WAVES SSL 4000 DEMO IS BACK!!! YOUR THOUGHTS!!!! - Page 2

theother · 9th February 2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giles117

I agree cuz in real use those of us who intend on staying ITB will do so. We will not go out and back in.

But playing a CD through a consolke will always have some ad/da conversion going on.....especially if the final delivery method is Digital and not 1/2"

You miss the point. I don't want to judge the quality of the D/A D/A converters I want to hear how close the plugin gets.

And by running BOTH signals through the same conversion is the only way to see how close the plugin is to the real thing.

Otherwise you judge how good the converters are.

And you are wrong about 'real world', because in my world I mix through a Neve summing mixer --> SSL FX 384 --> Apogee AD-16X (or HEDD 192).

So the question for me is: How would it sound to replace the FX 384 with the plugin?

giles117 · 9th February 2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theother

You miss the point. I don't want to judge the quality of the D/A D/A converters I want to hear how close the plugin gets.

And by running BOTH signals through the same conversion is the only way to see how close the plugin is to the real thing.

Otherwise you judge how good the converters are.

And you are wrong about 'real world', because in my world I mix through a Neve summing mixer --> SSL FX 384 --> Apogee AD-16X (or HEDD 192).

So the question for me is: How would it sound to replace the FX 384 with the plugin?

Depends upon how BIG your real world is.

In My real world at least 80% of all DAW mixes done in my area are ITB......Hell I;d gander that worldwide with the installed user base Pros, Pro-Ams and Ams would be about 70% do it entirely ITB.

Just a guess. I am sure I am statistically incorrect but I am certain I am very very close. Even among pros.....Of Course then that depends upon what you call a pro.......

By My Def a Pro is one who makes a living doing this......

theother · 9th February 2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giles117

Depends upon how BIG your real world is.

What is this supposed to mean?

Quote:

In My real world at least 80% of all DAW mixes done in my area are ITB......Hell I;d gander that worldwide with the installed user base Pros, Pro-Ams and Ams would be about 70% do it entirely ITB.

You say 'My real world' but you talk about other people in your area.

When I say 'My world' I mean 'the way I work'. And that is all that matters for me.

Quote:

Just a guess. I am sure I am statistically incorrect but I am certain I am very very close. Even among pros.....Of Course then that depends upon what you call a pro.......

You are incorrect, because most 'pro-mixes' or mixes from the Billboard Top100 are still mixed OTB and not ITB.

Quote:

By My Def a Pro is one who makes a living doing this......

Wrong again.
I don't have to make a living from it to be a Pro.
And you can make a living and be a bloody amateur! I see it happening every day.

giles117 · 9th February 2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theother

What is this supposed to mean?

You say 'My real world' but you talk about other people in your area.

When I say 'My world' I mean 'the way I work'. And that is all that matters for me.

You are incorrect, because most 'pro-mixes' or mixes from the Billboard Top100 are still mixed OTB and not ITB.

Wrong again.
I don't have to make a living from it to be a Pro.
And you can make a living and be a bloody amateur! I see it happening every day.

AS you see it is strictly based upon YOUR world view. I view things differently than you so my comments will be strictly based upon MY world view. So as you asked what did it mean you subsequently answered your own question. BTW I have 3 Gold's mixed entirley ITB so once again it is how YOU view things vs how I view things....

SO when you go back to my comments try to see them not from your specific narrow point of view but from the viewpoint of others...

We as engineers tend to be very narrow minded. But as My teacher alwasy taught me in the end did you get paid. LOL the rest is semantics.....Great sound and no house to live in means nothing......

But again, that is my world view. and so moving back to the topic at hand.......

theother · 9th February 2006, 12:35 PM

I think you got it all wrong.

I never said 'my world view' or 'real world'

I was always speaking about 'in my world'.

And what is happening there has nothing to do with anyone else out there.

And to be honest with you I really don't care would your taste of music/engineering etc is. They are all different.

I have to be the only one who likes what I'm doing. I somebody else does, cool. If not, it isn't a problem for me.

Again, I talk about 'my world' and not 'yours'.

I hope this makes sense. I just don't like when people start telling my how my world has to look like.

Don't want to sound too serious here, because I'm not. Just a thought....

giles117 · 9th February 2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theother

I think you got it all wrong.

I never said 'my world view' or 'real world'

I was always speaking about 'in my world'.

And what is happening there has nothing to do with anyone else out there.

And to be honest with you I really don't care would your taste of music/engineering etc is. They are all different.

I have to be the only one who likes what I'm doing. I somebody else does, cool. If not, it isn't a problem for me.

Again, I talk about 'my world' and not 'yours'.

I hope this makes sense. I just don't like when people start telling my how my world has to look like.

Don't want to sound too serious here, because I'm not. Just a thought....

Strism.....(means cool)

JulianBrightnes · 9th February 2006, 12:52 PM

that was a most interesting stray off topic (at least in my world) anyone care to comment on the audio?

Cheerio, Julian

giles117 · 9th February 2006, 12:56 PM

I said I was gonna leave this alone but I realize most people never hear what they say or see what they write....

so here you go.....

These are your statements.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by theother

You miss the point.

That is you telling me as you said..."I just don't like when people start telling my how my world has to look like." You are telling I dont see the point, maybe I dont see the point the way you see the point, but I saw a point and responded. Yet you dont like others to tell you how your view should be. Ever think that maybe others dont like you telling them they dont see "The Point": No difference. "Judge not, lest thou be judged."

Quote:

Originally Posted by theother

And you are wrong about 'real world', because in my world....

Your response insinuates that your world is the real world, so I asked how big is your real world.....You got offended. Next time read what you write before you post to ensure you dont get offended. LOL Anyway this is a waste at 8am... I need to go back to banging my wife I think my break is over......

Now back to opinions....(sarcastic comment) not that it matters as you stated your opinion is the only one that matters....so Download the demos and give us your opinion.....

The entire purpose of this thread......Yawn... (Still more sarcasm) Honey... you ready???Am I ready??? This dude done amped me up girl....Oh you need a little more time..Ok.. I'll keep surfing. LOL....

Hope that wasnt too distasteful after all I am married to her.... :)

JulianBrightnes · 9th February 2006, 01:05 PM

theother · 9th February 2006, 01:06 PM

Jesus! You got it all wrong!

When I talk about 'in my world' I don't mean the REAL world.

I mean my world of audio.

I was referring to the test of SSL hardware to SSL software.

And for that I said 'in my world' (meaning 'the way I work'), this test is flawed.

I could use cheap converters for the test and the Waves SSL will always come out better. So what is the point of this evaluation?

I don't want to know how good or bad this guys converters sound, I want ot hear the Waves vs SSL hardware.

Only if make both tests through the same chain of D/A-D/A you will get a true picture of how good the Waves SSL is. No matter if this is how you are going to use it or not.

If you talk about the way 'You' work, then it's different. Then you can make a test going through YOUR chain of D/A - D/A and compare it with just ITB and Waves. But his has no validity for anyone else, because not everyone has the same converters or works necessarily that way.

**Lindell** · 9th February 2006, 01:07 PM

hahahah..........<------*this user shakes his heads*

giles117 · 9th February 2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theother

Jesus! You got it all wrong!

When I talk about 'in my world' I don't mean the REAL world.

I mean my world of audio.

I was referring to the test of SSL hardware to SSL software.

And for that I said 'in my world' (meaning 'the way I work'), this test is flawed.

I could use cheap converters for the test and the Waves SSL will always come out better. So what is the point of this evaluation?

I don't want to know how good or bad this guys converters sound, I want ot hear the Waves vs SSL hardware.

Only if make both tests through the same chain of D/A-D/A you will get a true picture of how good the Waves SSL is. No matter if this is how you are going to use it or not.

If you talk about the way 'You' work, then it's different. Then you can make a test going through YOUR chain of D/A - D/A and compare it with just ITB and Waves. But his has no validity for anyone else, because not everyone has the same converters or works necessarily that way.

Chuckle....Clarity in speech and clear concise communication always help.....

BTW seeing that you are in the UK do you know a guy from Ireland with a Sound Company, he has a ton of Midas and klark teknik gear. Last I worked with him he had a ton of KF750's I am sure that has changed now, but I know he is from Ireland.

giles117 · 9th February 2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindell

hahahah..........<------*this user shakes his heads*

Nice facility.

JulianBrightnes · 9th February 2006, 01:30 PM

OK I wanted to start another comparison, with some modern sounding programme for Lindell, guess what? I first set the waves SSL comp to some settings that kinda pumped
away nicely on the drumloop I had selected, then I wanted to copy those to the real SSL... and the values are different! For instance I can set a release of .3 on the plug but on the AWS there is no .3, only .1, .2, .4 and up to auto...
Is the G series comp different on the 4000? I thought it was supposed to be the same!

Cheerio, Julian

**Lindell** · 9th February 2006, 01:38 PM

ok, I have uploaded a wav file on a project that I'm producing (rec&mix)
There's alot of room on the mixbus for a compressor......so if anyone's got a feeling to download it and use it to compare the SSL hardware and plugin, please go ahead.

raal · 9th February 2006, 01:42 PM

thanks for posting the files julian! through a G4 powerbook (surprised i could hear a difference), 'realSSL' sounded bigger and more present than 'waves comp', but 'wavescompthruadda' made me sigh with relief after having plunked down the $ for the plug. was definitely close enough for rock n' roll for me (pretty dang close).

will A/B to my FX384 ASAP (after getting ilok authorization and install).

FWIW i agree with the other as to how to do the test, as i think that takes the AD/DA factor out of there and just lets one compare the two things without that variable, so thanks again for the files julian.

raal · 9th February 2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulianBrightnes

OK I wanted to start another comparison, with some modern sounding programme for Lindell, guess what? I first set the waves SSL comp to some settings that kinda pumped
away nicely on the drumloop I had selected, then I wanted to copy those to the real SSL... and the values are different! For instance I can set a release of .3 on the plug but on the AWS there is no .3, only .1, .2, .4 and up to auto...
Is the G series comp different on the 4000? I thought it was supposed to be the same!

Cheerio, Julian

from what i know, the comp on the AWS is 'derived from' the G comp, so probably not exactly the same, but i'm sure pretty close. again probably close enough for r & r.

(edit) just went to the studio and the FX384 does have .1, .3, etc... i doubt that should make for a huge difference in the end though.

mixboy bob · 9th February 2006, 03:03 PM

Posted this in the now missing thread just before it disappeared. Hate to see all my rambling go to waste!:

OK, just spent the day mixing a live DVD/CD with a 56 channel mixer using the E Channel. Holy crap. I spend most of my time ITB, but I mix on 4000's and 6000's enough to know I just spend most days pissed off at the ITB because I can't find that "something." I just had the best ITB mix day I've had in 6 years of mixing ITB.

I've owned ProTools LE rigs, a Mix rig, Nuendo, and now PT HD. I've used Digi, Apogee, RME, and RADAR converters. Owned a popular summing box, sold it after two years and have auditioned many others. All fighting to find this feeling that, to me, oozes from an E series desk.

I've never ended a day using any of the above with the confidence I end a day with on a console - until today.

YMMV, but between these, the URS 1970 comp, and the TG Limiter plug, we are entering a new time where I, for one, may not be so pissed to work inside the walls of The Box. I'm not saying it's the same, and I'll be behind a real desk every day that someone puts me there, but I'm a happier camper today.

Just one dude's opinion.

ps - I can't stand Waves policies, and sold all my Waves plugs about 4 years ago in protest. They will be getting my money for these plugs gladly, because it's my responsibility to give my clients (and myself!!) the best mix I'm capable of, and apart from them putting me at an SSL desk, these plugs just raised the bar for me personally.

peace

mixboy

Mind-Over-Midi · 9th February 2006, 03:40 PM

As I've posted on another thread I really like these plugs. It's much easier to get the sound I'm looking for, especially on drums and guitar. I will be buying these plugs in the near future. However .....it my be me...... but I can't really hear a difference when the analog switch is engaged or not engaged, can you? What should I be listening for?

Thanks,

Bill.

JulianBrightnes · 9th February 2006, 03:42 PM

Hey Raal!

Thanks! I was getting worried already. I was playing round with the EQ's now a little bit, but they do really sound SSL, only reason why I'm not getting them in a heartbeat is because I have the AWS, but even then...
Must say the comp is almost there, but not 100%.

Cheers, Julian

strauss · 9th February 2006, 04:36 PM

Hi Julian

How are the channel strips of the plugs when you 'overload' them?
I have never worked on a AWS, but like the way a E or G channel sounds when it hits the red lights!

raal · 9th February 2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulianBrightnes

Hey Raal!

Thanks! I was getting worried already. I was playing round with the EQ's now a little bit, but they do really sound SSL, only reason why I'm not getting them in a heartbeat is because I have the AWS, but even then...

hey bro!
when i was demoing the AWS and a G+, though that was one day apart and in different places, i remember the G+ E/G EQs were 'crunchier', and i preferred the E to the G channels in that test. the AWS seemed more hi fi in that it seemed to have more extended hi/low freqs. - the the low end was real nice. didn't have to work on getting the kick to sound big at all. my impression was that of being able to cop the G+ feel with the AWS (at different freq. settings - i.e. 16K on the AWS was not = to 16K on the G+), but i don't think i'd be able to get an G+ to sound like an AWS.

if i had an AWS i suspect i'd get the plugs also, just to have more EQs available and a different sound at hand... the only software EQ plug i've liked so far is hydratone. would love it if the SSL plugs did the trick too.

Quote:

Must say the comp is almost there, but not 100%.

even on a laptop i noticed the 'realSSL' file to be ever so slightly crispier, but very close to the plug files, so i think it'll be in the usable comp category for sure. at 24bit/96kHz the differences will hopefully be alot smaller.

xist · 9th February 2006, 04:46 PM

Do you think it sounds fine also on digital materials (virtual instruments based tracks, etc.) ? It would be nice to get sound examples...

giles117 · 9th February 2006, 05:08 PM

Anyone notice the amount of white noise these puppies generate when you use a bunch of em? I have a track with 14 of em inserted throughout.

Kind of makes me weepy. I hadnt heard console white noise in years.

The G Series EQ in particular

juicemaster1500 · 9th February 2006, 10:46 PM

I don't think anyone else has commented on this, but these plug-ins are really efficient on the CPU!!!

I can load up about two hundred instances of the eq, on an old pecee.

keithl · 10th February 2006, 02:04 AM

what is the latency for each plug?

10th February 2006, 02:18 AM

You guys are funny you gave Theother all that hell and HE WAS RIGHT!

IF you do an uncontrolled test where more than one variable is changed then you dont know which variable or combination contributed toward the outcome.

I agree with his suggestion for testing via the same AD/DA conversion so that the only difference is the plug vs the actual compressor

djui5 · 10th February 2006, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keithl

what is the latency for each plug?

about 4ms I believe.

Here's a processed version of Dell's file from a few posts up. I hit it with the SSL buss comp.

giles117 · 10th February 2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

You guys are funny you gave Theother all that hell and HE WAS RIGHT!

IF you do an uncontrolled test where more than one variable is changed then you dont know which variable or combination contributed toward the outcome.

I agree with his suggestion for testing via the same AD/DA conversion so that the only difference is the plug vs the actual compressor

Just because you agree doesnt mean he was right.

Lots of people agree that Jesus was Crucified, and rose from the dead, that doesnt mean it is right... (or true...)

thermos · 10th February 2006, 04:19 AM

Whether or not theother is right or wrong, it doesn't matter because the real one seems to sound leagues better. At least to me.

And think of it this way (if you feel like it). That plugin already went through a/d/a during the sampling they did for the convolution modeling. But I tend to agree, you should send them both through the same a/d/a chain for comparison.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Waves SSL 4000	Max Power	So much gear, so little time!	7	26th April 2006 08:21 PM
Anyone tried out Waves SSL 4000 bundle	dagg	So much gear, so little time!	6	8th March 2006 04:51 AM
urs or waves ssl 4000	vaesion	So much gear, so little time!	2	23rd February 2006 04:36 AM
Waves SSL 4000 Bundle	Clutch	Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production	2	17th February 2006 01:20 PM
What happened to the 'WAVES The Waves SSL 4000 Collection on WEB SITE!!!' thread?	theother	New product alert!	15	9th February 2006 10:34 AM

9th February 2006, 01:07 PM	#41
Lindell Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,624	hahahah..........<------this user shakes his heads __________________ Tobias Lindell Bohus Sound Studios Myspace Lindell

9th February 2006, 12:35 PM	#35
theother Lives for gear Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: London & Ibiza Posts: 1,587	I think you got it all wrong. I never said 'my world view' or 'real world' I was always speaking about 'in my world'. And what is happening there has nothing to do with anyone else out there. And to be honest with you I really don't care would your taste of music/engineering etc is. They are all different. I have to be the only one who likes what I'm doing. I somebody else does, cool. If not, it isn't a problem for me. Again, I talk about 'my world' and not 'yours'. I hope this makes sense. I just don't like when people start telling my how my world has to look like. Don't want to sound too serious here, because I'm not. Just a thought....

9th February 2006, 12:52 PM	#37
JulianBrightnes Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Amsterdam, NL Posts: 353	that was a most interesting stray off topic (at least in my world) anyone care to comment on the audio? Cheerio, Julian

9th February 2006, 01:05 PM	#39
JulianBrightnes Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Amsterdam, NL Posts: 353

9th February 2006, 01:06 PM	#40
theother Lives for gear Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: London & Ibiza Posts: 1,587	Jesus! You got it all wrong! When I talk about 'in my world' I don't mean the REAL world. I mean my world of audio. I was referring to the test of SSL hardware to SSL software. And for that I said 'in my world' (meaning 'the way I work'), this test is flawed. I could use cheap converters for the test and the Waves SSL will always come out better. So what is the point of this evaluation? I don't want to know how good or bad this guys converters sound, I want ot hear the Waves vs SSL hardware. Only if make both tests through the same chain of D/A-D/A you will get a true picture of how good the Waves SSL is. No matter if this is how you are going to use it or not. If you talk about the way 'You' work, then it's different. Then you can make a test going through YOUR chain of D/A - D/A and compare it with just ITB and Waves. But his has no validity for anyone else, because not everyone has the same converters or works necessarily that way.

9th February 2006, 01:30 PM	#44
JulianBrightnes Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Amsterdam, NL Posts: 353	OK I wanted to start another comparison, with some modern sounding programme for Lindell, guess what? I first set the waves SSL comp to some settings that kinda pumped away nicely on the drumloop I had selected, then I wanted to copy those to the real SSL... and the values are different! For instance I can set a release of .3 on the plug but on the AWS there is no .3, only .1, .2, .4 and up to auto... Is the G series comp different on the 4000? I thought it was supposed to be the same! Cheerio, Julian

9th February 2006, 01:42 PM	#46
raal Lives for gear Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: mexico Posts: 3,395	thanks for posting the files julian! through a G4 powerbook (surprised i could hear a difference), 'realSSL' sounded bigger and more present than 'waves comp', but 'wavescompthruadda' made me sigh with relief after having plunked down the $ for the plug. was definitely close enough for rock n' roll for me (pretty dang close). will A/B to my FX384 ASAP (after getting ilok authorization and install). FWIW i agree with the other as to how to do the test, as i think that takes the AD/DA factor out of there and just lets one compare the two things without that variable, so thanks again for the files julian.

9th February 2006, 03:03 PM	#48
mixboy bob Gear maniac Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nashville Posts: 157	Posted this in the now missing thread just before it disappeared. Hate to see all my rambling go to waste!: OK, just spent the day mixing a live DVD/CD with a 56 channel mixer using the E Channel. Holy crap. I spend most of my time ITB, but I mix on 4000's and 6000's enough to know I just spend most days pissed off at the ITB because I can't find that "something." I just had the best ITB mix day I've had in 6 years of mixing ITB. I've owned ProTools LE rigs, a Mix rig, Nuendo, and now PT HD. I've used Digi, Apogee, RME, and RADAR converters. Owned a popular summing box, sold it after two years and have auditioned many others. All fighting to find this feeling that, to me, oozes from an E series desk. I've never ended a day using any of the above with the confidence I end a day with on a console - until today. YMMV, but between these, the URS 1970 comp, and the TG Limiter plug, we are entering a new time where I, for one, may not be so pissed to work inside the walls of The Box. I'm not saying it's the same, and I'll be behind a real desk every day that someone puts me there, but I'm a happier camper today. Just one dude's opinion. ps - I can't stand Waves policies, and sold all my Waves plugs about 4 years ago in protest. They will be getting my money for these plugs gladly, because it's my responsibility to give my clients (and myself!!) the best mix I'm capable of, and apart from them putting me at an SSL desk, these plugs just raised the bar for me personally. peace mixboy

9th February 2006, 03:40 PM	#49
Mind-Over-Midi Lives for gear Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 946	As I've posted on another thread I really like these plugs. It's much easier to get the sound I'm looking for, especially on drums and guitar. I will be buying these plugs in the near future. However .....it my be me...... but I can't really hear a difference when the analog switch is engaged or not engaged, can you? What should I be listening for? Thanks, Bill.

9th February 2006, 03:42 PM	#50
JulianBrightnes Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Amsterdam, NL Posts: 353	Hey Raal! Thanks! I was getting worried already. I was playing round with the EQ's now a little bit, but they do really sound SSL, only reason why I'm not getting them in a heartbeat is because I have the AWS, but even then... Must say the comp is almost there, but not 100%. Cheers, Julian

9th February 2006, 04:36 PM	#51
strauss Gear addict Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Lowlands Posts: 492	Hi Julian How are the channel strips of the plugs when you 'overload' them? I have never worked on a AWS, but like the way a E or G channel sounds when it hits the red lights!

9th February 2006, 04:46 PM	#53
xist Lives for gear Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 505	Do you think it sounds fine also on digital materials (virtual instruments based tracks, etc.) ? It would be nice to get sound examples...

9th February 2006, 05:08 PM	#54
giles117 Gear nut Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the Sun Posts: 128	Anyone notice the amount of white noise these puppies generate when you use a bunch of em? I have a track with 14 of em inserted throughout. Kind of makes me weepy. I hadnt heard console white noise in years. The G Series EQ in particular

9th February 2006, 10:46 PM	#55
juicemaster1500 Lives for gear Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 524	I don't think anyone else has commented on this, but these plug-ins are really efficient on the CPU!!! I can load up about two hundred instances of the eq, on an old pecee.

10th February 2006, 02:04 AM	#56
keithl Gear nut Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 123	what is the latency for each plug?

10th February 2006, 02:18 AM	#57
no ssl yet Guest Posts: n/a	You guys are funny you gave Theother all that hell and HE WAS RIGHT! IF you do an uncontrolled test where more than one variable is changed then you dont know which variable or combination contributed toward the outcome. I agree with his suggestion for testing via the same AD/DA conversion so that the only difference is the plug vs the actual compressor

10th February 2006, 04:19 AM	#60
thermos Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,785	Whether or not theother is right or wrong, it doesn't matter because the real one seems to sound leagues better. At least to me. And think of it this way (if you feel like it). That plugin already went through a/d/a during the sampling they did for the convolution modeling. But I tend to agree, you should send them both through the same a/d/a chain for comparison.