Waves SSL vs SSL FX G384 vs URS 1980 - The advanced Test

OK, since all the "golden ears" are coming outta the woodwork NOW

How about Theother puts up one more test (if he is willing)

And EVERYBODY who is going to give an opinion on which is which, gives it before a certain deadline.

[Rush909]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

OK, since all the "golden ears" are coming outta the woodwork NOW

How about Theother puts up one more test (if he is willing)

And EVERYBODY who is going to give an opinion on which is which, gives it before a certain deadline.

HAHAHA so true... all of a sudden people are "shocked" that some could not hear the difference or figure out which is better! for shame!!!!

I heard the difference but could only make a choice of which is better FOR ME! some would like more bass in their music, and thus whatever mix highlighted that would win... some are even talking about how the compressor treated the snare!!! what about the hats, the synths, the kick... each sound different in a way... what sounds good to me might not sound good to someone else... how often have we gotten our mixes back from mastering and been shocked at the choices the ME had made! surely he/she had heard things in a different way than me! I agree with No SSL! put up another test and let poeple go on the line picking the "right one"!

r.

[DAWgEAR]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

OK, since all the "golden ears" are coming outta the woodwork NOW

How about Theother puts up one more test (if he is willing)

And EVERYBODY who is going to give an opinion on which is which, gives it before a certain deadline.

[raal]

just got into town and had a chance to compare the Waves/SSL to the FX384! nothing scientific, just my take:

made two aux channels with identical drum sub. inserted the FX384 on one set, and the plug on the other. first impression, i was dissapointed at how different they sounded. then i cross patched inserts on the plug channels as per theother's recommendation, so they'd go through the same ADDA conversion as the hardware. bingo. they sounded very similar.

i made the settings equal as a starting point but they didn't really match, so i tried to match by ear. when they started to sound real close i flipped the phase, and there was about an 15 to 18dB cancellation. no big deal there, but they really did sound very similar.

i matched them at conservative comp levels, as i would actually use them. then at medium levels, and doing the same thing to the controls didn't translate, but i could get them to match by ear with a little tweaking. then i did the same with extreme compression, and again, just copying pot settings didn't do it - had to do it by ear.

bottom line i was amazed at how close i could get the plug to sound to 384. i was just hitting solo simultaneously on the 2 separate channels in procontrol, so after awhile i forgot which was which. no way i could tell which was the 384 reliably. can't wait to hear the EQs.

thanks to theother for this thread. very educational. by now many must've heard these things. i'd like to know if i'm nuts or if this is what people are experiencing. just got off a plane flight and it's 4AM so i'm tired, but i don't think i'm too trashed. will listen again soon, and if my perception varies i'll post back.

[Dirty Halo]

Cool, since most everyone agrees that the plugs are basically as good as the real SSL, then you'd better sell off those boards and SSL gear as fast as you can (I know this has been said), but I'll gladly take it off your hands as a favor, before it becomes worth less than a plug-in.

PM if you need to off some SSL anything

-andrews

DIRTY HALO www.dirtyhalo.com

P.S. Guess I'll go all ghetto and mix the next album on a real SSL, hmmm, please don'e make fun of me for being all old-school, just a guy trying to do the best he can with the tools he's got... or willhave when you off-load that soon-to-be worthless hardware!

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

OK, since all the "golden ears" are coming outta the woodwork NOW

How about Theother puts up one more test (if he is willing)

And EVERYBODY who is going to give an opinion on which is which, gives it before a certain deadline.

Why bother? If someone wants to fool himself/herself let them be. Truth will haunt you anyway...

Btw thanx Theother for the test!

[FOURTHTUNZ]

Hey i forgot to thank theother for the teststhumbsup
Nice of you to take the time!
daniel

[Mike Jasper]

Just found this, and glad I did.

Thanks to TheOther for doing this. It takes a lot of work, but it does not go unappreciated.

Jasper

What I did get out of this was a greater appreciation for The Other. I appreciate the effort manthumbsup (Even though when you changed avatars it had me looking for your posts LOL I guess avatars are like faces after a while)

By the way I think I was the one who commented on the snare. I thought the real SSL sounded more open, but I liked what the waves did to the snr. So I'd put the SSL on 2 bus and the waves on snr or drum buss. I'd like to hear a comparison at conservative compression that would actually be used on 2 bus as well. BUt beggars cant be choosey. It seems the waves is a very usable tool

My only question is how people picked the URS as best or 2nd best. EVEN after knowing the answers my pick is SSL, Waves, URS

I keep trying to hear what the URS is doing that people like and honestly this is all you can test with handed compression. To see if there is something about it that you like, and I happened to like what the waves did to the snr. I"d put it on SNR so it wouldnt matter what it did to the hats in this case

[coosticks]

I've just set up a new poll based on this (kinda!) on the music computers forum.

******//www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=68825

I've used the hardware SSL as a "benchmark" to test 10 plugins to see if they can provide "usable" results in comparison to the real thing.

This is not to see if any of them can match the 384 (unlike the URS 1980 and the Waves SSL, the plugs I've used are not specifically attempting to emulate the SSL sound anyway), more as a (hopefully) interesting experiment and a bit of fun!

Vote for which one of the 10 works best IYO, and maybe have a stab at naming what the plugins are!

Cheers,
Paul

[Dave Derr]

ON the Drums Only samples, the compression sounds more natural on all the comps. They all seem similar but I do hear differences, mostly on the full song samples. Theres probably too much compression on the full song samples, making it hard to give a fair judgement. I think 1 - 3 dB of buss compression on full mixes does the job.

My impression is that the kick is pushing the compressors farthest, as usual, and making everything else pump a little unnaturally on the full song samples. I listened only on my little puter speakers I confess, but sometimes they are the best things for hearing gross balances and compression.

I would bet that if the full song samples had the kick level adjusted in the mix while listening to the buss compression, maybe you could pull the kick down to keep it sitting without pumping.

Also, sometimes highpassing the sidechain of the compressor to keep the LFs from triggering excessive compression does the job. But it also may keep you from getting the maximum level out of the mix without clipping.

Sometimes a faster release actually sounds more natural and less pumpy because it releases mostly before the kick or snare is over, leaving the sustained sources more natural sounding, and less modulated by the kick or snare. There are certain release shapes that I prefer also, IE Exponential or Linear etc. Sometimes a slower attack will keep the compressor from triggering fully on the Kick/snare also, letting the smack come thru. Try 100mS instead of 10mS on attack, and it may sound less pumpy.

I think most people also find that whether a source was analog or digital has a big affect on how the compressor works. Soft clipping can make compression sound much more natural by clipping the peaks a db or two, preventing over-compression.

The other day I was listening to Little Earthquakes by Tori Amos, and was appalled at the pumping caused by the KICK on the first song (I think). Its a slower song and I can really hear the post attack pump after the kick. To me it was VERY unmusical compression, and yet, that was an award winning album, so WHO CARES WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE BUSS COMPRESSOR!

It could be that if you just backed off the compression a bit on the full song samples, or slowed the attack up, that all the compressors would sound pretty dang good.

Interesting samples and thread. Thanks for taking the time to post them!

[Paul Frindle]

Just seen this thread. I haven't read it all (cos it's very long) but I found it interesting that people are comparing stuff in this way. It's all a bit subjective and not necessarily well controlled, but the different characters of these apps are still apparent.

Just for some fun I made another compressed file from the original uncompressed full programme cutting..

******//www.pfrindle.free-online.co.uk/ssl em.wav

[Paul Frindle]

Originally Posted by Dave Derr

ON the Drums Only samples, the compression sounds more natural on all the comps. They all seem similar but I do hear differences, mostly on the full song samples. Theres probably too much compression on the full song samples, making it hard to give a fair judgement. I think 1 - 3 dB of buss compression on full mixes does the job.

My impression is that the kick is pushing the compressors farthest, as usual, and making everything else pump a little unnaturally on the full song samples. I listened only on my little puter speakers I confess, but sometimes they are the best things for hearing gross balances and compression.

I would bet that if the full song samples had the kick level adjusted in the mix while listening to the buss compression, maybe you could pull the kick down to keep it sitting without pumping.

Also, sometimes highpassing the sidechain of the compressor to keep the LFs from triggering excessive compression does the job. But it also may keep you from getting the maximum level out of the mix without clipping.

Sometimes a faster release actually sounds more natural and less pumpy because it releases mostly before the kick or snare is over, leaving the sustained sources more natural sounding, and less modulated by the kick or snare. There are certain release shapes that I prefer also, IE Exponential or Linear etc. Sometimes a slower attack will keep the compressor from triggering fully on the Kick/snare also, letting the smack come thru. Try 100mS instead of 10mS on attack, and it may sound less pumpy.

I think most people also find that whether a source was analog or digital has a big affect on how the compressor works. Soft clipping can make compression sound much more natural by clipping the peaks a db or two, preventing over-compression.

The other day I was listening to Little Earthquakes by Tori Amos, and was appalled at the pumping caused by the KICK on the first song (I think). Its a slower song and I can really hear the post attack pump after the kick. To me it was VERY unmusical compression, and yet, that was an award winning album, so WHO CARES WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE BUSS COMPRESSOR!

It could be that if you just backed off the compression a bit on the full song samples, or slowed the attack up, that all the compressors would sound pretty dang good.

Interesting samples and thread. Thanks for taking the time to post them!

I agree that the wav samples used were somewhat over compressed - but this may have been done deliberately in order to accentuate their character for comparison.

I also agree that slower attacks sound better since less of the initial peaks are compressed, this means that you get a harder and more defined sound. However you will also get much more peak level, so it may not suit people aiming for maximum levels as it can hit the final buss limiter too hard and get lost anyway?

Faster release can improve things if the compression is not too heavy as it tends to recover in time to avoid squashing stuff that comes immediately after percussive hits. But this may also sound bad in other more sustained parts of the programme where modulation may occur between competing instruments.. The trick is to set the threshold high enough so that the compression ignors these softer passages. Or alternatively select a soft knee so that the quieter bits get less compression ratio..

[coosticks]

I used this file on 10 compressor plugins to see what happened (!)
check it out, and please vote!!
******//www.gearslutz.com/board/showt...847#post705847

[Paul Frindle]

Originally Posted by coosticks

I used this file on 10 compressor plugins to see what happened (!)
check it out, and please vote!!
******//www.gearslutz.com/board/showt...847#post705847

Ok thanks, I will check them out.

I have been doing some brief fiddling around at home with the Oxford Dynamics to match the SSL file this afternoon, mostly in order to get some respite from a manic children's party going on here!!
I have of course been very closely involved with the design of the SSL G series and I also designed the Oxford Dynamics processing, so I am extremely familiar with both..
The FX 384 was done after I left SSL, but listening to the processed file I immediately recognised that the FX 384 design must be very close to the original G series compressor. What struck me was just how different the other files were, so I couldn't resist having a go :-)
Being designed as a wide ranging general purpose app, the Oxford Dyn plug is far more versatile (some would say confusing) than the console compressors with many more options and variables to play with. But knowing the internals of both makes it easy for me to set it up to sound this way..

Please note that the idea was to match the sound - NOT to produce the best possible result from the Oxford dynamics!

I have since done one other file using the Oxford limiter - which has a very different architecture and therefore creates a markedly different sound, which I have set for much of the same character but produces far greater volume and impact for similar peak levels than the SSL emulation..

******//www.pfrindle.free-online.co.uk/ssl em lim.wav

[Dave Derr]

Originally Posted by Paul Frindle

Please note that the idea was to match the sound - NOT to produce the best possible result from the Oxford dynamics!

I have since done one other file using the Oxford limiter - which has a very different architecture and therefore creates a markedly different sound, which I have set for much of the same character but produces far greater volume and impact for similar peak levels than the SSL emulation..

******//www.pfrindle.free-online.co.uk/ssl em lim.wav

Its hard to tell if you used the same amount of compression, but this Oxford test is definitely more musical and sounds more natural, but still very compressed. I like it quite a bit for the amount of compression that was probably used. Again Im listening on puter speakers, but it kind of strips out the bass and lets you hear if anything is pumping up and down un-musically. How much peak compression were you using, if I may ask? Im guessing 5dB-ish, possibly a bit more.

[raal]

hello mr.frindle,
1st of all, thank you for your explanations on PSW regarding intersample peaks. i mix differently now and have lost all fear of ITB summing. still use loads of analog gear but not because of the summing.

anyway hearing the file you posted, from memory it sounded 'deeper' and richer somehow (was going to say more musical but i just noticed dave beat me to it). if you could give us some tips on how to do the 'better than SSL emualtion' on the Oxford it would be much appreciated.

[preben]

Mr. Frindle, I'd also like to say thanks for generous info on psw.

And yes, any info on how to 'ssl-ify' the Oxford plugs (Dyn as well as Lim please) would be highly appreciated.

In fact: the same what raal said

[Paul Frindle]

Originally Posted by Dave Derr

Its hard to tell if you used the same amount of compression, but this Oxford test is definitely more musical and sounds more natural, but still very compressed. I like it quite a bit for the amount of compression that was probably used. Again Im listening on puter speakers, but it kind of strips out the bass and lets you hear if anything is pumping up and down un-musically. How much peak compression were you using, if I may ask? Im guessing 5dB-ish, possibly a bit more.

You are spot on - the peak gain reduction was around 5dB :-) I was of course trying to match the sound of the sample clip. From what I could hear there was no faster limiting on the track - it was a plain compressor with a single time constant attack and release. I have posted the PTLE plug set up in:

******//www.pfrindle.free-online.co.u...L2 emulate.tfx

I wouldn't use these settings on this kind of programme myself - I would use the fast limiter (moderate attack/fast release) to deal with the peaks (you can use a moderate attack cos the plug has look ahead) and a slower attack and release time on the compressor to prevent too much fast pumping and let some decent attacks through, also with around a 5dB soft knee with to smooth over the regions where it goes in and out of compression - and a higher ratio and a tad more gain makeup to compensate etc.

You are also right about how useful smaller speakers are sometimes in revealing nasty artefacts. In many cases the lower mids and boom from bigger speakers overwhelms stuff going on higher up (unless you can get your head in exactly the right position) - and this is even more so of headphones. In order to get over this problem I often test by dramatically rolling off the lower mid and bass regions on the buss so I can hear the stuff in the mid ranges that may get accentuated on smaller user systems :-)

[coosticks]

Hi Paul,
I can't do anything with this link.... comes up as a garbled bunch of text (opened in MS Excel for me!); I'm on Mac (tried safari, firefox...)
any ideas?
(many thanks for the PM by the way.....)
Paul

[Paul Frindle]

Originally Posted by coosticks

Hi Paul,
I can't do anything with this link.... comes up as a garbled bunch of text (opened in MS Excel for me!); I'm on Mac (tried safari, firefox...)
any ideas?
(many thanks for the PM by the way.....)
Paul

Ok - maybe this is a compatability issue? I have zipped it up to see if this works better:

******//www.pfrindle.free-online.co.u...L2 emulate.zip

The file needs to be copied into the Plug-Ins Settings folder within the digidesign environment. I can't remember where this is for MAC LE but for WinXP it is:

C:\Program Files\Common Files\Digidesign\DAE\Plug-In Settings\Oxford Dynamics ..

It should then appear as an entry in the plug-in presets list when you start up PT and instantiate the dynamics

I hope this helps..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have just added a screenshot jpeg below showing the compressor settings in case nothing else works:

******//www.pfrindle.free-online.co.u...L2 emulate.jpg

Please note that the Warmth function is also active and set at 5.26%.. This is done to emulate the 'non-perfect' status of the analogue unit :-)

Please note also that all the settings were done by ear without reference to anything other than the posted sound files - so this is fairly unscientific stuff..

[GJ Orange]

What is the question here?

1. Which is the best compressor?

or

2. Which emulates SSL more accurately?


Question 1 is purely a matter of taste which no discussion will bring to a logical conclusion.

Question 2 should not be a matter of opinion but we would need to know what is emulating what. Here are a few points:

1. URS have never stated that their compressors emulate SSL at all, never mind which model they are emulating.
All SSL's sound different than each other anyway so matching knob values on GUIs is useless. Remember that this test is only comparing against one example of a hardware SSL. You would be hard pushed to get two hardware SSL's to cancel each other out.

I'm sure the testing that Waves did while producing these plugins involved a lot more than doing a few phase cancellation tests.

The tests here are flawed too.

You would need to process the hardware example and render the software samples through the same converters. Then you would have three files.
You can then do the phase tests ITB without having to bring converters into the equation again.
What converters are used is irrelevant.


Yeah maybe someone else should put three more examples up, without naming which one is which. Then we should demand that all the golden eared people here who say that it is easy to spot the hardware to state their opinions before it is revealed which is which. Some of these people are so funny but I've come across hundreds of them in my career.

I had a "golden ears" in a few weeks ago. Telling me how amazing Blue Tubes was. I did a little test. I rendered two identicle files but told him one was Blue Tubes and one was through the Neve.

On first listen he thought he could identify the difference but would not go into any detail about the differences he could hear. So I tell him that the one he thought was Blue Tubes was Blue Tubes. My god, he started to open up then, waxing lyrical about the beautiful qualities he could hear in the Blue Tubes one.
Remember both files were identical and neither were processed by the Neve or Blue Tubes. He wouldn't give up, going on and on about it.

When he had dug a big enough hole, I phase cancelled the two files which of course resulted in silence.. He then said that the two files cancelling other out didn't mean they are the same. lol.


Like I said before, no two SSL's will cancel each other out completely so these tests are a waste of time. The only way to solve this one is to USE YOUR EARS.
If it sounds like an SSL then it sounds like an SSL. No science needed.

[theother]

Jesus! Let this thread die in peace with some dignity..

[theother]

Originally Posted by GJ Orange

The tests here are flawed too.

You would need to process the hardware example and render the software samples through the same converters. Then you would have three files.
You can then do the phase tests ITB without having to bring converters into the equation again.
What converters are used is irrelevant.

That's exactly what happened. Everything went through the same converters and therefore the converters are irrelevant. The software processed files went out through the converters, straight back in and then through the plugin.

The idea of the test was to see how close you can get with the software to the SSL quad comp. If you wanted to buy the SSL for inserting it in the mixbuss you might be able to get away with the software and saving the cost of converters and the SSL hardware. That is if you think they sound nearly the same.

After working with the SSL channel for some time now I can say for sure that the channel compressor (the one that comes with the EQ & gate) sucks! It's not even close to the real thing. The stereo compresser (Quad) is at least in the right ballpark.

[Revelation]

Here is an interesting review of the Waves SSL. ******//www.eqmag.com/story.asp?storycode=14436

[beachhunt]

Sorry to bump a week old thread (not sure how old is too old here), but this topic is what got me to register here, as I found the tests very interesting as well as helpful.

When I listened to the drum-only files, one of them seemed to go "wobbly" with the snare, while the other two sounded fine. The wobbly one ended up being the URS. By wobbly, I mean that while the snare is panned somewhat to the right, the URS file has it sort of fall from the right side into the middle, each time the snare hits. The other two drum tests keep the snare in one place. (use headphones if you don't hear what I'm talking about)

I played around with the URS compressors a bit and they all seem to mangle the stereo field once I hit more than a dB or two of reduction. Am I just crazy, or does anyone else find this to be the case? I like the overall sound of the URS compressors, but I'm almost afraid to push them at all because of this issue.

[thephatboi]

yeah stereo field differences are the most noticable to me, with the G384 winning with more depth and width. Impact to me was in second place; it's pretty funny how much URS and Waves charge for their plugs when I felt Impact sounded much better than either and I got it free with my HD rig... not bad Still the hardware has something the others don't have, the plugs seem to collapse inward.... I have a C2, wonder how that really compares to a 384...... anybody have both? Next thread.