Native Instruments Premium Tube Series

[Aiyn Zahav]

So, using Voxengo span and a sine wave, I did tests at -6dB and -18dB for Vari-mu and the Passive Eq.

Vari-Mu

-6dB


-18dB


Passive EQ

-6dB


-18dB


Note: There is less THD on the Vari-Mu if you ease off the input.

The THD completely disappears on the Passive EQ if you lower your input level. THD is not dependent on the overall gain controls in the middle of the plug-in, so it cannot be adjusted from there.

Meaning you can use this EQ without THD buildup when using many instances if you keep your input level low, presumably -18dB or so.

You can also slam it to get some colour out of it!

Good to know if you are going to use them for mastering anyhow.

The Enhance EQ shows no signs of THD at any input level. Moulders hypothesis that one of the Softube members was abducted just before he got around to modelling the THD could not be substantiated.

[Jeezo]

I think some dude gonna get sick because how mutch graph we post !!! lol

Gain staging is crucial , crucial ....

any body can make the test at 96khz ....

[Melodeath]

Are you not able to put a volume/trim plugin between the tone generator and Passive EQ?

EDIT: sorry, some posts snuck in before I hit reply somehow haha

It's interesting that the 2nd harmonic is actually louder relative (only about 2dB) to the signal when the signal is at -18 in the Vari Comp. The rest of the harmonics are louder at -6db, obviously.

[Aiyn Zahav]

Originally Posted by Jeezo

I think some dude gonna get sick because how mutch graph we post !!! lol

Gain staging is crucial , crucial ....

any body can make the test at 96khz ....

Yes! e, but it's useful info. Not every plug-in responds to gain staging the same way. I don't remember which one it was, but one developer said that his plug-in really doesn't act differently depending on the input volume. I think it was the Tokyo Labs actually.

Typically though plug-ins that emulate hardware can. This shows that gain staging really matters on Passive EQ and Vari-mu, but it doesn't seem to be an issue at least where THD is concerned for Enhance EQ. Seems like you can just plug in the Ehance and use it for gain staging before the Passive Eq & Vari-mu.

Typically my levels are not super hot but they are above 18dB when they go into a plug-in, but now that is going to change. I think I might just apply 18dB of boost on my limiter before I even start a session now and keep it below the red. That way I don't feel that I have a mix as quiet as it actually is. I notice that I can get fatigued with the sounds sometimes and I am wondering now if I've been hitting my plug-ins too hard.

These last ones were all at 96khz by the way.

[bitewounds]

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY

I would like to hear it!

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

I'm trying, but I can hear that Nebula's Mammoth EQ is losing that battle. I'm not sure if it's even worth posting. I can't get them to sound close enough, respectively: can't get Nebula to sound as good as Softube.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by Jeezo

I think some dude gonna get sick because how mutch graph

That's cuz he know everything,that's why he points to his head.this is not the place him...

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[dotl]

0.01% THD = -80 dB

0.06% THD = -65 dB

...and plug-ins usually add more harmonics than HW versions cause like that people can easier hear that added saturation, so everybody can conclude how 'analog' those plug-ins sound. It just shows big popularity of saturation and 'analog' that plug-in designers follow these days. Softube are usually honest without exaggerating things...or I just like to think so.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by bitewounds

I'm trying, but I can hear that Nebula's Mammoth EQ is losing that battle. I'm not sure if it's even worth posting. I can't get them to sound close enough, respectively: can't get Nebula to sound as good as Softube.

Wow really,take your time and make minimal boost,like 3db boost at 8khz another at 1khz,then just one more at 60 or 80 Hz .

Keep it simple,but Thats good news for me!I own the NI bundle,its on my MAC and pc no dongle,soon to hit my Toshiba 17.3 i7 laptop!

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Electro212]

Originally Posted by bitewounds

I'm trying, but I can hear that Nebula's Mammoth EQ is losing that battle. I'm not sure if it's even worth posting. I can't get them to sound close enough, respectively: can't get Nebula to sound as good as Softube.

What settings are you testing? I didn't do an extensive test of my mammoth vs NI but what I did was a quick test to compare large high shelf/peak boosts, as this is a particular area where ITB eq's struggle to sound anything like hardware. It's also the area where Nebula consistently blows me away the most, the high end on my AlexB VMeq and my Massive Passive are both so good. It was not even close in the other direction. With a large high shelf boost of 10+db, the Nebula sounded quite smooth and, sorry for using the most overused EQ term ever, musical. Very pleasant and added nice air. The NI pulled out the harshest, nastiest parts of the transient material at 10k and up and made my ears hurt. I REALLY like this NI plugin on busses, tracks, and just for dialing in a 4 band setting way faster than Nebula, but no way I'd choose this for master bus duties owning them both.

Also are you doing proper gain staging and using the proper mammoth model (not the clean emulation)?

[Lou]

Originally Posted by Jeezo

I think some dude gonna get sick because how mutch graph we post !!! lol

Gain staging is crucial , crucial ....

any body can make the test at 96khz ....

GRAPHS!!!!!!

[bitewounds]

Originally Posted by Electro212

What settings are you testing? I didn't do an extensive test of my mammoth vs NI but what I did was a quick test to compare large high shelf/peak boosts, as this is a particular area where ITB eq's struggle to sound anything like hardware. It's also the area where Nebula consistently blows me away the most, the high end on my AlexB VMeq and my Massive Passive are both so good. It was not even close in the other direction. With a large high shelf boost of 10+db, the Nebula sounded quite smooth and, sorry for using the most overused EQ term ever, musical. Very pleasant and added nice air. The NI pulled out the harshest, nastiest parts of the transient material at 10k and up and made my ears hurt. I REALLY like this NI plugin on busses, tracks, and just for dialing in a 4 band setting way faster than Nebula, but no way I'd choose this for master bus duties owning them both.

Also are you doing proper gain staging and using the proper mammoth model (not the clean emulation)?

Yes, the non-clean version. I never had a problem with how pretty treble boosts can sound with some Nebula programs, pretty much feel the same way about it as you – no comparison to any other EQ plugin. But, I never used Mammoth beyond just boosting a few db on single frequencies here and there. What I tried today (for hours, absolutely pathetic) was taking a bad mix and turn it into something acceptable with nothing but the NI's 4 bands / 4 instances of Nebula respectively. I thought an extreme scenario will show the most.

The correction included a huge 10k boost. So, I had this sound from the NI, after a very short time, pleased with it, considering the fact that the mix wasn't any good. I then attempted to apply the same settings with 4 instances of Mammoth, starting by using the same numbers (and you know how per instance HI PK+ is limited to an 8 db range, and that putting two instances sharing a load of say 14.5 db has to end up sounding gross, no matter how you tweak the bandwidth – AND those insane 14.5 db sounded marvelous on the Softube)... it turned out impossible to do. With all the tweaking in the world I couldn't get even close to what the NI was producing. They're both Manley-ish (I suppose), one of them actually IS a sampled Manley, but they don't do the same things, as soon as you leave the lower mids area. I kind of expected them to be at least very similar. Will play some more with those bastards tomorrow.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by Lou

GRAPHS!!!!!!

I just compared the varicomp to the waves API 2500 and the waves puigchild(Fairchild) compressors.

The API was transparent,but a little flat without any harmonic distortion.

The puigchild held its own against the varicomp!

I'm going to replace the API with the uad Fairchild and see what happens.

Any suggestions on compressor I should try,or compressors you might want to hear?

BTW,the varicomp is holding up very well!

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Lou]

No thanks. I just blew my budget (that I didnt have) on the FG-X because I really needed a limiter. To my ears, the NI stuff sounds great. I like the idea of watching the input levels going into the plugs. I see a lot of guys that pay absolutely no attention to that kind of thing when they are working ITB. Thanks for your work.

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by bitewounds

Yes, the non-clean version. I never had a problem with how pretty treble boosts can sound with some Nebula programs, pretty much feel the same way about it as you – no comparison to any other EQ plugin. But, I never used Mammoth beyond just boosting a few db on single frequencies here and there. What I tried today (for hours, absolutely pathetic) was taking a bad mix and turn it into something acceptable with nothing but the NI's 4 bands / 4 instances of Nebula respectively. I thought an extreme scenario will show the most.

The correction included a huge 10k boost. So, I had this sound from the NI, after a very short time, pleased with it, considering the fact that the mix wasn't any good. I then attempted to apply the same settings with 4 instances of Mammoth, starting by using the same numbers (and you know how per instance HI PK+ is limited to an 8 db range, and that putting two instances sharing a load of say 14.5 db has to end up sounding gross, no matter how you tweak the bandwidth – AND those insane 14.5 db sounded marvelous on the Softube)... it turned out impossible to do. With all the tweaking in the world I couldn't get even close to what the NI was producing. They're both Manley-ish (I suppose), one of them actually IS a sampled Manley, but they don't do the same things, as soon as you leave the lower mids area. I kind of expected them to be at least very similar. Will play some more with those bastards tomorrow.

Again, depending on the band, because they are all actually different when it comes to the values, the softube values could be 1 - 5dB less than inscribed. Re-check that.

Also, the max boost is of course contingent on the Q. If you say you got 8 dB boost then that means you had the bandwidth on the Mammoth on 100%. On 50% it gives you about 6dB. So, then what was your Q on the NI?

You didn't address the gain staging question either. How was your GS? Were you at "0" throughout?

[TranscendingM]

I'm not wholly against graphs but I still, as a devil's advocate, ask why you need them? And to say "to confirm what I hear" is moot for you have already confirmed it by the fact you heard it.

The only thing the FFT - as a limited testing procedure - can show you is that there are harmonics or not. It won't show you how you hear the quality of something. You won't tell you anything about quality.

Regarding the FFT flaws: put 2 sine waves through said processor one at 110 Hz and another at 910 Hz and you will get a different response. What was gained? (Check the nauseating "Let's Do it: The Ultimate Plugin Analysis" thread for my expiation on this matter.

Regarding quality: Take for example a UAD EQ like the 1073. Try if you will to null it with a standard digital EQ and it will not null 100%. Yet, there are no harmonic distortions going on. HD is not the end all be all when it comes to "character" or asserting "flatness". Looking at an FFT plot won't make that distinction. Again, listening wins.

Again, to simply check for harmonics is fine, or if you will, "geeky" investigation/curiosity but not for checking "quality" or getting the ultimate truth about a given processor. Quality comes from qualia: the experience of the given sense for a given endeavor e.g. hearing + audio. I'm just saying, this thread is en route to nit-picking but do what you will. You aren't going to gain anything further than what your ears have told you already. The paradox being, if your ears didn't tell you then there is a huge question mark against your vocation of choice here!

[bitewounds]

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

Again, depending on the band, because they are all actually different when it comes to the values, the softube values could be 1 - 5dB less than inscribed. Re-check that.

You didn't address the gain staging question either. How was your GS? Were you at "0" throughout?

Was watching the gain naturally, and didn't take the numbers as definite guides, used ears and meters. I believe the difference is more in the shape of the curves (Q/bandwidth) and how they interact with each other in series that makes it near-impossible to match corrections. But, sigh.. will give it another go tomorrow and hopefully be able to post up some sounds.

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by bitewounds

Was watching the gain naturally, and didn't take the numbers as definite guides, used ears and meters. I believe the difference is more in the shape of the curves (Q/bandwidth) and how they interact with each other in series that makes it near-impossible to match corrections. But, sigh.. will give it another go tomorrow and hopefully be able to post up some sounds.

Ah, when it comes to simple metering it does help indeed to see where ya signal is hovering just as if you were using the analog counterpart for the "sweet range"; the operating range. Now you don't have to get crazy with it and definitely don't use 3rd party "rms meters" or the like; not needed. Just make sure you hovering around -18 (even if it's a little less that's fine) within Nebula and you should be good. And ensure the clipping light is never illuminating.

[dotl]

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

Regarding the FFT flaws: put 2 sine waves through said processor one at 110 Hz and another at 910 Hz and you will get a different response. What was gained? (Check the nauseating "Let's Do it: The Ultimate Plugin Analysis" thread for my expiation on this matter.

Your intellect really stopped here?! No answer? Nothing can be gained?


If visual feedback in testing is that unimportant than way Softube (and any other designer of SW or HW processors) use visual methods in their testings and controlling?

Furthermore, do you really think that all those professional mixing and mastering engineers who use analyzers as visual feedback are out of hearing?

P.S. I remember you being regular poster at the nauseating thread and you learn nothing? C'mon!

[Jeezo]

Dotl

Snoop Dogg ft. Raphael Saadiq - Waste of Time - YouTube

[TranscendingM]

dotl, relax buddy. You're a good dude, I like you. I remember our cordial exchange about mastering compressors

Originally Posted by dotl

Your intellect really stopped here?! No answer? Nothing can be gained?

You haven't stated what was gained.

If visual feedback in testing is that unimportant than way Softube (and any other designer of SW or HW processors) use visual methods in their testings and controlling?

Whoa, the end user and the developer are vastly different beasts. As one is looking for the interplay of constituents and their "mechanics" to create a system the other is judging a total sound in how it affects their mix.

Furthermore, do you really think that all those professional mixing and mastering engineers who use analyzers as visual feedback are out of hearing?

Not at all, and like I said I'm not anti-analyzer. However, conversely, do you think if they didn't bother with analyzers they wouldn't be at their successful status?

P.S. I remember you being regular poster at the nauseating thread and you learn nothing? C'mon!

Dotl, you have yet to tell me what it is you are gaining? If I, as a sound engineer, do not like a particular sound in a specific situation what else is needed to confirm my established confirmation?

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by Jeezo

Dotl

Snoop Dogg ft. Raphael Saadiq - Waste of Time - YouTube

Jeezo, don't be petty

Answer the question for it's own sake or don't. Otherwise it is all gesture.

[dotl]

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

dotl, relax buddy. You're a good dude, I like you. I remember our cordial exchange about mastering compressors

You're right, I have to relax. I'm sorry! It's late here.

I just read THIS thread again were i posted visual findings and your responds to them.

...and something ELSE when things are blur.

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

You haven't stated what was gained.

Understanding in what way are different freq ranges processed by certain plug-in and where/how to implement it. U can hear that too by listening real material but like that it can take longer to understand the whole picture.

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

Whoa, the end user and the developer are vastly different beasts. As one is looking for the interplay of constituents and their "mechanics" to create a system the other is judging a total sound in how it affects their mix.

They're judging a total sound also and i'm judging their product in my certain why for my own certain reasons.
I'm just taking scientific approach where i can and there's reason why that kind of approach exist. I would peep into a code if I can...if for no reason than for curiosity.

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

Not at all, and like I said I'm not anti-analyzer. However, conversely, do you think if they didn't bother with analyzers they wouldn't be at their successful status?

Time saving is the answer.

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

Dotl, you have yet to tell me what it is you are gaining? If I, as a sound engineer, do not like a particular sound in a specific situation what else is needed to confirm my established confirmation?

What sound in what situation? I can't speak for indeterminate situations from unknown position. If you ask in general the answer is gonna be stupid...but here we go: If you don't like the sound either you replace the sound or processing tools. Not every tool is right for every job. Maybe you would like how processor could work on some other place but you disregarded it completely after first or tenth or hundredth failure. You can't predict possible future implementations with high correlating factor without employing strict fundamental methods first. By simplifying testing environment (audio and 'why not' visual) using uniform methods you can more easily understand the tool in general and where/how to use it...and you can more easily compare it with other tools that are equally tested.

[dotl]

Originally Posted by Jeezo

Dotl

Snoop Dogg ft. Raphael Saadiq - Waste of Time - YouTube

...and it's 5 AM. Sh$&$#&%$t!

[Aiyn Zahav]

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

I'm not wholly against graphs but I still, as a devil's advocate, ask why you need them? And to say "to confirm what I hear" is moot for you have already confirmed it by the fact you heard it.

The only thing the FFT - as a limited testing procedure - can show you is that there are harmonics or not. It won't show you how you hear the quality of something. You won't tell you anything about quality.

Regarding the FFT flaws: put 2 sine waves through said processor one at 110 Hz and another at 910 Hz and you will get a different response. What was gained? (Check the nauseating "Let's Do it: The Ultimate Plugin Analysis" thread for my expiation on this matter.

Regarding quality: Take for example a UAD EQ like the 1073. Try if you will to null it with a standard digital EQ and it will not null 100%. Yet, there are no harmonic distortions going on. HD is not the end all be all when it comes to "character" or asserting "flatness". Looking at an FFT plot won't make that distinction. Again, listening wins.

Again, to simply check for harmonics is fine, or if you will, "geeky" investigation/curiosity but not for checking "quality" or getting the ultimate truth about a given processor. Quality comes from qualia: the experience of the given sense for a given endeavor e.g. hearing + audio. I'm just saying, this thread is en route to nit-picking but do what you will. You aren't going to gain anything further than what your ears have told you already. The paradox being, if your ears didn't tell you then there is a huge question mark against your vocation of choice here!

There need not be a dichotomy. (Did I use that right?) anyway, it is not one or the other. It's not even the ears in the end, it's the brain that decodes it all right? So, input from eye or ears, both are useful.

In this case what was definitely gained:

1) I was not imagining things, cranking up the input really does change the sonics, it's not just about making it louder. Now I know I am not spending $100+ when I could simply raise the volume by some dB or use a more transparent compressor. There is something else going on here. My expectations could have tricked me.

2) Some one earlier said the compressor was nothing special, not even any harmonic distortion going on. This implies that softube didn't model that aspect, it makes one wonder exactly what this emulation is if it's not a full detailed emulation as per their usual high standards.

3) I found out that there is a way to back off the THD on the Passive Eq after all, so it need not add THD and would presumably be much more transparent (at least when it comes to THD anyway)

You are absolutely right about the limits of an Harmonic distortion test. It only tells you about that aspect of the plug-in. Then there are all kinds of other things that make up the quality of the plug-in. The Vari-comp has some great curves going on for sure. But when it comes to how it is best used, knowing it's behavior in regards to HD is pretty handy.

It's also a case of confirming what you think you hear. Sometimes we are not sure and people can disagree, at least about HD some things are clearer now.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by Aiyn Zahav

There need not be a dichotomy. (Did I use that right?) anyway, it is not one or the other. It's not even the ears in the end, it's the brain that decodes it all right? So, input from eye or ears, both are useful.

Ok boom,you nailed it bro!


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by dotl

You're right, I have to relax. I'm sorry! It's late here.

I just read THIS thread again were i posted visual findings and your responds to them.

...and something ELSE when things are blur.



Understanding in what way are different freq ranges processed by certain plug-in and where/how to implement it. U can hear that too by listening real material but like that it can take longer to understand the whole picture.



They're judging a total sound also and i'm judging their product in my certain why for my own certain reasons.
I'm just taking scientific approach where i can and there's reason why that kind of approach exist. I would peep into a code if I can...if for no reason than for curiosity.





Time saving is the answer.




What sound in what situation? I can't speak for indeterminate situations from unknown position. If you ask in general the answer is gonna be stupid...but here we go: If you don't like the sound either you replace the sound or processing tools. Not every tool is right for every job. Maybe you would like how processor could work on some other place but you disregarded it completely after first or tenth or hundredth failure. You can't predict possible future implementations with high correlating factor without employing strict fundamental methods first. By simplifying testing environment (audio and 'why not' visual) using uniform methods you can more easily understand the tool in general and where/how to use it...and you can more easily compare it with other tools that are equally tested.

Originally Posted by Aiyn Zahav

There need not be a dichotomy. (Did I use that right?) anyway, it is not one or the other. It's not even the ears in the end, it's the brain that decodes it all right? So, input from eye or ears, both are useful.

In this case what was definitely gained:

1) I was not imagining things, cranking up the input really does change the sonics, it's not just about making it louder. Now I know I am not spending $100+ when I could simply raise the volume by some dB or use a more transparent compressor. There is something else going on here. My expectations could have tricked me.

2) Some one earlier said the compressor was nothing special, not even any harmonic distortion going on. This implies that softube didn't model that aspect, it makes one wonder exactly what this emulation is if it's not a full detailed emulation as per their usual high standards.

3) I found out that there is a way to back off the THD on the Passive Eq after all, so it need not add THD and would presumably be much more transparent (at least when it comes to THD anyway)

You are absolutely right about the limits of an Harmonic distortion test. It only tells you about that aspect of the plug-in. Then there are all kinds of other things that make up the quality of the plug-in. The Vari-comp has some great curves going on for sure. But when it comes to how it is best used, knowing it's behavior in regards to HD is pretty handy.

It's also a case of confirming what you think you hear. Sometimes we are not sure and people can disagree, at least about HD some things are clearer now.

Hey Aiyn Zahav, thanks for your input. My response addresses what you bring up as well. And yes dichotomy is correct in what you were assuming but in truth I'm not creating an either or situation but more so de-emphasizing the analyzer use in these scenarios where there are superfluous confirmations but worse possible faulty conclusions.

So from what I gathered, it is the saving of time and also what stands out from reiteration is the confirmation idea that seem to be most important for analyzer use. Everything else however is relegated back to the notion that "there is no further confirmation needed as a mix/sound engineer regarding the quality/qualia of what we are hearing". Once confirmed it is confirmed for all its intensive purposes. The idea of biases affecting judgment is not a true measure of an "objective" aural phenomenon, those are merely personal biases.

This "saving of time" too can be contested ultimately. It assumes one needs
to save that time, again assuming that working without an analyzer one is at
some loss. And although a pro mixer as you said could use one, during the
task at hand, namely mixing, they certainly wouldn't use them in a lab-like,
a clinical setting like people end up doing when comparing processors and
their value. If working at the level of acuity of a pro mixer then it begs
the question, that at the relatively trivial amount they would need to use
an analyzer, how much time do they save really. I think that Aiyn Zahav's points 1 & 3 for example are also addressed here and the following.

To repeat myself, I'm not against using analyzers. Addressing the point of contending opinions, sure I can understand simply showing that there are harmonics, the analyzer will be quick way to convey to another who asserts there are none when there are. I still attribute that more as a tool for educating amateur ears or debutantes rather than as a full fledged tool for, again, assessing the quality of a processor and making decisions based on that.

I used to use analyzers a lot more years ago first starting out. What I
found back then was it saved me time in mixing with my eyes but my mixes
were not necessarily getting better. Anyway, to this day for simple
frequency and/or gain oriented things I may glance at an analyzer, I'm not
against them. But overall, I don't spend too much time on them as they won't create distinctions for me in the quality of what I am working with or help me with a psychoacoustic scenario, only my listening will do that.

[FLYINGJAY]

Hey that's great guys,but the graphs and analyzes still showed us things about these new plugins,right?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[krheatman]

Ok guess which one has the UAD MP,Passive EQ,or Both.Screen print included also.They are all done with the Vari and the Pro L thats it.


https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3750034/Let%20go%201.wav

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3750034/Let%20go%202.wav

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3750034/Let%20go%203.wav

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3750034/Let%20go.pdf

[Aiyn Zahav]

Originally Posted by TranscendingM

Hey Aiyn Zahav, thanks for your input. My response addresses what you bring up as well. And yes dichotomy is correct in what you were assuming but in truth I'm not creating an either or situation but more so de-emphasizing the analyzer use in these scenarios where there are superfluous confirmations but worse possible faulty conclusions.

...And although a pro mixer as you said could use one, during the
task at hand, namely mixing, they certainly wouldn't use them in a lab-like,
a clinical setting like people end up doing when comparing processors and
their value.

Your welcome. And gosh It never even occurred to me to use one in a mix scenario. I might do it with audio from a mix only out of interest when I want a break from working on it.

I think their value is just when you initially get a plug-in so you know some basic things about it. I just like to check things out so I have a rough idea at least of their THD here and on EQ's it's useful to know how much your actually boosting etc for level matching.

It was also especially useful in this case because there was this question of softube making second rate plug-ins because it's being released through NI. It at least solves the THD dispute (no harmonic distortion modeled) before it becomes some sort of audio myth. (I think it does anyway)

I also hope people don't think that these tests tell you everything about the plug-ins behavior and value.

[Aiyn Zahav]

Originally Posted by krheatman

Ok guess which one has the UAD MP,Passive EQ,or Both.Screen print included also.They are all done with the Vari and the Pro L thats it.


https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3750034/Let%20go%201.wav

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3750034/Let%20go%202.wav

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3750034/Let%20go%203.wav

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3750034/Let%20go.pdf

Can't hardly hear a difference, but If I can then 202 is more open. If it was my song and you were the ME, I'd take 202.