What plug ins got so close to the hardware version?

[Tube World]

What plug INS do you think got so close to the hardware version, that any small difference would really not be worth it?

1. GML Eq for Pro Tools. I was told even George himself was happy with the plug in.

2. UAD Manley Massive Passive: I know EveAnna gave her thumbs up on the plug in. The samples I heard on a/b showed such a small difference that in the real world no one could hear or care on the small difference. What is there a $3,000 difference in price?

3. Waves CLA: 1176, LA2a and LA3a plug INS are also are pretty close to the real thing. I cannot comment on their Pultec or Fairchild but I am sure they are pretty close too.

[Nash_Dred]

I would say none. Beware of celebrity endorsements.
The Waves SSL and API stuff sounds good, as well as some of the UAD plugs, but I've never heard a plug-in with the real grit and mojo you get from a respective analog unit.

[Tube World]

I take it you have not heard the UAD Massive Passive then. If you go to Sond on Sound mag's July edition they have wave files of the hardware vrs software. I spoke to George Massenburg at a AES a couple of years ago and he told me they nailed his Eq in the plug in. Too bad it only works with Pro tools, otherwise I would have purchase it.

By the way I agree the Waves SSL and API don't sound close enough to the hardware.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Tube World

What plug INS do you think got so close to the hardware version, that any small difference would really not be worth it?

None

as I wrote in another thread recently, there will always be those for whom small differences are always "worth it"

Diminishing returns diminish but unless they cease to return altogether, there will always be those who are sensitive and appreciative of the tiny percentage of improvement. The more time you spend on that edge, the bigger a small difference seems to you, until you are using terms like "night and day" to describe something most humans could not notice even if you pointed it out to them.

I know people, especially here in the Computer Music Forum are looking to get the most bang for their buck with digital substitutions , but until you go and buy an 1176 and patch it in, and use it every day, you really have no idea whether your plug-ins are 'almost there' or not. Whether this is an absolutely sonic issue or if ease/joy of use comes into play doesn't even matter.

[Tube World]

I mostly agree with you but please listen to the Massive Passive samples an plug in and tell us what you think. Plug ins in 2010 are not the same level of plug INS from 2007.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Tube World

I mostly agree with you but please listen to the Massive Passive samples an plug in and tell us what you think.

I admit that I have not heard these samples yet, but my point is that I would need to actually have the plugs and the hardware in my studio for a few weeks to really be able to say yeah they are the same - or close enough, etc. I have a sneaking suspicion that having both and using both would be a different experience from trying to guess one set of samples from a website.

My experience with the Massive Passive hardware is that merely patching it in 'embiggens' the sound. Like to see a plug-in do that.

Plug ins in 2010 are not the same level of plug INS from 2007

I don't have any 2010 plug-ins, but I do vaguely remember in 2007 someone saying that plug-ins from 2007 were not at the same level as plug-ins from 2004. And in 2004...

[dasnub]

High quality analog gear makes high quality music. High quality plugins make high quality music. Use the one that fits your budget and your ears. If you can't tell the difference then stop worrying about it! 99.9% of people who will listen to the music won't hear it either.

I hear the argument all the time that analog gear makes a big difference when you put all the tracks together, because all of the little things add up. That's a big fallacy in my opinion. If anything, all those little nuances get covered up and masked in a mix, making them almost irrelevant to the final product.

Say it to yourself- You CAN make professional, radio-ready tracks completely in the box. You CAN make professional, radio-ready tracks completely in the box. You CAN make professional, radio-ready tracks completely in the box... it's been done, kids!

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by joeq

I admit that I have not heard these samples yet, but my point is that I would need to actually have the plugs and the hardware in my studio for a few weeks to really be able to say yeah they are the same - or close enough, etc. .

If it would take you, an experienced engineer, a couple weeks to really tell them apart, how can the average listener -- our target audience -- ever tell while listening to a 3-minute song?

The UAD Fiarchild was modelled after one of the original units at Ocean Way and even Allen Sides couldn't tell them apart... it wasn't part of some endorsement deal, either

We can take these things TOO far, IMO

[joeq]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

If it would take you, an experienced engineer, a couple weeks to really tell them apart, how can the average listener -- our target audience -- ever tell while listening to a 3-minute song?

I am not strictly speaking about telling them apart. I obviously will have no problem telling them apart ever while using them, and while using them is where I will decide whether I think they are 'equals'.

We are talking about a tool. Think of it as a blade. Two blades may be equally sharp, capable of cutting the same line, but one of them has a better shape, heft and handle, it fits into your hand better, is less tiring, gives you more control, inspires creativity, etc etc.

Their sounding 'the same' in a test is one thing. What they lead you to in practice is something else. The mixes that result from having one and not the other. That is what I would be doing for those couple of weeks, not trying to learn how to tell them apart.

[Captain Proton]

Is this the same as when 'Howard Jones' did a load of adverts saying that he could not tell the difference between the Arturia Jupiter 8 and his real analog Jupiter 8......

And we all know how close the Arturia emulations sound vs the real thing. For those of you that don't know this outcome try....not in the slightest.

[A440]

Originally Posted by Nati_Dred

Beware of celebrity endorsements.

+1 ... if someone offered you a big chunk of cash, and all you had to say was 'x plugin sounds as good as x hardware' what would you do?

[gundam]

Originally Posted by dasnub

High quality analog gear makes high quality music. High quality plugins make high quality music. Use the one that fits your budget and your ears. If you can't tell the difference then stop worrying about it! 99.9% of people who will listen to the music won't hear it either.

Well, mixing IS about little improvements and polishing. So, even tiny things may become obvious in the end when added together.

I haven't found an EQ plugin that sounds as good as a Weiss, which is already a digital EQ. That kinda speaks for itself.

joeq - I'm with you on this one.

[Shaggy2039]

Originally Posted by Tube World

I mostly agree with you but please listen to the Massive Passive samples an plug in and tell us what you think. Plug ins in 2010 are not the same level of plug INS from 2007.

+1. thumbsup

This is especially true if you look at newer reverb plug ins (Lexicon's PCM Native bundle, Altiverb 6, etc) versus 3 years ago.

[nigel saunders]

In the spirit of the original question the softube CL1b and dynamite are said to be spot on by several with the hardware as well.

[Marando]

The latest build of Cytomic The Glue sounds pretty amazing and real close to the hardware it's supposed to emulate!

[_Morph_]

Despite being somewhat different than the hardware counterparts, it must be said that this is a great time to mix ITB. Softube, Lexicon and convolution in general have raised the bar big time.

[Marando]

Originally Posted by _Morph_

Despite being somewhat different than the hardware counterparts, it must be said that this is a great time to mix ITB. Softube, Lexicon, Cytomic, DMG Audio, Waves, Uaudio and convolution in general have raised the bar big time.

I fixed it for you!

[Nash_Dred]

Originally Posted by joeq

Their sounding 'the same' in a test is one thing. What they lead you to in practice is something else. The mixes that result from having one and not the other. That is what I would be doing for those couple of weeks, not trying to learn how to tell them apart.

Precisely! The same can also be said about preamps. I've seen 'shootouts' on other threads that compare consumer-grade preamps, such as M-Audio or RME, with transformer-coupled console preamps. Someone will post audio examples and challenge readers to identify each preamp. Inevitably, the votes lend no solid winner, and the original poster concludes that preamp quality makes little or no difference. That's just wrong. In the real world, preamps do make a difference, just like real outboard makes a difference.

This is, or course, not to say that great things can't be achieved in the box. I like to track through some analog compression, and occasionally some EQ, but I would say 85-95% of my mixes are completed ITB.

[sonicfreak]

Personaly i love my VSTi...I use Addictive drums and the Arturia V Collection in almost all my tracks.

But to me the best option is to double all tracks.

Addictive Drums by itself sounds too...perfect. But Addictive Drum + a drum recorded in my studio...well i'm more than satisfied.

Same for basses: a real Fender Jazzbass + a Minimoog V...and that's great.

[D K]

Originally Posted by joeq

I am not strictly speaking about telling them apart. I obviously will have no problem telling them apart ever while using them, and while using them is where I will decide whether I think they are 'equals'.

We are talking about a tool. Think of it as a blade. Two blades may be equally sharp, capable of cutting the same line, but one of them has a better shape, heft and handle, it fits into your hand better, is less tiring, gives you more control, inspires creativity, etc etc.

Their sounding 'the same' in a test is one thing. What they lead you to in practice is something else. The mixes that result from having one and not the other. That is what I would be doing for those couple of weeks, not trying to learn how to tell them apart.

You know... I originally read this.. agreed with it and just moved on down the thread but something just did not sit right with me. First, I think I totally agree with your over all sentiment... however.. unless I am mistaken, what the OP is talking about is the sound of the plugin vs. the hardware it emulates..It does not seem like he is referencing the "experience" of the using of either tool.

Here is why I am saying that.. a lot of people say that a control surface is nothing more than an overpriced, oversized mouse. On the face of it I could do nothing but agree since (barring multiple fader movements) there is nothing a control surface can do that the mouse cannot- at it's core it can offer nothing more..agreed? For me however, the experience of using a control surface to mix vs a mouse is night and day and effects the way I mix..and hence would probably effect the sound I get but that does not change the fact that the CS is a mouse.

I like using hardware and I mix in a hybrid envirionment..because I enjoy the sound AND experience of using hardware. That does not mean that one does not sound better or as "close" as that hardware.

Maybe I am misunderstanding and I am certainly not arguing as these are all opinions anyway but sometimes I do think "experience" and sound get co-mingled and come out as dogma at times

To the OP - I think the UAD Manley files that I heard are stunning - too bad I am stuck with 3 UAD1 cards

[doug hazelrigg]

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here... but if a plugin sounds identical to its hardware counterpart, isn't that the ENTIRE point? The argument that usage will vary doesn't seem to carry much weight, if in the end the sound is the same

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here... but if a plugin sounds identical to its hardware counterpart, isn't that the ENTIRE point? The argument that usage will vary doesn't seem to carry much weight, if in the end the sound is the same

You're missing if it FEELS the same to use. The tactile response is everything - that's what people miss about the "every digital EQ is the same" thing. Maybe I can get digi EQ3 to sound pretty close to Waves SSL (which is pretty close to the real thing) - but if I can't grab a knob and go "urg!" and it's there, then it's not really like using the real thing, and that's why emulations are useful to engineers used to the real hardware.

[markham]

Originally Posted by joeq

My experience with the Massive Passive hardware is that merely patching it in 'embiggens' the sound.

For anyone who was thrown off by joeq's word choice here, I'd like to point out that 'embiggens' is a perfectly cromulent word.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by markham

For anyone who was thrown off by joeq's word choice here, I'd like to point out that 'embiggens' is a perfectly cromulent word.

I appreciate your contority and arundment in saying so.

[jchadstopherhuez]

just got my first UAD card...as i find that in today's music biz...i must be mixing in the computer...or i don't survive.

the massive passive, fatso, and plate 140 have literally blown me away.

add in the soft tube tilt, trident a range, and tube tech comp....and i am finally being lured to the dark side.

the top end on the massive passive literally made me laugh at how much it sounded like the real unit. and yes....i have used the real unit...many, many, many times.

this afternoon i was finalizing some mixes on a new record...and had a real massive passive to compare to. back and forth between the plug and the real deal....not enough difference to my ears to make me even a little bit hesitant about getting a UAD quad just so i can have a few of them running in a mix.

the fatso...forget about it. just awesome.

plugs are getting scary good.

scary. good.

best,

jchristopherhughes

[Animus]

Originally Posted by Tube World

What plug INS do you think got so close to the hardware version, that any small difference would really not be worth it?

1. GML Eq for Pro Tools. I was told even George himself was happy with the plug in.

2. UAD Manley Massive Passive: I know EveAnna gave her thumbs up on the plug in. The samples I heard on a/b showed such a small difference that in the real world no one could hear or care on the small difference. What is there a $3,000 difference in price?

3. Waves CLA: 1176, LA2a and LA3a plug INS are also are pretty close to the real thing. I cannot comment on their Pultec or Fairchild but I am sure they are pretty close too.

I did one of the first A/b's on the Massive Passive here on Gearslutz and I too was surprised how much the plugin fooled people, and then most people just seemed to guess it was close. Honestly, I sold my Massive Passive. I loved it but I was more actually sick of having to recall everytime I wanted to work. The UAD version sounds great and total recall. nice.

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

You're missing if it FEELS the same to use. The tactile response is everything - that's what people miss about the "every digital EQ is the same" thing. Maybe I can get digi EQ3 to sound pretty close to Waves SSL (which is pretty close to the real thing) - but if I can't grab a knob and go "urg!" and it's there, then it's not really like using the real thing, and that's why emulations are useful to engineers used to the real hardware.

It seems you're stressing the intrinsic pleasure involved in having knobs and such to tweak. I don't discount that at all. But I'm not sure it's worth shelling out $40,000 for a real Fairchild when the $150 UAD software emulation fooled even the experts

[j-uk]

It's a funny thing when people talk about Fairchild et al being close or not close to the original. Most people I know including myself who mixed stuff in the 90s
did it on ssl's, jades, neoteks and so on. I think the outboard hardware compressors most commonly found was the la series, dbx's and smarts.
The range of stuff you get now is unbelievable compared to them days. Might not be the same thing but it's close enough. If you have the waves stuff and can't get a nice mix then you need to practice more - it ain't about the gear.

[therealbigd]

I think the argument of whether they sound like their hardware equivalents is largely irrelevant.

People buy SSLs partly because they sound like SSLs, but largely because they sound good. Same with API, Urei, Fairchild etc. Yes, there is some character to things - but people buy the hardware because it does what they want it to do. By and large, compress a bass with a real 1176 or a CLA-76, by the time you've mixed it with drums, guitar, keyboards and vocals, them rammed the life out of it at mastering, can you really tell if it's a software or hardware 1176?

As CLA put it in his own interview, the way forward is learning the uses and boundaries of your plug-ins, learning the uses and boundaries of your hardware, and combining that knowledge to make the right decisions.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both, and like I said above, you just need to learn what these are. Unlike it's real-life equivalent, a Waves SSL G-Series strip will sound the same whether it's had a life of being hammered with a kick drum or has sat spare on the end of the console. Having the ability to know how something will sound every time has it's uses, other times having the ability to never know exactly what's going to come out can be cool too.

What I'm saying is - choose and use your plugs for what they are, not what they're supposed to be!

[steffo]

Originally Posted by therealbigd

By and large, compress a bass with a real 1176 or a CLA-76, by the time you've mixed it with drums, guitar, keyboards and vocals, them rammed the life out of it at mastering, can you really tell if it's a software or hardware 1176?

Yes

Bass and lead vocals are very hard to get right using plugins (unless it's compressed during tracking), eq is not that crucial but compression is bigtime

People say the MDW plugin eq is great, it is.. but not better than oxford, waves ssl or logics lin phase eq. I don't hear it anyway..

I've only heard Gearslutz comparison of the HW MP vs The UAD MP, I could pick the HW in five seconds. I sold my UAD without even starting the demo period since the release of the MP was the only reason I still held on to it. The UAD fatso is great but still not as good as the HW. The compression is close but not the tranny or the warmth. Still very impressive.

It's all a matter of what you expect from software, I've mixed enough OTB to know what software equalizers can and can't do ,UAD MP sounds like software. The HW did a lot more aside from the frequency adjustment. That is the strength of analog gear. The UAD MP tries to fake the "mojo" of the real thing and in my opinion it only makes the difference more obvious.

The UAD MP sounds great but It's not capable of giving a mix more depth ,making it wider and tighter like the HW. I don't know anything about code or what's making the UAD MP so special and If It is better then other software eqs I can't hear it, the fatso sounds great though. Not as hardware but It is better than any software compressor I've tried.