Real VS Real? UA1176LN vs Plug? What I thought

[barryjohns]

Ok, so this morning, while waiting for any auction to end over at eBay, I did a test. Many of you have done before as well. This was done in Protools HD. I tested some compression plugs against my UA 1176LN Hardware piece.

Granted the plugs tested, except the UAD 1176, are not trying to emulate the hardware 1176, I'm just going off useable compression examples.

1176LN vs. - UAD 1176LN Plug

Although the exact settings on both units were not exactly the same, one probably due to going out and back in through the I/O and the other internal. Regrettably, I have to say that there was negligible difference. Honestly, I think my mind wanted the Hardware to be better, but in reality, it was too close, so close, it was scary.

1176LN vs. - Waves V Comp RTAS Plug

The V Comp could sound almost there, lost a little sparkle on the high end and some breath, but this was ever so slight.

1176LN vs. - Waves Ren Vox RTAS Plug

Well, I actually like this plug better than the hardware 1176. The Vocal reached out and grabbed you.

1176LN vs. - Massey TDM CT4

1176 was the clear winner here, the CT4 lost air and sizzle over the 1176.

What is my point, well, forget about my test and my ears, give it a try or yourself, objectively; it was an eye-opener for me. I've done this in the past, but my ears have changed since then. The real 1176 was the winner in most examples, however, so close in some that it make the hair crawl up my neck.

This will cause some fury with some of you, but for others, try for yourself to see what you find.

[RCM - Ronan]

Thanks for posting your results. In your tests, how much compression (amount of gain reduction) were you doing?

[ScumBum]

Hey can you test the Bomb Factory 1176 ,

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by MushroomKingdom

Hey can you test the Bomb Factory 1176 ,

Yea, I did that one too, sorry, it wasn't close. I'm not a big fan personally.

Sorry

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by rcm

Thanks for posting your results. In your tests, how much compression (amount of gain reduction) were you doing?

5db

[ScumBum]

Originally Posted by barryjohns;

Yea, I did that one too, sorry, it wasn't close. I'm not a big fan personally.

Sorry

So it sucked big time ? Thats the one I've been using. Should I pick up the UAD1176?

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by MushroomKingdom

So it sucked big time ? Thats the one I've been using. Should I pick up the UAD1176?

IMHO, the UAD Plugs are the best money can buy, as long as you've got plenty of PCI/PCIe Slots open. You'll need at least 2 cards. If you are in Protools LE, they add a lot of delay, which can become cumbersome in LE, workable though.

[kittonian]

Alone on a single track some of the plugs do come rather close to the hardware. However, once you get a whole bunch of tracks going the difference becomes quite noticeable in the depth of the sound stage and stereo imaging of the song. The headroom afforded in analog and way you can push an analog compressor is far different from a digital plug-in.

I've said it many times before but here it is again; If you only have a small number of tracks in your song, mixing it in the box or out on a console are going to yield similar results. When you have a song with 40+ tracks, there's a huge difference.

[redddog]

Originally Posted by kittonian

Alone on a single track some of the plugs do come rather close to the hardware. However, once you get a whole bunch of tracks going the difference becomes quite noticeable in the depth of the sound stage and stereo imaging of the song. The headroom afforded in analog and way you can push an analog compressor is far different from a digital plug-in.

I've said it many times before but here it is again; If you only have a small number of tracks in your song, mixing it in the box or out on a console are going to yield similar results. When you have a song with 40+ tracks, there's a huge difference.

The explaination du jour whenever someone can't accept software winning.

If a hardware 1176 sounded less open and 3d than a plug, why wouldn't the compilation of the real 1176 tracks get worse as you add tracks?

[CorkyTart]

I've done a similar thing with EQS and the software vs the real thing is pretty much the same as far as my ears can tell. For me, the important thing is to get it sounding the way you want it on the way in (Not an original idea) and thats what works for me.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by redddog

The explaination du jour whenever someone can't accept software winning.

If a hardware 1176 sounded less open and 3d than a plug, why wouldn't the compilation of the real 1176 tracks get worse as you add tracks?

It has nothing to do with not accepting software winning out. I said that software will come darn close to the hardware when you are only talking about a single track with minimal compression. You'll notice a bigger difference on that single track if you start hitting things pretty hard and you'll notice an even bigger difference once you start adding more tracks into the mix. Why do you think people are catching on to using a summing mixer (not just a summing box) when working without a console? The analog gain staging, panning, etc. delivers a more 3-D image to the music.

I love some plug-ins and use them when hardware isn't available. McDSP's ChannelG and Analog Channel, along with Digi's RealTape Suite are among my favorite plug-ins and they're great. Would I choose ChannelG over a real SSL EQ/Comp? Nope, but I'll use it when the real deal isn't available and I get some pretty great results. I'm not slamming plugs at all.

[craigmorris74]

I've got to back up kittonian on this one. I've got the 1176LN, UAD 1176, and the Bomb Factory BF76.
The UAD 1176 does a good job emulating the hardware, especially at lower compression setting, however, at higher compression setting begins to get a little harsher. The hardware is definitely better, but if you don't have the cash to get one the UAD isn't bad.
And, while I'm a fan of doing things on the cheap (the 1176 is only one of 3 nice mono compressors I own) kittonian is correct in his assertion that a ton of hardware compressors on a track heavy mix sucks some of the life out it. But just using the UAD 1176 on say a drum track or the drum bus is pretty kickin.

The BF 1176 isn't terrible, but not even as close as the UAD.

Craig

[mixerguy]

I've never met a plug that I can do 15 DB of compression the way I can on my Distressors..... and sound as good.

[sage691]

Originally Posted by kittonian

Alone on a single track some of the plugs do come rather close to the hardware. However, once you get a whole bunch of tracks going the difference becomes quite noticeable in the depth of the sound stage and stereo imaging of the song. The headroom afforded in analog and way you can push an analog compressor is far different from a digital plug-in.

I've said it many times before but here it is again; If you only have a small number of tracks in your song, mixing it in the box or out on a console are going to yield similar results. When you have a song with 40+ tracks, there's a huge difference.

Some true words of wisdom! I once did the A/B comparison thing on an old PT mix system. The plug was Waves Renn. Comp., and the hardware piece was an Altec 436C tube compressor.

The plug sounded almost as good. The differences were too small to write home about. hence, I sold that 436C (BIG mistake!!!).

Then, when I started doing high track count mixing (50 or more) the tracks that i used the Renn. Comp. on DID NOT cut thru the overall mix anywhere near as good as did the 436C from my memory. It was SO bad that I had to get my hands on a friend's 436C just to do the A/B while listening to the whole mix. And right away the 436C CRUSHED the plug-in for making the bass stand out in the whole mix.

Conclusion: single track A/B comparisons are essentially MEANINGLESS when evaluating gear. You need to hear the WHOLE mix to know for sure.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by kittonian

I've said it many times before but here it is again; If you only have a small number of tracks in your song, mixing it in the box or out on a console are going to yield similar results. When you have a song with 40+ tracks, there's a huge difference.

Do you have 40 1176's? Wow! Nice.

[Improv]

Originally Posted by sage691

Some true words of wisdom! I once did the A/B comparison thing on an old PT mix system. The plug was Waves Renn. Comp., and the hardware piece was an Altec 436C tube compressor.

The plug sounded almost as good. The differences were too small to write home about. hence, I sold that 436C (BIG mistake!!!).

Then, when I started doing high track count mixing (50 or more) the tracks that i used the Renn. Comp. on DID NOT cut thru the overall mix anywhere near as good as did the 436C from my memory. It was SO bad that I had to get my hands on a friend's 436C just to do the A/B while listening to the whole mix. And right away the 436C CRUSHED the plug-in for making the bass stand out in the whole mix.

Conclusion: single track A/B comparisons are essentially MEANINGLESS when evaluating gear. You need to hear the WHOLE mix to know for sure.

Doesn't seem like a fair comparison. Did you ever do a mix with 50 or more 436C's? Perhaps the same effect would have occurred... you can only have so many "stand out" elements in a mix...

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by drBill

Do you have 40 1176's? Wow! Nice.

Crap I only have 5!

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by drBill

Do you have 40 1176's? Wow! Nice.

No, but if you carefully record thru the hardware as you overdub... then you dont NEED to compress as much (or at all) in the mix.... so effectively you DO sort of have that many hardware compressors

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by drBill

Do you have 40 1176's? Wow! Nice.

Of course not, but when I'm mixing on a large console like an SSL 4000, I have dynamics/eqs on every single channel. I'm not really sure what the point of your post was. Were you trying to be funny or was this a poke at my responses in this thread?

Obviously, even if you had 40 1176's, you would never use them on every single track of a mix. My point was that in a dense mix, if you use all plug-ins compared to all analog hardware, you will notice a major difference. I think most people reading my responses understood that.

So, to those that don't have a large SSL console and only have a few select pieces of outboard gear (or perhaps none at all), my suggestion is do the best you can with what you have and grow your gear arsenal over time as your budget allows.

That being said, threads like this that try to convince people that digital plug-ins are just as good as analog hardware don't really tell the whole story. There are a lot of people who come to this forum to educate themselves and when they read posts like this, it says to them, woah, wait a sec, I can buy a computer, get some plugs, and my stuff will sound just as good as those guys who've spent hundreds of thousands on amazing gear. Additionally, it's like saying to every hardware manufacturer worth their salt that what they do is meaningless because a plug-in sounds just as good (and since you can use that plug on every track of your mix if you want, there's no need to buy hardware).

I just think it's important to tell the whole story. That's all I'm saying.

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by kittonian

That being said, threads like this that try to convince people that digital plug-ins are just as good as analog hardware don't really tell the whole story.

My opinion of hardware vs plug ins is the same as yours, but the guy just did some tests and posted his subjective assessment. I think its completely valid. I doubt I would draw the same conclusions as Barry, but it does not make his invalid.

[bcgood]

Plugs are getting more and more powerful and there are many that sound great. The UA plugs are some of the best out there in my opinion. The 1176 blackface is awesome if used correctly it can make stuff sound like butta, (Talk amongst yourselves).

One thing that gives plugs a little advantage in my mind is they're so much easier to tweek with while mixing. In the end the ease of use seems to encourage the creative process while mixing for me and that is very valuable indeed!

bcgood

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by kittonian

Of course not, but when I'm mixing on a large console like an SSL 4000, I have dynamics/eqs on every single channel. I'm not really sure what the point of your post was. Were you trying to be funny or was this a poke at my responses in this thread?

Obviously, even if you had 40 1176's, you would never use them on every single track of a mix. My point was that in a dense mix, if you use all plug-ins compared to all analog hardware, you will notice a major difference. I think most people reading my responses understood that.

So, to those that don't have a large SSL console and only have a few select pieces of outboard gear (or perhaps none at all), my suggestion is do the best you can with what you have and grow your gear arsenal over time as your budget allows.

That being said, threads like this that try to convince people that digital plug-ins are just as good as analog hardware don't really tell the whole story. There are a lot of people who come to this forum to educate themselves and when they read posts like this, it says to them, woah, wait a sec, I can buy a computer, get some plugs, and my stuff will sound just as good as those guys who've spent hundreds of thousands on amazing gear. Additionally, it's like saying to every hardware manufacturer worth their salt that what they do is meaningless because a plug-in sounds just as good (and since you can use that plug on every track of your mix if you want, there's no need to buy hardware).

I just think it's important to tell the whole story. That's all I'm saying.

Come on Guy, go back and read my original post. This "Was Not" a "Plugs are as good/better than Hardware thread", just an interesting exercise that does get one thinking. My suggestion was for people to try for themselves and see what they hear. What this could lead to is a debate as to the how many pieces of hardware to plugins to own. Makes me wonder about an appropriate ratio that makes financial sense and still maintain quality. What this was really about for me, was, I was about to sell my PCIe UAD card, and guess what, now I'm keeping it. Not that it's better, but in many situations, it's certainly good enough and simply more economical.

Oh, by the way, I won the auction. I is a beautiful Carvin Bass with quilted maple top to use in my recordings.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

No, but if you carefully record thru the hardware as you overdub... then you dont NEED to compress as much (or at all) in the mix.... so effectively you DO sort of have that many hardware compressors

+1 I'm 100% behind mixing ITB and also, shockingly, 100% behind tracking OTB.

Yeah hardware! Yeah plugs! Gimme both!

[RusRant]

+1 I'm 100% behind mixing ITB and also, shockingly, 100% behind tracking OTB.

Yeah hardware! Yeah plugs! Gimme both!

Couldn't have said it better! Frankly I got started on a SSL 4000 series console with some great outboard. It's a great way to work, no doubt. But the fact is, most projects can't always budget the time or expense to work that way anymore. There are great mixes being made 100% ITB, and there have been great mixes made 100% OTB. IMO, whatever works, works. As far as the track stacking bringing down the quality of plugins. The Beatles didn't need 40 tracks and I don't either.

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by RusRant

The Beatles didn't need 40 tracks and I don't either.

Amen

[Unclenny]

Originally Posted by barryjohns

Oh, by the way, I won the auction. I is a beautiful Carvin Bass with quilted maple top to use in my recordings.

Nice!
Love to see a pic...when you get it out of the box.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by RusRant

The Beatles didn't need 40 tracks and I don't either.

Originally Posted by barryjohns

Amen

Wellllll..... as A BIG Beatles fan I would have to say that 1) They didn't use 40 tracks because they didn't have the option to use them. If they did they almost assuredly would have and 2) They did bounce tracks all the time so what might look like a 4 or 8 track recording was actually 24 or more tracks. I have heard from a few members of the recording process for the later albums say that they really wished they had more tracks because they were getting some generation loss from all the bouncing.... again see point 1 above.

I am just say'n..... we all look back on the past with nostalgia but often at the time the people in the trenches were looking forward with longing in their eyes for the inventions of the future while they just made due with what they had... which leads back to the point of this thread.

Make due with what you have.

I think what Barry is saying is that the software is pretty close now days so use what you have to make the best recordings you can. I do agree with Kittonian (that in it's self makes me a little worried ) that these things do add up over more and more tracks but as mixerguy said, record through the hardware and you now have 40 1176's.

Also COMMIT to your sounds! If you want to talk about The Beatles one of the biggest lessons to be learned from them is that they committed the sounds to tape they were happy with at the time.... sorry for the rant.

lol

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

I do agree with Kittonian (that in it's self makes me a little worried )

lol

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by kittonian

lol

Glad you took it as the joke it was meant to be.... written words are hard sometimes.

Rock on.

[living sounds]

I think the difference even on single tracks is rather big. At least the way I mix (pretty aggressive compression). Send a hiphop kickdrum through the software with a lot of GR, you get an ugly mushed, squashed something. Do the same with the hardware and you get a punchy, thumping low-end and a nice bright attack.