This is crazy. MC77 (hardware) vs. BF76 (plugin)

[DaVogi]

i clearly hear a difference.... yeah, its not day and night, but the little loss of punch, "life" and openess could make a huge difference if you use the plugin a lot in the (itb) mix.

i use it sometimes for less important tracks (background vocals...) and only little gain reduction... but since i have massey ct4 i don't need it (ct4 sounds BETTER! try it!) except if i need fast/precise release (control)...

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by sage691

Been there, done that 10 years ago comparing the Waves Renn. Comp. to an Altec 436 c. If you just do a direct comparison (as you did here) with 1 plug it's AMAZING how close they can sound. The lowly Mix TDM version of Waves Renn. Comp. sounds incredibly useful as 1 plug inserted on 1 instrument.

BUT (and this is a BIG but), try inserting 20 or more plugin comps. and watch your mix turn to instant mushy, ill-defined mud.

It's the CUMULATIVE EFFECT that makes the inferiority of plug-in comps. horribly noticable.

Umm...put 20 or more Altec 436 c's on your mix and i'm sure you'd see some kind of cumulative effect as well.


EDIT: But 19 or less plugin compressors is ok? If someone wants to back up these claims scientifically or something, that'd be great...

[Mike Brown]

Hahahaha "Cumulative effect"

[threshhold]

i've A/B 'd my UA1176 LN with the onboard BF plug and IMHO the diff. is night and day in favour of the real deal. though I do sometimes SLAM vox and rooms , perhaps thats where the gooyness really shines in the analog unit with the iron.

[TonyBelmont]

I have a funny hunch that yearning for an original 1176 is a waste of my time. ( I am wondering if this is the same with alot of hardware) I have work to do, know what I mean?

Yearning for any piece of gear is a waste of time... you should do the best you can with the tools at your disposal.

But, with that said... I strongly believe there is still a major difference between hardware and software compressors. If you take a wonderful software compressor like the Waves API 2500, and compare it to the hardware equivalent, it only takes a few seconds to realize that they are not in the same ballpark. That doesn't make the plugin a bad tool... it's still one of the best software compressors around, but it's not the same.

[hipass]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

But, with that said... I strongly believe there is still a major difference between hardware and software compressors.

One has recall and automation and the other does not - I have racks of Neve, ,LA-2 & 3,1176, SSL, Focusrite and Manley compressors and in the bit I have no problems getting great results with plug-ins.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by hipass

One has recall and automation and the other does not - I have racks of Neve, ,LA-2 & 3,1176, SSL, Focusrite and Manley compressors and in the bit I have no problems getting great results with plug-ins.

I also have no problem getting great results with plugins.

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

I also have no problem getting great results with plugins.

thumbsup

[princeplanet]

I have no problem getting even greater sounds with Hardware.

... and I don't even sell the stuff.....

[Steffmo]

Persoanally I applaud this guy's willingness to say what he hears and expose himself to the abuse. Not that I totally agree, I don't. but the bottom line is everyone does what they think is best for their recording. If you can make your ears happy with a plug...use it. If not, do the responsible thing and put some hardware in there.

I think everyone here knows that tracking through the best gear possible, mostly hardware, is the way to go. On the other side, I personally think it is inevitable that ITB mixing will equal, and probably surpass hardware mixing.

All the R and B money is being funnelled ito this goal. Faster computers will host better mix engines and if we look at the improvement in plugs in the last ten years, its inevitable that they will reach and surpass the quality of their hardware counterparts.
The demand is there, the consumer support is there. I just don't see how you can deny it.

Does hardware go away...of course not. There will be more need than ever to get the signal into the box sounding great. I think we will also see more digitally controlled analog that can be automated from the box which will create now opportunities for hardware makes.

I'm really amazed we haven't seen a Distressor or 1176 that is a plain box controlled from the host computer or stand alone controller.. Taking the pots and meters off the thing and replacing it with digital control while maintaing the analog signal path would reduce the price of the unit considerably once the R and D is recouped. The MMA could even establish some standards for control (if it doesn't exist already) that would allow someone like Native Instruments to make a hardware programmer that worked with any device.

In conclusion, I think that if the sound can get a pinch better the lure of the easy recall will win the game. Its almost at that point now, and I think the next 5 years will bring us there.

Feel free to flame away. But i think the facts support my feelings.

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by Steffmo

All the R and B money is being funnelled ito this goal.

So that's where it's going?



- c

[RTR]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

So that's where it's going?



- c

I thought they were just buying rims and grills

[warhead]

I track with great hardware and mix with great plug ins too, with some external processing printed back at times and usually more analog gear at the end of the chain (comp / EQ). If something works for you, use it. Don't worry about how many posts somebody else has on a forum that says something that doesn't jive with your experience.

Make great music, no reason why plug ins can't be a big part of it.

War

[teo]

I could hear a little difference (as in, I would pass an ABX test) but could not tell which is which. I listened without looking at the names. I also think that the MC77 is slightly louder, not properly level matched, but I might be wrong.
In my experience though, I like hardware better when pushing it hard, but I can work with software, it's just hard to squash 20dB for color tutt
When compressing a couple of dBs, I don't think hardware vs. software makes that much of a difference...

[E.rOk.stA]

While we're all here, can anybody post what their favorite use for the MC77/1176 is?

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by the Set Surgeon

While we're all here, can anybody post what their favorite use for the MC77/1176 is?

Bass.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by the Set Surgeon

OK, here's the samples. Pick which is BF76 and which is MC77. This isn't because I think nobody will be able to pick, it's just to demonstrate that it's close. Remember, this is compressed once during tracking by TLA-100A, THEN mixed w/ comp (MC77 or BF76) Attack = 6, Release =7, 4:1 ratio. Average of 3-5dB's gain reduction. I solo'd the tracks to make it easier.

One is alive and the other is dead. Not even close to my ears.

-R

[Silver Sonya]

Kick drum. Used to own one of these and sold it as part of a division of property in an amicable splitting with a former partner. I miss it all the time. Both of these things are lovely for kick drum, but really they are fantastic on so many things that it's kind of absurd to limit them to just these applications.

- c

[cdog]

Originally Posted by the Set Surgeon

While we're all here, can anybody post what their favorite use for the MC77/1176 is?

Absolutely hammering vocals.

At lower amounts of gain reductions and and when you arent driving the input the differences between the software and hardware wont be huge. But as the GR goes deeper and you start slamming the input, the hardware takes on its own sound and it different and grittier than the plug in. They each have their own application.

[E.rOk.stA]

As I've been tracking some vox I DO like how it grabs normally low level sounds in the room or even mouth noises and makes them very apparent. I can't explain it other than thick and gooey, in a good way.

[Bang]

I have done extensive A/B tests with my 1176s and their plugin emulations. None come close really. The hardware boxes have more weight, more spongey attack, more intimate sound, more 3D, more real.. even my girlfriend with untrained audio ears could pick out the differences in a blind test.

My comparisons are usually 8:1 or 12:1 with 10-20db compression... btw the software never behaves the same compression wise...

with the hardware its so easy to instantly get that sound... not so with the software..

[Blast9]

Clips - pretty marginal difference!

The 77 sound more detailed - emphasising the edgy 3-4K sound of the mic, but a bit rougher-sounding more grainy/distorted

The 76 sounds smoother

i actually prefer the 76 on this solo'd track

[nonamesleft]

i wish my ears reported that plug-in comps were as good as hardware...i have UAD, ozone, and some others and really do love them. however, the day i finally got some hardware comps (1176, la3a, portico, safesound toolbox) my recorded sounds suddenly started sounding a lot more pro...of course the hammer eq helped as well...and no plug will add the harmonic saturation that thing will!

I have found that plugs will do a great job on minor elements, and even on some major ones when i run out of hardware, but you better have some quality ad/da or there is no point.

i sincerely wish it was all hype...i would give anything to sell off my hardware cause it is such a pain to patch in and out of my daw. But my ears won't let me do it...yet...one day i will when the plugs actually catch up.

[Cosmonauta]

I´m upset too.
Unfortunately, I hear a BIG, obvious, difference between Hardware Mc77 and it´s plugin version. Much more vast difference over Bf76.

When I say "unfortunately", I really mean it.

Of course, I would prefer to save the 1650U$. But I just can´t now. This sux.

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by the Set Surgeon

I can't help but wonder if all these big name producers/mixing engineers know this but won't admit that the age of DAWs is taking over.

I have said this to the point of being slapped--and right now I wanna slap myself for repeating it---but not everybody knows so....

I read a little while ago on the Womb forum a guy pointing out that a large group of Pro's were raving about the input section of the URS console pro and how it drove everything into saturation with nice harmonics. (I dont know if you remember how many of these big names were pushing this plugin)

It turns out the input section was nothing but an eq file that would bump say..200hz a db or however far that original gear was from flat.

In short..it was a joke. Yet everyone "heard " this awesome saturation. Not me. So much for the golden ears huh?

Thats not to downplay top engineers their unique talent of arranging sounds and creating beautiful mixes. But a group of some of the best mixers around got this wrong. So just because you have great multitrack ears does not mean you have great ears for everything--especially things in solo--and that would include their opinions on EQ's. Some of us can discern these things better than others even though our multitrack skills are not as good as others. Everyone has talents.

I agree with Steve..there is something, however intangable, that hardware has---it could even be something as tangential as its input and outputs that is missing on digital Eq's. But they are so very close that in multitrack it often doesnt amount to anything that cant be overcome by some other technique.

Some people are so illogical in their comparisons they cant seem to wrap their mind around the fact that we dont mix in a vacuum. If something digital we use is just a tad off, we compensate with other techniques--making any difference moot.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference at all. Thats Logic 101. So track for track comparisons completely circumvent real world practice.

So the next time you hear these absolute statements from so called golden ears boys just remember it is not absolute. Many times its just ego and even protectionism in action. The best thing we can do is give our opinion and be humble enough to say---so and so doesnt work for Me, for my specific set of skills.

[robmix]

Originally Posted by Absolute

So the next time you hear these absolute statements from so called golden ears boys just remember it is not absolute. Many times its just ego and even protectionism in action. The best thing we can do is give our opinion and be humble enough to say---so and so doesnt work for Me, for my specific set of skills.

As someone who has worked with more than a few "golden ear" types, you have to take the manufacturer endorsements, and quotes with a grain of salt. These guys are so slammed they might only have 10 minutes to try out a piece of gear, or slap something on a track during a mix, if it sounds good keep it there, but still not have serious time to explore all the possibilities. And more importantly, they don't always have time to try and decipher why it sounds good. I get gear to try out, and it might take weeks before I even open the box, check it out for a few minutes and give my impressions before UPS picks it up at 4pm that day. It's rare that a manufacturer can loan out or give a piece of gear for an extended review. Don't forget most of these guys have a set way of working, so moving out a tried and true piece of gear for something new is a PITA.

I worked on a big record years ago with a very successful artist and famous engineer. We got gear from everyone to try out, most pieces got two minutes or less before the engineer switched back to his usual suspects. Most of those manufacturers got positive words back, and then used those quotes for the next 10 years to sell their gear. It's not that their gear wasn't good or even great, but it rarely replaced the Neve, EMT, lexicon, and other gear that we were using.

When a certain DAW was introduced as a Pro Tools killer the company had this great ad with famous dudes who had switched, yet several of them were renting my buddy's PT rig every time they came to town. . . . .

This isn't to say you can't trust endorsements or ad quotes, but it'd be better to know in what context that quote was given. Was it over the course of an entire project or off the NAMM floor ? And, the best endorsement is seeing their actual rig, what gear gets used everyday.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by Absolute

I have said this to the point of being slapped--and right now I wanna slap myself for repeating it---but not everybody knows so....

I know... I feel like I've read these comments about URS from you at least 125124541325 times....

I read a little while ago on the Womb forum a guy pointing out that a large group of Pro's were raving about the input section of the URS console pro and how it drove everything into saturation with nice harmonics. (I dont know if you remember how many of these big names were pushing this plugin)

It turns out the input section was nothing but an eq file that would bump say..200hz a db or however far that original gear was from flat.

In short..it was a joke. Yet everyone "heard " this awesome saturation. Not me. So much for the golden ears huh?

Thats not to downplay top engineers their unique talent of arranging sounds and creating beautiful mixes. But a group of some of the best mixers around got this wrong. So just because you have great multitrack ears does not mean you have great ears for everything--especially things in solo--and that would include their opinions on EQ's. Some of us can discern these things better than others even though our multitrack skills are not as good as others. Everyone has talents.

I agree with Steve..there is something, however intangable, that hardware has---it could even be something as tangential as its input and outputs that is missing on digital Eq's. But they are so very close that in multitrack it often doesnt amount to anything that cant be overcome by some other technique.

Some people are so illogical in their comparisons they cant seem to wrap their mind around the fact that we dont mix in a vacuum. If something digital we use is just a tad off, we compensate with other techniques--making any difference moot.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference at all. Thats Logic 101. So track for track comparisons completely circumvent real world practice.

So the next time you hear these absolute statements from so called golden ears boys just remember it is not absolute. Many times its just ego and even protectionism in action. The best thing we can do is give our opinion and be humble enough to say---so and so doesnt work for Me, for my specific set of skills.

If someone heard a difference they liked, then that was a positive for them... The way they explained why they liked this positive benefit they got is irrelevant to this thread.

The fact is that all of the input stages are EQ models of the piece of gear they are based on... if you want the distortion characteristics, you use the Saturation plugin.

None of the URS "golden ears guys" received any compensation for their help with the development of the Strip Pro... How do I know? Because I was one of them. So, how is any of this relevant?

So, let's recap... The input stage you referred to had an EQ curve applied to the signal... the engineer's using it liked it... And this is somehow a bad thing.

I use this plugin on every mix... to this day, it is still the most versatile EQ/ compressor plugin made.

[Bang]

I'll post some more A/B of the 1176 hardware vs software later...

A test with almost 5db of GR, as the original poster did, doesn't show the unit off much. I don't think I've ever used the actual hardware with less then 10db of GR. Much of the actual sound of the 1176 is the output amplifier and the more you make it work, the more it will show its superiority over 1's and 0's.

[Jamzone]

Originally Posted by robot gigante

If you honestly can't hear much of a difference, well, is there any way to respond to this without sounding rude?

I mean really.

As far as I am concerned the BF1176, which I have known for years, is borderline unusable, although at one time it was better than most out there. On the other hand, the MC76 here (precursor to the MC77, supposedly sounds the same), which I have also used for years, is one of my favorite pieces of gear.

No, the differences are not slight. I can slam a vocal with the Purple 20db or more with the right settings and it will come out singing, but the most I'd ever want to take off with the BF would be 2 or 3db before the sound starts to fold. The way the Purple responds and the sound that it gets when you drive the input and/or the output are completely unlike anything the plugin comes close to doing. Then there are the horrible gritty artifacts that the plugin adds. And so on.

The fact some people do successful mixes in the box doesn't mean that this specific plugin is any good, much less up to par with the Purple-- that's a real stretch...

Don't know what else to say...

Could'nt agree more. Have to say that the BF76 sounds NOTHING like an 1176 or an MC77. Tried it once and never went back. IMO the shittiest emulation ever.

Best,

Jamzone

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

But "successful' is such an arbitrary term. Monetarily successful, sure. Sonically successful is something else entirely. I have daughters that are listening to all the latest "hits". I am subjecting to them as well, kind of like second hand smoke..

Most of the sounds I am hearing are such crap it's amazing it even passes for music. Yet the kids seem to like it, so what do I know.

LOL......