ssl x desk + xrack better than x desk and waves?

[hey_mavis]

if one were to sum with the X-Desk and process the sounds with waves ssl emulation plugs, would there be a significant sonic difference between that and doing the same processing (with X-Desk summing) but using X-Rack modules?

What do u think?

[tsvisser]

I would guess that it would be highly different, don't know that there are too many people who have had the luxury of being familiar with both, given the recent release of the X-Desk.

[hey_mavis]

that is a good point...ok let me rephraze, lets take the summing out of the equation, how big is the difference between the plugs and the x-rack?

[hey_mavis]

that is prolly been covered quite well already...so I guess never mind, I will do a search.

[tsvisser]

I think that this wanders into the old outboard vs plugins debate... conceptually, I think it all comes down to your own preference. If I had to make a purchase decision today, without cost being a factor, I would probably get an X-RACK with the Buss Compressor, and then as many SuperAnalog and E Series Compressors that I would need. All EQ I'd do in the box, because I prefer it that way.

[hey_mavis]

Originally Posted by tsvisser

I think that this wanders into the old outboard vs plugins debate... conceptually, I think it all comes down to your own preference. If I had to make a purchase decision today, without cost being a factor, I would probably get an X-RACK with the Buss Compressor, and then as many SuperAnalog and E Series Compressors that I would need. All EQ I'd do in the box, because I prefer it that way.

in general do plugs come up short in terms of compression or EQ most often?

[tsvisser]

I really hate to put qualitative descriptions on each, but I feel that plug compressors and hardware compressors are not similar. Try it, I think that each has its advantage, but given a choice, I'd rather use outboard compressors... and I'm mostly an in the box type of guy. I do actually prefer plugin EQ as I have more control, more convenient recall, and more precision, less phase problems... But I'm also not using EQ nor appreciate EQ that has much "character". For me its a clinical affair and if need character will look elsewhere for that. Your preference might be totally different and you would want to perhaps strap an EQ across the 2-buss if that's your workflow.

So now with the non-committal part of the answer out of the way... yes, ITB compression falls short. ITB EQ rules, but that's just me.

[G-Spot]

well I have both and I can say that the eq plugins are close to the x-racks eq but the compressors not. The differences are bigger if/when you make more radical eq and/or compression... but it might be me because Digidesign had a test/comparison about mixing in the box with the Waves SSL plugins and a real SSL mixing console... In those tests I had an hard time to find out what was what.

Interesting enough... I can't make the plugins sound the way my X-rack modules sound! I didn't succeed to reproduce the results of x-rack modules with the plugins.

Anyway I'm sure that the X-Rack modules also sound a bit different than the ones on an SSL console... and the plugins are emulations of SSL consoles, not of X-Racks... the sound of a console is much more than the sound of the channel strip... there's a lot more to it that contributes to "the SSL sound".

Conclusion? I like the X-rack modules MUCH better. The plugins are really god, but the modules are better, even with no filters in the eq.

Hope it helps...