The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Liquid Mix vs UAD-2 Blind Comparisons (w/Files) 500 Series EQ\'s
Old 27th June 2015
  #31
Lives for gear
That's not what I take out of it at all. Many people were very accurate in picking which was which. That means there is a difference. Differences between emulations should always be very subtle, yet people could tell.

Also, since I had no idea what LM sounds like, I could only pick for preference. In a very quick late night test in most cases I preferred the UAD. Listening more carefully, I do in every case. So I'm happy I own UAD and will never feel I'm missing anything by not using LM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claborn View Post
Good test and further proves that I believe plugin technology is so good that it doesn't matter what you use!
Old 28th June 2015
  #32
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by drichard View Post
That's not what I take out of it at all. Many people were very accurate in picking which was which. That means there is a difference. Differences between emulations should always be very subtle, yet people could tell.

Also, since I had no idea what LM sounds like, I could only pick for preference. In a very quick late night test in most cases I preferred the UAD. Listening more carefully, I do in every case. So I'm happy I own UAD and will never feel I'm missing anything by not using LM.
Classic: hindsight in a concluded blind test. Irrelevant. Perhaps I should tally the results, but a cursory look would indicate that preferences were pretty evenly divided. That would include you.

Of the few who actually own and know both items, there were, indeed, a couple of guys that managed to properly ID all but one. That said, hearing differences and stating preferences are different things. There were some very good ears on this. I was impressed by many of the responses.

My takeaway was that each product is capable of delivering some good and usable processing. Ironically, the rather "old" LM stood up surprisingly well in a blind comparison, which I found worth noting.

I don't have a personal preference, beyond the fact that the UAD has better integration, FX and ongoing development. On the other hand, since I already own the LM (and it works flawlessly), it's nice to have access to it, as well, particularly in terms of emulations that are not currently offered by UAD.

It also means there are some duplicates I don't necessarily need to buy from UAD. I noted that more listeners preferred the API 550, for instance. I have used both UAD & LM and find them pretty interchangeable. Same for the SSL comp and Pultecs.

It's nice to have options.
Old 28th June 2015
  #33
Lives for gear
Seriously, not worth the $.02 for your comments, no change to give back.

The purpose of a blind test is to test for differences, not preferences. Or didn't you know that? If people can hear a difference, any difference, that is statistically significant in a blind test. And clearly some people were able to hear differences, and had great success identifying the UAD and LM.

Really unnecessary to criticize when you have no idea of my testing methodology, or what works for me. That night I literally came home from a loud gig after having a couple of beers, and judged each based on 15 seconds listening through headphones. I jumped around and didn't even listen to the whole 30 seconds. And even then, I preferred the UAD much more often. I found myself trying to pick #2, hence I did a couple of times, because I couldn't believe someone would create a test with all of the samples in the same order. Guess I was wrong. Not a good test methodology, in a blind test they should be random. I also detected very slight level differences, but I do know how hard it is to match those perfectly with different processors.

Going back and listening critically, the LM is not a sound I want. Simple as that. If you like it, great, but I don't. But your comments imply your test had an agenda that I didn't advance.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
Classic: hindsight in a concluded blind test. Irrelevant. Perhaps I should tally the results, but a cursory look would indicate that preferences were pretty evenly divided. That would include you.

Of the few who actually own and know both items, there were, indeed, a couple of guys that managed to properly ID all but one. That said, hearing differences and stating preferences are different things. There were some very good ears on this. I was impressed by many of the responses.

My takeaway was that each product is capable of delivering some good and usable processing. Ironically, the rather "old" LM stood up surprisingly well in a blind comparison, which I found worth noting.

I don't have a personal preference, beyond the fact that the UAD has better integration, FX and ongoing development. On the other hand, since I already own the LM (and it works flawlessly), it's nice to have access to it, as well, particularly in terms of emulations that are not currently offered by UAD.

It also means there are some duplicates I don't necessarily need to buy from UAD. I noted that more listeners preferred the API 550, for instance. I have used both UAD & LM and find them pretty interchangeable. Same for the SSL comp and Pultecs.

It's nice to have options.

Last edited by drichard; 28th June 2015 at 07:56 AM..
Old 28th June 2015
  #34
Lives for gear
if its that hard to tell the difference, then who the F cares?

Go make some good music for gods sake and stop nitpicking everything to death.
Old 28th June 2015
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Nice test.
No clue why i preferred all of the LM files.
Old 28th June 2015
  #36
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by drichard View Post
Seriously, not worth the $.02 for your comments, no change to give back.

The purpose of a blind test is to test for differences, not preferences. Or didn't you know that? If people can hear a difference, any difference, that is statistically significant in a blind test. And clearly some people were able to hear differences, and had great success identifying the UAD and LM.

Really unnecessary to criticize when you have no idea of my testing methodology, or what works for me. That night I literally came home from a loud gig after having a couple of beers, and judged each based on 15 seconds listening through headphones. I jumped around and didn't even listen to the whole 30 seconds. And even then, I preferred the UAD much more often. I found myself trying to pick #2, hence I did a couple of times, because I couldn't believe someone would create a test with all of the samples in the same order. Guess I was wrong. Not a good test methodology, in a blind test they should be random. I also detected very slight level differences, but I do know how hard it is to match those perfectly with different processors.

Going back and listening critically, the LM is not a sound I want. Simple as that. If you like it, great, but I don't. But your comments imply your test had an agenda that I didn't advance.
I stated in my original post that I was interested to know if a/ listeners heard differences and b/ if they had any preference. My test. My criteria.

Any criticism you perceived was a function of your changing your choices after I revealed which was which. A bit like moving your golf ball, don't you think? Less than stellar form.

FWIW, as far as anyone knew, they were randomly ordered. Suggesting that the order of the samples somehow handicapped you is ludicrous. Sigh.....
Old 28th June 2015
  #37
Lives for gear
As I said, if you're happy with LM, by all means use it. In the end, they are all just tools. Your opinions won't change my choices, I doubt mine will change yours.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
I stated in my original post that I was interested to know if a/ listeners heard differences and b/ if they had any preference. My test. My criteria.

Any criticism you perceived was a function of your changing your choices after I revealed which was which. A bit like moving your golf ball, don't you think? Less than stellar form.

FWIW, as far as anyone knew, they were randomly ordered. Suggesting that the order of the samples somehow handicapped you is ludicrous. Sigh.....
Old 28th June 2015
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Clockwise's Avatar
It's just that some people preferred the way OP applied LM or UAD to the sources he'd selected. The resulted impressions are context specific, so even though one prefers LM in these comparisons, he may not find it all that great for some purposes and vice versa. Same goes for UAD.

I guess the reason why some listeners preferred LM over UAD is that LM saturates sound in more obvious way with its convolution technology. It's great, but sometimes I find it difficult to apply LM comp/eq subtlely or precisely. 1dB difference in eq boost or cut (even in high freq) leads to 3dB in some cases. Also the comp release behaviour isn't very natural as explained in another thread.

Thanks OP for doing the comparisons, anyways. It was fun.
Old 27th September 2016
  #39
Lives for gear
 
omegaomega's Avatar
 

I bought the LiquidMix when it was first released and I'm still using it today with zero issues.
I also have a full UAD-1 system, save for a couple plugins.

I love my UAD and its warm, musical sound.
But even at its original price (I think I payed 650 euros for it) the LiquidMix was an amazing amazing value.

Even though no emulation is 100% spot on, the number of "colors" you get for mixing for such little money with the LiquidMix is just awesome.
Let alone that you can buy it today for peanuts.

If you consider how much you need to pay for the UA emulations, great as they are, you need a small fortune to even go close to the number of emulations the LiquidMix offers, and soundwise, they are very close.
The samples show off this nicely.
Plus the LiquidMix offers unique features, like a hardware interface, so it feels much better when tweaking, and the ability to build hybrid EQs combining bands from various emulations is amazing.

So, yeah.
Love both my UAD and LiquidMix, but I get much more from my LiquidMix for much less and the sound is very close both to the UAD and to the original processors.

I think currently most UA plugins are overpriced and that started after the demise of the TC platform.
A nice 40-50% reduction would make UA again very attractive and without any serious competition, when it comes to stuff you can buy new today.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump