Plugin emulations like the UAD-1

[macle]

I'm sorry if this has been asked, I tried the search function, but couldn't find the answer...

what do you think of all these plugin emulations like the ones on the UAD-1 card, with plugs that supposedly sound just like an 1176, an LA2A, a Fairchild, an EMT plate, and so on...

I found a post where you said you didn't care for re-issues of a hardware version of the 1176, so er, how about a plug-in version?

Thanks.

[Richard]

Originally posted by macle
I'm sorry if this has been asked, I tried the search function, but couldn't find the answer...

I couldn't find it either!
So here I go again, I think!
It is possible that I will contradict myself in the next few words.
I don't like the 'plug ins' as much as the real thing.
I do use the plug ins.
I try to ignore what they are meant to be, and find something that I need from them.
I find the 'familiar look' very helpful.
I've compared the plug in to the real thing and found that there is very little actual difference when phase cancelled.
I continue to 'hear/notice that 'little' difference.
2 analogue units differ from each other, the plug in 'types' may also to a degree that one may give you more of what you need.
EQ's don't make it as a plug in for me, I do however use the MDL and Sony.
I'm told that the 'modeled' API 550b is good.
I won't judge because I don't like the 'real' 550b (I love the 550a and 560) .
I'm thrilled with the Eventide plug ins, I wish that they had made them even more than the original (Stereo please)
Richard

[max cooper]

I try to ignore what they are meant to be, and find something that I need from them.

...which seems to make it so much easier to have a relationship with plugins.

[macle]

Originally posted by Richard
I couldn't find it either!
So here I go again, I think!
It is possible that I will contradict myself in the next few words.
I don't like the 'plug ins' as much as the real thing.
I do use the plug ins.
I try to ignore what they are meant to be, and find something that I need from them.
I find the 'familiar look' very helpful.
I've compared the plug in to the real thing and found that there is very little actual difference when phase cancelled.
I continue to 'hear/notice that 'little' difference.
2 analogue units differ from each other, the plug in 'types' may also to a degree that one may give you more of what you need.
EQ's don't make it as a plug in for me, I do however use the MDL and Sony.
I'm told that the 'modeled' API 550b is good.
I won't judge because I don't like the 'real' 550b (I love the 550a and 560) .
I'm thrilled with the Eventide plug ins, I wish that they had made them even more than the original (Stereo please)
Richard

Thanks Richard. Even though you're not gushing over the top like so many other people do, that's still a pretty positive review...

...I wonder what that little difference is...

...I just got the UAD, and unfortunately I've never used the real gear...I usually can't stand emulations (drum emulations, guitar amp emulations, etc.) the differences between those and the real things are like night and day...it's interesting that these plugs seem to past the test with many who have used the real deals.

[jbuntz]

Originally posted by macle
Thanks Richard. Even though you're not gushing over the top like so many other people do, that's still a pretty positive review...

...I wonder what that little difference is...

...I just got the UAD, and unfortunately I've never used the real gear...I usually can't stand emulations (drum emulations, guitar amp emulations, etc.) the differences between those and the real things are like night and day...it's interesting that these plugs seem to past the test with many who have used the real deals.

They don't match the tone of the gear too well and they don't react the same under extreme conditions. Some of it has a sound (pultec is pretty obvious with no eq and sounds cool) but distortion is a very complex thing and happens in many different ways. I've tried my hand at writing plugins breifly including a very crude emulation type thing and I really have to hand it to them for doing a great job. I love my UAD-1.

Nobody seems to mention that the plugins offer some flexibility quite easily that the hardware doesnt like stereo linking LA2A's and 1176's are a cinch not to mention stereo pultec or fill in the blank is no problem. I sometimes eq before and after plugs to make a "sidechain" eq and that's not as easy in the all analog world without degredation or giving up good eqs in the mix.

[macle]

Originally posted by jbuntz
They don't match the tone of the gear too well and they don't react the same under extreme conditions.

I wonder if anyone has ever posted up clips comparing the real vs the UAD...for someone like me who has never heard a real 1176 or LA2A or fairchild or Pultec (other than in the context of a mix on countless albums ), that would be great to hear. Might give some insight into that little difference...

If anyone knows of clips like this, please post links!

[Richard]

Originally posted by macle
(other than in the context of a mix on countless albums ), that would be great to hear. Might give some insight into that little difference...

I have made the assumption that your source is already in a DAW (and any 'damage, has already been done).

I fear that a posted comparison won't help you.
The key word here is 'CONTEXT'.
Make your life a little easier.
Use the plug in, if you are happy you're there!
Don't waste your time wondering if a difference of the amount in question is equal to the time and cost of finding out!
I say this because you would have to 'feel' such a difference so much, as to NEVER want to use the 'other' one again.
You would have to assume that the 'difference' is applicable to every scenario (not).
You would have to except that the 'real' one that you are comparing to, is a 'prime' example, is available to buy, is affordable and will always work to that spec. Fingers crossed, you will only ever need one!

This may not read the way I intend it:
Whilst mastering an 'indie' project I was asked if I thought the mix could be any better?
They had a drive with the original session (PT LE 001 OS9.2).
I fired up my old 001 in OS 9, I HAD ONLY THE 'DIGI' PLUG INS THAT CAME WITH THE ORIGINAL SOFTWARE.
Within 15 mins, I had sonically remixed their song (without balance tweaks), to an extent that made them halt the mastering and return with my 'model' to remix everything. My point is, experience and aptitude is so much more important than gear! (stike sharp intake of breathstike )

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by Richard
EQ's don't make it as a plug in for me.

as much as i love [and prefer] digital over analog, this is the one area where analog still just kicks the living crap outta digital and i havent the foggiest idea why. analog is loaded with phase shift [and a FIR filter in digital can be made with none] but for some reason, the IIR filters in digital fall very short of anything musical. personally, for the way i work, i have to use them and usually get it to do what my ear wants them to do, but the intuition in getting there is nowhere near the same as using an analog EQ.

im just baffled still by this.

compressors i can make work very easily in the digital domain, all the delays, fx and so forth.... easy as pie [in fact many times better than analog, or digital hardware counterparts as plugins because of the much more refined automation of them]

i wonder why EQ is so difficult.

[Killahurts]

Originally posted by alphajerk
as much as i love [and prefer] digital over analog, this is the one area where analog still just kicks the living crap outta digital and i havent the foggiest idea why.

I don't understand why either, but that's been my experience as well.

Hey AJ, you're a DP user, aren't you? Have you heard the new MW EQ that comes in 4.5? Just wondering what you thought...I wanted to hate it because it's a plugin, and because MOTU's plugs have traditionally sucked, IMO. But I don't know, I think I kinda Like it. I was able to bring out a track with it that I couldn't seem to get with the (digital) board EQ on the Sony, and it sounded musical, but that's all I've done with it.

Maybe I just liked it because it saved my ass in that instance, may not be that great once I get into it.

I wish I could get the budget for a great analog EQ, I'm tired of having to work so hard with digital.

[alphajerk]

to be honest, im still in OS9 land.... just cant make the upgrade until all my plugs are ready, still waiting on some [psp stereopack mostly] and im a little concerned with teh extra hoggish nature of OSX on my G4 dualgHz..... i dont know what it is, but the G4 series didnt last nearly as long on this OSX jump apple put us all through.

as for EQ now, i just use analog on the way in when possible. guess i pretty much know what im going for on the way in with sounds and how the "jigsaw" puzzle is going to fit [must be something about looking at the picture on the front of the box] and i know what digital isnt going to do for me so i now am shooting further on the way in than leaving much for later.

course, the golden rule goes into effect [pardon the pun] "when in question.... mult."

[wallace]

Has anybody tried/heard about the new Waves Q-Clone? Supposedly, it links to an outboard EQ captures the settings, stores it and letting you tweak it further later. It sounds like an awesome idea in theory, to be able to eq all your tracks with an ourboard EQ.... I'm sure they could do the same thing for compression. I'm also sure it's probably got the reaction time of a drunk man (large latency).

[macle]

Originally posted by Richard
My point is, experience and aptitude is so much more important than gear! (stike sharp intake of breathstike )

I hear you Richard.

In fact, that was exactly what I realized soon after getting the UAD...I was hoping that all of a sudden, my music would sound a million times better (based somewhat on comments by so many that the UAD is so great that it took their music to a whole new level).

But the UAD plugns, while okay, are just plugins, they're not magic beans that will make me all of a sudden know what I'm doing :( .

Nevertheless, I thought it might be interesting to hear, just out of curiosity...llike comparing a digtal piano to a real one just, you know, to hear what a real piano is, even if I can't afford a real one, and understanding that a real one comes with all that micing and tuning baggage and it's really the player and all that....

[alphajerk]

i heard a recording with a real piano in it the other day that kept me wondering if it wasnt really a real one but a digital one....

[warhead]

I want to try the Sonalksis EQ, I've heard it's good. All I know is that the EQ in Nuendo SUCKS for anything but rolling off some low end. I agree with the analog kickin' its butt comment, at least in my experience thus far.

War

[macle]

I never knew before that people were so dissastisfied with digital EQ...in fact, UAD just came out with their Precision EQ, and there are raves all over the place of how superb it is.

But, this digital EQ thing is possibly another example...I've only ever used digital EQ, so I wouldn't know the difference....

and I'm by no means a real engineer, I have no clue what I'm doing ...

but whether everything I find frustrating is because of me and my limitations, I'm not so sure...

for example, the POD...I'm pretty certain that the hours I spent in frustration trying to make the POD work, make it sound "good", make it work well with the other tracks, would have been cured if I had simply used a real amp.

Now you guys are saying digital EQs suck, and I'm thinking jeez, maybe *that's* why I have so much trouble with EQ.

I'm just really suspect of any sort of digital "emulation" at this point.

[Richard]

Originally posted by alphajerk


as for EQ now, i just use analog on the way in when possible. guess i pretty much know what im going for on the way in with sounds and how the "jigsaw" puzzle is going to fit [must be something about looking at the picture on the front of the box] and i know what digital isnt going to do for me so i now am shooting further on the way in than leaving much for later.

I feel the pain, I have a G5 OSX rig ($well).
I also run OS9 because the software I rely on doesn't do OSX!
As for the 'jigsaw', You must be in the enviable position of 'total control'.
many of us are at the mercy of some ones 'great idea' half way through the repair process of 'another's' "hey what about a 12st" gem.

[maxim]

perhaps, this is a dangerous idea (letting someone else complete the jigsaw puzzle), but after discussion with the mastering engineer, i decided to use minimal, if any, additive high end eq

i found that if i get the subtractive stuff right in the box, he (the ME) can add the sheen, using his high end analog machines (not to mention his golden ears)

what do you think of this idea?

[Richard]

Originally posted by maxim

what do you think of this idea?

I think that it takes confidence in yourself and in the process after it leaves your control, to leave a mix sounding good, but not 'finished' (as in still needs the Mastering process).

[maxim]

thanks

i have confidence in the mastering engineer (don bartey @ 301 studios in sydney)

it is a tricky process, though