I am reading this forum for quite a long time and got great benefit out of it! So I felt it’s time to participate 
Over the last weeks I’ve searched the forum over and over again and read the manifold threads concerning tests between different 1176 clones. I know that there are a few shootouts, but I wanted to especially try male vocals and also include a plug. According to the posts I wanted to shootout my favorite choices: mc77 and 1176LN. As I do not have access to an UREI 1176 I can not say anything about it. It happened that Universal Audio released their new Classic Limiter collection and so I included the E-model in this test.
I painstakingly tried to match levels and gain reduction of all three candidates. Levels should be within less than 0.5db and gain reduction should be pretty much the same.
Let’s say something about the test structure: - the track was recorded through an Neumann TLM-67 and a Great River MP500-NV via SSL-Alpha-Link MADI AX @ 96Khz/24bit into Cubase 6.5 (set to 32bit float)
- track was copied after slight intonation control via Melodyne
there is no processing going on except slight intonation control and the comp itself
- I processed the track three times with each comp for a total of nine files – I tried 4:!, 20:1 and ALL-button-mode, attack @3 and release @7
- no processing on the master bus – except for 16bit dither and “summed” through my 8816 and rerecorded @96K, then bounced
- I did not send the track with the plug-in outside and inside to do another conversion as I won’t do that while processing with plugs
- I chose to use my 8816 because this is my normal setup
For me there are two “winners” but one of the two stands out a little bit I also tried every comp within a full mix – every difference between them was noticeable. For me I have still to choose what to do.
I am interested in your comments and I’d like to know if you can pick out the three candidates out of my test files! What’s your winner?
-->> I've removed the original files for now, please scroll down two posts for the new files. Still the three comps @same attack/release but different ratio
| 
|  | |
8th May 2012
|
#2 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2007 Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,305
 |
The first step in doing this sort of comparison is to match the volume of the various samples. Some of these files vary by as much as 3dB rms!
Also, not as significantly because this seems to be distributed evenly, the left side is about 2 dB louder than the right.
Of course the above two issues are somewhat easily fixed. The other two grumbles I have...
The audible tuning artifacts are a tad distracting, and you should really consider investing in a pop filter.
The problem with all these issues is that they are what caught my attention, so that it was difficult to listen for the differences you intended for us to listen for.
I'll give it another shot later on....
__________________
Andy Sartain
(new web site coming soon) Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k  .....Along with a link to one or three of their own mixes that demonstrate what the poster is claiming. Otherwise, they're just blowin' smoke out their @ss and asking me to breathe deep. | | |
| | |
8th May 2012
|
#3 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2007 Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,305
|
Since what you've tried to do is actually quite interesting and you clearly put some effort into it, I decided to go ahead do something constructive instead of merely complaining.
I've corrected the avg. rms; all the attached files are now pretty close to -12 dB on both sides. All I did was apply gain change in Wavelab - no compression or additional processing.
I've also renamed them, and hence, if you care to play, turned this into a double blind sort of situation.
I wrote down a key so that I could make the names somewhat random.
Like you, I had a few that struck me as my favorites. I'm curious to see how that stands up over time, and whether or not you'll still have the same favorites when they are level matched and when you have no idea which is which.
Of course you can figure out which is which with a little null testing and comparison of wav forms, but I invite you to see what happens if you are truly in the dark as to which is which.
You also might want to consider taking your files down, so that no one else can have the benefit of seeing the pattern you set with your nomenclature.
I tend to be a little skeptical in terms of plug in emulations, but UAD has done some amazing things in the last couple of years. The Fatso is particularly nice, and I like the new 1176 emulations quite a bit.
| |
| | |
8th May 2012
|
#4 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 863
|
Wow, thanks guys. Will definitely check this out.
| 
| | |
8th May 2012
|
#5 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 863
|
I listened to the blind, level-matched files. Seems to me there's a trade-off going on between an open, detailed sound, on one hand, and having exaggerated esses and plosives, on the other.
File 11 has an immediacy and presence and punch that I like, but the esses are distracting.
File 12 is a little muffled sounding by comparison, but the performance is very even and the esses and plosives are tame.
My favorites were 15 & 16, since I thought they navigated successfully between these extremes. On 16, especially, you can hear the air and detail around the 'eth' in 'attend-eth', which I really appreciated. But overall I liked 15 the most.
Steve, could you PM me the key?
| |
| | |
8th May 2012
|
#6 | | Gear interested
Joined: May 2012 Location: Linz
Posts: 5
Thread Starter |
Okay let's play I have removed the original files in my post...
Sorry for the tuning artifacts – used the macro-function as I didn’t have enough time to take care of every note. I know there is an issue with the breathings – won’t do that normally..
You know what? The channel one (left) pot on my 8816 wasn’t in the right place! I didn’t noticed that as I inserted the analyzer plug into the track’s insert and not into the master... Yes RMS differ, but I thought that would be the different compression characteristics. I tried to match the peaks and only the files set at same ratio are matched. I wanted to compare the different behaviors within one ratio-setting for all three.
Thank you for even it out and correct those points – I am participating this double blind test (whooo – really scientific)!
@Yummerz: You will also need my key as well as you don’t know which comp is 10, 20 or 30
I will listen to the files..
| |
| | |
8th May 2012
|
#7 | | Gear interested
Joined: May 2012 Location: Linz
Posts: 5
Thread Starter |
I listened to it. Wow that's difficult! Excellent work, Steve. I still have a few "favorite" tracks but it is definitely hard to tell which is which. Maybe I am to tired - will check tomorrow...
Steve - what was your favorite file from the original post? just to check if it will match with mine...
| |
| | |
9th May 2012
|
#8 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2007 Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,305
|
I'm frankly amazed about this comparison
The most significant differences I am hearing I believe have to do with essentially less verses more compression - as you go from the 2 to 4 to all in ratio the sound becomes a little more oppressive, especially during the louder parts.
I seem to reliably like the number 10 versions most and the number 20 versions the least.
| |
| | |
9th May 2012
|
#9 | | Gear interested
Joined: May 2012 Location: Linz
Posts: 5
Thread Starter |
okay that is interesting - I found the 20 the most pleasant followed by 10 and then 30. What I find is, that both 10 and 20 are rounder than 30. The thing with 20 is, that it has a certain polish that I do not hear in 10...
As far as your edited files goes - I am not really sure what I like and not If I step from one to another I can say "better than the one before" or "there has been something better". For example like 12 - it has warmth and shimmer - if you step through you can hear that some are colder.
Can you PM me the key? I have to decide if I buy purple or UA... Thanks!
| |
| | |
10th May 2012
|
#10 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2007 Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,305
|
PM sent. Of one thing I am certain - the new UAD emulation is way better than the old one!
| |
| | |
11th May 2012
|
#11 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Mar 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 2,713
|
I like 15 & 16 .... 19, 13 & 11 get honorable mention.
They all sounded pretty good.. the ones above just stood out to me. I particularly liked how 'hairy' 16 was compared to the others... 15 had similar vibe but was a bit more balanced.
Curious to see the results.  | |
| | |
11th May 2012
|
#12 | | 3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,987
|
Thank you op,I'm close to pulling the trigger on the uad plugs!
Thought I had enough uad Plugins,but sounds like these are up there
Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
| |
| | |
2nd June 2012
|
#13 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 877
|
results?
| |
| | | |
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
