12th February 2006
|
#1 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2004 Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,112
Thread Starter  | Waves SSL vs SSL FX G384 vs URS 1980 - The advanced Test
You think the other test was difficult? (no pun intended) Well, try this:
One audio file was sent to the SSL FX G384 compressor (serial number below 200 = a good one) via Apogee DA-16X and AD-16X.
The next just through the Apogee DA-16X and AD-16X (in and outs cross-patched) and then through the Waves SSL stereo compressor.
And the third through the Apogee's and then URS 1980.
All converters clocked by BigBen. 44.1kHz/24bit.
UV22HR 16 bit has been used after the processing on the final files to reduce the download to 16 bit.
I tried to match all compressors as closely as possible so I got the best phase cancellation when phase-reversing one file.
Even with the same settings it was obvious that the compression on all units is slightly different, no matter how hard I tried. (You can import the files and phase reverse one to hear the difference yourself)
The settings I used were:
Ratio 4, Attack 10ms, release 0.3, the gain reduction hitting 4db.
For the DrumsOnly files:
Ratio 4, Attack 3ms, release 0.3, gain reduction hitting 8db. (for this test to hear them working!)
Again, I tried to match the gain reduction and level so I got the best phase cancellation. (I didn't pay any attention to what the meters ate showing because that can be misleading)
Now tell us what you think.
Which file is what? What do you like best?
I changed the order compared to the old test. So what was Test1 there doesn't mean it's Test1 again, but it could be......who knows.... 
The poll askes for what you like best, and not what do you think is the hardware.
If this test is doing your head in go over to the simple one: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=59002 The results have been posted! Look further down the thread (page 3)....Don't want to post them here to spoil the fun....
On page 2 of the thread there are additional files if you are interested...and on page 4, thanks to Svein, there is an Impact compressor file.
| 
|  | |
12th February 2006
|
#2 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2004 Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,112
Thread Starter |
The drums only:
DrumsOnly Test1 here has the same compressor as Test1 before. And so on....
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#3 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 567
 |
if I had to pick, my prerference would be:
3 -> 2 -> 1
1&2 sounded pretty similar to me. Very punchy snares, but I thought 3 sounded truer to the original. Heck, what do I know.  | |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#4 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2004 Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,112
Thread Starter |
I just did the blind test myself, and this time I really struggled. Yesterday I could easily and consistently pick the better sounding one, which always turned out to be the hardware.
Maybe it's just to early in the morning....
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#5 | | Gear nut
Joined: Oct 2003 Location: Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Posts: 79
|
Different order here:
1 -> 3 -> 2
I dunno... 1 is the only one that feels right apart from the uncompressed version, 3 is bearable and 2 makes me feel uncomfortable...
Kai
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#6 | | Gear interested
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 7
|
I think and deduce (I have the Waves demo) that NewTest2 is the hardware, NewTest3 is the Waves plug in and NewTest1 is the URS 1980. I like NewTest2 the best as it has more spatial depth to it and it sounds more like a record. NewTest3 has a more open and spikey sound - it keeps the transients of the keyboards, percussion and bass line, but the kick and snare sound less natural than on NewTest2. NewTest1 is my least favourite. If my thoughts and deductions are correct maybe I should start saving for a hardware compressor. If I'm wrong I'd better shut up and play guitar.
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#7 | | Gear addict
Joined: Feb 2006 Location: London UK
Posts: 314
|
Much harder to tell on this one....but i think
1. hardware
2. urs
3. waves
Oh yeah and i prefer no.1 (smoother when listening to the crash over the drum attacks)but it wasn't as immediately obvious as in the first test....
This was listening to drums only btw...
Strangely i prefer 3 when listening to the full mix
Still only listening on my laptop speakers though..
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#8 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Oct 2004 Location: Monroe, NY
Posts: 1,097
|
I liked 3, 2, and 1
3 Sounded a tad darker, which may be the Waves, but somehow it sounded a little better to me.
But I would have to say that 3 and 1 sounded very close.
__________________ www.carvelstudios.com
"I like my women the way I like my scotch, 20 years old and mix up in coke."
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#9 | | Gear nut
Joined: Feb 2006 Location: European Union
Posts: 99
|
This No.1 seems to be the last threads No.2, which I didn´t like - somehow muffeled release on snare attack.
No.2 and 3 are so close (apart from more highs in 2) it´s hard to tell which one I like better, but I choose No.3, feels more "analogue" or fundamental to me.
So I´d say:
1. Waves
2. URS
3. SSL
Totally wrong - so curious?!
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#10 | | Gear nut
Joined: Feb 2006 Location: European Union
Posts: 99
|
Now I´m really confused, listened again at louder levels and would change as follows:
1. SSL
2. Waves
3. URS
At louder levels snare transients cut through more on 2 and 3 so I think they could be the plugs.
Still confused though...  | |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#11 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 931
|
My guess would be, on BOTH tests as I think you have made the same order (even though you say it might not be).
1. URS (snare transient really "rough" and has very little 'meat' to it)
2. SSL (smooth, least "squashed in a bad way")
3. Waves (quite close to nr 2 but the snare transient again comes trough as a "block" in stead of a smooth "slam!").
These are my uneducated guesses.
Cheers!
bManic
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#12 | | Gear nut
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 108
|
1>3>2 here
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#13 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2004 Location: mexico
Posts: 5,050
|
the other is dr.evil... downloading the drum files now. tried not to read too many other reviews so as not to influence my judgement.
ok, on a laptop again. #1 and #3 are so close it's ridiculous. #2 had more ambience so sounds like it's squashing a little harder/faster attack.
which do i like more? for more squashed sound, #2. for a more controlled sound, #1 or #3.
i hope #1 and #3 are waves/384. after listeing again, i guess i like #1 over #3 by a very slight margin.
now stop the torture and POST!!!!
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#14 | | Gear Head
Joined: Feb 2006 Location: NYC
Posts: 55
|
Having listened to both tests (music w/ drums & drumsonly), I've come to this conclusion:
1. URS
2. SSL
3. Waves
2 always sounded better to me and 3 did sound closest to 2, but not as "controlled" (as raal said). This is evidenced especially in the highs.
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#15 | | Gear interested
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 6
|
On the whole mix: 3 > 1 > 2
On drums: 1 > 3 > 2
Overall 2 sounds the smoothest to me. A bit darker. But also more squashed with some pumping artefacts, so I've given it the lowest marks. Might have been higher if driven less.
On the whole mix: 3) sounds most transparent to me.
On drums: 1) has a nice bite and good separation between hits on drums. 3) a close second. The 2) snare sounds good but on the whole, again too squashed.
I have no idea what sounds are from which setup  | |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#16 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Mar 2003 Location: Norway
Posts: 3,114
|
The URS can't be that "bad" since people have different opinions on which it is...
ruudman
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#17 | | Gear Head
Joined: Feb 2006 Location: NYC
Posts: 55
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ruudman The URS can't be that "bad" since people have different opinions on which it is... | And that's EXACTLY the point, I think. We're coming to a junture where the lines are blurred somewhat. BUT what if these subtle differences are increased.....with more instances of these comps, on the individual channels? Just a thought.
Anyway, I'm very appreciative of theother's experiment, whatever the outcome. Thank you!
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#18 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jan 2006 Location: UK
Posts: 1,265
|
On the drums side:
I have to say i prefered the uncompressed file. It has more punch, and crispness.
The compressed drums sound drenched out to me.
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#19 | | Gear nut
Joined: Dec 2005 Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 128
|
3-2-1
But I too have to have to say on the drums only side I preffer the uncompressed file. This is strange....
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#20 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jan 2006 Location: UK
Posts: 1,265
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by johndough 3-2-1
But I too have to have to say on the drums only side I preffer the uncompressed file. This is strange.... | Its not strange. Its when you compress dums together...the pumping effect is more apparent.
I prefer to compress single shots or maybe 2 elements at the most together.
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#21 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 579
|
Add Voxengo Marquis t3 mode to the test. It is modeled after SSL Bus comp schematic.
__________________
-DFI LANParty UT Nf3 250Gb
-AMD Athlon64 3200 retail with retail HSF (2.2Ghz)
-Corsair VS512MB400 (*3 sticks)
-Gainward Geforce 2 MX400 Twinview VIVO
-RME 9652 Hammerfall 1.5
-Midiman Midisport 2x2
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#22 | | Gear maniac
Joined: Mar 2004 Location: Germany
Posts: 214
|
Drum only samples:
I have no clue what is what,
but i like number 2 most, the kick is nicer than in the other examples and the snare is punchy.
Number 1 has also a punchy snare, but the kick is not as cool as in number 2
Number 3 seems a bit boring and lifeless
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#23 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jun 2004 Location: Dallas, TX / New Orleans, LA
Posts: 4,679
|
pretty close too...
I liked : 3,2,1
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#24 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2004 Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,112
Thread Starter | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ruudman The URS can't be that "bad" since people have different opinions on which it is...
ruudman | You are right! After doing the blind test myself several times I picked the URS occasionally as my favourite. (I hadn't expected that)
All I can tell you at this stage is that the URS doesn't sound as close to the SSL hardware as the Waves. Not in terms of finding it better sounding but purley based on the compression characteristic. The attack, release, grab behaviour is just closer matched on the Waves to the hardware. Bu that doesn't mean it's going to sound more appealing....if you get my drift.
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#25 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2004 Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,112
Thread Starter | Quote: |
Originally Posted by kingofswing On the drums side:
I have to say i prefered the uncompressed file. It has more punch, and crispness.
The compressed drums sound drenched out to me. | Of course but only because for the sake of this test I applied to much gain reduction, to hear the compressors working.
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#26 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2004 Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,112
Thread Starter | Quote: |
Originally Posted by electro Add Voxengo Marquis t3 mode to the test. It is modeled after SSL Bus comp schematic. | Good idea! I have it, really liked it and found it very SSL like when I tested it. I will add it soon....
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#27 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Jun 2002 Location: New York City
Posts: 14,175
|
Hi,
Not to be a dick...but what is the purpose of this test?
From everyone's responses(including your own) its clear that its best to have a bunch of tools to choose from at different times than just to rely on one.
Like when doing a drumsub as opposed to a mix buss etc.
Or are you looking to narrow it down to one?
Isn't the only way to really discover that is to do a full mix through each and come to a conclusion that way?
Again i was just curious.
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#28 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 567
|
thrill,
You are totally right. Having all three would give me more colors to paint. However, this is kinda fun.
Also, it's a sort of learning experience for a novice like me.
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#29 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jun 2004 Location: Dallas, TX / New Orleans, LA
Posts: 4,679
|
I guess that point is same with any Plug-in argument........ "what sounds more like the real deal"
| |
| | |
12th February 2006
|
#30 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Aug 2005 Location: Sweden
Posts: 577
|
Dunno which one is which, but I know which on I like...!
So, IMHO:
1. -> 1. Liked the bass alot - nicely glued together, the top seems a bit squashed and dark, but in a nice and crunchy way.
2. -> 2. Biggest 3D-sound, open in the high end. So-so in the bottom.
3. -> 3. Quite flat but nice and open in the high end.
...I would like to use no 1 and 2 in a mix, no 3 didn´t do for me.
Think this is a cool survey!  | |
| | | |
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
