I don't have any idea. All I have is the waves version and I tend to doubt it would win my ears given UAD's extra processing power and all the acclaim Slate is getting with his stuff. I'll just have to wait and see . . .
Here are the audio files!
The settings are a little bit extreme so you can really hear the compressors working:
Treshold : between -6 and -12db, depending on the plugin.
Attack : 30ms
Release : 1 or auto, depending on the plugin.
Ratio : 10:1 or 20:1, depending on the plugin.
I have tried to match the sound, not only the settings.
Please post the results below. Good Luck!!
I like 4 the least, because it can't handle transients well in some parts, for example around 1:06. It seems like this plugin might have problems with difficult passages, for example drum rolls. Rank 4
2 sounds most dynamic and snappy, but also a little more saturated compared to the others, so I would guess it's VBC. If cranked up some more, the others possibly sound a little snappier, too. While I think the others have some more room to be cranked up, 2 seems to be at the limit already. Rank 2
3 sounds really good in every way to me. It has nearly the same good lows as example 2 and it just feels right. Together with 2 it has the best groove and motion, everything fits well and even the highs are pleasing. Somehow I like this one the most. Rank 1
1 is solid but maybe lacking some lows and sound a little harsher compared to the others. I never used Duende SSL or UAD SSL, so I'd guess it's Waves. Rank 3
Neither my ears, nor my monitors are the best, that's just the way I hear it for the moment.
For this style, number 3 is just holding those drums too well in comparison for me to say no, and im gonna guess its VBC because i've heard what it does to drums in other comparisons, although.. i've never heard the UAD SSL.
Number 2 isn't bad. PM me the results please - and make sure number 3 is not VBC so i don't feel like im missing out on my poor old WinXp machine :(
Hi thanks for taking the time to do these. Sorry to be picky but would be better to post WAV files rather than mp3 as the converstion adds further compression?
Just a small note of opinion.
there is no "compression" in the MP3-algorithm, it's "data-reduction" based on psycho-acoustical effects, mainly masking of specific frequency-ranges ...
FLAC is using losless-compression. or you can ZIP something, that would compress information...
if the MP3s are 320er LAME encoded those are good enough for a quality differentation since most people cannot distinguish them from a CD in blind-tests. ironcially some blind persons can distinguish 320er MP3s from CDs