API 550b Waves vs Hardware

[amost]

Originally Posted by Peter Stengaard

Didn't know it was that far off...anyone have the same feeling about the ssl soft/hardware ? I don't have any ssl eq's here but I do use the software ssl waves quite a bit actually...am I missing out like crazy like with the api ???

I've been borrowing a SSL G384 Comp for a few days and comparing it to the Waves SSL Comp Plug. I admit, I've never used the Hardware before so it's all new to me. I found at pretty moderate settings they sound & behave pretty similar but once you crank up the Make Up Gain and hit the Threshold they sound & feel different(to me). Let's just say I'm getting spoiled by it. It could be a case as people say of just going through the circuitry. It also feels & sounds better getting Make Up Gain analog style than Digital...even though I know there's those that don't care for the Make Up Gain. It ain't bothering me.

[AllAboutTone]

lol, I am gonna vote hardware cause I'm sure not buying any plugs, have not found any that come close that I have heard....

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by amost

I've been borrowing a SSL G384 Comp for a few days and comparing it to the Waves SSL Comp Plug. I admit, I've never used the Hardware before so it's all new to me. I found at pretty moderate settings they sound & behave pretty similar but once you crank up the Make Up Gain and hit the Threshold they sound & feel different(to me). Let's just say I'm getting spoiled by it. It could be a case as people say of just going through the circuitry. It also feels & sounds better getting Make Up Gain analog style than Digital...even though I know there's those that don't care for the Make Up Gain. It ain't bothering me.

Make up gain in a 2500 is magic harmonics. Also makeup gain on the 2044 Avalon is a different compressor ran on +10

[Marando]

Originally Posted by Peter Stengaard

- don't know why it took me so long to actually compare these as I've had them both as hardware and software for a while...but today I did. HOLY CRAPBALLZ !
The software is like totally off compared to the real deal. I set up the hardware to where it should be on a guitar track and copied the setting on to the software and then soloed that channel instead - OUCH - cutting my ear. Yuck. It's like the db's are way off and when you take them down to where the software sounds within the range of where it should have been and then switch back to the hardware it's still night and day.

Didn't know it was that far off...anyone have the same feeling about the ssl soft/hardware ? I don't have any ssl eq's here but I do use the software ssl waves quite a bit actually...am I missing out like crazy like with the api ???

So, if I understand correctly, you had no problem in using the API plugins untill you realised they do not sound the same as the hardware? I don't have any API hardware, and I enjoy using the Waves API 550a and 550b in allmost all of my projects. I'm not going to stop using them suddenly when I find out they do not sound like a real API unit at all, they are usefull to me, and for me, that's the most important factor.

The same goes for the Waves SSL plugins. As long as I like the results I get with these plugins (I'm only using the E channel), I keep using them. I don't mind it's not sounding like the hardware counterpart. I use the tools that sound good to my ears.

[SCDBM]

True their good plugins in their own right, but yeah no comparisson to the hardware units (own 2500 + 5500 myself)

[Peter Stengaard]

It's not like I'm not gonna use plugins just because they don't sound as good as hardware but I will put more of my money in hardware for sure. Also, when I go back and listen to the best mixers from like 10 years ago that were all using hardware I think it sounds better than most of what comes out today. Maybe software is one of the reasons. For some time I thought at least the EQ's we're sort of ok software - software compression is not very exciting, that i know - but I was surprised how much the 550 eq was different in a not good way.

[jrod9900]

API 550B from Waves is pretty close to hardware at light to moderate settings. The bottom end definitely behaves a little differently with analog. I think for someone on a tight budge the plug does a pretty good job. The difference is slight on one insance versus one hardware unit. As you stack up, the differences become more apparent.

I still love hardware.

JROD

[string6theory]

Originally Posted by SCDBM

True their good plugins in their own right, but yeah no comparisson to the hardware units (own 2500 + 5500 myself)

qfe

[Sino]

Software is good.
Hardware is great.

BTW I think Waves are way overrated right now.

[chris carter]

Originally Posted by Sino

BTW I think Waves are way overrated right now.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overrated.

[Tom Higgins]

Marando raises a good point - with which I agree.
If they sound good, there's no reason not to use them. And surely they impart some of the character of the unit they're emulating??

Another poster in another thread wrote a good post on how comparisons aren't so important and that comparing them to HW versions is just to please our gearslutty selves

[Tom Higgins]

Originally Posted by chris carter

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overrated.

I guess some may overrate them.

I'm not expecting more than what I'm getting. I'm not expecting to get something exactly like the HW versions. I don't overrate them at all

[Retinal]

API 550B is my fav eq,
I have several and I'm gonna get more
until I have something like 20 of 'em

With that said, I like the Waves ok but
is simply not comparable with the hardware,
same goes for the 2500 (which I have also)

Just running audio thru API gear makes you smile, I love that sound like no other.
It doesn't happen with the plugins, and yet
they are more than usable, I mixed many projects with success using them.

Going into details I find the 2500 emulation
to be better than the eqs generally speaking,
regardless how far that still is from the real unit.

As for the SSL, I simply love the Waves Gcomp,
and I have a Gcomp clone, it became somehow
a "classic" sound for me (the plugin i mean).
I find it closer to the hardware compared to the API stuff.
The E/G Channels are probably one of the plugins I'd have hard time mixing without,
way too useful and I'm used to them, altho'
I don't like boosting too much 'cause they tend
to sound a bit harsh on the high freq; lows instead is a different story, the E channel has
pretty solid, punchy lows even when boosting.
I use the saturation on the channels all the time.

From Waves, I highly advice the HLS, is such a great sounding plugin, both as eq and a saturator,
(actually is one of the few plugins that does the
"just run the audio thru it and enjoy the mojo" thing)
but I have no idea how this one compares to the hw since I've never had the chance to try that.

[superwack]

I like the Waves API Stuff but the hardware is better and so is the TriTone CT560 plugin - looking forward to the UAD versions. I will say though, I got rid of my API plugs NOT because of the sound but because the dual concentric knob on screen thing drove me absolutely nuts... they are the ONLY plugs I've ever gotten rid of for GUI reasons.

[SoSueMe]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

550 is an aggressive eq, Part of the mojo is from the 2520s and the transformer. I don't know how a plugin can possibly sound anything like a real one. It's just not possible.

Sure it is. It's called Nebula.

[SoSueMe]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

Nebula has a 2503? I thought nebula was a plugin?

Nebula can emulate transformers, tubes, and other types of gear to the point of no perceivable difference. It can even separate the color/distortion components of an emulation, mute them, to present it as a "clean" version.

[mixedup]

Originally Posted by SoSueMe

Nebula can emulate transformers, tubes, and other types of gear to the point of no perceivable difference.

You really think so? I reckon you must have wool in your ears

It's capable of some decent results, sure, particularly with some of the third-party bundles. But to do anything approaching an accurate emulation, it takes up a huge amount of computing resource -- such that you can only use one or two instances on a decent spec machine. And the sampler is a pain in the arse to use and takes forever. Quite easy to get a basically pleasing sonic character of a bit of gear (which is more impressive than many plug-in models) but 'no perceivable difference'?!?!

[Axelrod]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

550 is an aggressive eq, Part of the mojo is from the 2520s and the transformer. I don't know how a plugin can possibly sound anything like a real one. It's just not possible.

just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's impossible.

[SoSueMe]

Originally Posted by mixedup

You really think so? I reckon you must have wool in your ears

No, I know so from quite a bit of experience in many areas of audio. Go ahead and show me you can hear a difference by taking this test and then PMing me your answers: AlexB Black Master Nebula EQ Vs Hardware Scientific Comparison And, If you don't trust me, I'll post an encrypted file containing the answers before you reveal your answers.

Originally Posted by mixedup

It's capable of some decent results, sure, particularly with some of the third-party bundles. But to do anything approaching an accurate emulation, it takes up a huge amount of computing resource -- such that you can only use one or two instances on a decent spec machine.

I was able to run over twenty [20] instances of the emulation mentioned above on a laptop.

Originally Posted by mixedup

And the sampler is a pain in the arse to use and takes forever.

Yeah, I agree with you there, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Originally Posted by mixedup

... 'no perceivable difference'?!?!

Again, take the test. But read the first post thoroughly to ensure you're doing the test correctly.

[Equiv_Exchange]

nebula is the real deal.

[A Fak]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

I don't know how a plugin can possibly sound anything like a real one. It's just not possible.

Everything can be emulated maybe we're not there yet (maybe we are?) but you can't deny the dramatic improvement in plugins in just the last 3-4yrs. As CPU's keep increasing, the complexity of the code also increases. The question is no longer if but when.

They use to say flying wasn't possible, they use to say space travel wasn't possible. Hell we're grown organic human hearts in labs with stem cell's and you think copying the sound of a piece of HW is impossible??

A wise man once said, never believe in anything to much because there will always be a day when it's not true.

[RoundBadge]

haven't tried the nebula api ..have some the their reverbs..pretty good.
the 550s on my console add character to the signal by just passing through them.I don't hear that with the waves api's which also sound a little grainy/hard by comparison when you really crank em.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by Peter Stengaard

- don't know why it took me so long to actually compare these as I've had them both as hardware and software for a while...but today I did. HOLY CRAPBALLZ !
The software is like totally off compared to the real deal. I set up the hardware to where it should be on a guitar track and copied the setting on to the software and then soloed that channel instead - OUCH - cutting my ear. Yuck. It's like the db's are way off and when you take them down to where the software sounds within the range of where it should have been and then switch back to the hardware it's still night and day.

Didn't know it was that far off...anyone have the same feeling about the ssl soft/hardware ? I don't have any ssl eq's here but I do use the software ssl waves quite a bit actually...am I missing out like crazy like with the api ???

Curious because in this shoot-out I wouldn't call the difference night and day... talking about the Waves API stuff in general.
A quick API2500 Plugin VS Hardware clip.
A.
PS: gain calibration is often a bit off on emulations IMO, so just matching settings doesn't work, in my case working by ear usually leads to better results.

[AllAboutTone]

Maybe they should make hardware with slots on front of the computer so that a few 2520s can be plugged in.
Maybe you could get closer to sound of hardware.

[BlueHorseDemon]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

agreed, if people understood how analog hardware works and how digital hardware/software work, there would be no confusion here.

good point

The point here is, a hardware EQ like 550 simply cannot be made to work on a PC based on its classic design. It's different technology, different paradigm all together, a different domain, a different dimension of physics and engineering. It would be like trying to make your PC make dinner for you. Sure a CPU can fry an egg, but it can't bake an apple pie from start to finish.

Certainly some outboard EQs could be made into a plugin , just not a 550, not a 1073, not a pultec not even a cheap MXR eq pedal. PCs do not work in that manner.

Except that they do, and its a scenario completely unlike your analogy. in hardware units audio gets processed through various components, the result of this is a change in the final sound. Plugins can emulate the effect of these components, regardless of how old the hardware is, there's no magic in a 550b. the emulations might not be at an acceptable level yet, but to assert that its impossible is absurd.

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

agreed, if people understood how analog hardware works and how digital hardware/software work, there would be no confusion here.

good point

The point here is, a hardware EQ like 550 simply cannot be made to work on a PC based on its classic design. It's different technology, different paradigm all together, a different domain, a different dimension of physics and engineering. It would be like trying to make your PC make dinner for you. Sure a CPU can fry an egg, but it can't bake an apple pie from start to finish.

Certainly some outboard EQs could be made into an accurate emulation via plugin , just not a 550, not a 1073, not a pultec not even a cheap MXR eq pedal. PCs do not work in that manner.

The word here is "emulation", emulation is not real.

Good point, but I am not about to trial and error with plugs which the resale value is horrible when I know most all high end hardware is gonna add something positive, plus the resale value on the used market I at least break even, most of the time I make money off resale hardware.

[SoSueMe]

When you say a plugin cannot possibly provide a realistic emulation of hardware, you're essentially saying digital processing cannot provide a realistic emulation of hardware. Well, that's what your trusty A/D converter is doing: Emulating hardware.

The sound of hardware is translated completely to ones and zeros via the A/D converter. Are you now going to claim all the nuiances of hardware are not faithfully represented when translated back from the D/A?

Now rewind back to the early 80s, and many were skeptical digital could even do this faithfully.

When sound is converted to digital, all the components of the sound, including distortion, noise, frequency response, etc., become the waveform you see in your DAW. It's all there. Of course, when looking at it, you can't imagine what it will sound like based on what you're seeing. However, that doesn't mean there aren't methods to extrapolate those sound components via complex methods.

We're no longer in the 80s, the 90s, or even the 2000s. It's another decade, and I've provided a good representation of what modern emulations can do.

The API 5500 has a sound of its own too; it has color. This color is faithfully captured to the point of no perceivable difference. Again, take the test and show me otherwise. The 550b would be no different. Personally I don't own one, but if I did, I'd emulate it for you in a Nebula preset and the result would be the same: You would not be able to tell the difference between the real thing and the emulation.

[headspin]

Good god, I'm so sick of hearing how digital and analog reissues and emulations and models don't live up to the originals. The audio industry marketing departments are to blame, sure. But we all gotta stop biting the bait. Even the hardware reissues mostly suck.

[SoSueMe]

Of course it's not *perfectly* translated back and forth, as nothing is perfect. But unless you're completely analog with no A/D/D/A whatsoever, you're relying on this translation, so why use digital at all if you feel the conversion does not translate well enough? Obviously it is good enough, or are you just settling for second-best? Are you only releasing your work on analog medium?